The koran: a vain and futile attempt to clothe an otherwise naked and empty philosophy in some semblance of scientific credibility by invoking itself as its own written authority!
Another reason the progress stopped is that once the books were destroyed and the non-Muslims kicked out, there was no one to do the actual thinkin, and no record of the thinkin that had been done..
Actually, Arabic Science continued after the Mongols for some 300 years - under the Muslim Mongols, Arabic Astronomy reached its peak. I refer you to Ehsan Masood's 'Science & Islam: A History', p.125 & p.134.
@Klingschor Hello how you going mate? I was wondering if you knew wehn the muslim or arab scientist discovered when the universe was expanding or the moon reflected light or the sweet water and salty water not mixing did they EVER discover these?????? hope y ou answer thank you :)
@Klingschor No im not talking about the ocean the salty water meets with the sweet water but they dont mix there is a barrier between them, so the muslim or arab scientist have never discovered the universe expanding or the moountains how they have roots under them havnt they ever discovered these facts??
There are no ocean barriers (/watch?v=AFy-QAVbbhA), and mountains don't have roots and aren't unmoveable and don't stop earthquakes (/watch?v=RLF3EPGrYyA). Neither too did the Qur'an predict the Big Bang (/watch?v=5SWBL74zNfU).
Just face facts: you're afraid of death or some other emotional appeal, you've chosen Islam as your particular teddybear to cuddle, and you're retrospectively finding reasons to believe in Islam. Why even bother fishing for evidence? Just use 'Faith'
I found the "Incoherence" very clear and structured. So while I do not agree with some arguments he presents, I did not find them difficult to understand.
@becharev i say islamic ladies DESERVE to have equal rights more than us males, us males slave, help them to solve their problems, pleasure them with their guidance ask for nothing sexual to them, and they will smile 24/7 never ending : )
a crusade is needed, first with superior and quick teaching them human behavior in equality of people including that males learn from ladies only, then there won't be a need for a crusade we will defeat islamic males with knowlege at the correct moments ; )
I don't know if this a valid point without researching it, but I do wonder if it is possible that the decline of the 'golden age' in Islam in general coincides with the 'gold' that had been plundered from conquered nations running dry? With 'Dhimmis' converting for economic reasons, excessive extravagant mosque building and the stagnation of economies brought on by the general lack of production which seems to be a by-product of Islamisation? What say you Jeremias?
@Vincentaneous I was wondering when Jews and Americans would be brought up, knowing how quick we are to use them as scapegoats for everything wrong in the world :D
You have to understand that Al Gazali was against Literalist Sect of Islam. So if he really said that Mathematic is the work of Devil, he didn't mean it in Literal sense! Another Ex: when he said fire doesn't burn, he doesn't mean literally fire doesn't burn.
Here the list of some of famouse Muslim Scholars and scientists from 12th century untill today are: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf al-Shami al-Asadi, Ibn al-Nafis, Al-Jazari, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, Ali Javan, Abdul Kalam, Syed Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, Azizul Haque, Sultan bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and the list goes on and on...
- Some of the scientists you name are pre-mongolian. - My point was that science in the Islamic world did not recover from the mongolian invasion because Al-Ghazalis views became dominant. My point was not that Al-Ghazali brought science to a screatching halt.
- Some of the scientists you name do not show that there is great science in the Islamic world, but that Muslims who are scientists today are part of Western science traditions. This is the case for Azizul Haque (British India), Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (who studied in the USA) and Abdul Kalam (India).
Note: I never claimed that Muslims can not be scientists. I claimed that the Golden Age of science in the Islamic world ended due to Ghazali.
- Nearly half of the people you list are not scientists but religious scholars. I made no claim regarding the development of religious teaching in the Islamic world after Ghazali.
-" Nearly half of the people you list are not scientists but religious scholars."
Religious scholars mean Social scientist, political scientist, philosophers, economist, Philologist, psychologist, Science of Hathis, literature science...
-That one is a religious scholar does not at all imply that he is a scientist..
Obviously you don't have much knowledge of Islamic scholarship. There is the Science of Fiqh (Law), Science of Hathis, Science of Aqtisad (Economy), Science of Tafseer, Science of (Tareekh) history, Jihad (war fare)... also a religious scholar must be familiar with the branch of psychology, philosophy, history, geography and etc... today even the study of spirituality is considered science.
Scientists consider Buddha was one of the greatest scientist; he was a scientist of life!
Muslim scholars are trained in scientific fields otherwise they can’t fulfill their duty. For example they have to know economy, law and logic. Islam is not a monastic religious.
Indeed, mathematic is the purest form of science. Mathematic is nothing without the concept of Zero, the Romans couldn't produce a mathematician because they didn't have Zero. What zero means? It means nothing!! And without Zero, the scientific world of ours will crumble to dust in blink of an eye. Science can’t be proven empirically!
-There was mathematics before zero was invented. Look up Euklid.
Egyptian were familiar with the concept of zero. My point is that without the concept of zero today’s world will crumble to dust in a blink of an eye. But it doesn't even exist!
Mathematics consist of many fields, one of which is algebra. Some fields are closer to philosophy than others. Logic for example is considered a subdiscipline both of philosophy and mathematics.
But of course mathematics is not a branch of philosophy.
As I pointed out in this video Al-Ghazali considered mathematics to be dangerous because of its proximity to philosophy.
We must understand his language to understand him (apple deos not taste like apple). He was against (Ryazi) ancient-mathematic, not against modern-mathematic (Aljebra). (Ryazi) is consisting of forutun-telling (astrology), exorcism, sorcery...
Where is your prove? I don't want English prove, I want to know what he said in his own language!
My evidence is that you have misinterpreted his words to suit your own agenda. Ancient mathematic (Ryazi) is not modern-mathematic (Aljebra). He was against (Ryazi) which consist of astrology, exorcism, sorcery and other unscientific field but not against pure science!! He advocated science, and himself was a scientist, mathematician, theologian, philosopher
1. Can you present a quote that supports your claims are can you not?
2. Algebra is just one of many branches of mathematics.
3. Al-Ghazali did not warn to study mathematics because of exorcisms or astrology or what else you make up but because of its proximity to philosophy. And by this he meant Greek influenced philosophy. He especially objected to Avicenna.
Your 1: Please quote me making that claim. If you can not do that then please stop making up stuff about me.
Your 2: In the "Incoherence of the Philosophers"
Your 3. In the"Incoherence" he argues that the fire does not burn the cotton.
Your 4: I did not say he denounced science. I said he (a) warned to engage in some fields of science and (b) his take on causality was detrimental to science.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ghazzali had concerns some of which I guess are legitimate, but didn't encourage/condone behaviour that lead to the downfall of the intellectual empire? I get conflicting information on this :S I don't think that concerns that some scientists think they are becoming gods means that we should stop science, though it might follow if you have a fundie nutcase (lulz redundancy).
I totally disagree with your hypothesis. Islam progress in the field of art and science hampered by the Crusaders and Mogul butchery and burning of scientist, scholars, books, libraries... Muslim civilization in Spain rooted out completely, but Muslim progress revived again during Ottoman Empire, Berber Empire, Baburian, Gurgarian, Savawid, Mamluk... Taj Mahal, Suliemania Masjid are some of the example of Muslim progress in the field Art and Science in later period!!
I mentioned the crusaders and the Mongols, whose invasions were of course heavy blows. But they can not explain why there was no revival of science after that in the Islamic world.
Listing realms and architecture hardly shows scientific progress.
At this age, even philosophy, psychology and study of spiritually are considered Science. If Architecture, Politic and Military Realms are not considered science, then what we call political science, scientific literature, sociology, science of color, structure engineering, acoustical engineering, geometric aljebra, geology, geography...? today everything is science, even carpet making!!
Zero doesn't exist, but without zero today's scientific advanced world will crumble to dust!!
-"Listing realms and architecture hardly shows scientific progress."
Do you not think that social science is not science? What about Structure engineering, political science, geometric Aljebra, military engineering, spatial science, acoustical, psychology...? Ottoman Empire was the supper power of its time. Baburian, Gurgarian, savwid were the great powers of the world. Ottoman Empire materialistically was the most advanced nation the world has even seen at its time!!
-That the Ottoman Empire was influential at its time...
Ottoman Empire had one of the best military power, economic system, administration system and construction system. These mentioned fields require scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and politicians to keep the empire running. China is soon becoming supper power of the world, because of its military might, economy, art, propaganda, scientific inventions… you don't become supper power because of nothing.
Well here is some of the Names of post-Mongol scientist: Ibrahim Muteferrika -- Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf -- Hasan Tahsini -- Osman Nuri Eralp -- İbrahim Hakkı Erzurumi -- Molla Şemseddin Fenari -- Gelenbevi Ismail Efendi -- Ulugh Beg -- Ghiyāth al-Dīn Jamshīd Masʾūd al-Kāshī -- Ibn al-Shatir -- Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī -- Ibn Khaldun -- Tipu Sultan -- Piri Reis -- Ibn Battuta -- Ibn al-Khatib --Ibn Khatima -- Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi -- Lagâri Hasan Çelebi -- ... many more
Supper power means superior in technology, art, science, construction, propaganda, language, culture, live style...
Also have to know Al Gazalis (Revival of Religious Sciences) had tremendous influence on Nurulden Zangi, Salahuldin, Mamuluk Empire, Ottoman Empire and Babur Empire in India. War of information been waged to suppress the history of Ottomans and Muslims during colonization. Darwin even went to say that Turks are inferior race, they are like Chimpanzee...
-"I mentioned the crusaders and the Mongols, whose invasions were of course heavy blows."
Also Plz mention the destruction of Moorish civilization in Spain, Crusader 2- 7, Collonization and Slavery period, Napolean War, British, Tsar wars against Muslims, Soviet wars against Muslims, WW1 & 2 (destruction of Ottoman Empire), Soviet War, now USA plus 60 nations of world killing & plundering Muslims world physically, spiritually, psychologically and mentally (war on terror)!
Europe has seen as many wars and probably more destructive ones than the Middle East. But this did not demolish the development of science in the Western World.
So wars alone are not suffivient as an explanation.
-Europe has seen as many wars and probably more destructive ones than the Middle East.
The winner always write the history. Europe wasn't colonized, on the contrary Muslim lands were divided among European nations, like our natural resources is stolen everyday, our scientists are stolen, also history, art, culture. Sadam Husain's Nuclear scientist gets beheaded by Mossad agent, Iranian Scientists get assassinated, Schools and Universities are bombed in Libya, history repeating.
"But only taking Al-Ghazali's final conclusions, while lacking a comparable education (and a reflection process) in the area, and as a result being unable to trace Al-Ghazali in his thought process, only exacerbates the probability of the misuse of Al-Ghazali's conclusions."
i.e. the inability of the people to really understand what Ghazali said has nothing to do with Islam and Islamic teaching.
Arabs had some good contribution in scientific field but there were many others who were greater in science. India under the Buddhist era flourished as a hub for education and science under the Mauryan era so did China . The major decline of arab power came when Mongols and Turks swept the arabian continent like a storm. Arabs took science couple of steps further but in my opinion many other civilizations have as well contributed before arabs.
that is why I disagree with some of what Al-Ghazali wrote about or discussed, and I prefer to read Ibn-Rushd.
By using the story of Abraham (Ibrahim) and the fire as proof of non-causality, he is denying something much bigger; denying the will of God "قلنا يا نار كوني بردا وسلاما على إبراهيم " "we have told the fire, be cold and safe upon Ibrahim" and it is in the Quraan btw (responding to the question in the video)
al-ghazali states that causality is false, because in the story of Abraham, had causality been true, the fire would have burned Abraham REGARDLESS (of God will). But in truth, God willed the fire not to burn Abraham, thereby removing the effect of burning from the fire, that is very different from stating that causality is not true or applicable.
He objects to the claim that there is a necessary connection between the fire and the smouldering.
Instead of this -so he says- it is the habit of god to make something smoulder, when a fire comes close. And since it is his habit he can chose to act differently.
So Al-Ghazali does not deny the will of god, on the contrary: Every phenomenon in nature depends on his will directly.
He is right that fire doesn't burn, neither the heat, nor electron... what burns and how?!! In his best well known book "The Revival of Religious Sciences" he even goes to say that not learning the knowledge of science is sin!!
@Jeremias1111 8-) 3. Of course, there is a need to interpret the Quran, Every generation, as well as every individual is responsible to find the truth. As long as you wontt claim that everyone and every generation is the same. then, you shouldn;t have any oppositoin that the Quran should be interpreted and re interpreted by each and every generations as well as each individual. >>
I was thinking long and hard how to discuss this, but I end up with ANOTHER problem that Al-Ghazali has, which is "Is God Old?" as in "long before everything, there was God." Well, another dilemma, because it means God is bound by time, but He is not, he has no past, no future, no present, He just Is.
Suffice it to say, I prefer how Ibn Rushd (Averroes explains it)
Islam is a religion of hate sadism and ignorance. The reason and free thinking is destroyed by some dogmas. Islam passed the zenith long time ago and could not reinvent itself, instead indoctrinated the believers to the bone.
@BOROZ28 "Islam is a religion of hate sadism and ignorance."
You say this but you talk about "Muslims" not Islam. FYI Muslims are fallible. and they don't represent Islam in any way. They merely try topracicte it as they know it.
You talk about reason and free thinking, yet, you can not even distinguish a teaching from the practitioner. What kind of rationality you are referring to is completely vauge.
@Fussinated Wait humans in general are not perfect and will always be fallacious. Any system have always a tendency over a period to degenerate/reinvent itself to the conditions. Are you white washing Islam and placing the whole default on Muslims. Then what does represent Islam (YOU) in the full light if not the Muslims and their actions.
The Muslim world is blaming others but never itself for the decline why so?
You can't leave in the glory of the past - this thinking is pathological.
@Fussinated The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men and have the roots in Christianity and Judaism. It took a big chunk from the Abrahamic religions so to a degree i can understand the philosophic background.I was a hardened Christian, in my childhood and as teenager i did read Islamic,Jewish and Christian scriptures and I DO NOT CLAIM THAT I AM AN EXPERT.The Koran is not as peaceful as many thinks, but of course there is a lot of good things in it and it was...........
@BOROZ28 3-) "It took a big chunk from the Abrahamic religions so to a degree i can understand the philosophic background.I was a hardened Christian, in my childhood and as teenager i did read Islamic,Jewish and Christian scriptures and I DO NOT CLAIM THAT I AM AN EXPERT."
This is your first mistake, your Judeo Christian backgorund is an obstacle for you to understand Islam. Islam claims that, "they" lost their touch with the message, their are corrupt and they are in disarray. >
@BOROZ28 4-) "The Koran is not as peaceful as many thinks,"
Yuo say this because of your Judeo-Christian background. Quran carries the most peaceful message in connection with universe and other facts. Why because it teaches to obtain the peace inside and does not let this peace be disturbed by outer influences. While Christian way of peace could only be achieved only if the surroundings are in peace, i.e. the inner peace can only be achieved by pacifying the outer world.
@Fussinated was....a god thing for 6th century "Arabia" that put the house in "order".But again it was not written by god but by Mohamed(he was illiterate others did it). Islam has a lot of violent passages and due to fact it was lay down in a quasi chronological way is open for different interpretations it force itself to be a guideline. The intellectual rigidity of Islam closes many doors and forces blind obedience therefor if added as a intrusive force can be very limiting and destructive.
@BOROZ28 5-) A lion who is killing his prey is in full peace and the prey is also in full peace, because they do what they are created for. Would you call a lion that does not hunt its prey? But in the hands of a Christian lion stops killing to be peaceful and loses its true nature. If you look around you will see this everywhere.
So with such backgorund you can't understand Islam, you have to make major change in your perspective, redefine many concepts which you think universally correct >
@BOROZ28 6-) So, it is not about being an expert or not it is about perspective. If you don;t have it then you will fail to understand and relate to Islamic wisdom.
"But again it was not written by god but by Mohamed(he was illiterate others did it)."
You can't tell this for certain, you werent there as well as you already confessed your limited knowledge about Islam. So please apply common sense at least.
@BOROZ28 7-) "Islam has a lot of violent passages and due to fact it was lay down in a quasi chronological way is open for different interpretations it force itself to be a guideline."
This is non-sequitur, the arrangement of the pessages of the Quran is not relevant to violance you think you are perceiving.
Also allowing slef defense by no means can be considered as violance. In war, offense is allowed as well. So don't mix up things due your distorted perspective. >
There is no such thing. If you want to talk about peole who practice Islam with a level of rigidity, that's fine. but you can't deduce this from the Quran and therefore you can not talk about such a thing as "rigidity of Islam."
"closes many doors and forces blind obedience therefor if added as a intrusive force can be very limiting and destructive."
I am a Muslim and you are far more limited than I am in your reasoning. >
@BOROZ28 9-) You don't know Islam and you don't know about Muslims and you don't know history. I will tell you that today Muslims learn their religion from Christians, you will disagree. But tell me What would you teach if you teach Islam? Islam is violant, Islam is close minded etc. So Muslims are learning their faith from people such as yourself.
Islam is not violant. Islam is reasonable, Islam is rational etc. Without giving such arguments a chance, how c an you conclude about Muslims? *
@Fussinated Buddha of bamiyan valley, Honor Killings, stoning, degradation of women, Dutch producer killed in Islam name,20 girls burned in a school because could not go out-their where not veiled, intolerance toward OPEN critic. OVERARCHING totalitarian system that goes with Islam,expansionist tendencies ............
Al Tauba 9:" 5 But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);
@BOROZ28 "You can't leave in the glory of the past - this thinking is pathological."
This irrelevant as well as unethical. If you accuse Muslims unfairly being volant inherently, it is normal they will bring proof from the past to disprove this claim. If you are not aware of this situation you are ignorant to the subject as well.
are you ready to accept the Muslim contribution to the human civilization and start accepting them as humans without bias, and start communicating with them?
@Fussinated But i do know about the major achievements of the Muslim world in the PAST and i would't dare diminish it, but that is not your question either point you use it as a derogative matter.
You use it to justify and explain the current status quo in the Muslim world and to underline my ignorance and secularity. Bringing the ghosts and glory from the past leads to nowhere BUT it must be acknowledged and left to historians.
@BOROZ28 "You use it to justify and explain the current status quo in the Muslim world and to underline my ignorance and secularity."
Nonsense. I say that you can criticise Islam or Muslims as much as you like, but if you mix them up. your criticism reflect things about your ignorance. For example, if you say that islam is doctrinated, this will be illogical and a lie. Islam or any teaching does not indoctrinate, but people do. So if Muslims indoctrinate complain about them. >>
@BOROZ28 2-) but if you are going to talk about Islam tlak about its source. If you mnix Islam and Muslims, then the impllications are deeper than simply being ignorant.
"The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men and have the roots in Christianity and Judaism."
Quran already claims that its message confirm the previous mesengers. So, what you said does not explain anything. Youare being redundant. >
The field of Islamic teaching is as diverse as the field of Islamic practise. There are many different factions within Islam and each does claim of course to represent the "true" Islam.
The reason for this is obvious: The quran is a text and in parts it is a rather poetic one. Understanding a text means to interprete it. So even with the best intentions people will come to different understandings.
The space for interpretation will open up even more if you try to derive guidelines for life today from a historic text that dealt with a completely different society.
So your demand to isolate the teaching of Islam from the people who create that teaching by interpreting the quran (and the hadiths of course) and who try to live by it, just does not work.
@Jeremias1111 "So your demand to isolate the teaching of Islam from the people who create that teaching by interpreting the quran (and the hadiths of course) and who try to live by it, just does not work."
Yes but you are missing one point, if the Quran wouldn't allow interpretation, and if it'd have been a book like a science book, this time you'd complaining that it's a dogmatic book.
People dogmatize this is a fact, but truth can't change either. So truth by nature is dogmatic. >
@Jeremias1111 2-) Qur'an is not like a science book. I didn't say it is.
I will explain this to you again. You claimed that Qur'an is interpreted differently and you brought a non-sequitur argument for this. I, instead of focusing your mistake tried to explain to you that if the Qur'an didn't alllow different interpretations, it would have been a dogma book. And if we are going to speak dogma science is closer to become dogmatic than Islam. >>
@Jeremias1111 3-) This was your first clue that you didn;t understand what I said. So please take one step back and try to understand.
"The reader would be able to check the evidence and to evaluate the arguments."
This would be true if the Quran presented theories. Yet, Quran speaks about the truth and presents the truth without dogmatising it. This requires a lot of subtlety. For example in the Quran it is said that Allah does what He wants. You can reason and understand this >
"in the Quran it is said that Allah does what He wants"
This is a statement that is not difficult to understand. And it also can be understood by nonbelievers, who of course would assess this as a hypothetical statement that depends on the existence of such a being called Allah.
A nonbeliever can evaluate the statement for possible internal or external contradictions. So the limitations set by nonbelief are marginal.
@Jeremias1111 20-) The issue always comes down to how health your reasoning is. Are you trying to force prove something, such as a Creator does not exist, by your scientific or nonscientific theories, or are you trying to be objective and find the truth. If you try to find the truth, the correct reasoning has rules for it, different than prejudiced way of reasoning rules.
@Jeremias1111 "The only way to discern sound from unsound reasoning is by assessing the arguments presented. Speculations about motifs or some kind of "health" will not do that job but are likely to poison the well."
Of course, motives will effect the evaluating a reasoning, since they effect the angle of perception of the mind. As i already gave the example if you base your scientific theories on an idea that it should disprove the xistence of a creator, your results will be effected by it.
@Jeremias1111 4-) But how can you transmit if you conclude that this is a true statement to somone who does not even want accept the existence of a creator.
Now, I have been discussing atheists for a long long time. everything comes down to the existence of a creator. Most of them expect an evidence that is perceptible by five senses. But logic dictates that who ever created those five senses must be beyond those senses so that He could be aware of the perceptions as well. >>
"But logic dictates that who ever created those five senses must be beyond those senses so that He could be aware of the perceptions as well."
This is not at all logical. Humans have created a lot of different types of sensors: For heat, light, chemicals, pressure and what else. These sensors make no difference between other objects and humans, they can detect both.
Like this a creator could have created the human senses and be detectable by them.
"And this evaluation does not change the fact that he has no control over his Creator's choices. "
That was not at all the point here. The question was if a nonbeliever would be able to assess the validity of a claim regarding a god he does not believe in.
@Jeremias1111 "That was not at all the point here. The question was if a nonbeliever would be able to assess the validity of a claim regarding a god he does not believe in."
Yes that is the wholw point. What makes you think that the Creator is trying to persuade humans to his existence? While you keep on preaching not to be judgmental about others, you are becoming extremely judgmental when it comes to Creator and his acts. Why should he care about your denial of your self?
@Jeremias1111 "Sensors that are build in the same way will interact with the object in the same way. This is why they measure the same."
They measure the sweetness but they can;t measure the sibjective differences in perception. Anyway this is not even the isseu, the issue is the sensory perception itself. There is no way to tell two person experience same sensory perceptions.
@Jeremias1111 5-) So, one can only find evidence to the Creator with a reasoning line.
So, the Quran simply states that there is one Creator. To prove the existence of the Creator the existence of the Quran is enough. Infinte regress is a dilusion because if you measure something there is a starting point to it, if you canmeasure time then it started sometime in the past somewhere. Big Bang for our universe. So, if we say that everything needs a creator >
@Jeremias1111 6-) So, this line of reasoning, if it was given by the Quran, would have been a dogma. This kind of reasoning also allows the individual such as myself, free from dogma as well. That is why in the name of Islam or in the name of defaming Islam people like me are aware of the insufficient reasonings. And we see that what people suffer as a dogmas usually comes from by those who declare an insufficient reasoning as unquestionable truth. So the reasoning above has limitations >>
@Jeremias1111 7-) Yet, it can only be invalidated by a more elaborate reasoning. During my quest, I changed many reasonings due to their insufficiency by more elaborate ones. I also have seen so many people who fail to elaborate their reasoning but still hang on to them.
@Jeremias1111 7-) I presented to you clear, sound reasoning line about the approach of the Islam, thye meaning of the Quran, and the existence of the Creator. It is not against any teaching in the Quran so it is purely Islamic. So, if you can observe your own reaction to this reasoning line. and how you react (or respond) to this reasoning line. If you think you can invalidate it iwth a more elborate reasoning ask yourself why do you want to do such a thing in the first place, truth or ego. >>
If i can invalidate your reasoning with a more elaborate one then your reasoning was not valid in the first place. You should be glad to find that out.
My motif for pointing out flaws in your reasoning is completely irrelevant for the existence of those flaws.
@Jeremias1111 17-) "If i can invalidate your reasoning with a more elaborate one then your reasoning was not valid in the first place. You should be glad to find that out."
So, Newton's laws of physics are not valid in the first place? But for slow moving objects they are quite valid and applicable, Their invalidty becomes an issue only for objects that moves much faster. You response does not match your claims about your science. You must be applying different standards in your appraoch >>
@Jeremias1111 18-) "My motif for pointing out flaws in your reasoning is completely irrelevant for the existence of those flaws."
No, but it is relevant for you to imagine flaws when there is none.
"Like this a creator could have created the human senses and be detectable by them."
Then who is going to decide about the nature of sense? Say vision, how can the creator will decide that the subject senses is sensing the way he should be sensing? >>
@Jeremias1111 "And again: You can only make out such flaws by dealing with the arguments presented, not by dealing with the motifs of the proponent."
You can't because flaw is there due to a distortion in the angle of perception. If your arguments rely on the assumtion that scientific data reflects the truth, for example, this flaw will reflecton your evaluation, First you should relaize that sceintific data does not reflect the truth therfore you can't use it disprove a sound reasoning.
@Jeremias1111 8-) "If the evidence was clear and the arguments presented were sound a rational reader would accept the teachings. I certainly would."
In the Quran evidence is clear and arguments are sound, however, the question is how healthy does one's mind is working. An evidence or a proof could be given but how clear is the conscious to percieve it as evidence or as proof?
@Jeremias1111 13-) "So if I do not agree with the quran, I am not healthy. This is an obvious attempt to immunize the quran from critique."
No. But if your arguments are not healthy eventually you will disagree with the Quran. Remember Quran claims to reveal the truth and the truth is dogmatic.
"Actually the quran does not exceed at any point what I would expect from a seventh century merchant."
Actually, your prejudice exceeds your age and reaches universal levels. >>
@Jeremias1111 9-) For example, Quran says that, if there were more than one Creators the universe would be in chaos since each creator will be delaing with his creation in a different manner.
Now, if you really want to understand what is said here you have to start serious thinking. If you approach this as some thoughts written 100s of years ego and no need to take it seriously, all you will get out of it will be that much. So, a seeming casual expression could tell you more than you think >
@Jeremias1111 14-) "If there were several creators there would not necessarily be chaos. The creators might be in agreement, one might govern the others by force,..."
No, this can't happen. For how long humans are trying to achieve such a harmony among each other? Among equals, especially if the yare creators, then it can't be achieved at all. >>
Even though humans do not achieve harmony this world is not in chaos. So your analogy does not work in this respect.
It does not work in another either: Hypothetical creators of worlds are probably quite different than humans. It could be easy for them to achieve something humans can not.
You are just presenting assertions without backing them up properly.
@Jeremias1111 "It does not work in another either: Hypothetical creators of worlds are probably quite different than humans. It could be easy for them to achieve something humans can not."
If you are going totalk about a possibility you should at least based it on something. Hypothetical creators should fit in a dfinition of a creator you try to make your evaluations. Is your definition, mentions that a creator should or would in harmony with other creators? You are applying assertions not me
@Jeremias1111 15-) For example, let's assume that, two group of people started a war in the name of their creators between them and their creators are different, how is going to win and who will decide it. How about if electrons were created by one god and protons by another? No Quran is completely, absolutely right.
"The quran just makes an assertion that seems plausible at first glance but lacks necessity."
You evaluations need a wider perspective though >>
Why should those creators bother at all for the wars of humans? Why should they favour the humans that worship them?
And of course one could create the electron and the other the proton. If both are allknowing they both know what is to do. Otherwise they just have to communicate.
@Jeremias1111 "Why should those creators bother at all for the wars of humans?"
If they don't their creation will be gone, will be destroyed.
"Why should they favour the humans that worship them?"
Favor? Who talked about favoring? However, each and very creator will be responsible about what they created. Favor? see this is your flaw in your perceptions you think that you already know hwat is communicated with you.
@Jeremias1111 16-) When Quran says that your presumed to have a clear definition of the Creator. your response proves that you lack such calrity ( this also invalidates your other arguments about a creator btw) Because a creator is not about himself but also about what he created as well. He created conscious indpenedant beings and their interaction will eventually lead to chaos among their creators as well. Look even with one creator we are in such a cahotic state. >>
Sure I do not have a clear concept of a creator. Logic allows for a range of hypothetical creators and there is no evidence to decide between those.
You on the other hand follow what you think is revelation. Your mind is no longer open for those possibilities, but you desperately try to find arguments for the quranic dogma of the one god.
@Jeremias1111 10-) So what is said in that ayah (verse).
1-) Universe is not in chaos or chaotic.
2-) The Creator's involvement with universe is constant.
3-) And, of course, there is only one Creator.
It is not easy to see these -except no 3- right away. but it tells more than you think. It also gives a clue. if we think in modern times, this also tells us that there is a connection between the randomness we observe at the quantum level and macroscopic level >>
@Jeremias1111 11-) implying that randomness (or chaos) is only in our observation not in the chain of events. And it is interesting that A. Einstein defined sceince exactly like this.
"But this is not what we find. As you agreed upon, the quran is a book open for interpretation with a broad range of possible understandings."
@Jeremias1111 Indeed, And because of this Islam is not dogmatic. The more we discover about the truth the more we gather around it. The openness to interpretation is not a shortcoming to the contrary it is an advantage.
But it also serves a purpose, too. the Quran says one day we will be judged, and our own self will be enough as a judge for ourselves. So, how we interpret the Quran will also determine that what kind of a judge we will be to ourselves. -end
The quran does not provide sufficient evidence nor sound argumentation for its claims. Its claim to present truth is based on the asserted divine authorship.
This makes the quran a dogmatic text. You can not argue with an allknowing being. You can not say: "Well, you might say so, but I think you are wrong for the following reasons..."
But you and me now have made one observation: Muslims interpretete the quran in many different ways.
How can we explain this? I see three points:
1. The above mentioned difference between science and revelation.
While a scientists might point out flaws in the works of Newton, Darwin or Einstein; Muslims can not argue against the quran. It is off limits because it is considered the word of the all-knowing god.
Why is the word "philosophy" not mentioned in the Qu`ran ?
hierostratus 4 days ago
love the video man
grisgrisy 1 week ago
interesting video and very informative
sprattysy 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
rodswebdesign 1 week ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
chrispikeyp 1 week ago
And THAT is why Islamic nations have always been lagging behind. When will they ditch this medieval nonsense and catch up with history?!
SaudiPseudonym 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The koran: a vain and futile attempt to clothe an otherwise naked and empty philosophy in some semblance of scientific credibility by invoking itself as its own written authority!
becharev 5 months ago
Another reason the progress stopped is that once the books were destroyed and the non-Muslims kicked out, there was no one to do the actual thinkin, and no record of the thinkin that had been done..
TaterGumfries 5 months ago 4
he was so fucking wrong!
PrincessTS01 6 months ago
Actually, Arabic Science continued after the Mongols for some 300 years - under the Muslim Mongols, Arabic Astronomy reached its peak. I refer you to Ehsan Masood's 'Science & Islam: A History', p.125 & p.134.
Klingschor 6 months ago
@Klingschor
Thank you very much, I will look it up!
Jeremias1111 6 months ago
@Jeremias1111
I'm currently reading three books about Arabic Science, and I'm planning to make a video series on the subject :)
Klingschor 6 months ago
@Klingschor Hello how you going mate? I was wondering if you knew wehn the muslim or arab scientist discovered when the universe was expanding or the moon reflected light or the sweet water and salty water not mixing did they EVER discover these?????? hope y ou answer thank you :)
2cool4skoolful 5 months ago
@2cool4skoolful
They didn't. Also, fresh water and salt water mix all the time - look at deltas and rainstorms.
Klingschor 5 months ago
@Klingschor No im not talking about the ocean the salty water meets with the sweet water but they dont mix there is a barrier between them, so the muslim or arab scientist have never discovered the universe expanding or the moountains how they have roots under them havnt they ever discovered these facts??
2cool4skoolful 5 months ago
@2cool4skoolful
There are no ocean barriers (/watch?v=AFy-QAVbbhA), and mountains don't have roots and aren't unmoveable and don't stop earthquakes (/watch?v=RLF3EPGrYyA). Neither too did the Qur'an predict the Big Bang (/watch?v=5SWBL74zNfU).
Just face facts: you're afraid of death or some other emotional appeal, you've chosen Islam as your particular teddybear to cuddle, and you're retrospectively finding reasons to believe in Islam. Why even bother fishing for evidence? Just use 'Faith'
Klingschor 5 months ago 6
thank u
esraretin 6 months ago
i want to read al ghazali??? do u know where can i get a pdf?
esraretin 6 months ago
@esraretin
You will find a link to the "Incoherence" in the video description.
Jeremias1111 6 months ago
@esraretin You do not want to read al-Ghazali. It is very hard to understand.
arcticmint 6 months ago
@arcticmint no im sure in my language its not that hard but for english its true
esraretin 6 months ago
@arcticmint
I found the "Incoherence" very clear and structured. So while I do not agree with some arguments he presents, I did not find them difficult to understand.
Jeremias1111 6 months ago
most interesting video i have seen on youtube
mooglebee2 7 months ago
We need to do research on science because it is God who has given us brains with which we can invent tools to make our life more easy and luxurious.
sipraomer 7 months ago
Will some intelligent muslim please answer this question: If the Koran is the absolute truth from Allah, why don´t we all speak arabic ?
vonkleve 8 months ago
Islamic science is a contradiction in terms
sardanapolis 8 months ago
muslim men are strong, can we have a modern crusade and invade all their islamic nations?
ukgreaterlondon 8 months ago
@ukgreaterlondon
Yes, we will take their blond wives as war booty !
becharev 8 months ago
@becharev i say islamic ladies DESERVE to have equal rights more than us males, us males slave, help them to solve their problems, pleasure them with their guidance ask for nothing sexual to them, and they will smile 24/7 never ending : )
a crusade is needed, first with superior and quick teaching them human behavior in equality of people including that males learn from ladies only, then there won't be a need for a crusade we will defeat islamic males with knowlege at the correct moments ; )
ukgreaterlondon 8 months ago
@ukgreaterlondon
You have obviously been educated in the UK.
vonkleve 8 months ago
@vonkleve uk freedom and almost equal justice and proud to live in a multi racial city : )
WEST SIDE : )
ukgreaterlondon 8 months ago
BLACK IS NASTY and islamic ladies are living in black shades :(
GOD IS A LADY THATS WHY MEN KILL MEN IN BATTLE, the wiccan god, she was speaking to abraham the jew, satan destroys nature just like men do.
god destroys men just like ladies destroy men.
god is a lady because a male god can not create with high levels of sex drive.
a lady god can create with no males.
half a circle can't be used as a dinner plate or a cup.
satan is the lady god punishing men and male lovers only.
ukgreaterlondon 8 months ago
@ukgreaterlondon
Please look for a place more suitable for your drivel. Under your mattress maybe?
Jeremias1111 8 months ago 4
@Jeremias1111 in your mosque?
ukgreaterlondon 8 months ago
@ukgreaterlondon
You either leave or I will block you.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
I don't know if this a valid point without researching it, but I do wonder if it is possible that the decline of the 'golden age' in Islam in general coincides with the 'gold' that had been plundered from conquered nations running dry? With 'Dhimmis' converting for economic reasons, excessive extravagant mosque building and the stagnation of economies brought on by the general lack of production which seems to be a by-product of Islamisation? What say you Jeremias?
dhimmiwit 8 months ago
@dhimmiwit
Tax evasion by the indigenous Spanish peasants is the likelier explanation. Crass , but understable !
cf: digital mutilation in the late Roman empire.
becharev 8 months ago
This Al-Ghazzali guy sounds like an idiot.
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
Wait a minute ... You mean the Jews or America didn't have anything to do with it?
Vincentaneous 8 months ago
@Vincentaneous I was wondering when Jews and Americans would be brought up, knowing how quick we are to use them as scapegoats for everything wrong in the world :D
TurboDally 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-Al Gazali never said that because he did not speack english!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
That at least was one funny remark!
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
You have to understand that Al Gazali was against Literalist Sect of Islam. So if he really said that Mathematic is the work of Devil, he didn't mean it in Literal sense! Another Ex: when he said fire doesn't burn, he doesn't mean literally fire doesn't burn.
motowa01 8 months ago
So in another word: he is more scientific if he really said that fire is not the cause of burning!! : )
motowa01 8 months ago
Here the list of some of famouse Muslim Scholars and scientists from 12th century untill today are: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf al-Shami al-Asadi, Ibn al-Nafis, Al-Jazari, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, Ali Javan, Abdul Kalam, Syed Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, Azizul Haque, Sultan bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and the list goes on and on...
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Your list is flawed for many reasons:
- Some of the scientists you name are pre-mongolian. - My point was that science in the Islamic world did not recover from the mongolian invasion because Al-Ghazalis views became dominant. My point was not that Al-Ghazali brought science to a screatching halt.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
- Some of the scientists you name do not show that there is great science in the Islamic world, but that Muslims who are scientists today are part of Western science traditions. This is the case for Azizul Haque (British India), Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (who studied in the USA) and Abdul Kalam (India).
Note: I never claimed that Muslims can not be scientists. I claimed that the Golden Age of science in the Islamic world ended due to Ghazali.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
- Nearly half of the people you list are not scientists but religious scholars. I made no claim regarding the development of religious teaching in the Islamic world after Ghazali.
This makes you list of scientists rather short...
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-" Nearly half of the people you list are not scientists but religious scholars."
Religious scholars mean Social scientist, political scientist, philosophers, economist, Philologist, psychologist, Science of Hathis, literature science...
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
That one is a regious scholar does not at all imply that he is a scientist in any field.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-That one is a religious scholar does not at all imply that he is a scientist..
Obviously you don't have much knowledge of Islamic scholarship. There is the Science of Fiqh (Law), Science of Hathis, Science of Aqtisad (Economy), Science of Tafseer, Science of (Tareekh) history, Jihad (war fare)... also a religious scholar must be familiar with the branch of psychology, philosophy, history, geography and etc... today even the study of spirituality is considered science.
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Obviously you dont have much knowledge about what a scientist is. That someone is"familiar" with some scientific topics does not make him one.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
Scientists consider Buddha was one of the greatest scientist; he was a scientist of life!
Muslim scholars are trained in scientific fields otherwise they can’t fulfill their duty. For example they have to know economy, law and logic. Islam is not a monastic religious.
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Politicians need some insight in economics, law, social sciences,...
That does not make them scientists. It makes them informed politicians.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
Philosophy is not science, neither mathematic, nor science...!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Science is not science???
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-"Science is not science?"
Indeed, mathematic is the purest form of science. Mathematic is nothing without the concept of Zero, the Romans couldn't produce a mathematician because they didn't have Zero. What zero means? It means nothing!! And without Zero, the scientific world of ours will crumble to dust in blink of an eye. Science can’t be proven empirically!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
There was mathematics before zero was invented. Look up Euklid.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-There was mathematics before zero was invented. Look up Euklid.
Egyptian were familiar with the concept of zero. My point is that without the concept of zero today’s world will crumble to dust in a blink of an eye. But it doesn't even exist!
motowa01 8 months ago
Mathematics is different from Aljebra. Mathematic is a branch of philosophy! Ghazali was against philosophy, but not Aljebra (modern mathematics)!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Mathematics consist of many fields, one of which is algebra. Some fields are closer to philosophy than others. Logic for example is considered a subdiscipline both of philosophy and mathematics.
But of course mathematics is not a branch of philosophy.
As I pointed out in this video Al-Ghazali considered mathematics to be dangerous because of its proximity to philosophy.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
We must understand his language to understand him (apple deos not taste like apple). He was against (Ryazi) ancient-mathematic, not against modern-mathematic (Aljebra). (Ryazi) is consisting of forutun-telling (astrology), exorcism, sorcery...
Little things make big difference.
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
I assume you can present a quote from Al-Ghazali to back up your claim?
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
-I assume you can present a quote..."
Where is your prove? I don't want English prove, I want to know what he said in his own language!
My evidence is that you have misinterpreted his words to suit your own agenda. Ancient mathematic (Ryazi) is not modern-mathematic (Aljebra). He was against (Ryazi) which consist of astrology, exorcism, sorcery and other unscientific field but not against pure science!! He advocated science, and himself was a scientist, mathematician, theologian, philosopher
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
1. Can you present a quote that supports your claims are can you not?
2. Algebra is just one of many branches of mathematics.
3. Al-Ghazali did not warn to study mathematics because of exorcisms or astrology or what else you make up but because of its proximity to philosophy. And by this he meant Greek influenced philosophy. He especially objected to Avicenna.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
Can you please provide the reference for :
1. Where he said mathematics is the work of Devil.
2. Where he objected to Avicenna.
3. Where he said fire doesn't burn.
4. Where he denounces science.
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
My 1: Can you present the quote requested or not?
Your 1: Please quote me making that claim. If you can not do that then please stop making up stuff about me.
Your 2: In the "Incoherence of the Philosophers"
Your 3. In the"Incoherence" he argues that the fire does not burn the cotton.
Your 4: I did not say he denounced science. I said he (a) warned to engage in some fields of science and (b) his take on causality was detrimental to science.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ghazzali had concerns some of which I guess are legitimate, but didn't encourage/condone behaviour that lead to the downfall of the intellectual empire? I get conflicting information on this :S I don't think that concerns that some scientists think they are becoming gods means that we should stop science, though it might follow if you have a fundie nutcase (lulz redundancy).
TurboDally 8 months ago
I totally disagree with your hypothesis. Islam progress in the field of art and science hampered by the Crusaders and Mogul butchery and burning of scientist, scholars, books, libraries... Muslim civilization in Spain rooted out completely, but Muslim progress revived again during Ottoman Empire, Berber Empire, Baburian, Gurgarian, Savawid, Mamluk... Taj Mahal, Suliemania Masjid are some of the example of Muslim progress in the field Art and Science in later period!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
I mentioned the crusaders and the Mongols, whose invasions were of course heavy blows. But they can not explain why there was no revival of science after that in the Islamic world.
Listing realms and architecture hardly shows scientific progress.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
At this age, even philosophy, psychology and study of spiritually are considered Science. If Architecture, Politic and Military Realms are not considered science, then what we call political science, scientific literature, sociology, science of color, structure engineering, acoustical engineering, geometric aljebra, geology, geography...? today everything is science, even carpet making!!
Zero doesn't exist, but without zero today's scientific advanced world will crumble to dust!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
I do not understand what you are trying to tell here.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-"Listing realms and architecture hardly shows scientific progress."
Do you not think that social science is not science? What about Structure engineering, political science, geometric Aljebra, military engineering, spatial science, acoustical, psychology...? Ottoman Empire was the supper power of its time. Baburian, Gurgarian, savwid were the great powers of the world. Ottoman Empire materialistically was the most advanced nation the world has even seen at its time!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
That the Ottoman Empire was influential at its time does not prove that it made advancements in science. Please try to come to the point.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-That the Ottoman Empire was influential at its time...
Ottoman Empire had one of the best military power, economic system, administration system and construction system. These mentioned fields require scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and politicians to keep the empire running. China is soon becoming supper power of the world, because of its military might, economy, art, propaganda, scientific inventions… you don't become supper power because of nothing.
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Many factors added up to the Ottoman Empire to be powerful at its time, I agree with that.
Now show me, please, that flourishing science was one of these factors.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
Well here is some of the Names of post-Mongol scientist: Ibrahim Muteferrika -- Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf -- Hasan Tahsini -- Osman Nuri Eralp -- İbrahim Hakkı Erzurumi -- Molla Şemseddin Fenari -- Gelenbevi Ismail Efendi -- Ulugh Beg -- Ghiyāth al-Dīn Jamshīd Masʾūd al-Kāshī -- Ibn al-Shatir -- Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī -- Ibn Khaldun -- Tipu Sultan -- Piri Reis -- Ibn Battuta -- Ibn al-Khatib --Ibn Khatima -- Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi -- Lagâri Hasan Çelebi -- ... many more
motowa01 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
Supper power means superior in technology, art, science, construction, propaganda, language, culture, live style...
Also have to know Al Gazalis (Revival of Religious Sciences) had tremendous influence on Nurulden Zangi, Salahuldin, Mamuluk Empire, Ottoman Empire and Babur Empire in India. War of information been waged to suppress the history of Ottomans and Muslims during colonization. Darwin even went to say that Turks are inferior race, they are like Chimpanzee...
motowa01 8 months ago
Comment removed
motowa01 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
-"I mentioned the crusaders and the Mongols, whose invasions were of course heavy blows."
Also Plz mention the destruction of Moorish civilization in Spain, Crusader 2- 7, Collonization and Slavery period, Napolean War, British, Tsar wars against Muslims, Soviet wars against Muslims, WW1 & 2 (destruction of Ottoman Empire), Soviet War, now USA plus 60 nations of world killing & plundering Muslims world physically, spiritually, psychologically and mentally (war on terror)!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
Europe has seen as many wars and probably more destructive ones than the Middle East. But this did not demolish the development of science in the Western World.
So wars alone are not suffivient as an explanation.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeremias1111
-Europe has seen as many wars and probably more destructive ones than the Middle East.
The winner always write the history. Europe wasn't colonized, on the contrary Muslim lands were divided among European nations, like our natural resources is stolen everyday, our scientists are stolen, also history, art, culture. Sadam Husain's Nuclear scientist gets beheaded by Mossad agent, Iranian Scientists get assassinated, Schools and Universities are bombed in Libya, history repeating.
motowa01 8 months ago
In modern vocabulary term: Gun don't kill, neither the bullet nor the hole...!!
motowa01 8 months ago
Comment removed
motowa01 8 months ago
From wikipedia;
"But only taking Al-Ghazali's final conclusions, while lacking a comparable education (and a reflection process) in the area, and as a result being unable to trace Al-Ghazali in his thought process, only exacerbates the probability of the misuse of Al-Ghazali's conclusions."
i.e. the inability of the people to really understand what Ghazali said has nothing to do with Islam and Islamic teaching.
Fussinated 9 months ago 2
Arabs had some good contribution in scientific field but there were many others who were greater in science. India under the Buddhist era flourished as a hub for education and science under the Mauryan era so did China . The major decline of arab power came when Mongols and Turks swept the arabian continent like a storm. Arabs took science couple of steps further but in my opinion many other civilizations have as well contributed before arabs.
GrandmasterTigerfist 9 months ago
Comment removed
GrandmasterTigerfist 9 months ago
Did al-Ghazali seriously dismiss the notion that fire causes burns because of the story of Abraham and the fire in the Koran?
SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!?!
every116 9 months ago
@every116
Yes, he uses this story as if it was empirical evidence that there is no causal necessity between fire and the burning of stuff.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 and the rest
that is why I disagree with some of what Al-Ghazali wrote about or discussed, and I prefer to read Ibn-Rushd.
By using the story of Abraham (Ibrahim) and the fire as proof of non-causality, he is denying something much bigger; denying the will of God "قلنا يا نار كوني بردا وسلاما على إبراهيم " "we have told the fire, be cold and safe upon Ibrahim" and it is in the Quraan btw (responding to the question in the video)
grendizerzero 8 months ago
@grendizerzero
I do not understand. How does Al-Ghazali deny the will of god?
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
al-ghazali states that causality is false, because in the story of Abraham, had causality been true, the fire would have burned Abraham REGARDLESS (of God will). But in truth, God willed the fire not to burn Abraham, thereby removing the effect of burning from the fire, that is very different from stating that causality is not true or applicable.
grendizerzero 8 months ago 2
@grendizerzero
I think you misunderstand Al-Ghazali here.
He objects to the claim that there is a necessary connection between the fire and the smouldering.
Instead of this -so he says- it is the habit of god to make something smoulder, when a fire comes close. And since it is his habit he can chose to act differently.
So Al-Ghazali does not deny the will of god, on the contrary: Every phenomenon in nature depends on his will directly.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
He is right that fire doesn't burn, neither the heat, nor electron... what burns and how?!! In his best well known book "The Revival of Religious Sciences" he even goes to say that not learning the knowledge of science is sin!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@motowa01
"He is right that fire doesn't burn, neither the heat, nor electron... what burns and how?!!"
I do not understand what you are trying to tell me.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 8-) 3. Of course, there is a need to interpret the Quran, Every generation, as well as every individual is responsible to find the truth. As long as you wontt claim that everyone and every generation is the same. then, you shouldn;t have any oppositoin that the Quran should be interpreted and re interpreted by each and every generations as well as each individual. >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
Comment removed
motowa01 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeremias1111
-"I do not understand what you are trying to tell me."
I mean it is more scientific if he really said fire is not the cause of burning!!
motowa01 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111
I was thinking long and hard how to discuss this, but I end up with ANOTHER problem that Al-Ghazali has, which is "Is God Old?" as in "long before everything, there was God." Well, another dilemma, because it means God is bound by time, but He is not, he has no past, no future, no present, He just Is.
Suffice it to say, I prefer how Ibn Rushd (Averroes explains it)
grendizerzero 8 months ago
@grendizerzero
So you say that god is not old because he does not change, right?
Let us see...
Does god have a will? Does he want to create things before he does? Is that will fullfilled and therefore no longer existent after he created?
If yes, then god does change.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
Islam is a religion of hate sadism and ignorance. The reason and free thinking is destroyed by some dogmas. Islam passed the zenith long time ago and could not reinvent itself, instead indoctrinated the believers to the bone.
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 "Islam is a religion of hate sadism and ignorance."
You say this but you talk about "Muslims" not Islam. FYI Muslims are fallible. and they don't represent Islam in any way. They merely try topracicte it as they know it.
You talk about reason and free thinking, yet, you can not even distinguish a teaching from the practitioner. What kind of rationality you are referring to is completely vauge.
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated Wait humans in general are not perfect and will always be fallacious. Any system have always a tendency over a period to degenerate/reinvent itself to the conditions. Are you white washing Islam and placing the whole default on Muslims. Then what does represent Islam (YOU) in the full light if not the Muslims and their actions.
The Muslim world is blaming others but never itself for the decline why so?
You can't leave in the glory of the past - this thinking is pathological.
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 "Are you white washing Islam and placing the whole default on Muslims."
For me to do this, first you have bring a legitimate criticism to ISLAM not Muslims.
"Then what does represent Islam (YOU) in the full light if not the Muslims and their actions."
Why, of course the Quran. How can you decide whether a Muslim is a Muslim in the first place other wise?
"The Muslim world is blaming others but never itself for the decline why so?"
You should talk to Muslims more.
Fussinated 9 months ago
Comment removed
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@Fussinated The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men and have the roots in Christianity and Judaism. It took a big chunk from the Abrahamic religions so to a degree i can understand the philosophic background.I was a hardened Christian, in my childhood and as teenager i did read Islamic,Jewish and Christian scriptures and I DO NOT CLAIM THAT I AM AN EXPERT.The Koran is not as peaceful as many thinks, but of course there is a lot of good things in it and it was...........
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 3-) "It took a big chunk from the Abrahamic religions so to a degree i can understand the philosophic background.I was a hardened Christian, in my childhood and as teenager i did read Islamic,Jewish and Christian scriptures and I DO NOT CLAIM THAT I AM AN EXPERT."
This is your first mistake, your Judeo Christian backgorund is an obstacle for you to understand Islam. Islam claims that, "they" lost their touch with the message, their are corrupt and they are in disarray. >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 4-) "The Koran is not as peaceful as many thinks,"
Yuo say this because of your Judeo-Christian background. Quran carries the most peaceful message in connection with universe and other facts. Why because it teaches to obtain the peace inside and does not let this peace be disturbed by outer influences. While Christian way of peace could only be achieved only if the surroundings are in peace, i.e. the inner peace can only be achieved by pacifying the outer world.
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated was....a god thing for 6th century "Arabia" that put the house in "order".But again it was not written by god but by Mohamed(he was illiterate others did it). Islam has a lot of violent passages and due to fact it was lay down in a quasi chronological way is open for different interpretations it force itself to be a guideline. The intellectual rigidity of Islam closes many doors and forces blind obedience therefor if added as a intrusive force can be very limiting and destructive.
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 5-) A lion who is killing his prey is in full peace and the prey is also in full peace, because they do what they are created for. Would you call a lion that does not hunt its prey? But in the hands of a Christian lion stops killing to be peaceful and loses its true nature. If you look around you will see this everywhere.
So with such backgorund you can't understand Islam, you have to make major change in your perspective, redefine many concepts which you think universally correct >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 6-) So, it is not about being an expert or not it is about perspective. If you don;t have it then you will fail to understand and relate to Islamic wisdom.
"But again it was not written by god but by Mohamed(he was illiterate others did it)."
You can't tell this for certain, you werent there as well as you already confessed your limited knowledge about Islam. So please apply common sense at least.
>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 7-) "Islam has a lot of violent passages and due to fact it was lay down in a quasi chronological way is open for different interpretations it force itself to be a guideline."
This is non-sequitur, the arrangement of the pessages of the Quran is not relevant to violance you think you are perceiving.
Also allowing slef defense by no means can be considered as violance. In war, offense is allowed as well. So don't mix up things due your distorted perspective. >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 8-) "The intellectual rigidity of Islam"
There is no such thing. If you want to talk about peole who practice Islam with a level of rigidity, that's fine. but you can't deduce this from the Quran and therefore you can not talk about such a thing as "rigidity of Islam."
"closes many doors and forces blind obedience therefor if added as a intrusive force can be very limiting and destructive."
I am a Muslim and you are far more limited than I am in your reasoning. >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 9-) You don't know Islam and you don't know about Muslims and you don't know history. I will tell you that today Muslims learn their religion from Christians, you will disagree. But tell me What would you teach if you teach Islam? Islam is violant, Islam is close minded etc. So Muslims are learning their faith from people such as yourself.
Islam is not violant. Islam is reasonable, Islam is rational etc. Without giving such arguments a chance, how c an you conclude about Muslims? *
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated Buddha of bamiyan valley, Honor Killings, stoning, degradation of women, Dutch producer killed in Islam name,20 girls burned in a school because could not go out-their where not veiled, intolerance toward OPEN critic. OVERARCHING totalitarian system that goes with Islam,expansionist tendencies ............
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 "...intolerance toward OPEN critic. OVERARCHING totalitarian system that goes with Islam ..."
Now honestly did you read what I wrote you at all. you are talking about MUSLIMS here NOT ISLAM.
1- Show that women should be forced to wear veils from the Qur'an
2- Show me that poeple could be killed other than self defense from the Qur'an
3- Show me that stoning is a prescribed punishment in Islam from the Qur'an
If you can't be ashemed of yourself that you speak lies about Islam.
Fussinated 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fussinated
Al Tauba 9:" 5 But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 "You can't leave in the glory of the past - this thinking is pathological."
This irrelevant as well as unethical. If you accuse Muslims unfairly being volant inherently, it is normal they will bring proof from the past to disprove this claim. If you are not aware of this situation you are ignorant to the subject as well.
are you ready to accept the Muslim contribution to the human civilization and start accepting them as humans without bias, and start communicating with them?
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated But i do know about the major achievements of the Muslim world in the PAST and i would't dare diminish it, but that is not your question either point you use it as a derogative matter.
You use it to justify and explain the current status quo in the Muslim world and to underline my ignorance and secularity. Bringing the ghosts and glory from the past leads to nowhere BUT it must be acknowledged and left to historians.
BOROZ28 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 "You use it to justify and explain the current status quo in the Muslim world and to underline my ignorance and secularity."
Nonsense. I say that you can criticise Islam or Muslims as much as you like, but if you mix them up. your criticism reflect things about your ignorance. For example, if you say that islam is doctrinated, this will be illogical and a lie. Islam or any teaching does not indoctrinate, but people do. So if Muslims indoctrinate complain about them. >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@BOROZ28 2-) but if you are going to talk about Islam tlak about its source. If you mnix Islam and Muslims, then the impllications are deeper than simply being ignorant.
"The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men The Quran was lay down in the 6th century by a single men and have the roots in Christianity and Judaism."
Quran already claims that its message confirm the previous mesengers. So, what you said does not explain anything. Youare being redundant. >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
The field of Islamic teaching is as diverse as the field of Islamic practise. There are many different factions within Islam and each does claim of course to represent the "true" Islam.
The reason for this is obvious: The quran is a text and in parts it is a rather poetic one. Understanding a text means to interprete it. So even with the best intentions people will come to different understandings.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
[cont.]
The space for interpretation will open up even more if you try to derive guidelines for life today from a historic text that dealt with a completely different society.
So your demand to isolate the teaching of Islam from the people who create that teaching by interpreting the quran (and the hadiths of course) and who try to live by it, just does not work.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "So your demand to isolate the teaching of Islam from the people who create that teaching by interpreting the quran (and the hadiths of course) and who try to live by it, just does not work."
Yes but you are missing one point, if the Quran wouldn't allow interpretation, and if it'd have been a book like a science book, this time you'd complaining that it's a dogmatic book.
People dogmatize this is a fact, but truth can't change either. So truth by nature is dogmatic. >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
You are wrong.
If the quran was a book like a science book it would present evidence and it would present arguments for its teachings.
The reader would be able to check the evidence and to evaluate the arguments.
If the evidence was clear and the arguments presented were sound a rational reader would accept the teachings. I certainly would.
But this is not what we find. As you agreed upon, the quran is a book open for interpretation with a broad range of possible understandings.
Jeremias1111 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "You are wrong."
I am?
"If the quran was a book like a science book it would present evidence and it would present arguments for its teachings."
,
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 2-) Qur'an is not like a science book. I didn't say it is.
I will explain this to you again. You claimed that Qur'an is interpreted differently and you brought a non-sequitur argument for this. I, instead of focusing your mistake tried to explain to you that if the Qur'an didn't alllow different interpretations, it would have been a dogma book. And if we are going to speak dogma science is closer to become dogmatic than Islam. >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 3-) This was your first clue that you didn;t understand what I said. So please take one step back and try to understand.
"The reader would be able to check the evidence and to evaluate the arguments."
This would be true if the Quran presented theories. Yet, Quran speaks about the truth and presents the truth without dogmatising it. This requires a lot of subtlety. For example in the Quran it is said that Allah does what He wants. You can reason and understand this >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
"in the Quran it is said that Allah does what He wants"
This is a statement that is not difficult to understand. And it also can be understood by nonbelievers, who of course would assess this as a hypothetical statement that depends on the existence of such a being called Allah.
A nonbeliever can evaluate the statement for possible internal or external contradictions. So the limitations set by nonbelief are marginal.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 20-) The issue always comes down to how health your reasoning is. Are you trying to force prove something, such as a Creator does not exist, by your scientific or nonscientific theories, or are you trying to be objective and find the truth. If you try to find the truth, the correct reasoning has rules for it, different than prejudiced way of reasoning rules.
-end.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
The only way to discern sound from unsound reasoning is by assessing the arguments presented.
Speculations about motifs or some kind of "health" will not do that job but are likely to poison the well.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "The only way to discern sound from unsound reasoning is by assessing the arguments presented. Speculations about motifs or some kind of "health" will not do that job but are likely to poison the well."
Of course, motives will effect the evaluating a reasoning, since they effect the angle of perception of the mind. As i already gave the example if you base your scientific theories on an idea that it should disprove the xistence of a creator, your results will be effected by it.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 4-) But how can you transmit if you conclude that this is a true statement to somone who does not even want accept the existence of a creator.
Now, I have been discussing atheists for a long long time. everything comes down to the existence of a creator. Most of them expect an evidence that is perceptible by five senses. But logic dictates that who ever created those five senses must be beyond those senses so that He could be aware of the perceptions as well. >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
"But logic dictates that who ever created those five senses must be beyond those senses so that He could be aware of the perceptions as well."
This is not at all logical. Humans have created a lot of different types of sensors: For heat, light, chemicals, pressure and what else. These sensors make no difference between other objects and humans, they can detect both.
Like this a creator could have created the human senses and be detectable by them.
Your argument falls flat.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 19-) In other words, if say sweet, how can we be sure that we refer to same thing, even after a lot of sensitive measuring devices?
"Your argument falls flat."
Your arguments reveal shollow perception as well as bias.
""in the Quran it is said that Allah does what He wants"
A nonbeliever can evaluate the statement for possible internal or external contradictions."
And this evaluation does not change the fact that he has no control over his Creator's choices.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
"And this evaluation does not change the fact that he has no control over his Creator's choices. "
That was not at all the point here. The question was if a nonbeliever would be able to assess the validity of a claim regarding a god he does not believe in.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "That was not at all the point here. The question was if a nonbeliever would be able to assess the validity of a claim regarding a god he does not believe in."
Yes that is the wholw point. What makes you think that the Creator is trying to persuade humans to his existence? While you keep on preaching not to be judgmental about others, you are becoming extremely judgmental when it comes to Creator and his acts. Why should he care about your denial of your self?
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
"In other words, if say sweet, how can we be sure that we refer to same thing, even after a lot of sensitive measuring devices?"
Sensors that are build in the same way will interact with the object in the same way. This is why they measure the same.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "Sensors that are build in the same way will interact with the object in the same way. This is why they measure the same."
They measure the sweetness but they can;t measure the sibjective differences in perception. Anyway this is not even the isseu, the issue is the sensory perception itself. There is no way to tell two person experience same sensory perceptions.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 5-) So, one can only find evidence to the Creator with a reasoning line.
So, the Quran simply states that there is one Creator. To prove the existence of the Creator the existence of the Quran is enough. Infinte regress is a dilusion because if you measure something there is a starting point to it, if you canmeasure time then it started sometime in the past somewhere. Big Bang for our universe. So, if we say that everything needs a creator >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 6-) So, this line of reasoning, if it was given by the Quran, would have been a dogma. This kind of reasoning also allows the individual such as myself, free from dogma as well. That is why in the name of Islam or in the name of defaming Islam people like me are aware of the insufficient reasonings. And we see that what people suffer as a dogmas usually comes from by those who declare an insufficient reasoning as unquestionable truth. So the reasoning above has limitations >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 7-) Yet, it can only be invalidated by a more elaborate reasoning. During my quest, I changed many reasonings due to their insufficiency by more elaborate ones. I also have seen so many people who fail to elaborate their reasoning but still hang on to them.
>>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 7-) I presented to you clear, sound reasoning line about the approach of the Islam, thye meaning of the Quran, and the existence of the Creator. It is not against any teaching in the Quran so it is purely Islamic. So, if you can observe your own reaction to this reasoning line. and how you react (or respond) to this reasoning line. If you think you can invalidate it iwth a more elborate reasoning ask yourself why do you want to do such a thing in the first place, truth or ego. >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
If i can invalidate your reasoning with a more elaborate one then your reasoning was not valid in the first place. You should be glad to find that out.
My motif for pointing out flaws in your reasoning is completely irrelevant for the existence of those flaws.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 17-) "If i can invalidate your reasoning with a more elaborate one then your reasoning was not valid in the first place. You should be glad to find that out."
So, Newton's laws of physics are not valid in the first place? But for slow moving objects they are quite valid and applicable, Their invalidty becomes an issue only for objects that moves much faster. You response does not match your claims about your science. You must be applying different standards in your appraoch >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 18-) "My motif for pointing out flaws in your reasoning is completely irrelevant for the existence of those flaws."
No, but it is relevant for you to imagine flaws when there is none.
"Like this a creator could have created the human senses and be detectable by them."
Then who is going to decide about the nature of sense? Say vision, how can the creator will decide that the subject senses is sensing the way he should be sensing? >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
"No, but it is relevant for you to imagine flaws when there is none."
And again: You can only make out such flaws by dealing with the arguments presented, not by dealing with the motifs of the proponent.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "And again: You can only make out such flaws by dealing with the arguments presented, not by dealing with the motifs of the proponent."
You can't because flaw is there due to a distortion in the angle of perception. If your arguments rely on the assumtion that scientific data reflects the truth, for example, this flaw will reflecton your evaluation, First you should relaize that sceintific data does not reflect the truth therfore you can't use it disprove a sound reasoning.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 8-) "If the evidence was clear and the arguments presented were sound a rational reader would accept the teachings. I certainly would."
In the Quran evidence is clear and arguments are sound, however, the question is how healthy does one's mind is working. An evidence or a proof could be given but how clear is the conscious to percieve it as evidence or as proof?
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
So if I do not agree with the quran, I am not healthy. This is an obvious attempt to immunize the quran from critique.
Actually the quran does not exceed at any point what I would expect from a seventh century merchant.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 13-) "So if I do not agree with the quran, I am not healthy. This is an obvious attempt to immunize the quran from critique."
No. But if your arguments are not healthy eventually you will disagree with the Quran. Remember Quran claims to reveal the truth and the truth is dogmatic.
"Actually the quran does not exceed at any point what I would expect from a seventh century merchant."
Actually, your prejudice exceeds your age and reaches universal levels. >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 9-) For example, Quran says that, if there were more than one Creators the universe would be in chaos since each creator will be delaing with his creation in a different manner.
Now, if you really want to understand what is said here you have to start serious thinking. If you approach this as some thoughts written 100s of years ego and no need to take it seriously, all you will get out of it will be that much. So, a seeming casual expression could tell you more than you think >
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
If there were several creators there would not necessarily be chaos. The creators might be in agreement, one might govern the others by force,...
The quran just makes an assertion that seems plausible at first glance but lacks necessity.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 14-) "If there were several creators there would not necessarily be chaos. The creators might be in agreement, one might govern the others by force,..."
No, this can't happen. For how long humans are trying to achieve such a harmony among each other? Among equals, especially if the yare creators, then it can't be achieved at all. >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
Your 14)
Even though humans do not achieve harmony this world is not in chaos. So your analogy does not work in this respect.
It does not work in another either: Hypothetical creators of worlds are probably quite different than humans. It could be easy for them to achieve something humans can not.
You are just presenting assertions without backing them up properly.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "It does not work in another either: Hypothetical creators of worlds are probably quite different than humans. It could be easy for them to achieve something humans can not."
If you are going totalk about a possibility you should at least based it on something. Hypothetical creators should fit in a dfinition of a creator you try to make your evaluations. Is your definition, mentions that a creator should or would in harmony with other creators? You are applying assertions not me
Fussinated 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeremias1111 15-) For example, let's assume that, two group of people started a war in the name of their creators between them and their creators are different, how is going to win and who will decide it. How about if electrons were created by one god and protons by another? No Quran is completely, absolutely right.
"The quran just makes an assertion that seems plausible at first glance but lacks necessity."
You evaluations need a wider perspective though >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
Why should those creators bother at all for the wars of humans? Why should they favour the humans that worship them?
And of course one could create the electron and the other the proton. If both are allknowing they both know what is to do. Otherwise they just have to communicate.
You are inventing problems where there are none.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 "Why should those creators bother at all for the wars of humans?"
If they don't their creation will be gone, will be destroyed.
"Why should they favour the humans that worship them?"
Favor? Who talked about favoring? However, each and very creator will be responsible about what they created. Favor? see this is your flaw in your perceptions you think that you already know hwat is communicated with you.
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 16-) When Quran says that your presumed to have a clear definition of the Creator. your response proves that you lack such calrity ( this also invalidates your other arguments about a creator btw) Because a creator is not about himself but also about what he created as well. He created conscious indpenedant beings and their interaction will eventually lead to chaos among their creators as well. Look even with one creator we are in such a cahotic state. >>
Fussinated 8 months ago
@Fussinated
Your 15)
Sure I do not have a clear concept of a creator. Logic allows for a range of hypothetical creators and there is no evidence to decide between those.
You on the other hand follow what you think is revelation. Your mind is no longer open for those possibilities, but you desperately try to find arguments for the quranic dogma of the one god.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
@Jeremias1111 10-) So what is said in that ayah (verse).
1-) Universe is not in chaos or chaotic.
2-) The Creator's involvement with universe is constant.
3-) And, of course, there is only one Creator.
It is not easy to see these -except no 3- right away. but it tells more than you think. It also gives a clue. if we think in modern times, this also tells us that there is a connection between the randomness we observe at the quantum level and macroscopic level >>
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 11-) implying that randomness (or chaos) is only in our observation not in the chain of events. And it is interesting that A. Einstein defined sceince exactly like this.
"But this is not what we find. As you agreed upon, the quran is a book open for interpretation with a broad range of possible understandings."
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Jeremias1111 Indeed, And because of this Islam is not dogmatic. The more we discover about the truth the more we gather around it. The openness to interpretation is not a shortcoming to the contrary it is an advantage.
But it also serves a purpose, too. the Quran says one day we will be judged, and our own self will be enough as a judge for ourselves. So, how we interpret the Quran will also determine that what kind of a judge we will be to ourselves. -end
Fussinated 9 months ago
@Fussinated
That is a lot to go through. It will take some time.
Your 2. "Qur'an is not like a science book. I didn't say it is."
And I did not claim that you said that the quran is a science book.
I explained why you were wrong when you prophecized that I would have complained about a scientific version of the quran as a being dogmatic.
Science is not dogmatic, because it is based on evidence and argumentation and can therefore be checked.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
Your 2. [cont. #1]
The quran does not provide sufficient evidence nor sound argumentation for its claims. Its claim to present truth is based on the asserted divine authorship.
This makes the quran a dogmatic text. You can not argue with an allknowing being. You can not say: "Well, you might say so, but I think you are wrong for the following reasons..."
Jeremias1111 8 months ago
Your 2. [cont. #2]
But you and me now have made one observation: Muslims interpretete the quran in many different ways.
How can we explain this? I see three points:
1. The above mentioned difference between science and revelation.
While a scientists might point out flaws in the works of Newton, Darwin or Einstein; Muslims can not argue against the quran. It is off limits because it is considered the word of the all-knowing god.
Jeremias1111 8 months ago