Life on Earth: Chance or Deliberate

Is it all the doing of a sectarian Allah who divides human beings, his creation, into muslims and kafirs and sends them to hell and heaven? Science is the never ending search for truth. It is based on rational thinking as opposed to the irrational blind faith. Allah is also developing with the time. Once he was the god of the Jews only, a `Semitic Illah`, the he became Christian and finally an Arabic-cum-Muslim Allah. He is now replacing the secular `Khuda` in Pakistan because perhaps Ghalib had protested against the latter:

``Kia woh namrood ki khudaai thi
bandgi mein mera bhalla nah hua``

Omar Phoenix, you are one ``confused scientist``. Read world renouned journals like Scientist, Nature and Discover etc and you will know how science works.

There will always be people like you who will say that the earth is flat, no matter what science says. Unfortunately no one can help you except yourself.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

urstruly reply#129

I do not think that religion and science are being superimposed. Religion has been the ancient science.Science is the most recent offshoot of religion.If you look at the history of religion you will see the hypothesis developing over a time period.Not one religion started overnight ,it took a lot of thought process to develop a system.Now these hypothesis were based on observation before they became believes.During the initial times when man was formulating laws of societies practice,obsevation and outcome were analyised and laws were altered appropriately.And what makes you think science is not authoritative,try to do something against the laws of science and you will fail badly.Science only recently started looking at the question of creation where as religion has been talking about it for more than 10,000 years.If your sight is clear than you will see as to why the outcomes have been different.If I were to place you 10,000 yrs back you no matter how hard you think will come up with answers similar to ancient people.In this scenrio you will appreciate that you had to think within the shadow of your observation.

You will also appreciate this observation ,that not all the listeners accepted the hypothesis immediately ,it only became acceptible with time.The same is true of this most recent approach of the thought process of man.300yrs ago galalio was labelled heretic when he said earth is not the center of the universe and it is round and not flat.Aristotle was aware that the different shapes of the moon were because of the earths shadow but he was not thinking in that direction even though earth has been round since its birth then why galalio discovered it and not arstotle or ptolemies,because they never thought of it.Their thoughts were relavant to their time and ours are relavant to ours.Galalio was made to change his views in order to save him from being BBQed.

The major difference between religion and science is that religion is Metaphysics and science is Physics.And who says that metaphysics is not related to physics.

Physical issuses like Gravity,Life,Death,Evolution,Birth,Age,Disease etc were all metaphysical issues which with time entered the domain of physics.This proves that the thought process always begins as metaphysics and then enter physics.

So you see they are not ``superimosition`` but mere dependents.

I have deep trouble with ``superimposing`` religious images on to the

scientific ones. Unfortunately, all of the religions including allegedly

true ones, are dogmatic in nature. They pivot around a set of beleifs.

Whereas the knowldge of science is based fundamentally on our five senses

and all those devices that enhance these senses.

The real dilema is that religions are dogmatic in their nature on one hand

and reality as conceived by scientific knowledge is based on your

perception.

Where the ``hell`` do we go?

Any comments????

SR reply#123

``If God created the universe,then He must be All Powerful.So there is Absolutely nothing which is beyond His power,Right?

Okay,then does this all powerful God have the power to create something which he is incapable of destroying?

sorry,you did not request an answer but this question is too tempting. I have got to say in order to get it out.

The answer is that ``He already has``.

Do you remember the Quranic verses where Allah in response to challenges offered by the unbelievers to mohd(pbuh)as to why not He bring forth the destruction He warns them of,the response was that He has the power to do it but He will not do it.

He most certainly is capable of doing it but most certainly not willing to do it.Why Not.Every thing which has been created comes with an inherent self detruct mechanism according to the laws of this universe.Infact destruction follows creation otherwise laws wont work.That means whosoever is the creater is Himself very tightly bounded by the laws set forth to create.These laws dictate that if this is to happen then the capability should be restricted by the unwillingness.Imagine if only in response to those challenges He were to touch nothing in the universe but only gravity which no body could see

those challengers would have flied out into the universe but He did`nt and why not He could have easily done.I think the answer is that since He Himself is bounded by the laws of His own creation that changing only one costant would disrupt the whole thing.Imagine if He would have

done it then we all would not be here.

Here the incapability has been masked by the unwillingness because each law depend on the relavance of the other and to touch one means starting a chain reaction.

The verse continues by telling them to wait,for it is going to happen in time as He promised.Who else then the creater be more aware of the inherent nature of His own creation.He really does not have to do the dirty job of destroying every thing as it is bound to happen according to the laws which He Himself cannot break.

Qadeer:#124 to 126

Your posts were a very valuable addition upon this `eternal` topic.I learned a few things from them.

I do not understand what you mean when you say that you have been a religious person yourself.In my book any person with an enquiring mind who does not abandon the base,unless firmly sure what lies across, is definitely a religious person.In fact he continues to be a religious person at the other end.The characteristic comes with the territory.In urdu poetry this is called ``Ghum``(sorrow of not finding the Beloved).

The creation explanation as reported in the Quraan is definitely not an ``innovation``.It existed even before the other scriptures. it.You have thus actually reinforced the `Truth` rather than trivialising it.I thank you for that and re-state this so that those on teeter-totters may not lose balance.

Omarpheonix is a shining star of our younger generation.He has the rare blend of a seeker of knowledge and the fiery rage of the accomplisher.I wish him well in life and may he continue to seek guidance & advice from people like you.

``Ishque hai ummul kitaab,aql hai ibnul kitab``

A L L A MA IQBAL.

Zeal(passion) creates books,intellectualism is merely an offspring of such books.

(There is a world of a difference to be behind a steering wheel and that of reading the odometer ensconsed in the passengers` seat).



Esp. for OMARPHOENIX.

Be thou not be sad O sweet bird

Be thou not lose hope in your heart

Be not be sad sweet bird,be not be sad.

Look! the breezy quench-laden clouds are here

& they have brought a message for you

Make an effort,push hard,& fly away with the bird-cage.

And rush to the home of the beloved.

[``how to `carry` the cage``?]

Rise & set the cage on fire,reduce it to ashes and burn your wings alongwith it

The ashes like a tornado will then swiftly transport you to where you truly belong.

O sweet bird sad you be not.

A geet sung by K.L.Saigal

(translation: mine)

Phoenix is QUQNAS in urdu.The bird that rises from the ashes.

(it is not extinct,if interested I can tell you by what name it is known today)



get more muslims on Chowk



wassalaam.

Omarphenix I cant recall the reply # in which you expressed your frustration that why not they come out and say it outright that Allah or God created the universe with the BigBang......etc.

I dont think that it is right to prescribe the idea of BigBang as ``The Explanation`` as to how the universe must have been born.

Stephin Hawkings who popularised the theory of BigBang is now coming out with another theory in which there is no requirement of God. This new theory is the concept of ``Imaginary Time``.This concept is plotted vertically along the horizontal axis of actual time and space which removes the initial point from the funnel shaped time ,space cone very effectively and leads to conclude that it just was there ,as there is no starting point in a circle similarly according to ``Imaginary Time `` concept there is no starting point of the universe.

There is also a very valid argument against the Big Bang theory ,that it never happened.Because there are galaxies in the universe which are so huge that the time required to expand from one point of the galaxy to the other is so much that these galaxies are appearing older than Big Bang.

Now how can a universe have many galaxies older than its own age.

So you see there are many reasons that we should hold ourselves .What Allah or God means He only knows ,but if we were to break that code then we have to be patient.

Somebody also put up an argument that humans have broken the code of creation by clonning sheep and mammoth.I really dont think that it is true.Taking the parts of toyota corolla and putting them together does not mean that you can manufacture it but yes you can assemble it.Similar is the situation here,man has been unable to manufacture DNA or ATOM to come up with their own product ,they can take an existing product and use it to assemble a new product .

I would consider that the code has been broken when man could come up with a creation which has not existed before in the universe,be it a molecule of Atom or a molecule of DNA.

SR #81&123

``Logic cannot be applied to the concept of God``

SR I think that logic here is not being applied to the ``concept of God`` but to the workabouts of His Creation. I agree with you in the above quoted sentence.You here speak like a true muslim, as the biography of ib-n-ishaq tells us when Mohd(pbuh) assended for Mirage they came to a point where archangle would not go ,upon questioning he replied that there is no Knowledge beyond it and since he was Knowledgable(capable of being known) therefore was not allowed beyond that point.This story which was told by Mohd (pbuh) to his followers is exactly saying what you are saying.It clearly says that He is unknowable but his creation upto that point where the unknowable begins is all knowable.And I think that logic is the only key to arrive at that knowledge.

omarphoenix reply #86

Omar your article was a pleasure reading.I am a scientist myself and have been a religious man before.This combination makes you wonder whether you want to or not.

I want to comment on one of your paragraph from your reply #86.You believe in the divinity of Quran and not in Bible or Torah because the man changed them.

Many folks say that but my mind gets mixed up here.I agree that Quran says that too but I am not sure whether that counts to all of both texts.

Well the theory of creation first appeared in Torah and Quran backs it up.According to scholars of Torah that it was written by men under inspiration.I disagree with that too because this same theory of creation first appeared in Asyrian methology.Asyrians who enslaved jews after the first diaspora.Interestingly the theory appears after the diaspora and not before it.Torah also tells story of Moses,Moses himself did not compile the story it was latter written by these inspired men.Moses himself was an Egyptian who took asyrian theory of creation and not the egyptian version which was completely different.Qurans stance on history is almost the same as in Torah and Bible.Most of these were written by ordinary men and not the prophets.So if the Quran is agreeing on the historical facts written by ordinary men then they must be divine also.The story of Noah and Moses are similar to the stories of Utnapishtum and sargon the great from the babylonian (asyrian text recovered from asurbanipals library in iraq early last century)text.

I want to say more but I think this should give you an idea what should be the boundries of divine text.

arun gupta #97

``Observe that in Bucaille`s book there is not a single prediction of any physical fact which is unknown up to now,but which could be tested against observation and experimentation in the future``

Arun are you talking about his book or are referring to Quran as his book has done so.

re: shankar #118

addressing `Frangi Kus`

[``... you revealed your true colors. The more you open your mouth, the more evident it is how hopelessly frustrated, alienated ,narrow minded & ignorant you are.

You live in farangi land & hate everything about them. You eat their food ,drink their water & deposit your dung on their land (both from your mouth & the other end). Do the world a favor & return to your kind...``]

Amen !! You speak for many. The likes of Mr. Kus, (or should we get informal and just call him Farangi?) are always quick to bite the hand that feeds them. Very often such people are simply frustrated because of their personal failures in life. I don`t know if our Mr. Kus lives in farangi lands or has returned because he couldn`t `make it` in the west. And now its just a manifestation of his `sour grapes` syndrome that we have to suffer through with his ignorant rubbish. The best response to his kind is silence. I don`t read his postings past the point where he starts being a bigot. Unfortunately, 90 percent of the time he writes something that puts me off and I simply skip to the next posting.

re: qadeer sahib,

If God created the Universe, then He must be ALL Powerful. So there is ABSOLUTELY nothing which is BEYOND His Power, Right?

Okay, then does this All Powerful God have the power to create something which he is incapable of destroying?

(Please, no need to reply, this is a rhetorical question. Just for fun. The point being that logic cannot be applied to the concept of God as detailed in one of my earlier postings.)

...SR

Shankar You are right.

But let me point out, the flaw in your argument.

First most of deaths occured in WW1 and WW2, which were not fought on the basis of religion.

2nd although, you are right that wars are fought in the name of religion.

But it is only a use of religion to gather people under one flag. The real reason is either domination of other group or resistance to other group.

There is no such thing as universal, it is the economic domination which plays a role.

America which has been built up on slavery is now condemning child labor.

Child labor although not justified in a poor nation like us is an extra hand for the person sending his child for work, rather than rot on street. Until and unless the whole nation is guaranteed a universal education and universal feeding (more important then education)and universal job what is the use of applying a criteria which is good for Industrialized nation.

The same can be said regarding things needing technology and safety.

Although unsafe products cannot be justified, but small nations cannot compete in resources and research and will be left behind to be out of race. So it is a recipe for subjugation. So on and so on.

And finally related to your point. If the subjugation of third world is complete, then all wars and coersion will be done not in the name of religion but some supposedly high ideals and in other instances naked barbarism without justification. i.e might is right.

shankar

thanks for responding

I respect your understandings and believes and I am ashamed on my brother FK`s remarks also.I thank my God for whoever I am and whatever time I will get on the face of this earth no matter how short it will be.I am also thankful to Him for this differance for it makes my conscience(rooh or spirit) grow.We should thank the other for being different not penalize him.

qadeer

{{Farangi kush thinks that he is in the right path, shankar thinks that he is}}

Please do not misunderstand me. My response was only to FK`s insulting remarks. He came to the distorted conclusion that since hindus didnt challenge his crap, his conclusions were right.

If you want my opinion on God & religion, here are my 2 cents. The core philosophy of every religion is identical. However, our human nature is such that we have taken something as sacred as religion & used it to hate our fellow human being. Human beings have hated, killed, raped & looted in the name of religion more than any other cause in the world.

I havent figured out who I`m more disillusioned with--human nature or religion. Sometimes I feel that the human race would be much better off if it abandoned all religions & just believed in God without a religious denomination.

Farangi kush thinks that he is in the right path, shankar thinks that he is ,well every body who have contributed to this discussion think the same ,that he or she is holding the right path.For Gods sake stop this game and tell me the truth now ,which one of you is telling the truth.It appears that all of you were born into what ever your believes are.Not one of you chose that path,then if this is so then tell me what is that you did that without asking you ,God or any Creater you believe in,gave you the slot to the right path by giving you birth within a certain belief.And what wrong the other did that he or she was thrown in a wrong slot,Obviously any person in their right mind would not choose the wrong path if the choice was given.

So in other words all of you are defending your inheritance and not the truth.

Farangi kush you appear most certain of them all

if you were born Hindu you would have sounded as certain as you do now.

Please I dont want to know about what you all inherited.Get out of this and start thinking right. If there truly is a God you should ask Him that why He gave you the righteous path and forsake the other fellow.

Farangi Kush

You said

{{Go back to the dung-urine board.Even hindus do not have the courage to deny these facts.So that is NOT bad language.The whole idea was to let lot of our naive,simple minded Pakistani MUSLIMS(the proud kind,practising kind) to beware of the Indian propaganda machinery working overtime on chowk).}}

The reason that hindus like me did not respond to your above filth was not ``courage`` but a deep sense of disappointment. I thought you were somebody I could respect even though I did`nt agree with your views. Alas, you revealed your true colors. The more you open your mouth, the more evident it is how hopelessly frustrated, alienated ,narrow minded & ignorant you are.

You live in farangi land & hate everything about them. You eat their food ,drink their water & deposit your dung on their land (both from your mouth & the other end). Do the world a favor & return to your kind in Pakistan. I take that back, go to your taleban friends in Afganistan. Even many Pakistani posters are`nt buying your crap.

It took a lot of my time to read through all of the replies to the article.One thing which is not very hard to notice is that how easily one gets carried away when it comes to comparision between religion and science.

I am a physician myself,so I am a part of the scientific community.I feel as if I am watching a game,and hence can appreciate who is overlooking what.

I have been to both extremes(religion and atheisim).I think one does not need to be a part of a specific religion in order to perceive the logic.There are many issues where science and religion begin to speak the same language but we fail to connect them for whatever reason.

In order for me to point to one such issue I will have to begin with a question .

Question. Is God a Scientist ?

Answer. I dont think so.Otherwise we would be

receiving revelations in scientific

language where He would point out to you that he created the universe from Atom and you or life from DNA.

Are you not confused now when you are told that you or the universe were created out of nothing.

I think the scientist have especially had hard time understanding that because DNA or Atom were not mentioned.But then why was it so hard to make a connection.Can you see DNA or Atom.What you cannot see, does it exist? Every one who is from the 20th century knows that DNA and Atom even though we cannot see either exist and are actually the basic unit of life and the universe respectively.Even in 21st century we cannot see either .We can only perceive the presence but still cannot see them even with the most powerfull of the equipment.Our experimental outcomes tell us that it is so but our eyes still cannot image it.

It took thousands of years to define that ``NOTHING`` into ATOM and DNA.So in my mind I know that if I were to be in that place where no

knowledge can exist as pointed out by archangle to Mohd(pbuh)on his journey(mirage),I would most certainly put forward the concept of ``NOTHING``.To me the basic unit of the universe is truly ``Nothing``.

So far the religions which subscribe to the theory of creation from nothing have been correct. The science has proven so but failed to understand it in the metaphysical language.

would love to continue.

temporal:#115

Please do not avoid the real subject:the public humilty you are getting for acting as the --- in the manger.

If you consider this place for socialising but others have a more important purpose.

I cannot help you expiate your guilt about your itch to deconstruct someone`s creative efforts.Your kind(tweed coats with shoulder patches grammar types like Mr.Chips are in Retirement or Nursing homes;not useful anymore with their `grammar`.English is no longer the language of the British).



wassalaam AND Allah Hafiz

F--Kush #110:

You are still in denial. And you continue to delude yourself and others by misleading. I will not pursue this for now.

You have been made aware that what is written in this public medium can be picked up and thrown back at the writer’s face to expose the double-speak.

So please exercise care.

fi amanullah

t

In reply to #104 (anarayan)

I would like to point out that the big-bang does`nt explain the origin of the universe - but merely the reason for the shape it is in today. One can always ask what was there before the big-bang. And unless `Time` is redefined, this becomes an everlasting question.

Comment : It is possible that there was no ``before`` the big bang. The definitive answer awaits a successful grand unified theory.

Science provides a description of nature in terms of a (hopefully few) concepts. Whenever the description is successful, one can ask ``why``, e.g., why is the sky blue ? (explained in terms of the properties of light). But one can ask ``Why are there photons ?`` and those why`s cannot be answered. Really, science never really answers ``why``, it answers ``how``. ``How does it come about that the sky is blue ?`` ``How does it come about that the sky shines in a uniform 3K radiation ?``

Regarding :

If anybody is interested, I can provide the ancient Indian cosmogical view of the universe which has astounded the likes of Carl Sagan (see volume 10, COSMOS from your local library).

I have been tempted myself to provide a quote of a translation of one of the Pauranic stories about cosmology.

* * * *

Somebody else asked about how is it that the Almighty made such a miserable world ?

One answer which was told to me this weekend had two elements to the answer. Briefly :

1. We have free will (and so bear responsibility).

2. In the eyes of God, death is not a terrible thing. Only we mortals are terrified of it.

-arun gupta

PM:

Human my friend human.We are all human.

We make promises--then break them,but we also remind each other that it is not good to do so.(I do not know the Rationality for it,I just accept it as part of Human behaviour).

We are also capable of remorse.Many times we realise that we did not even know why we were doing something.(Scientists are us)---I do not try to blow my brain-fuses to find Rationality in it.(I just accept it as part of human behaviour)

I am also capable of infringing on violation of certain tenets of my professed beliefs AND at the same time insisting that others be absolutely virtuous.(I just accept it as part of Human behaviour).

This,my acceptance of the fact,that a lot of things are given and I have no say in them nor it is my role to alter them,can also be called submission to the WILL of Allah.I intend to do that simply because I profit by it(If one has to really be convinced by rationality).It saves a lot of bytes on my hard disc,which I always try to use for better pursuits.

This complete surrender to the will of Allah is also called Islam.

May Allah give me the courage to hold on ever more steadfastly to it.



wassalaam

re. Anarayan (#104)

Thanks for the reference to Sagan`s work. I never cease to be amazed at the astounding relevance of the ancient wisdom of the Eastern traditions of Hinduism, Taoism and Zen, to Modern Physics -- a subject covered at length in Fritjof Capra`s ``The Tao of Physics``. Indeed, this is compelling evidence that there are more ways to knowledge than science - or (Western) Religion, for that matter - limit us to.

Farangi_Kush: Is Anarayan`s ``great civilization`` the same ``cow dung-eating, urine-drinking, caste-ridden, wife-buring low-life`` excuse for a religion you sometimes refer to? ...Just wanted to be sure. Oh, and it`s mighty convenient of you to use inclusive talk (``our civilization``) when it suits your agenda, isn`t it! Let`s not kid ourselves, the Farangi missionary schools in India introduced a science curriculum the foundations of which were laid, inter alia, by the

great Muslim scientists of the Dark and Midlle Ages. Athiesm was never tolerated, let alone taught.

And don`t delude yourself into thinking that the ancient Eastern (NOT Middle Eastern) religious modes of knowledge-attainment has anything in common with Islamic or Christian scriptural `revelation` or `history`. If anything, there were akin to sufism and mysticism, which have always been looked upon as somwwaht heretical by their main streams.

Farangi_Kush:

re. ``PM:A little emotionalism does no harm. I am glad you a capable of it too.``

F_K, I don`t think the validity of emotionalism was ever up for debate, just the degree to which it should govern our opinions and actions. You seem to reject one form of extremism (`Farangi` rationalism) only to whole-heartedly espouse it`s opposite. In your world, man is indeed nothing but a savage beast capable of `atuhtentically` being informed only by his instincts and passions. Bravo!

That may be your prerogative. But if you have any sense of objective morality at all, you should recognize (INTUIT!) that one cannot-- to cite but one example amongst many-- extoll music, poetry and passion and then end a post with the kalma. Or are you not familiar with the hadith that discourages music for it`s propensity to arouse the irrational passions?

Now relax-- I`ve brought the Prophet into this not to ridicule him (I happen to agree whole-heartedly here with his assessment, (and- before him- Plato`s)), but to point out the untenablity of your positions. If this `hit` you on a purely intuitive, or even emotional level, so much the better!

If you should choose to reject this as just another case of rabid rationality at work, well, there is nothing else I have to say, except, good luck to you as you drag mankind back to the jungle with you. (or try to, anyway)

regards,

PM

temporal:

Please understand that the person concerned has himself apologised to me.Moreover,none of the cullings you have produced were in response to any of your interacts.In fact I have not inter-acted with you except two or three times and none of them were on the boards mentioned by you.

Those who were involved are perhaps quite capable of responding or choosing not to respond.Did anybody ask you to take upon this role or is it just your habit of giving unsolicited opinion,critique and fancying yourself of knowing some english.Now I have started wondering whether you can even read it.

Go back to the dung-urine board.Even hindus do not have the courage to deny these facts.So that is NOT bad language.The whole idea was to let lot of our naive,simple minded Pakistani MUSLIMS(the proud kind,practising kind) to beware of the Indian propaganda machinery working overtime on chowk).You yourself should pay attention to this,because you & your kind are the most vulnerable ones(I remember you gloating about marching `fundos` and finishing them off in your typical asinine fantasies which manage to find room in your tiny brain).

If you do not have something worthwhile to contribute on the important subject on this present board then please go elsewhere and continue your kaffee-klatch of `discussions` with your inter-act socialites.

I intend to ignore you because you are just feeling miserable after getting admonished by at least two recently for being the unsolicited reviewer & critic & ``grammarian``.

Relax! you will be ok in a few days.

wassalaam.

Apologies re. the previous post to Zeemax. Wrong board.

t

Zeemax #107:

If you manage to occupy that jump seat on the A-310 you are invited to the pow-wow in August. Accomodation provided. BYOS.

rgds

t

F--Kush #103:

You sounded hurt. Truth is known to cause this. It is a measure of one’s humility and greatness that they ignore the hurt or pain and reflect upon the truth.

Instead you retort in defiance. This knee jerk reaction is not needed. You should have been reflective if not remorseful.

My observations were in quotes. Yours were not.

Forget the world wide web, even here at the Chowk, all comments are in the public domain. There are other single issue or single agenda interacters here and any regular visitor can spot them . And subjectively, however ingratiating or misplaced their comments maybe they are at the least ‘consistent’.

By talking from both sides of your mouth your are neither consistent nor effective. And you compound it by pontificating, belabouring, sermonising, and scolding. Surely, you must be aware of the excrement (dung by another name?) that spews forth occasionally from your keyboard

This is a free world, where you have the freedom to insert foreign objects in other people’s orifices. Only you should spare us the mock surprise, indignation, pain and hurt when others repay you in kind, with interest, pardon the pun.

Yes, language and its proper usage has been a long held interest. Let me put your concerns to rest. No, I do not or critique interactions: only published pieces. At the same time I will encourage you and others to ‘proof-read’ your submissions before hitting the enter key.

AND NOW TO SPECIFICS

My most basic assertion was “One must avoid talking from both sides of the mouth.”

In support, I presented a random sampling of eleven quotes from different boards spread over several days. Let me assure you, I could have done a more ‘scientific’ study and gone back to Chowk archives and picked up one board for each of the past twelve months, and culled the quotes from there with identical results. And no I am not an “ umpire,arbitrator,or reviewer ,and a self-appointed guardian of grammar.”--- just a minor Chowk poet.

You have deliberately misled others when you say, “....may I remind you to read my post on THAT (my Caps) board where I explained the reason for such stance was taken by me and then It WAS AGREED(my Caps again) that the purpose of that was served and the chapter closed.Everyone abided by that.” Your quotes were not from one board. They were a random sampling.

Who agreed? What process was applied? Chapter closed? Who decides? How is it done? Of course, pardon my ignorance of such matters. The legendary F–Kush, initiates discussions, moderates and guides it, and closes it. Right?

Further you declare, “......No thanks I do not want to know your comments or #s of those anymore.They are now stale & therefore cannot be refreshing.” First a careful re-read of my post #102 is in order. I did not volunteer or offer in any way shape or form to comments on your quotes. I merely offered to provide the post numbers. And what is this about your quotes being stale and not refreshing any more? Is that your way of disowning them? Or are you shrugging them off because you have changed your views? Or have they outlived their usefulness?

If you continue this sophistic approach of double talking --- of double standards, your fallacies will continuously offer a source of amusement and occasionally invite comments from detractors. One cannot type in “THE END” and wish these things away.

Please apply your talent in a consistent, meaningful and positive way . This approach will enrich us all.

fi amanullah,


temporal

anarayan:#104

Please do enlighten us with such `ancient` knowledge.Is it not a curse upon us that we become aware of them only after becoming farangi-robots.

I believe such knowledge be acquired by those from the grand civilisations alongwith the `modern` one.That is why a great emphasis be place upon learning of scriptures & languages other than english.

The farangi tried to snatch us away from our cultural & religious ancestory and led us to believe that we are orphan.We are all discovering now that our culture & religion is alive albeit emaciated by these thugs.

Laanat bur Ba Ba Blacksheep & missionary schools(read:farangi madressas).



Here is a gem for all to admire but it is especially for the attention of Omarphoenix.

(Author`s name witheld but will be given after a few inter-acts.Hint:Lived during last millenium)

Low in the earth

I lived in the realms of ore and stone;

And then I smiled in many tinted flowers;

Then roving with the wild and wandering hours,

O`er earth and air and ocean`s zone,

In a new birth,

I dived and flew,

And crept and ran,

And all the secret of my essence drew

Within a form that brought all to view--

And lo,a man!

And then my goal

Beyond the clouds,beyond the sky,

In realms where none may change or die--

In angel form;and then away

Beyond the bounds of night and day,

And Life and Death,unseen or seen

Where all that is hath ever been,

A one and whole.



PM:A little emotionalism does no harm.I am glad you a capable of it too.Now please do not ruin it by giving me reasons for it.

This yearning of the flute for the reed will continue.We do not know why,but we can all concur that it is there--it is a fact.Some of us do this yearning in a lab,some in the panoramas and some in the never ending bewilderment and always asking WHY? but yearn we do and that it all most of us `commoners` are gnostics of.

SR:

Bhoar suhanee chanchal balak

Larkaee dikhlaay,

Haath sey baitha gharhay khilonay,

Paoon sey thorath Jaey

Voh tho hai ik chanchal balak

thoo tho naheen nadaan

aap banaay aap bighaaray

yeh naheen theree shaan.

Aisa kyun,Phir aisa kyun.

(if anyone wants explanation of this I`ll be happy to give it)



wassalaam

SR (#99)

``I couldn`t ever understand how The Benevolent and Merciful Almighty could have created a world so full of cruelty, injustice and misery? How could He have allowed the abominations of this world in His Omnipotence, let pass in His Omniscience that men should become worst than beasts, worse than all that crawls and creeps, and that the breath He blew in Adam`s nostrils should become the stench of the dragons. This I could never understand.. Thank you for clearing it up for me.``

No, no, no. I have indeed led you into darkness. May my soul be forever damned for this unforgiveable transgression.

With consummate humility, may I suggest that, since being shown the light by post #101, I have indeed found a way to accept inherent contradictions like the one above, as well as evolionsim vs. creationsim. You see, I have seen the incredible utility of that device referred to as PARADOX by Farangi-Kush. I now feel I have attained Nirvana - no more questions, no more doubts, no need to search painstakingly for objective truth (that will only further `confuse` you)-- JUST ACCEPT PARADOX!

Oye, temporal, I should hope you see the futility of your exercise in post #102. You see, my friend, there are some things you will never know, never be able to see, as long as you try to be `reason`able. There is indeed no hypocrisy, or self-contradiction in the quotes you reproduce of our friend-- just PARADOX. And that is perfectly acceptable!

regards from a AN INTRACTABLE RATIONALIST (Don`t be confused-- this is also a PARADOX, you see),

PM

FARANGI_KUSH, macgupta, SR and others,

I would like to point out that the big-bang does`nt explain the origin of the universe - but merely the reason for the shape it is in today. One can always ask what was there before the big-bang. And unless `Time` is redefined, this becomes an everlasting question.

If anybody is interested, I can provide the ancient Indian cosmogical view of the universe which has astounded the likes of Carl Sagan (see volume 10, COSMOS from your local library).

-AN

temporal:#102

You really go to great lengths to act as an umpire,arbitrator,or reviewer ,and a self-appointed guardian of grammar.

In this scribes case----Please refrain,unless specifically requested to do so.This kind of admonishment was served upon you by someone else too just last week.I am not aware of any previous ones--if any.

Still,to close this subject,may I remind you to read my post on that board where I explained the reason for such stance was taken by me and then It was agreed that the purpose of that was served and the chapter closed.Everyone abided by that.Now out of the wood works you appear and again try to act as Chowkidar,when nobody really appointed you to this post(!).Well,some creatures are known to do that on their own,I hope you are not one of them.Please shed off this self-donned mantle of a grammar watch-...!

Thanks for letting me know about my refreshing viewpoints now.No thanks I do not want to know your comments or #s of those anymore.They are now stale & therefore cannot be refreshing.

I hope this would draw a final curtain to the argument which was really related to another board.



THE END



wassalaam.

Mr. F-Kush:

Peace:

Recently you wrote “When somebody starts attacking me personally and resort to calling names & abusive words.........I`ll not educate him.” If you look at the mast of Chowk, the motto is “At Chowk all are welcome to read, write, and think.” Teaching is not part of the quotient.

In an ideal world all should act responsibly. Obviously, this is not the case most of the time. Therefore, we should find ways to constantly remind ourselves to act responsibly. The average Chowk reader is far more intelligent than perhaps given credit for.

One must avoid talking from both sides of the mouth. It helps everyone if one is consistent. (And grammatical -- me pet peeve.)

Below are some recent sprinklings of your thoughts, re-presented here in a sincere effort so that we may all learn from such sparkling gems. I hope you will not mind this, and ponder over the image one would get of you from your posts. I am sure deep down you are a decent person. Is this how you would want to jolt the readers? Perhaps with your callousness (“---- Sometimes a little ruthless visage is presented to bring sense into the buffoon`s brains.”) you maybe losing any goodwill that you might have acquired with your refreshingly different perception on some issues. (Reference numbers of these interacts will be gladly supplied if you so desire.)

----- “You should also specialise in jantries & kundlees.A brand of diet-cowurine as a national drink & cowdung burgers could bring you revenues & lift you out of your chamaar existence in the comity of nations.You wouldn`t be reading this if you were not sadistic enough to be itching for muslim company.”

-----``PS:Fellow Pakistanis.Since in Pakistan we do not really want to know what hinduism is please understand at least this:(this shuts up a lot of hindus in secularist skin)They eat cow-dung & drink cow/bull urine.”

-----``Please keep a cocked hindu eye open....& vent the dhotees leeside.``

----- “Rehan:a good piece but garishly marred by the profanity.I wish you had not used it on this forum.We must stay different/decent;THAT should be our hallmark.Everything farangi is not good!!!”

----- “Since when has it become your business to know about our plans for bengalee muslims.Maybe they are an asset for us being where they are. (when someone chided you about the plight of stranded BIHARI Muslims in Bangladesh.)”

----- “And please do not call the true hindu practitioners as those from the bush---some of them might be reading this.I can trust them more than a socialist/secularist anytime.”

----- “As I said before:Hindus must learn to behave in the generous company of Pakistani Muslims.They should be grateful for being given this privilege.”

----- “Religion should always be the whip to keep the scientist in line(A Galileo never happened under Islamic Shariah!!)” (And later you compound it by saying..)

----- “I never said to whip scientists in the literal sense. All I meant was that the scientists need to be shepherded,or reined by religious scholars. “ (and then followed by this leap in logic..)

----- “Mullahs or anybody like those with Dr.titles,Congressmen,Lawyers,or intellectual-types are equally competent or incompetent.”


With statements like above it is little wonder you would invite comments like:

-----``Regarding #186 and other myriad blabbering posts by F_K:: And I thought despite his silly name, F_K was an intelligent but closeminded obscurantist of the Taliban school. Never knew, he was such a demented bigot. He started off a reasoned contrarian but seems like will end up as schizophrenic, prevaricating, and hateful maniac. Maybe age is taking its toll in high speed. Or may I am bad judge of personalities.``

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is only befitting that I end this litany of quotes with another from you---”Ya Allah!Please forgive me if I erred by either over-simplifying the matter or tried to be pedantic & `scholarly` about it.”

Yours in peace,

temporal

SR:#100

Confused you ought to be!

First you agree that one can be a fundamentalist scientist and a fundamentalist muslim but then you try to put a spin on it by trying to define religious belief.

Let me try to help you.Let us call religious belief that process of acquiring knowledge which is not-scientific.

Now can we(most of us humans) live with paradoxes?and happily to boot.You know yourself that we certainly can.

Being the creatures that we are which laughs and cries(sometimes both at the same time),perhaps only one capable of commiting suicide------and I could go on & on a lot of baffling `irrational` & paradoxes we are capable of,do you not sometimes wonder if we really know what we are doing & where we are going?Can we trust ourselves,knowing our `evil` natures---even when we are `scientific`,`impartial`,`objective`?

This is where science has its limits and the threshold of religious belief commences....A collective understanding of ourselves which transcends Space & Time and therefore beyond the cofines of a Closed System(otherwise known as science).

.

Your encounter with the biology teacher may draw a chuckle or two but I think it was uncalled for.I am pretty sure that you yourself are sure of it that your question was not in good taste & the purpose was not to learn but ridicule the teacher.

The same effect could have been created by someone ridiculing the same teacher by saying that `was our father a monkey?`.

That was school,so perhaps one can understand--but If I were you I won`t recount that incident to make a point.That same question can definitely be put to a maulana in order to `learn` something.We should not learn science from a priest & religion from a scientist.

.

The state of confusion because of this `dichotomy` is a very individual & private matter and I do not think it has anything to do with the discussion here.



wassalaam.

F_K #82

[``… it is not necessary to be not a believer & to be not a scientists at the same time. One can be a fundamentalist Muslim and a fundamentalist scientist. Also, by same token a diehard atheist can also be a scientist…``]

Let me see if I understand you correctly?

You seem to be saying that being a `scientist` is an attribute which is independent of one`s religious belief. If that is the what you are saying, then I tend to agree. But we must also be clear as to what we mean by the terms `scientist` and `religious belief?`

Scientist, here has mostly been employed in the generic sense and rather loosely at that. Thus all the university science and math professors and researchers and so forth can be called `scientists` for the purpose of this discussion.

Religious faith, on the other hand is a little more tricky to define. Religion, IMHO, is the sum total of our `core concepts of reality` and our `belief about our place in the greater scheme` of things. It is not something that we can put in a separate box in our brain and label it : nimaz, roza, etc, and go on about the rest of our life as we please.

My biology teacher in school began our evolution class by stating that as a muslim he believed that God had created Adam and Eve because that is what the Quran told us. However, for the purpose of the biology class he believed in the `theory` of evolution which he was going to teach us presently. (He slapped me and kicked me out of the class, when I asked him if we were all `bhain chood key oulaad` since Allah, the Almighty, did not bother with creating two sets of Adams and Eves in order to circumvent the cardinal sin of incest. But that is another story.)

This dichotomy of belief (as a muslim vs as a scientist) is confusing at best and dishonest at worst. One cannot live like this, not if one is burdened with a thought process and a conscience. Cognitive dissonance is not compatible with one`s inner peace.

…SR

PM #87

[``…There is at least one other possibility, …plausible one: The Universe was created by the devil when God wasn`t looking!..``]

Thank you very much for clearing up one of my great confusions.

I couldn`t ever understand how The Benevolent and Merciful Almighty could have created a world so full of cruelty, injustice and misery? How could He have allowed the abominations of this world in His Omnipotence, let pass in His Omniscience that men should become worst than beasts, worse than all that crawls and creeps, and that the breath He blew in Adam`s nostrils should become the stench of the dragons. This I could never understand, but you have cleared it up for me. Now it makes more sense. Of course, God could never have done such a piss poor job, it must be the devil after all.

…SR

Krashid #89

[``…Omar Phoenix says … ``But why can`t someone say Allah created universe with big bang``. He is basically denying his first claim... The rational thing is reaching the conclusion of Big bang. The rationalizing part is whether God did it or not…``]

I am reminded of the old Indian anecdote which facetiously describes, How to catch a `bagla` (i.e., a wading waterfowl - stork, ibis or heron?). The trick, my grandfather used to tell me, was to sneak up behind the bird with a lump of candle wax and stealthily balance the wax on the bird`s head, then quietly retreat and hind behind the nearby bushes. Soon the sun would melt down the wax and it would streak down the bird`s face thus covering its eyes. Unable to see, the bird would then become vulnerable and you could take your cage up to the bird and capture it.

``Why,`` I would ask grandpa, ``don`t we catch the bagla the first time?`` ``Oh no,`` the old man would say with a smirk, ``you just cannot do that. You have to catch it properly, and if it see you coming, then it would fly away.``

The silliness in this anecdote is at once obvious. Why add an extra step unnecessarily? But it is not so obvious to someone who is bent upon rationalizing the extra step because of his personal attachment to the candle wax. It is no different with invoking God in explaining away the befuddling mystery of the universe. The believer simply doesn`t mind the extra step because the idea appeals to him. Its his lump of wax that must be placed on the head of the stork before he`d be willing to capture it.

…SR

I would also like to quote Pervez Hoodbhoy, from ``Islam and Science``. (I haven`t read the book, but a friend had sent me interesting quotes and info. from it.).

``Certain exegetes of the Holy Qu`ran have also attempted to derive scientific facts from the Holy Book... Among these Maurice Bucaille is by far the most prominent and widely read.

``A French surgeon who turned spiritualist, Monsieur Bucaille shot into prominence throughout the Islamic world with the publication of his exegesis, ``The Bible, The Qur`an and Science``.

``Bucaille`s method is simple. He asks his readers to ponder on some Qur`anic verse, andthen, from a variety of meanings that could be assigned to the verse, he pulls out one which is consistent with some scientific fact. He thereupon concludes that, whereas the Bible is often wrong in the description of natural phenomena, the Qur`an is invariable correct and that it correctly anticipated all major discoveries of modern science.``

``He ends the discussion of each topic with the ritual conclusion that the marvellous agreement of Qur`anic revelations with the scientific fact is proof of its miraculous nature.

``Whereaas Monsieur Bucaille appears eminently satisfied with his methodology, Muslims who wish to combine reason with faith will readily detect at least two fundamental flaws in it even though they accept the divine nature of the Qur`an.

First it wil be recognized that the proof of a proposition is meaningful only if the possibility of disproof is also to be entertained..... Since believers know that it is impossible for the Qur`an to be wrong in any manner, all attempts at ``proving`` its divine nature are entirely specious from the start.

``Second, hanging an eternal truth on to the changeable theories of science is a dangerous business.``

``Observe that in Bucaille`s book there is not a single prediction of any physical fact which is unknown up to now, but which could be tested against observation and experimentation in the future.``

-arun gupta

Science does not rule out God; but that science has so far found no need to invoke God as an explanation for anything should make you pause.

Some more things :

Please distinguish between scientists and the scientific establishment.

In my opinion, the success of physics,chemistry, biology has been so great that a whole number of other subjects try to ride on the coattails and raise their prestige by calling themselves ``sciences``. Many ``social sciences`` fall into this category. A good example of fake science is that which lies behind ``The Bell Curve`` by Hernnstein & what`s his name. Doing anything systematically has also been dubbed a ``science``.

Finding God via science is hard enough; doing so through faulty/misunderstood science is very much worse.

-arun gupta

Farngi_Kush (re. #94)

“We are again going in circles and therefore not saying anything different. Why do we not refrain from using science as `proof` of God`s existence & Religion as `validation` for science.

Huh?! I thought that was exactly what I was saying. Please re-read the last two paragraphs of that post.

“Actually the biggest danger of our times is that science itself becoming the new religion and the arrogance of the science`s Priesthood (or mullah-ism,if you will).”

While it may be true that science is the new religion of some, I hardly think your harping on that tune has been warranted on this site, where respondents have stated the limitations of Science with near unanimity. Who, exactly, are you addressing? Perhaps your passionate, albiet anxiety-laden, polemic would be better directed elsewhere.

“A scientist by the very definition of the calling should be an amoral creature(at least when wearing that hat)”

And, by this reasoning, a carpenter would have to be an amoral creature while making a chair (not Plato’s ‘prototype’ chair, mind you), since carpentry is, as far as we know, an amoral art. So what exactly is your gripe?

(#79): “A scientist is as much a muslim, christain or an atheist as a carpenter, plumber, doctor or a mistry. Let us never mention the achievements of someone because of their worldview & beliefs. Even an `evolutionist` has nothing to do with the science of biology---if you know what I mean.”

Now this makes perfect sense. However, it has been you who, on numerous occasions, has resorted to name-dropping, beginning with Darwin, Liebnitz and others. By the way, would you believe a ‘mistry’ who told you that your car couldn’t run on one wheel, or a scriptural tradition that said it would?

(#72): “The first volley in this regard is always from the atheists/secularists who somehow are very guilt-ridden by the whole concept.”

Reading the article and response patterns, I seriously doubt your contention on who is firing first volleys who is guilt-ridden. And who is needlessly defensive. Despite saying (in #60) that “Religion can prove itself to be a sham & thus exposed if it interferes in the pursuit of truth ---scientific or otherwise…”, you say (in #72) that “It would be an interesting study (scientific!!) to measure consumption of mind-altering medication vis-a-vis a scientist`s belief system.”

You are treading on thin ice here, my friend. It is not at all unlikely that we will soon find the physical bases for the working of placebos etc. Would your ‘religion’ be that much the less for such a discovery? You are engaging in exactly the activity you say religion shouldn’t.

“A human`s desire to ask questions which go beyond his temporal needs is ample evidence that the Darwinian concept of only material & organic sustenance is simply not the end.”

Agree with you fully here (though I think you’re tagging a reductivist slant on Darwanism which is not inherent. The assertion that there we are informed by “ONLY material and organic sustenance” is a philosophical one, not a scientific one) . If someone chooses to believe so, it is not science that dictates that he/she must.

However Science and Religion are not always in such happy non-conflict. When Religion purports to inform on the physical, and science – or as you say – the search for the truth, contradicts it, a sham is indeed exposed. The three great eastern religions are indeed guilty of sham to a certain extent, at least if interpreted literally

Finally, to your perennial disparaging of rationality and elevating of the irrational (which I understand you associate with religion). That may all be very well in cases where these non-rational systems that stress virtue (like most religions), but by the same token, you would have to accommodate, nay extoll, any number cults that give primacy to ‘feelings’, ‘desire’ and other existential persuasions --as opposed to virtue as a product of thought and reason. Wherein lies is your philosophical opposition to, say, the Doomsday Cult, the Satanists, or indeed that Cult you despise most of all—The post-modern cult of ‘I’? All of these adhere more closely to your “Follow Feelings’ dictum than to the rational Socratic appeal to “KNOW thyself”—that is, a direction towards a knowledge of IDEAS,as Plato would have it.

Please note, this is not an attack on your (or any) religion. I am, however, questioning the tenability of your primacy of feelings over reason.

Regards,

PM

P.S. I thought I made it clear enough why The Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to support `philosophical entropy` (and never was intended to do so) That`s just a case of Bad science, worse religion.Or is it Bad religion,...

P.S-S. I am not cynical about Religion. Skeptical, yes. But I am very cynical of feeble attempts to `prove` the truths of religion using Science. Still, I was completely honest in saying I would like to be shownevidence of miraculuos predictions etc. Like everyone, I would like to believe in the supernatural. Only, I don`t want to be fooled, or fool myself.

PM:#90s

We are again going in circles and therefore not saying anything different.Why do we not refrain from using science as `proof` of God`s existence & Religion as `validation` for science.

Actually the biggest danger of our times is that science itself becoming the new religion and the arrogance of the science`s Priesthood(or mullah-ism,if you will).A scientist by the very definition of the calling should be an amoral creature(at least when wearing that hat) and therefore never be given free rein(just like a businessman has to earn without resorting to criminal methods).

What AD pointed out is,as I understand,the concept of entropy as a philosophical one & not as `scientific` one.The existence & use of placebos is a fact & if science wrings its hands at being at a loss to understand it & takes cover behind the `humility` of further research then I think there is a big problem.Like the old cartographers they filled the gaps by saying `here be the dragons`.

The point I am trying to make here that it is still not too late to drag down the white coats from their higher pedestals & prick their pomposities once in a while....the sorcerers in the days of the pharaohs were no different.As long as these chaps need paymasters & have the usual temporal temptations these guys must be retained in their `labs` and not confused as `priests` of higher knowledge.

Any rigid & self-congratulating system becomes so much a prey of its own trappings that the situation becomes kafkaesquely absurd.All of us have known or heard of situations in well-organised `clock-work` `scientific` management systems about the need for a person to produce a `birth certificate` as a proof that he was ever born and a `death certificate` to prove that he is alive.

Religious scholars,poets,thinkers & writers are a different breed of men especially those whose pursuit of knowledge is not hindered by `masters` & therefore can never be reduced to the level of present day scientist.

PS:Your cynicism regarding religion knows no bounds.There is no need to `scientifically` analyse the Quran and make your own life miserable.Why do you always try to see what you are looking for?The monkey wrench of zer zubar is going to be of same use to you as the assignments of elements to the periodic table or how the shakespearian works would look if the number of alphabets was not 26.

So I declare:La Ilaha Il-lil-Lah,Mohammed ur Rasool-il-La.

(There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger).

PS-2: Last week Norway agreed to let muslims use the loudspeaker for friday azaan.The heathen society of Norway also won approval to call its membership to its meetings by blaring out on loudspeakers that there is no god at all.

Oh at least the heathen society has admitted half of the kalima.They might be saying the other half pretty soon.Such has always been the route towards becoming muslim for many a christain.



wassalaam

correction: the site is www.answering-islam.org

disclaimer: The views there re. Christianity are not shared by me. In fact, in most cases I think they`re as ridiculuosly non-sequitor as the Islamic ones they debunk.

Omar(phoenix):

I`ve just been reading some of the older posts here (haven`t yet finished all), and came across your impassioned affirmation of miraculous predictions in the Qur`an. I have always been fascinated by such claims, in the hope of finding some substance. Alas, I have invariably been disappointed-- most recently with the alleged Quranic refernce to `The Red Rose` galaxy.

Interestingly, you say that the Qur`an makes reference to the `Y` male chromosome. I am indeed surprised, as I was (perhaps erroneously) informed that one reason the Prophet had so many wives was his desire for a son.

Would you kindly produce the relevent ayat/s? Thanks

btw, the earliest `editions` of the Qur`an were in a script without the various `zair zubrs and (what-nots)`. A gread deal of latitude in `translation` was possible with their addition later. So, even if there was finally one agreed-upon version (and only ONE), it`s authenticity to the original is not necessecarily inviolate.

You also express interest to be challenged in regard to this authenticity. I`d recommend www.ansewringislam.org as a site if you`re looking for a devil`s advocate.

Cheers,

PM

P.S. I will probably not be able to respond to you until after the week-end.

``Ofcourse, you can still believe in god because of Pascal`s gamble... if you believe and you turn out to be wrong, all you lose is something like -4(hours spent praying and so on). If God does exist, however, you win infinity... so even if the probability of God`s existence is small, the rational thing to do is to believe.... ``

Pascal`s gamble seemed a sound enough wager to make... until the question of whether, even if such a God DID exist as toyed with our lives and demanded belief by fiat, he/she/it would be wothry of praise.

And it`s not a question of ``4 hours spent praying``... it`s more an issue of truth and integrity attaining primacy in life-- the Good Life, if you will. And cognitive `conveniences` just don`t ``do it`` for some.

Also, the increasingly apparent implausibility of an after-life made such a wager unattractive, if not irrelevant.

regards,

PM

Dear Omar, (re. #86)

``The aim of the article was not to say that science and scientific logic alone could justify the existence of Allah. Neither was the article saying that science should be utilised to prove Gods existence``

I don`t know which article you`re referring to, but the one I read certainly seemed to be pushing that envelope. What`s more, your reply (#86) does so even more emphatically, Omar.

Omar, I don`t know which scientists you`ve been talking to, or what you`ve been interpreting, but my undestanding of the scientific position on God is simply that there is no proof of His/Her/It`s existence. This does not amount to proof of non-existence (though I`d have to say that on the sheer basis of implausibility, there is little reason to believe in the God(s) of most orgainzed religions-- but that`s my take). And if ``there is no room for GOd in science, it is simply because science operates on the laws of necessity. Thus far, there hasn`t been a necessity to invoke `GOd` to explain a phenomenon, and, quite frankly, inasmuch as God is inscrutable, there will not be a necessity, since that will simply reproduce the `problem`. Rememeber, science is a discipline that seeks to explain what IS.

For what it`s worth, I would strongly encourage you to follow your heart on the question of God, and not try rationalizing it with science, which, despite your denials, you HAVE been doing.

As Farngi_Kush pointed out, the awareness of God is a gnostic experience. What I`d like to add is that God is Being; not ``a`` being that you could prove/disprove the existence of.

Peace,

PM

SR #81

I wholeheartedly agree with your argument regarding rational and rationalizing.

And there is no question that one can proove or disprove God, except by rationalizing.

And when Omar Phoenix says that he believes in secular nature of science and in another sentence he says ``But why can`t someone say Allah created universe with big bang``. He is basically denying his first claim of secular nature of science. As an atheist can reach the conclusion of big bang without invoking God. While a religious person can do the same while invoking God. The rational thing is reaching the conclusion of Big bang. The rationalizing part is whether God did it or not.

I am very much in favor of science and scientific methods remaining secular, because that is how science progress. And if explore the nature is in Koran. It is proven by history that Allah wills it to be secular.

(If religious people know what Allah wills by their whims, I can judge by history what Allah wills)

Dear AD (re. #83)

The supposed violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) is one that is often cited by creationists as ‘proof’ of a higher ordering power. So much of feeble rationalizing, I think. I remember my Class XII teacher piously pointing this out to us, conveniently forgetting that it applies to CLOSED thermal systems. No organism is a closed system. Neither is the Earth, by the way: Take away the sun and perhaps you’ll be more aware of the thermal entropy doing it’s job down here.

As for applying the Law to logic and expecting ‘logical entropy’, I think Narain has already pointed to the fallacy there (somewher in the 40s). If we do observe laws of organization, there is hardly the need for an intelligent force behind it. That is just the way it is. Our Laws are simply our observations of or attempts at creating organization from apparent chaos. What WOULD be surprising, or indicative of a ‘higher’ intelligence, would be randomness where we observe these laws. (Actually, that would be cause for refining our understanding of the laws). In any case, the case of logical entropy is not described by the Second Law.

Regards,

PM

Re. SR ( #81)

“Now, if God exists, then there are the following possibilities:

(a) God Created the Universe, or

(b) The universe came about itself (while God just sat there, presumably minding his own business)”

Sir,

There is at least one other possibility, forwarded by the Gnostics, I think-- and may I say a very plausible one: The Universe was created by the devil when God wasn’t looking!

Although I think the author avoided invoking the First Cause argument (I guess he’s too smart for that), yes, I think it’s worth pointing out the flaw in it in case others would like to use it. For my part, I remember asking my mother, as any four-year-old would, “But …but, who made God?” Such questions are easily “settled”, of course, by political fiat.

Cheers,

Patrick

Dear SR and everybody else,

First of all let me thank you all for taking the time to reply to my first attempt. All of it is appreciated. A special thanks to SR for the well-elaborated critique and for Farangi Kush for answering the question which I didn`t have time to answer. I apologise for not answering all your questions. A few word though and this does apply to a few others commentators as well.

The aim of the article was not to say that science and scientific logic alone could justify the existence of Allah. Neither was the article saying that science should be utilised to prove Gods existence. Neither was the article intended to shun the works of science or of the scientists of yesterday, today or tomorrow. Neither am I against science. I am trying to become one myself. I also believe like many others that science should be secular, i.e. the language of scientific METHOD and RESEARCH are universal amongst the atheist, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Christian etc. etc.

The article however was based on the fact and from my personal experience, that a lot of scientists today completely disapprove of an extraterrestrial being, we may call him God. They then back it off with science, their logic or their beliefs, call it what you must. The point is, in my opinion, if we were to employ modern science to disapprove of God, as so many of my atheist teachers/friends have done, we would fail because the principles of modern science would actually prove the existence of God rather than deny it.

There is a delicate separation between what I say, and what some people have put in my mouth which is that I`m trying to say that only science proves the existence of God.

Moving onto the next point, science is just one piece in the larger mosaic that we call humanity. Science is not everything. There`s far more, but in my opinion, if you look hard enough, you`ll see God`s work in everything. As I said before to KRashid, I`m also an artist and `when I compare my cheap imitation to the real article` I can`t accept that that this landscape is a mere erosion by wind, water, and snow and a cocktail of biotic and abiotic factors working together in harmony, all by simple chance.

Why I use science to `prove the existence of God (as has been put in my mouth)` is because science is the language of the scientist, and my article was really focused towards the scientist, although I understand the Chowkwalas are more. You wouldn`t philosophise the existence of God to a scientist just like you wouldn`t speak E= MC2 to a Sufi. That`s the reason why I use scientific logic (making things simpler, i.e 43 trillion planets) to say that the chances of life being God`s work are greater than not.

As for SR stating that I do not have enough humility, my friend, I have tonnes of it. I am willing to admit that I do not know everything. In fact guess what, whatever I have spewed in my article is the work of hundreds of scientists who have worked for God knows how many years. None of the information I have stated is mine. It`s somebody else`s. But you are in essence saying what I have been trying to say all along. Why is that the atheist scientists of today believe that their science and logic is absolute. That there is no place for God in their equation. They can go to ridiculous lengths like say that there are 43 trillion planets in the universe, there had to be at least one planet by sheer chance to sprout life, but can`t admit that there could be one single reason. No, to them that`s simply ludicrous. Now that`s what I call true arrogance. The Titanic ship`s captain failed to believe that there was more ice underneath the sea than at the top. Guess what, It led to everybody`s death.

However, a distinction should be made. In the past and even nowadays, people have been content to accept this and stop or even have been forced to stop. Just because God created everything does not imply that we do not try to find things out for ourselves. This sort of extremism is just as dangerous as the one I have been criticising.

So I surrender and admit that I have humility. But I will say it again and again that life was the works of God. Why, because I believe in a book called the Quran, which answers many of my questions, which you have posed and many other questions that other people commentating have posed. Traditional science cannot answer them but Quran can. Why should I believe Quran, and not the Bible or the Torah? Surely it was the works of a man, and man made things are liable to change and evolve and are therefore deemed imperfect. Well, the Quran is actually a divine revelation, which means Allah is telling me and the other billion and so Muslims about who He is, why my species has been labelled the top creation, what is my role in his grand play, why have all these messengers/ prophets been sent and so forth. These answer many of my questions but how can I believe that a book is a divine revelation and not something man made. Well this is where science once again comes in. There are references to various phenomena in the Quran which could not have been discovered 1400 hundred years ago. Those things are being discovered now. The latest reference I can think of right now is about organ transplants, how it`s foretold that we will eventually be able to make our own organs someday. Guess what, hopefully in the next 5-10 years, people will be able to make genetically identical organs for themselves.

As for me not knowing how the universe began, that`s something else. In my personal opinion, I believe that anything and everything that happens in this Universe has causality and has been created in such a manner that we can understand its mechanisms. So if somebody says that the universe began with the Big Bang. Fine, as long as there is scientific evidence to prove it. But why cannot someone say, Allah created the Universe with a Big Bang. What irritates me is that when the same principles that made a scientist come to the conclusion of the Big Bang are used to disprove the existence of God. That`s what the article`s about.

Take Care Ya`ll

Omar Phoenix

I agree with the above.

When the Quran says, ``there are signs in nature, for the believing folk,`` Allah (swt) is referring to Nature as a witness to His creative abilities.

As a part of nature, we too are a witness.

Atheistic Western science erects concepts like Evolution or Mother Nature as independent phenomena that are self-regulating in order to explain the Hidden--these principles become idols of scientific worship unto themselves. This is not to deny that evolution etc doesn`t work; for example, there is the force of gravity, but we don`t worship gravity as acting like a non-contingent being. It`s just a force to factor into the calculation when doing physics problems...

Whether we wish to see it or not, proof of Allah`s creation exists--not in logical theorems--but from an honest feeling deep inside your gut--by staring at nature and getting a sense of awe. Unfortunately, some people don`t give themselves a chance to see it--``deaf, dumb, blind, they will not return to the path.`` (Quran 2:19). Then they laugh at the people who DO see it, and dismiss them as ``unscientific``. Like the article`s analogy of the embryo trying to imagine the dawn...

The challenge for the muslim world now is to realize that the study of science is an endeavor to come closer to understanding God, but not to try and become God (which is a more Western approach). The former has always been the historical perspective of Islamic science, but we growing up with a Western education may forget that subtle difference when we study our modern

science.This distinction is important, because Western science is also heavily steeped in Christian ideology. According to these scientists, (including the likes of Isaac Newton to the NASA space mission), science is still a

religious endeavor. However, their concept is to re-create the status of man before Original Sin by becoming god-like. They seek to make man perfect again, (genome project/cloning?), which is a self-defeating task.

There`s nothing wrong with technology and research, but it`s the application of science which is important and requires wisdom. Wisdom without context--without an overriding perspective--is dangerous.

Islam is simple in these regards--just a few guiding principles, and none of the complex tension found in the Christian ideology.

One of the reasons people discount Islam is that they`ve made it far too complex than it really is: as Thoreau put it, ``simplify, simplify, simplify!``

Simplicity is what science offers. What scientists do (the political application of knowledge) is a different thing. Don`t point to the atom if we decide to split it over Nagasaki...

Simplicity is what Quran offers. What Muslims do in their ignorance is a different thing. Don`t blame Islam for what we do...

AD:#83

Thank you for adding this dimension to the discussion.I had always been considering it but was never able to articulate to myself in terms of entropy.

The chaos & order theory like the form & substance one fascinates me to no end.

Now when energy dissipates where does it go? Does it take another form?.Scientific observations with all the avialable tools & techniques,in the final analysis,rely on the five human senses.Now everyone interested knows that how much treacherous these senses are! The most `reliable` one,the eyes,are so much trusted that eye-witnesses is almost equivalent to truth.But we all know that an entire industry--``Magic``--thrives upon its betrayal.

I have also wondered if anybody can ever `see` an atom & electrons?(I think nobody can--but because of my naivette I ask this,the question seems stupid to me also,please help!).This I ask because of my interest in the paradigm theories of recent years.

Let us explore further.We may not locate God but we might have some idea of where we stand--or are standing at all!!!!!

Na thah kuchh tho khudaa thah,kuchh na hotha tho khuda hotha

Duboya mujh ko hoanay ney,na mein hotha tho kiya

hoatha.



wassalaam

Must agree with the author. A well written article. Another example is that of entropy.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe always increases. In that case the evolution of life itself should be impossible, since life is about structure and order, not randomness and chaos.

The human chromosomes create a blue print, which is identical for all humans... quite against the laws of entropy.

AD

SR:#92

Thank you for a very elaborate expounding of the way you view the matter.I think most of us have already agreed upon that.

Except!!

The point I must emphasise is that it is not necessary to be not a believer & to be not a scientists at the same time.One can be a fundamentalist muslim and a fundamentalist scientist(As muslims we must emphasise this when we talk to our children).Also,by same token a diehard atheist can also be a scientist.

Here You can have your roza and your dietary plan at the same time.In fact they do not hurt each other at all.

The awareness of God is a gnostic experience and the inability to comprehend this is an agnostic one.Hazrat Ali said,``I know God by the frustrations of my will and plans``(one example).It is one thing to be cognizant of this and quite another to be able to communicate to others of this experience.You can tell the pain you feel but can never ``prove`` or show it another.

Sirf ahsaas hai yeh rooh say mahsoos kro.

(it is but an awareness and feel it in spirit only).



wassalaam

We humans, for the greatest part, are not rational beings. We are, however, RATIONALIZING creatures. The difference is simple. A rational person is one who arrives at his conclusions by following a logical path of thinking and going wherever observation - or the lack of it -- leads him, without having any previous notion as to the result of his inquiry. A rationalizing person, on the other hand, is one (almost all of us fall in this category) who has a previous notion which he is fond of and then he uses his intellect and reason to justify that notion. There are some things that cannot be accessed through reason or logic. It is sheer folly to try to rationalize such things. It should be enough to intuit such things and be content at that. The existence of God is one of these concepts. It cannot be argued. One`s proof can disprove another`s proof and in the end we are left with axiomatic faith in the righteousness of our own convictions. It is not necessary to rationalize those convictions.

Now let me turn to Omarphoenix`s argument.

The central spirit of his writing is to argue that there is an All Powerful and All Knowing Force that is responsible for the creation of the universe.

But this is not all. There is also another agenda which the author puts forward. He attempts to proselytize to the reader that the Omnipotent and Omniscient `Creator` is the deity which his particular religion teaches about.

I have no problem with any person who chooses to either believe (or disbelieve) in God, just so long as s/he does not claim that such a belief is rational. It is not rational to believe in God. It is equally not rational to NOT believe in God. The simple truth is that Gods presence or absence cannot be proven either way. We can all try and RATIONALIZE our BELIEF, but that is all. We only fool ourselves when we pretend to be `logical` and think that our particular belief (monotheism, polytheism or atheism) is a `rational` one.

There are only the following possibilities:
1) God exists.
2) God does not exist.

Now, If
(1) God exists, then there are the following possibilities:

(a) God created the universe, or
(b) the universe came about itself (while God just sat there, presumably minding his own business)

If, on the other hand we say that,

(2) God does not exist, then the only possibility is that universe came about itself.

Thus the author argues that not only does God exist, but that by definition he also created the universe because, in his view, the DESIGN of the universe is such that it must have been deliberately calculated.

This argument has intuitive appeal, but the truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW what the real answer is. The universe, as little of it as we can observe and try to make a sense of, is so vast and so complex that it goes beyond even our wildest imaginations. There are boundless surprises and novel forces that we have no notion of. It is a true enigma wrapped in utter mystery. This inspires a sense of great awe and we stand humbled and have no choice but to admit to ourselves that we have no idea of what, where, how or why of the cosmic reality.

If we want to give this sense of awe a name and call it God, there is nothing wrong with it. However, we must not delude ourselves that we have the answer and that the answer is GOD. No. We`ve just replaced one mystery with another mystery. And in the end we are still none the wiser. It may be more comforting but it certainly isn`t any more illuminating.

The author taunts the reader and questions as to how such a vast and complex universe could have come into existence on its own? The he goes on to answer his own question and tells us that it is God who created it. QED.

This is not called reason, it is called BLIND faith. Not that there is anything wrong with blind faith, its just that we should call a spade a spade.

The author is not content with the humble answer that ``We Don`t Know`` how the universe came into existence. He claims that every effect has a cause and that every cause in its own turn is the effect of a previous cause. Thus he implores us to trace back the chain of cause and effect until we get exhausted and cannot calculate any further. At some point, he urges us to conclude, this whole cause and effect process must have begun and that `First Cause` is God.

Most people who grew up believing in God will have no problem with this Maginot-line of reasoning. (The Maginot-Line was an incomplete line of defense which the French had built all along the length of Franco-German border. However, the line of fortifications abruptly ended at the Belgian border. Hitler`s forces simply circled around the Maginot Line and conquered France by driving through Belgium.) Like the Maginot Line, this reasoning is flawed because it is incomplete.

The author is using double standards. He is unwilling to submit in humility and admit ignorance and inability to answer the question about the origin of the universe. He insists on a source. And when he comes up with God as that source, he simply turns tail and submits in humility and does not question how or where God came from. There he is willing to use such terms as `timeless` and `outside the frame of reference` etc. The simple fact is that the mystery still remains a mystery and WE DON`T KNOW t