This post includes an essay on the Qur'an and Cosmogony with a focus on the Big Bang theory, which I wrote five years ago. The purpose was obviously to debunk the various exponents of Islam (e.g. Bucaille, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah) who propagate their wishful imagination to what they deem as scientific evidence for the Qur'an.
Since then I have greatly expanded my insight into the matter and am currently preparing a more detailed work, which I may post in small parts or in a lengthy essay in near future.
Notice that my intention here is not to debunk the improbability of the Qur'anic view (that will derive in a later post) but to point out that the Qur'anic picture of the cosmological origin was a view that flourished centuries prior to the rise of Islam, and which the authors and composers of the Qur'an appear to have borrowed from circulating teaching or sources, sometimes (possibly) even word for word.
To assess the cosmology of the Qur’an our study has to begin with its concept of cosmogony, the origins. Here Muslims usually refer to Sura 21: 30:
‘Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’
Read more...
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/quran-and-big-bang-theory-in-comparsion.html
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Friday, 6 August 2010
Is this atheist logic?
Was just informed by an atheist that the cells and DNA system simply confirms that God lacks imagination and furthermore that if God willed or created the cells to reproduce themselves by copies why only cells, why do typical animal or human beings not possess the ability to simply copy themselves rather than undergo the process of sexual intercourse, conception and birth?
What... are atheists now claiming that the DNA system reveals lack of imagination???
Sounds like Dawkins' assertions: that the molecule world is so simple that the evolutionary process easily explains its existance and functions. I agree with Stuart Burgess, that Dawkins' proposition here is naive to the core. The cell and DNA system constitutes a world of complexity far too incomprihensive for modern scientists to fathom.
Hence such an atheist claim amounts to accomplish nothing but to reveal desparation and silliness.
And how about the other argument, that God could have willed the animal world to copy themselves in similar ways to the cells. If that is supposed to be creative imagination the reality is quite the opposite; in fact such an idea reveals only the atheist expectation and view of the world in general, that of chaos, funny how continuous chaos is viewed as comparative with a creative mind of order.
Good grief, what a world, I can imagine making a copy of myself on a everyday basis, imagine 10.000 Hogan Elijah Hagbard's; I can imagine a quick human exodus to Mars. How could we cope, yet imagine a world that was a million times more populated than presently? Would life not have seized several millenniums ago?
Are we not rather to conclude that the world, production and function of the cells and that of the animal and human world are better separated and hence merely reveals the effective mindset of divine intellegence?
What... are atheists now claiming that the DNA system reveals lack of imagination???
Sounds like Dawkins' assertions: that the molecule world is so simple that the evolutionary process easily explains its existance and functions. I agree with Stuart Burgess, that Dawkins' proposition here is naive to the core. The cell and DNA system constitutes a world of complexity far too incomprihensive for modern scientists to fathom.
Hence such an atheist claim amounts to accomplish nothing but to reveal desparation and silliness.
And how about the other argument, that God could have willed the animal world to copy themselves in similar ways to the cells. If that is supposed to be creative imagination the reality is quite the opposite; in fact such an idea reveals only the atheist expectation and view of the world in general, that of chaos, funny how continuous chaos is viewed as comparative with a creative mind of order.
Good grief, what a world, I can imagine making a copy of myself on a everyday basis, imagine 10.000 Hogan Elijah Hagbard's; I can imagine a quick human exodus to Mars. How could we cope, yet imagine a world that was a million times more populated than presently? Would life not have seized several millenniums ago?
Are we not rather to conclude that the world, production and function of the cells and that of the animal and human world are better separated and hence merely reveals the effective mindset of divine intellegence?
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Is Muhammad Predicted in the Biblical Old Testament Writings?
The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)
And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah
Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran:
We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however, notice that this attempt is futile as the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- firstly Jesus was indeed accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptance. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth (Matthew 28), however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus’ words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant. The main issue is, is this really and truly relevant anyway?
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual who is grossly desperate and whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood and present a disparate comparison between him and Moses:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses:
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could not, according to most Muslims
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within that society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
Hence this prophecy whether a prediction of a line of prophets (from Joshua and unward) or a specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, is a prediction of prophets or a prophet who is an Israelite. This completely devastates the claim of Muslims that this particular prophecy refers to Muhammad.
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship finds itself debunked.
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
Furthermore:
“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.
Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. This according to Deuteronomy 18: 20 renders Muhammad as a false prophet. Later the particular verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly not as the last prophet, he simply did not meet the standard!
There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which confirms prophethood, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) who provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he can’t read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, and in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)
And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah
Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran:
We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however, notice that this attempt is futile as the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- firstly Jesus was indeed accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptance. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth (Matthew 28), however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus’ words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant. The main issue is, is this really and truly relevant anyway?
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual who is grossly desperate and whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood and present a disparate comparison between him and Moses:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses:
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could not, according to most Muslims
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within that society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
Hence this prophecy whether a prediction of a line of prophets (from Joshua and unward) or a specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, is a prediction of prophets or a prophet who is an Israelite. This completely devastates the claim of Muslims that this particular prophecy refers to Muhammad.
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship finds itself debunked.
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
Furthermore:
“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.
Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. This according to Deuteronomy 18: 20 renders Muhammad as a false prophet. Later the particular verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly not as the last prophet, he simply did not meet the standard!
There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which confirms prophethood, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) who provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he can’t read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, and in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Quantum Level Evidence of an Independent or Caused Universe
How did the universe originate, from where and by which mechanism? Are there traces in the physical realm that may reflect cosmological inauguration, which then suggests another alternative than the necessity of a creator? By far the most developed argument against the theistic view is the often atheist response in which he asserts original building blocks of physics to reflect cosmological origins.
As to the cosmological view of ex nihilo (creation or appearance from nowhere and nothing), the foundational questions being raised related to cosmogony relate primarily to the original building blocks of existence. Are such building blocks self-caused, did they appear independently or were they caused by external factors? If we consider available evidence of an empirical nature, the only supporting pointers are obtained by considering the quantum world particles. Here we need to consider two types of ‘quantum occurrence’, firstly the ‘manipulated lab occurrence’ and secondly the ‘free occurrence’.
Indeed according to the ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’, particles on quantum level truly appear and behave like ghostlike entities (1), almost equivalent to waves (2). They cannot be interpreted according to time (3), neither can we measure their movement while simultaneously measuring their positions, and vice versa (4). The quantum world also appears completely probabilistic rather than determined (5), and most importantly it has often been asserted that observation reveals their ability to appear randomly out of nothing, through vacuum fluctuation (6).
This conclusion is based however, not upon natural conditions, but by experimental manipulation of particles. By virtually speeding up protons and electrons in particle accelerators by a velocity that almost reaches the speed of light, particles collide from which mass spontaneously appears (7).
Physicists seem to envisage that under such accelerating conditions the ‘initial condition’ of the early universe can be recreated.
While Davies indeed states that such discoveries come close to creation out of nothing (8), he nevertheless raises several objections. He points out firstly, that such particles are ‘dependent’ as they derive from energy within a vacuum rather than a condition of zero energy or virtually nothing (9); secondly, that its process is inaugurated by intelligent lab manipulation rather than a natural random cause (10). Furthermore, such particles are annihilated as spontaneously as they appear (11); in fact some critics remark that manipulated particles may not be real (12).
Hence, while such experiments may reveal the early ‘initial condition’ and Planck time era as Hawking also proposes (13), they do not reveal particles appearing as self-caused, neither do they reveal anything about the condition of a zero energy state or singularity. Here we would need to consider a totally independent fluctuation prior to any envisaged cosmological conditions.
Davies also concedes that these discoveries which occur in isolated systems of laboratories cannot relate to the entire universe (14).
Yet free vacuum fluctuation may still occur within the random abilities of nature. It has been theorized that black holes, which in theory is the closest we reach a singularity state (15), may cause such an occurrence apart from intelligent manipulation. However that is plausible only if it is assumed that gravity or electromagnetism can effect the positive energy of a mass, which indeed is envisaged to occur near black holes (16). If so, it might denote that the universe in its ‘primeval bang’ might have been a zero energy offset by negative energy or gravitational attraction. Yet such reasoning is obviously problematic, as particles appearing within black hole proximity presumably still depend upon some kind of energy (17), occurrence and space.
Hence self-caused, independent energy appears to contradict scientific observation. Current scientific observation reveals that space or vacuum is never empty (18); therefore at the present vacuum never reaches a ground state of zero energy (19).
Accordingly even spontaneous appearance of particles in a black hole proximity are not closely related to ex nihilo either. Hence according to the theory, energy and particles are dependent upon both time and vacuum (20). However, we may also argue that if vacuum, against all logic even succeeded to become entirely empty, particles would still depend upon vacuum (21).
From this we may conclude that while the universe may originally have fluctuated much like quantum particles, quantum particles despite their random behaviour are not independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103
2. Etienne Klein, Conversations with the Sphinx: Paradoxes in Physics (London: Souvenir Press, 1996), pp. 66-8, 109-23: Einstein envisaged quantum particles to be equivalent to waves; see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 105-11
3. John Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for the Ultimate Explanation (London: BCA, 1991), pp. 63-4; see also John Wright, Designer Universe: Is Christianity compatible with modern Science (Crowborough: Monarch, 1994), pp. 56-7
4. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103
5. Ibid, p. 35
6. Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, 1988
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_uncaused_beginning_of_the_universe_(1988).htm (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp.30-4
7. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 26
8. Davies, God and the New Physics, p.31
9. ibid, pp. 31-2; Davies states that the process of the experiment does not reveal matter appearing from nowhere as we still have to account for where the energy came from in the first place. See also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-8; they argue that the energy required to make these particles are borrowed from the vacuum; hence the experiment does not resemble ex nihilo
10. Davies, God and the New physics, p. 31; see also Tony M. Liss and Paul L. Tipton, The Discovery of the Top Quark in David H. Levy (ed.) The Scientific American, Book of the Cosmos, p. 331- 37
11. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7
12. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (USA: Zondervan, 2004), p. 123
13. Quentin Smith, Quantum Cosmology’s Implication of Atheism, Infidel.org, 1997
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
Here Quentin Smith elaborates on Hawking’s conclusions
14. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32
15. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp- 93-4, 128 and Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 110-5; see also Antony Flew, There is God, p. 118, he describes the theory of multiverses (see pages 12-3), as all universes, including ours materialised from black holes.
16. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), pp. 111- 4; see also Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, London: Bantam Press, 2001, ppp. 116-129 and Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 31-2, and Adam and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 128-35
17. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32
18. ibid, p. 18; see also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-7
19. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 44-5; this is not to be mixed with the fact that the universe as a whole has a total energy of zero caused by positive energy of matter being cancelled by negative energy of attracting gravity, see Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136)
20. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7
21. Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, pp. 338-9
As to the cosmological view of ex nihilo (creation or appearance from nowhere and nothing), the foundational questions being raised related to cosmogony relate primarily to the original building blocks of existence. Are such building blocks self-caused, did they appear independently or were they caused by external factors? If we consider available evidence of an empirical nature, the only supporting pointers are obtained by considering the quantum world particles. Here we need to consider two types of ‘quantum occurrence’, firstly the ‘manipulated lab occurrence’ and secondly the ‘free occurrence’.
Indeed according to the ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’, particles on quantum level truly appear and behave like ghostlike entities (1), almost equivalent to waves (2). They cannot be interpreted according to time (3), neither can we measure their movement while simultaneously measuring their positions, and vice versa (4). The quantum world also appears completely probabilistic rather than determined (5), and most importantly it has often been asserted that observation reveals their ability to appear randomly out of nothing, through vacuum fluctuation (6).
This conclusion is based however, not upon natural conditions, but by experimental manipulation of particles. By virtually speeding up protons and electrons in particle accelerators by a velocity that almost reaches the speed of light, particles collide from which mass spontaneously appears (7).
Physicists seem to envisage that under such accelerating conditions the ‘initial condition’ of the early universe can be recreated.
While Davies indeed states that such discoveries come close to creation out of nothing (8), he nevertheless raises several objections. He points out firstly, that such particles are ‘dependent’ as they derive from energy within a vacuum rather than a condition of zero energy or virtually nothing (9); secondly, that its process is inaugurated by intelligent lab manipulation rather than a natural random cause (10). Furthermore, such particles are annihilated as spontaneously as they appear (11); in fact some critics remark that manipulated particles may not be real (12).
Hence, while such experiments may reveal the early ‘initial condition’ and Planck time era as Hawking also proposes (13), they do not reveal particles appearing as self-caused, neither do they reveal anything about the condition of a zero energy state or singularity. Here we would need to consider a totally independent fluctuation prior to any envisaged cosmological conditions.
Davies also concedes that these discoveries which occur in isolated systems of laboratories cannot relate to the entire universe (14).
Yet free vacuum fluctuation may still occur within the random abilities of nature. It has been theorized that black holes, which in theory is the closest we reach a singularity state (15), may cause such an occurrence apart from intelligent manipulation. However that is plausible only if it is assumed that gravity or electromagnetism can effect the positive energy of a mass, which indeed is envisaged to occur near black holes (16). If so, it might denote that the universe in its ‘primeval bang’ might have been a zero energy offset by negative energy or gravitational attraction. Yet such reasoning is obviously problematic, as particles appearing within black hole proximity presumably still depend upon some kind of energy (17), occurrence and space.
Hence self-caused, independent energy appears to contradict scientific observation. Current scientific observation reveals that space or vacuum is never empty (18); therefore at the present vacuum never reaches a ground state of zero energy (19).
Accordingly even spontaneous appearance of particles in a black hole proximity are not closely related to ex nihilo either. Hence according to the theory, energy and particles are dependent upon both time and vacuum (20). However, we may also argue that if vacuum, against all logic even succeeded to become entirely empty, particles would still depend upon vacuum (21).
From this we may conclude that while the universe may originally have fluctuated much like quantum particles, quantum particles despite their random behaviour are not independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103
2. Etienne Klein, Conversations with the Sphinx: Paradoxes in Physics (London: Souvenir Press, 1996), pp. 66-8, 109-23: Einstein envisaged quantum particles to be equivalent to waves; see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 105-11
3. John Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for the Ultimate Explanation (London: BCA, 1991), pp. 63-4; see also John Wright, Designer Universe: Is Christianity compatible with modern Science (Crowborough: Monarch, 1994), pp. 56-7
4. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103
5. Ibid, p. 35
6. Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, 1988
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_uncaused_beginning_of_the_universe_(1988).htm (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp.30-4
7. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 26
8. Davies, God and the New Physics, p.31
9. ibid, pp. 31-2; Davies states that the process of the experiment does not reveal matter appearing from nowhere as we still have to account for where the energy came from in the first place. See also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-8; they argue that the energy required to make these particles are borrowed from the vacuum; hence the experiment does not resemble ex nihilo
10. Davies, God and the New physics, p. 31; see also Tony M. Liss and Paul L. Tipton, The Discovery of the Top Quark in David H. Levy (ed.) The Scientific American, Book of the Cosmos, p. 331- 37
11. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7
12. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (USA: Zondervan, 2004), p. 123
13. Quentin Smith, Quantum Cosmology’s Implication of Atheism, Infidel.org, 1997
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
Here Quentin Smith elaborates on Hawking’s conclusions
14. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32
15. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp- 93-4, 128 and Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 110-5; see also Antony Flew, There is God, p. 118, he describes the theory of multiverses (see pages 12-3), as all universes, including ours materialised from black holes.
16. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), pp. 111- 4; see also Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, London: Bantam Press, 2001, ppp. 116-129 and Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 31-2, and Adam and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 128-35
17. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32
18. ibid, p. 18; see also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-7
19. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 44-5; this is not to be mixed with the fact that the universe as a whole has a total energy of zero caused by positive energy of matter being cancelled by negative energy of attracting gravity, see Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136)
20. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7
21. Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, pp. 338-9
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Is Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution outdated in the light of the most recent science?
Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box expounds upon the theory of Darwinian evolution and its succeeding postulate neo-darwinism as outdated scientific conjecture in terms of understanding the mystery of life’s origin.The fact remains quite simple, neither postulate is up to date with the most recent discoveries of the complex molecule system, the cells, it machinary and the DNA.
I have to admit that Behe is not radically opposed to the evolution theory, he writes: ‘I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study development...within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world...however I do not believe it explains molecular life’ (p. 5). Hence Behe is inclined to believe that Darwin’s evolution theory indeed might help understand horse hoofs, but certainly not life’s foundation (p.4).
I realise that many atheists out of ignorance have pointed out that Behe occasionally corrects himself in favour of the evolution theory, however, granted the Behe is open toward evolution, the matter is not related to his occasional favour of evolution in certain often irrelevant details, but his overall tendency to be inclined in favour of design and a more divine intervention that greatly ascends mere naturalism.
Make no mistake about as Behe states: ‘Can all of life be fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution? Because the popular media likes to publish exciting stories and because some scientists enjoy speculating about how far their discoveries might go, it has been difficult for the public to separate fact from conjecture...’ (p.5). Hence here and elsewhere Behe considers much of the evolutionary enterprise as mere humbug; in fact in relation to molecular science he write: ‘...if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus on your search on the question on how molecular machines machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence’ (p.5).
Behe’s further point depicts how Darwinian exponents have utilized in their tendency a range of childish and simply solutions to explain the complexity of the molecular system and the human body as a whole, e.g. the eye, which Darwin claimed had gradually evolved from a very simple function to the human incredibly complex machinery, and this conclusion based upon the idea that the lesser effective examples of functional eyes in a variety of animal species would therefore have to reveal a gradual evolvement from a lesser effective function to another; however this trick will not do with the newer and more advanced discoveries within biological science; we have today advanced far too considerably to fall for such outdated conjecture.
According to Behe the evolution theory is simply an outdated model of the understanding of life and its origin, which in modern days ought to be exchanged for the new advancement in science which recognises that biology and the human body is based much more upon engineering science than mere natural evolution, and which therefore demands a creator.
Interestingly a year ago I read a Danish report laying in the Danish embassy in London (2009) which reckoned that the Darwinian evolutionary theory was only held as a valid theory by 20 percent of the British population, the number is supposedly the same in Denmark, an utterly secular nation.
What does this suggest? It suggests that Darwinian evolution is currently a theory that the majority of thinking individuals recognise based upon the most recent discoveries as devoid of logic, reason and proof, and that there is far too much more complex and intelligent details that suggest an intellectual cause for the origin of life rather than random effect and a meaningless universe.
I guess individuals will have to decide between the most recent atheist conclusion, namely that E.T. planted DNA in the sea 400 million years ago (which of course begs the question, on which star E.T. was planted, when and by whom) or that a divine and eternal being not depending upon neither time, space or anything, by its own intellect, will and power originated existence and life.Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Update: Zakir Naik banned from Canada too
There is now an update on the Zakir Naik versus the West Controversy: Zakir Naik now appears to get banned from Canada too:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/
Zakir Naik banned from the UK
Home Secretary Theresa May said she had barred Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher based in Mumbai, for inflammatory remarks he was known to have made in the past.
Naik had been due to give a series of lectures in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England.
"Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour," May said in a statement, without elaborating.
The Daily Telegraph on Friday reported Interior Ministry sources saying that 2006 website footage had shown Naik telling Muslims it was acceptable to embrace terrorism in certain instances.
According to the paper, Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying Osama bin Laden was right or wrong, adding: "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.
"If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."
He is also reported by the paper to have suggested Western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.
"Western society has actually degraded (women) to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers," the paper quoted him as saying.
May said: "Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter."
The minister made it clear she had not banned him simply because of his views, which is prohibited under the law.
A Home Office spokesman said the powers were used if an individual expressed views that "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs" or "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts."
He declined to elaborate on the exact nature of his comments, or when they were made.
(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Alison Williams)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7836557/Home-secretary-Theresa-May-bans-radical-preacher-Zakir-Naik-from-entering-UK.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100618/tuk-uk-britain-preacher-ban-fa6b408.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100618/tuk-home-office-bans-indian-muslim-preac-a7ad41d.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10349564.stm
Here is the youtube in which Zakir Naik glorifies terrorism on USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=related
The previous trend of Western over-kindness to those who wish to harm to our society is deplorable. Of course we should not permit terrorists or the exponents of terrorism, supression and persecution (such as Zakir Naik) to enter our society; I rejoice over this decision of the UK.
Naik had been due to give a series of lectures in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England.
"Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour," May said in a statement, without elaborating.
The Daily Telegraph on Friday reported Interior Ministry sources saying that 2006 website footage had shown Naik telling Muslims it was acceptable to embrace terrorism in certain instances.
According to the paper, Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying Osama bin Laden was right or wrong, adding: "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.
"If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."
He is also reported by the paper to have suggested Western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.
"Western society has actually degraded (women) to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers," the paper quoted him as saying.
May said: "Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter."
The minister made it clear she had not banned him simply because of his views, which is prohibited under the law.
A Home Office spokesman said the powers were used if an individual expressed views that "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs" or "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts."
He declined to elaborate on the exact nature of his comments, or when they were made.
(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Alison Williams)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7836557/Home-secretary-Theresa-May-bans-radical-preacher-Zakir-Naik-from-entering-UK.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100618/tuk-uk-britain-preacher-ban-fa6b408.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100618/tuk-home-office-bans-indian-muslim-preac-a7ad41d.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10349564.stm
Here is the youtube in which Zakir Naik glorifies terrorism on USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=related
The previous trend of Western over-kindness to those who wish to harm to our society is deplorable. Of course we should not permit terrorists or the exponents of terrorism, supression and persecution (such as Zakir Naik) to enter our society; I rejoice over this decision of the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)