Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of 'smoke' (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition). This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that 'smoke'.
A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the 'smoke' that was the origin of the whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)
The Lagoon nebula is a cloud of gas and dust, about 60 light years in diameter. It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons, Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.)
The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that 'smoke' material. Allah has said in the Quran:
Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)
Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same 'smoke,' we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous 'smoke,' they formed and separated from each other. Allah has said in the Quran:
Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)
Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world's renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”
Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”
With regards to the formation of the galaxies and the earth although later than what was referred to in the opening post ..."The Bang"...
Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly." 41:11
As to the end of it all. There is much said. But the universe and all creation will come to an end ( pending the hereafter)...
Are they looking for a religion other than the Deen (religion and Way of Life) of Allah knowing well that everything in the heavens and in the earth, willingly or unwillingly, has submitted to Him? And to Him they shall all return. 3:83
You see a cloud of gas...so, naturally, you believe it's somehow condensing, and not dispersing...And one of my questions-is there enough gas for a star? I've read that there is not enough gas in many of the so called "star nurseries." Also...natural processes don't bring about order.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
We don't believe 'natural processes bring about order' either because Allah told us how it occurs...
Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly. " They both said: "We come, willingly." 41:11
We know for sure that it was by the order of Almighty God.
6:1. All praises and thanks be to Allâh, Who (Alone) created the heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord.
6:2. He it is Who has created you from clay, and then has decreed a stated term (for you to die). And there is with Him another determined term (for you to be resurrected), yet you doubt (in the Resurrection).
6:3. And He is Allâh (to be worshipped Alone) in the heavens and on the earth, He knows what you conceal and what you reveal, and He knows what you earn (good or bad).
6:4. And never an Ayah (sign) comes to them from the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord, but that they have been turning away from it.
6:5. Indeed, they rejected the truth (the Qur'ân and Muhammad SAW) when it came to them, but there will come to them the news of that (the torment) which they used to mock at.
So, you believe that God (Allah's just God in another language, correct?) is still creating then?
Firstly Allah is His name. It is unique — His alone — neither male or female. God in Arabic is “illah”.
There is no power in heaven or earth except Allah. There is only one all-powerful all-knowing creator. Allah warns us not to set up partners or rivals to Him — even it be clouds of gas out in deep space.
Firstly, if Allah is not male nor female then why say Allah is "His" name j/k
A few questions however.
Do you believe Allah is the same as God spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures? If yes, then would this not mean they are also be authoritative where it touches on divine matters? I'm sure you wouldn't trust them as being a reliable divine revelation, but what is it that makes the Qur'an a more reliable or superior revelation from God?
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
If your faith lies on scientific truth, what if I find scientific wrongs in the Koran? Does that make Allah a liar, since He wrote the whole thing?
My faith is based in a loving God and a logical sensible Way. Not something that is "unfair" and illogical.
Firstly, if Allah is not male nor female then why say Allah is "His" name.
This requires a long long response about Arabic grammar. But as a hint of an idea in arabic many things are referred to as Him or Her, though not necessarily being the reality. Look at english, for example a ship is often called Her or She but it doesn't mean the boat's female. Assigning gender in speech is part of the Arabic language.
Do you believe Allah is the same as God spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Allah is the One and Only God. But not all that is attributed to Him in the OT is true. Allah is the god of all the prophets from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Jesus to Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
If yes, then would this not mean they are also be authoritative where it touches on divine matters?
Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise, we have the law of the LORD"? Why, that has been changed into falsehood by the lying pen of the scribes!
I'm sure you wouldn't trust them as being a reliable divine revelation, but what is it that makes the Qur'an a more reliable or superior revelation from God?
The OT is a collection of books written from memory of traditions. When the Israelites were carried off to Babylon all the books were burnt. The OT was re-built from memory. Do you attribute to God anything to do with pornographic stories of rape and incest etc?
Allah tells us in The Quran;
2:2. This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].
2:3. Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakât , spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor and also in Allâh's Cause].
2:4. And who believe in (the Qur'ân and the Sunnah) which has been sent down (revealed) to you (Muhammad Peace be upon him ) and in [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel(Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. (Resurrection, recompense of their good and bad deeds, Paradise and Hell, etc.).
2:5. They are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful.
2:6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
2:7. Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allâh's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.
Since we seem to be moving to a state of Muhammad accusing the Bible of being false, and Chritians obviously don't, let's look at the evidence.
Since he mentions the integrity of the scripts, let's start with those:
"The question of sources has always been a contentious area for the secular scholar of Islam, as any study of the Qur'an must begin with the problem of primary versus secondary sources. Primary sources are those materials which are the closest, or have direct access to the event. Secondary sources concern any material which tends to be more recent and, consequently, is dependent on the primary sources. In Islam, the primary sources which we possess are 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events (Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204). For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists. The first and largest of these sources is that of "Muslim or Islamic Traditions." Because of the importance of the Muslim Traditions it is crucial that we deal with them first.
Muslim Traditions are comprised of writings which were compiled by Muslims in the late eighth to early tenth centuries concerning what the prophet Muhammad said and did back in the seventh century, and commentaries on the Qur'an. They are by far the most extensive body of material which we have today on the early period of Islam. They are also written in greater detail then anything else in our possession, in that they include dates as well as explanations for what happened. They are a complement to the Qur'an.
The Qur'an by itself is difficult to follow, as it leaves the reader confused while it jumps from story to story, with little background narration or explanation. It is at this point that the traditions are important as they fill in details which otherwise would be lost. In some instances the traditions prevail over the Qur'an; as for example, when the Qur'an refers to three daily prayers (suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 30:17-18 and possibly 24:58), while the five daily prayers stipulated by the later traditions have been adopted by Muslims ever since (Glasse 1991:381).
A number of genres exist within these traditions. Their authors were not writers themselves, but were compilers and editors who drew together information "passed to them," and produced it. There are many compilers, but the four who are considered by many Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre all lived and assembled their material between 750-923 A.D. (or 120-290 years after the death of Muhammad). It may be helpful to list their works, along with their dates:
1. The Sira are accounts concerning the traditional life of the prophet (including his battles). The most comprehensive Sira was written by Ibn Ishaq (died 765 A.D.), though none of his manuscripts exist today. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira of Ibn Hisham (died 833 A.D.), which was supposedly taken from that of Ibn Ishaq, though, by his own admission (according to the research of Patricia Crone) he omitted those areas which might have caused offense (such as anything which he felt was repugnant, poems not attested elsewhere, as well as matters which he could not accept as trustworthy) (Crone 1980:6).
2. The Hadith are thousands of short reports or narratives (akhbar) on the sayings and deeds of the prophet which were collected by Muslims in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of the six most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari (died 870 A.D.) are considered by many Muslims as the most authoritative.
3. The Ta'rikh are histories or chronologies of the prophet's life, the most famous written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) early in the tenth century.
4. The Tafsir, are commentaries and exegesis on the Qur'an, its grammar and its context; the best known also written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.).
Late Dates
Obviously, the first question which we must ask is why these traditions were written so late, 150-300 years after the fact? We simply do not have any "account from the Islamic' community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [of the early seventh century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature" [towards the late eighth century] (Wansbrough 1978:119). We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing (Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8).
There are Muslims who disagree, maintaining that there is evidence of earlier traditions, principly the Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas (born in 712 A.D. and died in 795 A.D.). Norman Calder in his book Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence disagrees with such an early date and questions whether works can be attributed to the authors listed. He argues that most of the texts we have from these supposedly early authors are "school texts," transmitted and developed over several generations, and achieving the form in which we know them considerably later than the putative "authors" to whom they are usually ascribed. Following the current assumption that "Shafi'i's law" (which demanded that all hadith be traced to Muhammad) did not come into effect until after 820 A.D., he concluded that because the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad's prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does, the Muwatta must be the later document. Consequently, Calder positions the Muwatta not prior to 795 A.D., but sometime after the Mudawwana which was written in 854 A.D. In fact Calder places the Muwatta not even in eighth century Arabia but in eleventh century Cordoba, Spain (Calder 1993). If he is correct then we are indeed left with little evidence of any traditions from the early period of Islam.
Humphreys crystallizes this problem when he points out that, "Muslims, we would suppose, must surely have taken great care to record their spectacular achievements, while the highly literate and urbanized societies which they had subjugated could hardly avoid coming to grips with what had happened to them." (Humphreys 1991:69) Yet, according to Humphreys all we find from this early period are sources which are, "either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives," completely annulling any posibility of reconstructing Islam's first century adequately (Humphreys 1991:69).
The question, therefore, must be asked as to where the eighth and ninth century compilers actually obtained their material from?
The answer is that we just don't know. "Our evidence for documentation prior to 750 A.D. consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations." (Humphreys 1991:80) Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur'an (Schacht 1949:143-154). We are asked to believe that these documents, written hundreds of years later are accurate, though we are not presented with any evidence for their veracity, outside of Isnads, which are nothing more than lists purporting to give the names of those from whom these oral traditions were passed down. Yet even the Isnads lack any supportive documentation with which to corroborate their authenticity (Humphreys 1991:81-83)!"
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
I've read and studied the "science" in the Qur'an—all of it. I took the information mentioned by Muslims as science and checked it out—with science books, research on the web, research at the public library, talking with various individuals who know more than I do on the subject. The end result was that most of what the Muslims call "science" was already known and/or is incorrect. I also think that there is an effort to "make" science where there is none—like taking a verse and reading science into it.
You will find rebuttals to science in the Qur'an here:
j/k
