Astronomy, Philosophy & Dictionary agree with The Holy Quran

Happy_Killbot

First off all, I would like to get it out of the way that arguments based on the semantic meaning of words, or the ontological argument, is a very weak one indeed. Simply defining a word which requires that the premise be true simply doesn't hold any logical water whatsoever.

For example, if I define unicorn as a mythical being which exists always just out of sight, then one could argue that unicorns exist always just beyond the reach of our perception. This however doesn't mean that they are really there. Similarly, the Quran and the bible, and most other religious texts fall victim to the same line of reasoning by declaring that god is an all powerful, all knowing being which could exist, therefore it must exist. In this sense, we are simply defining god into existence, thus the argument is a joke.

Much of the argument in the OP focuses on this concept, arguing that because there are parallels between the definitions we use for words and passages from the Quran, that there must be a connection between the two. This is simply a non-sequitur, because there is no reason that such parallels automatically denote a logical connection. For example, I might point out that the first word of the bible is "In" and conclude that this means that entering any structure should remind us of genesis 1:1. This is just a classic case of confirmation bias, where the OP first takes real evidence from our understanding of reality, and then shows how the Quran fits with this narrative. It is not showing a logical progression at all.

On top of this, there are many assertions that may turn out to be false, and already there is some evidence to suggest this. For example, we know due to Einstein's theory of relativity that time is relative, so it is possible that there is an infinite past, just with the rate of time (the speed of causality, AKA, the speed of light) was slower in the past but never less than zero, thus there is just as much time between t=0 and t =1 as between t=1 and t = inf.

It is also possible that the topology of space time allowed for a closed loop, which would imply that the universe created itself.



There is also some evidence that the big bang was not the begging of the universe, and that rather there was a universe which occupies the same space as our currently does which preceded this one. That opens up the possibility of an infinite regress of worlds for which ours is but a single in a long chain.

All of these things are possible, but what is important to note is that none of them require one to invoke a god to make them possible. Assuming that there is a god and then trying to prove it just isn't how science works, and this is why religion is deeply corrosive to critical thought. Instead what science does is it comes up with a theory and then tries to disprove it. For example, Newton's theory of gravity was proved wrong by the orbit of mercury, and was latter replaced with Einstein's theory of general relativity which accounts for the discrepancy by theorizing that mass curves space time. It is possible that Einstein's theory will eventually be proved wrong or incomplete, and a single experiment can do this.

With theories of god, it doesn't matter because they are fundamentally not falsifiable. That is to say, there is no experiment you can do to disprove the existence of any god. If I just make up a god, we will call her Cupkatere, god of cupcakes how created the world so that there would be people to enjoy these delicious treats, and will punish anyone for all eternity who doesn't enjoy them, then I could just as easily point out how the big bang and in fact every other theory demonstrates that Cupkatere must exist. However, it is not possible that both Cupkatere and Allah exist simultaneously, because these two ideas fundamentally contradict each other. Thus at most only 1 belief can be true and at least 0.

This idea is what I like to call H_K's uncertainty principal, simply put it states: If we independently examine any one belief or coherent set of beliefs such as a religion, political ideology, or philosophy, it is impossible to tell if that belief is untrue. However if we look at any set of multiple beliefs, ideologies, or philosophies, it is impossible to tell if any of them are true. Therefore, it is meaningless and in fact impossible to know if a belief is anything except undefined. This is a direct classic analogy to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

Believer19

In The Name of Allah, The Entirely Merciful, The Especially Merciful

Semantics is the study of meanings in language, if you exclude semantics from between the words this means you are stripping language from its main purpose, without semantics we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Programming languages, formal logics and semiotics would also fail and fall apart without semantics.

However, I agree with you that ontological arguments are weak, but I exclusively included the argument from contingency which is a cosmological argument and not an ontological one. And most importantly, my argument stands on scientific statements, when a specialized scientist (specifically an astrophysicist) describes our universe as an "Architecture" then it is against logic, against linguistics and against physics to deprive the word from its semantic network.

If I ask you about your house and say "who made this beautiful architecture for you?" it is logically unacceptable to answer and say "this architecture doesn't have an architect", causality is a cosmological principle AND a necessity in the scientific method, Einstein's special relativity for instance is inseparable from causality. It is considerable indeed that the quantum level of our reality is "spooky" as Einstein describes, but the same quantum level is producing an elegant space-time that keeps arranging every atom since BigBang, allowing our universe to take the current shape, a shape often described as a "Majestic mosaic of matter".

Moreover, according to physicist Alan Guth; the evolution of our universe after the cosmic inflation is traceable to the 10 E -35 of a second right after BigBang, but what happened between that moment and the moment of BigBang? The answer is unknown, therefore and in contrary of what you suggested, a closed loop is not a scientific consideration otherwise Guth's work would have led him to a compelling demonstration that can trace back the evolution of the cosmic inflation from the exact moment of BigBang and not from few moments later. In other words, those unknown moments are not describable by the laws of physics, otherwise theoretical physics would have been able to provide details of what happened during those particular moments from to the exact moment of BigBang.

More importantly, our universe is scientifically defined as a "Fine tuned universe", the existence of life in our universe entirely depends on these physical constants, but what made these "constants" constants at the first place? How can "nothing" generates precision and specified values to allow the existence of life? According to physicists, the observed values of these constants are completely improbable (Wikipedia).

To back up your atheistic perspective you suggest the possibility of a multiverse or parallel universes that can co-exist with our universe in the same space, which is true, physics proves that our observable four dimensional universe represents only 5% of a ten dimensional universe (in the framework of M-theory), the remaining 95% exist within a non-observable reality (Dark matter and dark energy), a brief demonstration that can be found on Phys.org explains this particular point as the following:

"in the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and difference between our world and other possible ones.

. . . in the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered.

Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions. The existence of these additional six dimensions which we cannot perceive is necessary for String Theory in order for there to be consistency in nature"

Physics confirms the existence of parallel realities indeed, but even so, all these parallel universes require an initial cause in order to exist, otherwise the existence of this ten dimensional reality could not be sustained (underpinned) and thus neither could our universe, given the fact that every interaction within the six extra dimensions have governed the formation of our four dimensional universe from the very beginning.

You also mention Einstein's relativity when claiming the impossibility of an eternity, but you fail to consider that special relativity actually proves the opposite, it says that when traveling at the speed of light; time simply stops, which means that we would enter the infinity of time, time counting would cease to be meaningful, and past, present and future concept would then be meaningless, therefore, eternity as an absolute independence from time is thus a physical fact.

You continue arguing that "assuming the existence of God and trying to prove it is not how science work", this statement contradicts with the definition of the scientific method as the consistent systematic testing of hypotheses through observation, measurement and experiment, not to mention the fact that science and faith share a certain epistemological statues. As theorist Stanley Fish chastised atheists such as Richard Dawkins, he wrote: "Science requires faith too before it can have reasons".

Returning to the religious part of this conversation, first of all the topic of our debate imposes that we should limit our discussion exclusively about The Holy Quran and not about any other religious scripture, secondly, Quran is nothing like The Bible or any other religious book (With all my respect to my Christian fellows and all my respect to personal beliefs of any other human being).

Unlike any other scripture; The Holy Quran invites mankind to falsify its claims before accepting its message, furthermore, Quran invites mankind to observe nature around us, to reason and to analyze data and then build a rational conclusion of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as a truth, all this before accepting to follow the message of The Quran, isn't this another definition of the scientific method?

The connection between Holy Quran, science and linguistics is not just a blind claim based on irrational blind beliefs, it is a claim imposed by the facts, scientific facts, linguistic facts, historical facts. We're not discussing simple expressions such as "in" from Genesis (1:1) or "Alef Laam Meem" from Quran (2:1), we are discussing reasonable links between linguistics, science and history.

The reconciliation of these different aspects leads to the evidence that proves the existence of God, you may argue that it is impossible to have an observational evidence to back up this claim, which means we're still talking faith, but as mentioned above in this argument; science itself confirms that 95% of our reality cannot be observable, this is proved through observational evidence (Dark matter interactions with baryonic matter on the galactic scales, gravitational lensing etc)

Therefore, as The Architect of a (mostly) non-observable ten dimensional reality, and as The Necessary Sustainer of our finite existence; God cannot be observable because of our physiological limitations.

However, a theoretical evidence can easily be demonstrated in the frame of our topic as the following:

1. William James Durant, Gustac Lebon, Thomas Carlyle and many other non-Muslim historians, documented that Mohammad (pbuh) lived his entire life uneducated, he had not been trained by any teacher and neither had he acquainted himself with any written work. Mohammad (pbuh) was 40 years old when he first received revelations from God, yet, and for the first time in history, Quran is a scripture that contains a miraculous mathematical composition that surpasses any human capacities [1].

2. Mohammad (pbuh) was uneducated, and he was not a poet, yet, and for more than fourteen centuries, The Holy Quran still represents the highest and the most perfect linguistic form in Traditional Arabic, as approved by both Muslims and non-Muslim experts in Arabic language. This makes the mathematical phenomena within The Quran an impossible achievement for a human being considering the fact that the content of the verses (words and letters) should be perfectly placed in order to produce such a powerful narration that can be identified as the highest forms of eloquence in its original language for more than fourteen centuries.

3. The Holy Quran tells about modern scientific discoveries fourteen centuries before science, such as:

* The expansion of the universe (Dark energy), Dark matter, BigBang, Sun's orbiting, black holes, Quran mentions these facts and more cosmological facts briefly but exactly as they are described now by modern astronomy and modern physics, In addition to futuristic cosmological predictions such as the death of the sun, BigCrunch, the existence of extraterrestrial life forms and living creatures outside planet earth.

* According to Quran, everything happens in our four dimensional universe is recorded on what God calls "a sheet of record", which perfectly matches the mathematical description of our reality as a holographic projection of a certain code written on a two dimensional surface on the boundaries of our universe (holographic principle),

* Quran describes our physical reality as a parallel universe made of seven layers, and tells us that we can only experience and observe the lower layer (our four dimensional universe), the remaining six layers (six dimensions) are inaccessible to us, this description matches the physical description of our reality as a ten dimensional universe in the framework of string theory,

* According to Quran, time is relative, and a day with the counting of God can be equivalent to one thousand years on earth, and a day in different conditions can equal to fifty thousand years on earth, and this opens the door to infinite possibilities of time relativity, which is discovered by Einstein only few decades ago.

* Quran tells that God Created the heavens and the earth (the universe) in six days, and that God Created the earth in two days, this means the age of the earth represents one third from the age of the universe, this ratio is now scientifically confirmed; the universe is 13,79 billion years old, and planet earth is 4,57 billion years old, which gives a ratio of one third indeed.

* Quran describes human evolution from other extinct species, and even tells about the African origins of homo sapiens (Mountain of Senying, Ethyopia). Quran also tells about the evolution of life from water, and also tells about our extinction and about the rise of other human-like species after our extinction.

* More of cosmology, physics, biology, embryology, geology and more informative verses in many scientific fields can be found within The Holy Quran. For example, most of Embryological information found within The Holy Quran are approved by Dr. Keith Moore to be impossible to know for people from the seventh century.

4. Holy Quran challenges humanity to produce the like of it, or even try to produce one chapter like the ones from The Holy Quran, and for fourteen centuries not a single person succeeded in this task.

5. Quran also challenges mankind to extract one contradiction from its verses, Quran never contradicts within itself and never contradicts with science (Before considering to mention the false contradictions claimed to be found within The Holy Quran please search for their answers first, everything is available on the net)

At last, I would like to conclude my position with a verse from Holy Quran:

41:53 We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

Sources:

[1] "Reproducible Miracle" by Gokmen Altay.

Happy_Killbot

@Believer19
An insightful, however fundamentally flawed argument.

I would like to bring up another perspective from which to view semantics, breaking my usual moratorium on debating semantics because I see that as the last resort for those who have long since forgotten what was being discussed, but in this case we are technically talking about semantics rather than arguing a specific semantic definition. I am not arguing that semantics is unimportant, but rather that the meaning of words doesn't automatically justify a causal connection between phrases of similar meaning. For example a common thread among conspiracy theorists is to use reasoning that goes something like: "The man's name was Neil Armstrong, or Neil A., spelled backwards is Alien! therefore UFO's" and this is precisely what much of your argument is. It denotes that because the Quran says a set of words which just happen to coincide with what actual physicist say, that  when examined from a certain perspective is evidence of Allah.

But let me ask you something here, does the Quran explicitly say that the Earth is round, or that the Big bang caused the universe, or matter is made of atoms is made of quarks is made of something we don't know?

It doesn't. It has no real predictive power. If a god was going to give insight to people on earth, why would it not simply give it to us straight, instead of through vague passages that could latter be interpreted to match the real data?

Although I don't address the cosmological argument or the argument from contingency, I also feel that is argument is rather weak because it doesn't answer the question of what caused god to exist. No matter what, there has to be a "first cause" something that requires no cause where something comes from nothing, and although I am not qualified to talk about specifics, I believe that the theory that reality created itself such as the closed loop in the image would have happened long before the big bang, to put this into context each one of the branches is a separate big bang, so our universe didn't have to be direct.

You bring up the fine tuning argument, which I Douglas Adams puts to bed nicely, so I will quote him here:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say."

The Universe is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% uninhabitable, it is only the earth as far as we are aware which is able to support life. So while the universe is obviously capable of supporting life, it is only just barely so, this give credence to the theory that the universe was random and just happens to support life rather than being deliberately created or else more of it should contain life instead of just a pale blue dot.

I would like to clarify on the supposedly atheist perspective that multiple worlds exist, because first of all this isn't proven as you state, but rather it is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which basically states that the wave function is reality and our universe is just one instance of a specific cross section of that wave function.

I would also like to clarify on the misconception that moving at the speed of light would cause time to jump to infinity, first of all this would take an infinite amount of energy as only non-massive particles travel at the speed of light, second of all it ignores the actual meaning of relativity, which is that time moves different for different observers. Rather what would happen if you turned yourself into a bean of light is that for you the distance traveled would happen in 0 time, and for everyone else it would take some period depending on the distance across time-space.

When you quote Richard Dawkins, I can not find any reference that says he said this, and I find it hard to believe it means what you use it to mean. Could you give me the context of this quote?

When you make all these arguments about the Quran being like science, and somehow twist the truth that faith and epistemology are both required you really annoy me.

First off, if you want to know if they are the same, go to any Islamic Theocracy and openly question the validity of the Quran, and watch what happens. you will be deposed, possibly tortured and killed. Question the foundations of science, and you will be praised. Faith and epistemology are polar opposites. Epistemology is knowing something to be true because the evidence supports it, faith is accepting something without reason or evidence. To believe in Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Cupkatere, Ur, Ra, Jupiter, Zeus, or any other holly being is not based on evidence at all.

To demonstrate this, let's say that there was someone who had never heard of any god. Would they through there observations come to the same conclusions as what is in the Quran, or would they come to a completely different set of conclusions? The evidence suggests the later. We see thousands of religions and beliefs from people all over the world, many long since forgotten or reduced to mythology. This suggests that the tendency to believe and the specifics of those beliefs are in fact not based on objective reality, but rather on subjective experience, or people seeing things that are not there, such as detecting agency where non exists, which certainly has evolutionary benefit for our hunter gatherer ancestors.

To suggest that the religion of Islam and Science are in any way connected is laughable, because the evidence simply doesn't suggest this. It is rather puzzling to me that Muslims would accept science so readily, but at the end of the day they do nothing to push science, while the Christians come up with young-earth theory and deny evolution despite pushing science some.


The fact is that Muslims do a proportionately small amount of science when compared to other religions, considering how large they are. By the numbers, Jews and atheist/agnostics are awarded the most Nobel prizes.

When you say "The Holy Quran invites mankind to falsify its claims before accepting its message" This is a blatant disregard for what I mean when I say the Quran is fundamental not falsifiable and an affront to scientific thinking.

Just because you can not disprove something doesn't mean it is true. For example, I invite you to falsify this claim "All Unicorns have pink fur" If you can not disprove this claim, is it true?

The fact that god is not observable is not evidence that one exists, and even if it was then it would not automatically mean that any other god is ruled out. How do you know that Cupkatere isn't the one true god?

When I first read the Quran, it was immediately obvious to me that is is essentially a war doctrine. You list many parallels between the Quran and science and claim that there is no way that anyone could have made these connections, thus they must have been divinely inspired, to which I need only ask a single question:

If the Quran contained all of these truths, then why didn't we know about them hundreds of years ago?

To phrase this question a different way, why do you claim the Quran has answers when it clearly made no predictions of these things?