« the first ten days of dhul hijja | Main | How I can make my family more open minded to Islam? »

Wednesday, 27 December 2006

Comments

iMuslim

SUBHANALLAH!

I am so shocked!!! I am literally covering my mouth and laughing from the shock of being linked to!

I'm scared now... don't expect too much from me please!!! haha

Alhamdulillah. Jazakallah for your vote of confidence ARG. All truth is from Allah.

Wa'salam

P.S., i assume you are in London too, so what is your excuse for being up so late?!

ARGcomment: Don't be scared and don't change anything!
Excuse for being up so late is really responding to comments on my blog and following links and reading articles...and little Ayaat wasn't sleeping either....

Ejaz

It's amazing how biased many scientists can be while at the same time claiming to be the most impartial of people. In their blindness science fact becomes mixed with theory and many theories are now taken and taught as if they were concrete fact. It was unbelievable how much time and effort was dedicated to the evolution nonsense when I was studying Geology at university. The zeal with which they speak about this concept and do their best to make others 'believers' while conveniently side-stepping the massive pot holes in their bogus fairytales is unbelievable. SubhanAllah, I came to realise that through science a person has the capability of either totally losing themselves to atheism or finding the truth.

This is evident from the many biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists who acknowledge that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah and have taken their Shahaadah or still have not taken that final step. The other extreme is also clearly evident from the likes of Einstein and Stephen Hawking whom Allah has granted amazing mathematical and analytical abilities yet they are the blindest of all since upon reflection of the majesty of Allah's creation, they chose to conclude that it all came from nothing. It's mind boggling how someone so smart academically can at the same time be so donkey stupid.

I read the Brief History of Time by Hawking also. It's an interesting read but the most off putting thing about him is his constant mockery of the concept of God and how laughable he finds such an idea. First he asks "What is it, that breathes fire into these equations and gives them a universe to describe?" and then dismisses the idea of Creation and Allah as if it is some wishful fantasy concocted by those who want an easy solution to all the problems they face. As for the actual purpose of the universe, he 'finds' there is no such thing.

Well, the Almighty has the answer for such people:

"And We have not created the Heavens, the Earth and everything between them without purpose, that is the reckoning of those disbelieve, so woe to the disbelievers from the Fire!" (38:27)

ARGcomment: I didn't want to mention this in my intro to the sister's article, but actually reading a Brief History of Time gave me a huge boost to my iman. As I read it, it became more and more obvious that there must be a Creator.
I found this in the middle of chapter 8...
"In the hot big bang modle...there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the intial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same teperature everywhere in order to account for the fact the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expanion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse.
This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create being like us."
What follows is his analysis of two models proposed that try to explain how the universe COULD have arisen from a larger number of initial configerations and thus REDUCE the chance of the its initial state being chosen with "great care." Now this is trying to make things MORE complicated. What happened to Ockam's Razor? Anyway it seems these models didn't work.
Well what i read after that (if I understood it correctly) was that hawking proposes (for aethetic and metapysical reasons!!!!) a new theory of a universe with endless boundries. His calcultations keep coming up with infities which he suggests are superstring. This is the superstrings theory that it seems he admits can never be proven. Hmmm! Ooops! Did I just cut myself with that Razor that i threw on the floor. Dear me!

Zimarina

This is such an important issue that needs to be addressed. I remember one of my modules at uni was about analysing written discourse comparing how literature in the 'arts' is written compared to the 'sciences' and all the assumptions you'd be forgiven for having (ie: science is purely informational, unbiased, doesn't have any interest in moral value judgments etc) were completely blown out of the water.

The way science reports or observations are written, worded, how certain facts are presented, other facts ommitted, some hypothesis exalted, others subtly (yet effectively) discredited are all at work here- it's a very tangled web of manipulation via language; every scientist has a political or ideological standpoint and this will inevitably be evidenced through the research they conduct and subsequently present. Not that everything is one fat conspiracy by the way, just that there is actually no such thing as 'neutral'- impartial does not exist..and we're not even getting into the realms of the scientists who are PAID to conduct research into area X for a certain organisation or government body..

The most ironic thing is- 'reputable' scientists like Richard Dawkins have their own legions of devotees who may not necessarily understand all his 'complex' rationale but have confidence (blind faith?) in him nonetheless, they feel legitimised because this flimsy version of Science is their modern-day religion- and their holy book? Step in 'The Origins of Species' dear old Charles Darwin ofcourse..

Ejaz

The atheist scientist;

"his is the paradox of consciousness. Science exists only because of consciousness, yet consciousness is not to be found anywhere in science. Scientists find themselves in the strange position of being confronted daily by the indisputable fact of their own consciousness, yet with no means to account for it."

ARGcomment: Cogito ergo sum! I think therefor I am..but don't they just put it all down to the mind/brain function?
Please explain this nice thought for us some more Ejaz!

The comments to this entry are closed.