Scientific validation of religious texts

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@HeadStrong

I have seen this problem happening across all religions/sects. People use religious texts to validate scientific truths. Why cant religious texts confine themselves to religion alone and not delve into the scientific domain. I personally do not believe that religious texts contain scientific facts. If that was the case, why are interpretations being done after the scientists prove it. People validate this statement stating that the texts are obscure and all that. My point is that if any religious text contains unproven scientific facts, religious leaders should state them rather than claiming them after the scientific discovery is made..

Well. The thing you guys call science, one microscope 3 equation and one over excited nerd in white coat.
Those kind of things are in quran, I read it my self.

I would love see a guy dismissing quran, and have actual knowledge about it.
Why its always personal opinion funny lines etc etc

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

^ And that in a nutshell sums it up. All answers for some is in a book. And that's OK. For others evidence is needed. More in tune with real world.

Which path one chooses - faith vs reality is the fork in the road.

[psyah]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@Southie

Lot of text. Here is the highlight

"In other words what is provable and proven to be true, it is impossible to show that the opposite is alluded to in the Qur'an."

What a low bar you have set, sir. It is not enough to show beyond reasonable doubt that the Quran simply has not predicted all the scientific inventions. Now scientists must show that the OPPOSITE OF ALL INVENTIONS are alluded to in the Quran?

Seriously?

With respect ... you have it wrong ...

I am not claiming that the Qur'an predicts all scientific discoveries for all time ... I am saying the Qur'an is Truth ... and if established science is also true then it is impossible for two truths to conflict. If there is a conflict after factoring out any losses in translation from both the scientific angle and the Qur'anic - I would urge the error would lie on the side of the scientific conclusion.

To add weight to that argument is by looking at how the Qur'an has changed over 1400 years and how leading science has changed throughout the same time period.

In terms of predicting the Qur'an has predicted something about invention ... It challenges the nay sayers to put all their minds together and resources and collectively try to make a fly ...

Read **Qur'an Surah 22 Verse 73

*O people, an example is presented, so listen to it. Indeed, *those you invoke besides Allah**** will never create [as much as] a fly, even if they gathered together for that purpose. And if the fly should steal away from them a [tiny] thing, they could not recover it from him. Weak are the pursuer and pursued.**

Now it is understandable that this was totally impossible to conceive of 1400 years ago ... but does this challenge still stand applicable today?

In the past this was taken to mean the idols ... today the atheists and post-modernists can be blamed for invoking the "scientists" besides Allah (SWT) ... so ...

Mr. Southie ???

If it is still applicable ... is it not a clear sign that the Source of the Qur'an ... has full Knowledge of the capabilities of science for all time?

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

southei bhai, all answers to live a life.
Not all answer to go to lab and get your microscope going.

What is externally upsetting
[fairly tale] when God introduce human to angels, first thing he showed off was human beings intellect!!
Human being unique ability to learn was subject of first discussion ever taken place about human.
[/fairytale]

God did not tell, "angels, what ever science human need I put it in quran "

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@psyah

With respect ... you have it wrong ...

I am not claiming that the Qur'an predicts all scientific discoveries for all time ... I am saying the Qur'an is Truth ... and if established science is also true then it is impossible for two truths to conflict. If there is a cohnflict after factoring out any losses in translation from both the scientific angle and the Qur'anic - I would urge the error would lie on the side of the scientific conclusion.

To add weight to that argument is by looking at how the Qur'an has changed over 1400 years and how leading science has changed throughout the same time period.

In terms of predicting the Qur'an has predicted something about invention ... It challenges the nay sayers to put all their minds together and resources and collectively try to make a fly ...

Read **Qur'an Surah 22 Verse 73

*O people, an example is presented, so listen to it. Indeed, *those you invoke besides Allah**** will never create [as much as] a fly, even if they gathered together for that purpose. And if the fly should steal away from them a [tiny] thing, they could not recover it from him. Weak are the pursuer and pursued.**

Now it is understandable that this was totally impossible to conceive of 1400 years ago ... but does this challenge still stand applicable today?

In the past this was taken to mean the idols ... today the atheists and post-modernists can be blamed for invoking the "scientists" besides Allah (SWT) ... so ...

Mr. Southie ???

If it is still applicable ... is it not a clear sign that the Source of the Qur'an ... has full Knowledge of the capabilities of science for all time?

First your earlier post indicated that one has to prove the Quran predicts the OPPOSSITE of what has been invented. When challenged on that, you simply ducked that issue. Fine.

I don't understand your post. You threw in idols in your post. Isn't the black stone (Kaaba?) an idol? In any event, I am perplexed at why you threw that in there.

You state the Quran mentioned no one other than Allah can create even a fly. And if fly steaks somrthing we r powerless yo get it back. And you go on to say that was a great prognostication! For 1400 years ago.

Come on good Sir! If this is the basis of your argument, it is weak at best.

[HeadStrong]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Say, Bible talked about cell phone technology. Would you have been able to interpret it 2,000 years ago?

My problem is that if it is written, it should be written in a manner that can be understood not by obscuring it.

[HeadStrong]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@Monk

Well. The thing you guys call science, one microscope 3 equation and one over excited nerd in white coat. Those kind of things are in quran, I read it my self.

I would love see a guy dismissing quran, and have actual knowledge about it. Why its always personal opinion funny lines etc etc

I do not disagree or assert that these do not exist is quran. My only point is that if it exists it should have been discovered before the guy in white coat said it. You have mentioned that you have read these statements yourself. In a way aren't you belittling your forefathers who could not understand the simple things that you were able to understand so clearly.

[HeadStrong]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@Southie

Question is, did The Bible talk about cell phone technology? And that's OP'S point. Religious "interpreters" use circular logic to claim Everything that has been accomplished has been written in "Insert your Holy Book" here.

And some (or most) claim ONLY their Holy Book" is the one that correctly predicted ALL scientific discoveries and inventions.

Mind numbingly dumb may be the appropriate conclusion for such "headstrong" claims.

Exactly.. I personally feel that Religion and Science should be two separate entities. We have the classic case of the catholic church claiming that the sun revolved around the earth.

[HeadStrong]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Peace HeadStrong

If this statement is not scientific, (or let me say verifiable) then what type of statement is it? And by looking at the verse in this way ... What is inherently wrong in finding scientific congruency in the scriptures after the discovery is made scientifically?

There is absolutely no harm if these are one off instances. Let me just say that there are 2 friends who go to a hotel to eat. If one friend is made to pay the bill always it is easy to infer that the other friend is just using his friend. If the other friend pays the bill once in a while the relationship seems more equitable.

Similarly if there are instances if any Holy book could claim a scientific discovery before the scientists in white coat make it then it is credible. Otherwise it is just that we are interpreting the Holy book in a manner that is meaningful to the discovery that is made.

[psyah]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@Southie

First your earlier post indicated that one has to prove the Quran predicts the OPPOSSITE of what has been invented. When challenged on that, you simply ducked that issue. Fine.

I don't understand your post. You threw in idols in your post. Isn't the black stone (Kaaba?) an idol? In any event, I am perplexed at why you threw that in there.

You state the Quran mentioned no one other than Allah can create even a fly. And if fly steaks somrthing we r powerless yo get it back. And you go on to say that was a great prognostication! For 1400 years ago.

Come on good Sir! If this is the basis of your argument, it is weak at best.

Peace Southie

No I asked no such thing about invention ... I was creating the correct test for determining whether established scientific fact contradicts the Qur'an on matters and the way to do that is to configure an opposing conclusion. You can only say the Qur'an is wrong if you have first determined science is right and then juxtaposed that against the Qur'anic ayat of your choice and found error.

Idols are who people turn to, to ask for help and worship when in fact they cannot help them. We do not ask the black stone for anything ... It is hence not an idol ... It is an artifact and it is a relic but not an idol.

Regarding that statement about the fly ... Look at it from science point of view ... And keep it simple ... 1) can scientists make a fly? 2) can take back from the fly in tact from what the fly had taken from them?

This challenge still stands for 1400 years ... Now is that not sign that the One who made that challenge is likely to be Divine? Is it also not a sign that the One who knows that about the fly is likely to be the One who made the fly? This is how we should read the Qur'an ... Not as a book of science ... But as a form of knowledge that scientists cannot deny.

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@HeadStrong

Exactly.. I personally feel that Religion and Science should be two separate entities. We have the classic case of the catholic church claiming that the sun revolved around the earth.

In some states they do not allow the evolution part of COSMOS to be shown! And Intelligent Design is part of curriculum.

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@psyah

Peace Southie

No I asked no such thing about invention ... I was creating the correct test for determining whether established scientific fact contradicts the Qur'an on matters and the way to do that is to configure an opposing conclusion. You can only say the Qur'an is wrong if you have first determined science is right and then juxtaposed that against the Qur'anic ayat of your choice and found error.

Idols are who people turn to, to ask for help and worship when in fact they cannot help them. We do not ask the black stone for anything ... It is hence not an idol ... It is an artifact and it is a relic but not an idol.

Regarding that statement about the fly ... Look at it from science point of view ... And keep it simple ... 1) can scientists make a fly? 2) can take back from the fly in tact from what the fly had taken from them?

This challenge still stands for 1400 years ... Now is that not sign that the One who made that challenge is likely to be Divine? Is it also not a sign that the One who knows that about the fly is likely to be the One who made the fly? This is how we should read the Qur'an ... Not as a book of science ... But as a form of knowledge that scientists cannot deny.

your last paragraph is no different from Creationists and Intelligent proponents. And that school of thought is the main reason for the dumbing down of curriculum in schools.

For you, Idol worshipping makes no sense. For several others, worshipping an unseen God and the teachings of a book written 1400 years ago makes equal sense.

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@HeadStrong

There is absolutely no harm if these are one off instances. Let me just say that there are 2 friends who go to a hotel to eat. If one friend is made to pay the bill always it is easy to infer that the other friend is just using his friend. If the other friend pays the bill once in a while the relationship seems more equitable.

Similarly if there are instances if any Holy book could claim a scientific discovery before the scientists in white coat make it then it is credible. Otherwise it is just that we are interpreting the Holy book in a manner that is meaningful to the discovery that is made.

This

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@HeadStrong

I do not disagree or assert that these do not exist is quran. My only point is that if it exists it should have been discovered before the guy in white coat said it. You have mentioned that you have read these statements yourself. In a way aren't you belittling your forefathers who could not understand the simple things that you were able to understand so clearly.

I repeat my self there are statements in quran, no man should have known at that 1400.
How? For example quran say about some thing which exist from earth to heaven, please help me prove it???
What equipment i should use??
Imagine when quran said ants spoke to each other and lived in colonies, how would you prove it if you lived in 1800s???
When quran said bee(female) works and navigates humbly, how woiuld you prove it if you lived in 1800s or before.
When quran called sun a lamp, and moon as borrowed light, how some one could have proven it, till 1500s ?

You know all those scientists who converted and assert that quran does have things in it, which were not known to people 1400 years ago ??

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Lots of Holy books have points of wisdom. Just means they were written by bright people for those times.

Brahma s each Wink spans millions of years. That means there was concept our universe is very old. Brahma creates. Big Bang. Vishnu operates. Laws of nature. Shiva destroys. Black hole.

see? They saw everything those days. Came from Hindu scholars.

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Perhaps. I can only start talking about it, if you first (who knows it better then I) claim it to be true.
If you ask me whole heartedly that vadea has this. this and I belive it to be this. I will look into it.
If every educated young hindu I met started with "its all BS"
How could I start looking into it ?????

On same note. Did you every find another community where all educated people insist so much on thier text to TRUE and ACCURATE.

You ever wonder why???????

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Dear Monk

You stated the last para not I. I do have an explanation for ur question. It is possible educated folks from other religions are more objective. They are not afraid to question. And not reluctant to think for themzelves.

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

see what i mean?
You have to assume that people from same region, same race same education level same socail standing.
One group is miraculously more dumb then other. (in a way you believe in miracle :D )

Other think when a person is cursing marriage, its pretty obvious he is not cursing my marriage.

So when I see people calling religion backward, its obvious what are they talking about.

[Monk]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

@Southie

Dear Monk

You stated the last para not I. I do have an explanation for ur question. It is possible educated folks from other religions are more objective. They are not afraid to question. And not reluctant to think for themzelves.

I promise you brother. If you and talk about probability and and chance of occurrence, even a guy like my self can PROVE quran has a divine source.

One thing I never understood. Why secular people get so angry when talking about religion??
I have seen in on GS and real life as well. Why is that. I spoke to my preaching people, Ijust listen a walk away. or talk. Why a cool tempered person like your self start getting angry??

[Southie]

Re: Scientific validation of religious texts

Dear Monk

Come on my friend. I am not angry. I couldn't get angry at u. U r such a gentleman.

Quite frankly, I am puzzled at why you would bring anger into the equation. If anything, the climate about 6 months ago was opposite of what you have stated. Since then things have changed for the better in last 3 months with new leaderships.

I will leave it at that.