True Religion

@HabibUrrehman,

Sorry, I have better things to do than read pseudo science selected by a vested interest religionist. Your failure to comment on the abysmal performance of Islamicists to contribute to the well being of humanity (as shown by the Nobel data) does nothing to assist your fantasy.
As for 'proof', I doubt whether you have ever taken a course in Philosophy of Science, in which you would have learned about the inapplicability of that word.
NB The word 'fact' comes from the Latin facere -to construct. Facts are consensual human constructions serving human needs. There are academic papers on the transience of facticity such as 'The Half Life of Facts'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

For some reason you are still interested in religious debates. Is not that interesting? If you are not, please stay away from what you think as waste of your time.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

No. I'm interested in 'truth' as a philosophical concept from a Pragmatist's pov. Religious claims to 'scientific truth' are ludicrous, as science is about 'what works' in terms of prediction and control, and since that changes historically it is never absolute.
However, as an atheist I concede that a version of a God 'exists' in terms of the psychological needs of much of humanity. Existence=functionality...nothing more! It is the fallacy of evoking a particular tribal 'God' as more than an emotional crutch which history shows to be potentially pernicious.
So its not 'religion' I am interested in, but the consequences of religious ignorance about ontology and epistemology....hence my 'dulling of the mind' hypothesis.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Religious claims to 'scientific truth' are ludicrous, as science is about 'what works' in terms of prediction and control, and since that changes historically it is never absolute.

I agree with you. I am only quoting the things which are not the theories but established facts proven through science after years of research. Like force of gravity, shape of earth, rotation of sun in its own orbit etc. These scientifically established facts help us to distinguish what is false and what is true. If Quran is from God then it should not disagree with established scientific facts. I say established not hypothesis and theories.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

HabibUrrehman wrote:

Quote:
It is He who created night and day, the Sun and the Moon, each floating in its orbit. [Al-Quran 21:33]

Copernicus was more correct than his predecessors. Your above quotation could mean what you say it means, but it could as easily mean that the Sun goes around the Earth which is what most people thought at the time.

This is the problem with religious texts is that they tend to be worded quite vaguely so more than one interpretation can be put on.

In any event it's a long way from proof.

It's not like there's a picture of a DNA helix or something like that which would be a lot closer to proof. (It wouldn't be proof because you'd have to rule out time travel, and a hitherto unknown advanced civilisation, after all we found out DNA on our own.)

It would go one hell of a way though.

This is the problem, one would think an omnipotent being would have no problem revealing DNA helixes, black holes and the like in plainly worded unambiguous language, but it didn't.

The answer to this quandary usually involves faith, but that all goes out the window when you claim to have proof.

To be honest this sort of thinking doesn't sound remotely divine, but all too human.

2 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

But 'gravity' has already been deconstructed, and the gross 'shape' of planets or the solar system are convenient 'pictures' which aid human understanding and calculations. They are not 'true' or 'false' in an absolute sense, but they consensually work to a limited extent. I repeat... 'facts' are contextual human constructions. Read Kant...we have no direct access to 'things-in-themselves'. Read Nietzsche...it is futile to talk about 'things-in-themselves'.
What is the point of looking for a few allusions to modern 'pictures' in ancient texts ? I bet you could find allusions to outdated pictures, like 'the four elements' if you look hard enough ! And what about the glaring omissions like the widely accepted evolutionary theory, which even the Catholics have had to come to terms with ?
But we know 'the point' don't we! Your conditioned self integrity which might be based on a medieval myth, needs to clutch at any straw to maintain itself. You have my sympathies!

0 Replies

Texts invariably lend themselves to interpretation. Even instructional manuals seemingly written straightforwardly can be written with inadvertent ambiguity. So, for example, like Izzy's alternative interpretation of Al-Quran 21:33, the idea that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is interpreted differently among the various Christian sects and denominations.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You may already be aware that like the Torah, the Koran was written without vowels allows some leeway in interpretation.
Added to that, Derrida argues that meaning of any text is subject to the historical context in which it was produced even for its author.
Of course the 'word magic' view is antithetical to such semantic drift, hence the reactionary forces with attempt to counter it by emphasizing the 'eternity' of holy writ, by virtue of its 'divine origins'.
(A point also illustrated in the post above this )

0 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

Quote:

Now what you are saying that each individual has been given intellect and other senses to judge what is right and what is wrong at their own. I said yes that these the tools one can use to find the truth. Why would Allah send prophets with message in previous nations if our own intellect was enough?

See - now you are getting closer to discussing the flaw in your own logic.

So you agree that he gave us a guide...meaning your earlier 'logic' is either wrong, or flawed.

Your only argument then is 'why the prophets'. Probably because most can't find themselves. That doesn't mean he needed to send the prophets in order to be just (he had already met that standard by the logic you provided), so it does not follow that one is a true religion (by the logic you provided). As a side note - I didn't agree with your 'logic', but I dislike it when people set up a logic equation, claiming something, without even thinking through the implications of their 'logic'.

Quote:

Why you and I follow the law in a particulate country or state and not decide by our own that what is best for us? You see what this approach leads to? If stealing is bad in your perspective, it may be good justifyable for another individual. Which one of you is right and which one is wrong? Who determines that? You and God?

Much better argument. But it wasn't the subject of your statement, which talked about the right way of living. That has religious implications relating to morals. And its implications are on a personal level. Even to the point regarding whether or not you make it to heaven or hell - that is down to the individual level.

You did not say 'show us what is good for society' or 'what society needs to function cohesively'. Perhaps you meant to?

Quote:

If God needs to determine what is right and wrong for us then the law should come from God, not from you and I.

That is a self fulfilling statement. The last part logically leads from the first part...but the first part has no reasoning, and so is posed as an 'if' question, but in reality, is presented as a statement.

Quote:

Using your own intelligence have you come to the conclusion that we have a creator and He is one? Have you come to the conclusion that there is life after death and have you find that out what is in the unseen world? Or have you come to the conclusion that there is no God, we came into being at our own and there is no life after death? Your intelligence alone is not enough my friend. Anyways I respect you beliefs and since God has given us free will, you are free to choose whatever you think is right.

I don't have a conclusion. It seems possible that there is a God, and unlikely (though possible) that there is an afterlife. As for intelligence being enough, or not, I disagree. It's what we're given. I do note that you have mentioned a number of times to look at things dispassionately.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Note that neuroscience tends to deflate the concept of 'free will' which could certainly be a problem for Christians ! The trend is towards using 'eliminatie materialism' to deconstruct 'folk' psychological language like 'will' and 'altruism' in terms of well understood neural processes, such as 'gratification delay' and 'oxytocin chemistry'.
The point here is that 'religious language' can be defined as a subset of 'folk psychology' unique to humans, but neuroscience is not species specific.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I respect your opinion. One should read this keeping in mind that this verse in part of Quran which was revealed over 1400 years ago. At time popular belief was that the sun is stationary. To state such a fact which is against the popular belief would not be a proof but a source of laughter. But today we know that it is a fact. Second the text is not ambiguous, it is very clearly mentioning orbits. Third, I have said in the beginning that Quran is not book of science, it is book of guidance. I am only stating these facts because majority on this forum believes in science and universal truths proven through science than religion.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

See - now you are getting closer to discussing the flaw in your own logic.

So you agree that he gave us a guide...meaning your earlier 'logic' is either wrong, or flawed.

Read my very first post again in its entirety. I never once said that God has not sent down any guidance for human beings. What I said is that it will be unjust for God not to send down any guidance.

Quote:

Your only argument then is 'why the prophets'. Probably because most can't find themselves. That doesn't mean he needed to send the prophets in order to be just (he had already met that standard by the logic you provided), so it does not follow that one is a true religion (by the logic you provided). As a side note - I didn't agree with your 'logic', but I dislike it when people set up a logic equation, claiming something, without even thinking through the implications of their 'logic'.

Let me ask you a question that why we attend Medical schools if we want to be a doctor? Why can't we just learn that through over own intellect? Even if we read the books on medical it will be hard to understand them fully without a medical professional or teacher. Same can be said of engineering, law school and many other things which we learn for worldly gains. It would make sense if our creator sends down Divine revelation for us to follow along with prophets who can explain the Divine revelation in its practical form.

Quote:

It seems possible that there is a God, and unlikely (though possible) that there is an afterlife.

Our own broken justice system should be enough of a proof to prove that there should be unbiased justice system (Day of judgement). After all Hitler and good people like you can't have the same ending (dust after death)? There are people who kill hundreds and thousands and their max punsihment possible is one life sentence, how is that justice? Anyways thats another topic which needs detailed discussion.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

FACT # 5 –EMBRYOLOGY: MAN IS CREATED FROM ALAQ A LEECH-LIKE SUBSTANCE

in 1980's a group of Arabs collected all information concerning embryology from the Quran, and followed the instruction of the Quran:

Quote:

If you realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message. [Al-Quran 16:43 & 21:7]

All the information from the Quran so gathered, was translated into English and presented to Prof. (Dr.) Keith Moore, who was the Professor of Embryology and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto, in Canada. At present he is one of the highest authorities in the field of Embryology.

He was asked to give his opinion regarding the information present in the Quran concerning the field of embryology. After carefully examining the translation of the Quranic verses presented to him, Dr. Moore said that most of the information concerning embryology mentioned in the Quran is in perfect conformity with modern discoveries in the field of embryology and does not conflict with them in any way.

He added that there were however a few verses, on whose scientific accuracy he could not comment. He could not say whether the statements were true or false, since he himself was not aware of the information contained therein. There was also no mention of this information in modern writings and studies on embryology. One such verse is:

Quote:

Proclaim! (or Read!) In the name Of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created – Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. [Al-Quran 96:1-2]

The word ALAQ besides meaning a congealed clot of blood also means something that clings, a leech-like substance. Dr. Keith Moore had no knowledge whether an embryo in the initial stages appears like a leech. To check this out he studied the initial stage of the embryo under a very powerful microscope in his laboratory and compared what he observed with a diagram of a leech and he was astonished at the striking resemblance between the two! In the same manner, he acquired more information on embryology that was previously not known to him, from the Quran.

Dr. Keith Moore answered about eighty questions dealing with embryological data mentioned in the Quran and Hadith. Noting that the information contained in the Quran and Hadith was in full agreement with the latest discoveries in the field of embryology, Prof. Moore said,

Quote:

“If I was asked these questions thirty years ago, I would not have been able to answer half of them for lack of scientific information.”

Dr. Keith Moore had earlier authored the book, ‘The Developing Human’. After acquiring new knowledge from the Quran, he wrote, in 1982, the 3rd edition of the same book, ‘The Developing Human’. The book was the recipient of an award for the best medical book written by a single author. This book has been translated into several major languages of the world and is used as a textbook of embryology in the first year of medical studies.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Dr. Moore said:

Quote:

“It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God or Allah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah.”

Below is the video about what Keith Moore said about Quran and Embryology:

https://youtu.be/gC2_IMz9qcY

Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, U.S.A., proclaims:

Quote:

“...these Hadiths, sayings of Muhammad PBUH could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the writer (7th century). It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches… there exist statements in the Quran shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Quran having been derived from God.”

Below are some resources to look at Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson's statement I quoted above:

https://safaafromcaeg.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/what-president-of-the-american-fertility-society-says-about-the-quran/

And below is a video link ( The quality is not that good though)

https://youtu.be/YMLdm50k2ck

For people who are sincere and honest one sign is enough and for others no matter what evidence I provide there will be just rejection and criticism.

To be continued.....

2 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

Quote:

Read my very first post again in its entirety. I never once said that God has not sent down any guidance for human beings. What I said is that it will be unjust for God not to send down any guidance.

Come now, it is quite clear from your first post, that you meant only Mohammed. Your 'logic' as to the one true religion makes no sense whatsoever without that. This reply just appears to be dissembling. Why bother posting - we both know it is technically true, while not meeting the intent/meaning of your first post.

Quote:

Let me ask you a question that why we attend Medical schools if we want to be a doctor?

Right, now you are trying to minimise that fact that guidance already existed, so as to make your argument stronger:

- it doesn't change the fact that guidance already existed, and that was sufficient for 'justness', according to the logic you used; and

- Your analogy (the medical school) isn't comparable, as: 1. You can't use your conscience to diagnose a person; 2. you can't use empathy (outside of having felt that way before); 3. You can't use compassion or 4. love or 5. kindness to help diagnose a person... unlike helping you decide right from wrong. In fact, most of the tools you use to determine right from wrong, aren't applicable to your example (some is).

The real problem you run into though - is what happens when what is taught (in religion) disagrees with what disagrees with what you know from what God gave you (conscience, honesty, self-awareness, etc previously listed). The answer, as I said to livinglava, is I will always believe the latter.

Quote:

Our own broken justice system

You used the Justice system to try and uphold your view, and now you are against it as a means to try and uphold your view. You can't have it both ways.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

HabibUrrehman wrote:

At time popular belief was that the sun is stationary. To state such a fact which is against the popular belief would not be a proof but a source of laughter. But today we know that it is a fact. Second the text is not ambiguous, it is very clearly mentioning orbits. Third, I have said in the beginning that Quran is not book of science, it is book of guidance. I am only stating these facts because majority on this forum believes in science and universal truths proven through science than religion.

Total nonsense !
The popular belief at the time was THE SUN MOVED ROUND THE EARTH!
The majority on this forum believes in the USE of science to EXPLAIN ASPECTS OF THE CHANGING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE IN TERMS OF UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL LAWS.

My challenge to you still stands...if as you say 'Quran is a book of guidance'
how is it that Islamic scientists have significantly failed in statistical terms in generating new scientific discoveries ?

The answer is that your so called 'guidance' noticed after the discoveries is no more valid than Christians seeing 'the face of Jesus' in cloud formations!

Face it..the use of the word 'majority' as a premise undermines your whole house of cards you want to call 'proof'.

2 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

I acknowledge your speculative reliance on 'embryology' as one attempt to answer my challenge, but I'm surprised you have not attempted to play the religious trump card yet that 'all knowledge is in gift of the creator' ! Laughing

0 Replies

@fresco,

You are right. In the middle ages, the most popular belief was that the earth is stationary and everything else revolves around, this is commonly known as earth centered theory.

Nicolaus Copernicus then put forward the theory of heliocentric system, means sun is stationary and everything else revolves around it with the exception of moon which revolves around the earth. This theory was published for the first time in 1543.

Regardless Quran said all heavenly bodies are revolving in their own orbits 1400 years ago. Refer to Quran 21:33 which I quoted in my previous posts in this thread.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

My challenge to you still stands...if as you say 'Quran is a book of guidance'
how is it that Islamic scientists have significantly failed in statistical terms in generating new scientific discoveries ?

I don't want to write a long post just to answer your ignorance, below is the link to a documentary from BBC about contribution of Muslims to science.

https://youtu.be/Gom9Zi90EiI

I hope it can removed some the doubts you have in your mind about Muslims contribution to science. Also search independently at your own to surprise yourself.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Come now, it is quite clear from your first post, that you meant only Mohammed. Your 'logic' as to the one true religion makes no sense whatsoever without that. This reply just appears to be dissembling. Why bother posting - we both know it is technically true, while not meeting the intent/meaning of your first post.

Your approach has clearly shown that you just skim over the post and quickly jump to conclusions to support your own biases. If only you could put aside your biases and read my original post in it entirety, you would know that I am very consistent through out. Let me quote portion of my original post:

If we were to say that no religion in the world today is correct, then this would entail believing that God is unjust because He left us to wander about on earth in sin and transgression without showing us the right way to do things, and this is impossible for a Just God. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that there is One True Religion, which contains guidance in all spheres of life, religious, moral, societal, and individual.

How do we know what this one true religion is? It is upon each and every human to investigate this matter. Humans were created to fulfill a great purpose, not just to eat, sleep and go about finding their daily sustenance and satiate their desires. In order to fulfill this purpose, one must try to find what their purpose is, and this can only be done by investigation. If one believes that there is a God, and that God must not have left humans to wander in misguidance, then they must search for the religion and way of life which God revealed.

Furthermore, this religion would not be hidden or hard for humans to find or understand, for that would defeat the purpose of guidance. Also, the religion must contain the same message throughout time, since we mentioned that everything returns to one absolute truth. Also, this religion cannot contain any falsities or contradictions, for falseness or contradiction in one matter of the religion proves the falsity of the religion as a whole, since we would then doubt the integrity of its texts.

There is no other religion which fulfills the conditions mentioned above except for religion of Islam, the religion which is accordance to human nature, the religion which has been preached by all prophets since the dawn of man.
Other religions found today, such as Christianity and Judaism, are the remnants of the religion brought by the prophets in their time, which was Islam. However, over time, they have been altered and lost, and what is left today of these religions is a mix of truth and falsehood. The only religion which has been preserved and preaches the same message brought by all prophets is the religion of Islam, the one true religion, which rules all sphere’s of humans’ lives, religious, political, societal, and individual, and it is upon all humans to investigate this religion, to ascertain its truth, and to follow it.

Also read my second post (link below) which was continuation of my original post and you will see that I reiterated the same message.

https://able2know.org/topic/534961-2#post-6912391

Let me quote from the post I referenced above:

Quote:

Islam (submission to the will of God) is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of God, and it was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind. Further, its name was chosen by God Himself, and clearly mentioned in the final scripture which He revealed to man.

Quote:

Hence, Islam does not claim to be a new religion brought by Prophet Mohammed into Arabia in the seventh century, but rather to be a re-expression in its final form of the true religion of Almighty God, Allah, as it was originally revealed to Adam and subsequent prophets.

You also mentioned that in the past you have read portions of Quran and you claim to know what Islam teaches but you did not know this fundamental message that in Islam Prophet Muhammad PBUH is claimed to be the last prophet. In Quran several prophet are mentioned and Allah has mentioned that He has revealed guidance to previous nations in the form of Torah and Injeel and other books. If you did not know all this then you have zero information about Islam. Rejecting something without even looking into it is pretty much indicative of your biased approach. I am sorry that I have to say this and I hope you could prove me wrong by looking into Quran more seriously without any preconceived notions.

1 Reply

@HabibUrrehman,

I know all about the 'golden age' of Islamic science. The whole point is that those times have passed (and why)! Even your cited embryologist was a Christian who swapped 'prophets' later in life.
If this is the level of 'debate' you employ, how do think anybody will take you seriously ?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know