Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
al-amiyr

The Qur'aan Cosmological Model

276 posts in this topic

Observations show that our universe is expanding and cooling. The Big Bang Theory is simply a logical reversal of this process. The merits of theories dealing with "before" the Big Bang are unrelated to the point I've made, which was that there is no consensus of the singularity indicating a beginning. Who says I "believe" in pre-big bang theories? I certainly didn't. They're untested as of yet, as you say. But the very fact that they exist indicates doubt in the minds of many physicists that the singularity is the origin of it all.

Consensus is that the best current model we have based on empirical data and observations is the bigbang theory. Now we know at one point there was a singularity, even that had to

Come from somewhere, but beyond science as it's metaphysical!

The consensus agrees that the universe began it had a finite beginning, now all the other theories you refer to, like QLG (quantum loop gravity), string theory, multiverse etc, are all theories with no scientific proof they are simply based on mathematical axioms and conventions, which can also be used to show a spaghetti monster beyond the singularity, point being it's metaphysical theories with no science behind it, yet you prefer those theories as the cause of our universe coming into existence, although it does not meet your standards, the very same standards of proof you demand from religion, scripture, and god. When physicists say the cause is gravity, multiverse, motherverse, omniverse etc, they base it on mathematical axioms and conventions, basically reasoning, logic and philosophy, not empirical data! That type of reasoning can easily be debunked, deconstructed and one can present god as the cause based on better reasoning, philosophy, but most of all, using current data and science to support the argument!

If the verse intended an expansion after the splitting, surely this would have been indicated in the translation. The latter does not necessarily imply the former. You misinterpreted the English, now you're avoiding the fact. Is this simply a red herring, or will you provide me with the verses you speak of above? I can guess that if you do and we come to different conclusions, you will simply maintain that I cannot access the original material in the original language, so my understanding is inherently inferior, as you are wont to do.

The OP will surely provide verse etc just be patient. As he told you when you translate from one language to another a lot is lost, not only that the translator attempts to find the best equivalent in the language it being translated in to, sometimes there is no equivalent too. Translating the Quran goes through the same process, judgement cant be based on the translated words it has to be based on the original. Clearly you have no clue about linguistics, etymology of words etc. The verses which refer to splitting and seperation denote expansion by virtue of contextual, historical, linguistic setting and placements. That ofcourse in the original Arabic, the English translation is a best attempt to bring the meaning to you in English, but a lot is lost in translation, that's why the OP has gone through such an effort to breakdown words, provide ethnological roots etc, using non Muslim sources. For some it's not enough still, due to their blind faith whether in science and it's clergy or a religion!

I mean no offense, but I don't see the point in making specific claims and drawing very specific parallels in front of an audience who supposedly cannot understand the true meaning and language of the original, untranslated text.

Ofcourse there is, there is layman understanding, translations provide that, the original Arabic if one is well versed provides deeper and in-depth meanings. For example one word in the Quran may 10 meanings, but when the Quran uses a words with multiple meanings, all the meanings are relevant in their own right and still make sense of everything including context. It's as though every word choice is perfect, that's a unique characteristic in the Quran alone!

If you don't know something, learn it! Or ask someone who does, if you don't know Arabic then learn from those who do, and the OP is teaching some of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is that the best current model we have based on empirical data and observations is the bigbang theory. Now we know at one point there was a singularity, even that had to

Come from somewhere, but beyond science as it's metaphysical!

Now that I am thinking back to some research that I conducted in the past, there are experts who theorize that the universe has always existed. Perhaps not in the sense that we commonly associate with the universe, but as a singularity prior to expansion.

You are making an assumption that it had to have come from something, which is not necessarily true.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad that you find humour in my sentiments.

Also, nice straw-man. I never said anything about believing that this singularity existed in any vast space.

I never said anything of the sort, nor did I imply anything of the sort; I merely referred to your definition of "asunder", and how it simply means to "break apart". To break apart does not necessarily indicate expansion, either.

But of course. I never suggested anything to the contrary.

You seem to enjoy taking attention away from the actual issue, don't you? Red-herrings everywhere. My initial assertion is that the creator of the universe mislead Muhammad in saying that the Earth and the heavens (stars, etc.) were all collected into one mass. One would assume that an intelligent creator of the universe would be able to differentiate between a planet and the matter which composes the planet.

But to answer your question pertaining to the origin of the singularity, nobody really knows the cause of the singularity, and nor where it appeared from. Scientists are working tirelessly in an attempt to find the answers to these questions, however. We may never find the answer.

I'm leaving your post alone as usual most of it has no substance at all! You imply that god should have said specifically "singularity", "matter" etc etc.

Lmao you prove my point, you are so dependent on the translations you actually judge the original based on it. Like I said the actual Arabic when it refers to the heavens and earth, it means the universe and everything in it, what is high above and below, what is vast space and solid as matter as earth, these are the meanings and more the original words carry, all are applicable and correct, and clearly indicate that heavens and earth, space, time, matter, etc etc were all united. No scientific terms that your looking for, cause those are English terms plus they only came into existence in the 20th century! You don't have believe the Quran or me or the OP, but at least provide tangible and appropriate arguments please!

Your statement that scientist (you mean clergy) are working tirelessly to find out where singularity came from, the origin and cause of existence! Lmao!

Again you prove my point, if you believe the above statement it only shows how little you know, science finishes at singularity, beyond that is metaphysics. Science works from one physical plane to another like physics, all physicality, matter diminish at singularity! Thus science cannot go beyond it, but we can deal with what we have and reason based on that data as to what caused it and where it came from! If science could answer it, that would mean there was a physical existence prior to singularity and our universe, if so we would have empirical evidence but we don't, cause your dealing with metaphysics. Let me put it in a way which you will understand!

We can't prove god cause he's metaphysical concept, we can't prove him through science because it's limitations are physical reality ie universe, it can't go beyond singularity, that's why we say you can't prove god either way empirically! Same applies for tired clergy, they can't prove empirically beyond singularity, they can only reason about it and their reasoning is shoddy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the creator need to reveal in the QURAN a book of guidance to mankind, a design paper, thesis, equations etc on how he created existence. You say it like you have the capacity of god to understand it and comprehend it. Lol! What he reveals is ample, he reveals in passing reference, but relates to us the mist fundamental aspects. For example that the universe began, it's finite and had a finite beginning. Why? Because everyone riot thought the universe had always been there, infinite etc. So he relates to this to clear our misconception about an infinite universe, he relays to us the state of universe before it was created, ie nothing, so we can understand this existence emerged from nothing, yet everything in our lives tells us that you get nothing from nothing, so gods illustrating he is the cause that created from nothing! He relays to us the singularity,so we know and understand our existences beginning, as no one prior to the Quran or modern scientific discoveries know this information, he relays to us that this universe is expanding etc, you getting the picture now. Relating and showing us these phenomena he has no need to be specific as you claim, because what he relays is fundamental and correct, the most important information, the mechanism and mechanics of it does not need to be shown because he has left that self discovery for us, as it will confirm his statements anyway, and knowing the mechanisms does not negate the agent behind them!

Lmao! Alien you always entertain me, as seine who believes alone in the gospel of science and it's clergy, you cannot fathom the notion that a singularity is the sum of all matter ie universe, which includes everything in it from stars to planets etc (which formed over eons after the big bang) were united bonded, all time, space, matter were this singularity, your problem is you seem to visualise this singularity existing in some vast space, no mate the vast space we call universe was this singularity.

Cleft asunder or breaking apart the singularity does refer to the big bang, however of visualise the big bang as massive explosion then you truly are naive and don't know science well at all, even though it's your gospel!

Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

So what's cause, where did the singularity appear from?

Come on now lion... Myself and alien do not get along on nearly everything, but there is not a shred of evidence or even reason to think that the vacuum was inside of the singularity. By space itself being inside of the singularity this is referring to the ---space--- between things. This is a lot different than the vacuum where virtual particles emerge and annihilate each other. There is not a single model that has that kind of space which I guess should be called proper space existing within the singularity.

As for time... Well that is just energy propagating through proper space. If energy is all condensed or only exists in potential form then obviously it's not going anywhere. Time as a "thing" dosnt exist now anymore than it did then.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there is no evidence that there was the big NOTHING. The vacuum is not nothing... In fact it's a swirling mass of potential. It's even possible that the very nature of quantum fome inherently pushes on each other ( see the casimeer effect) and exponentially builds to create an expanding universe while quantum tunneling distributes certain particles away from its twin thereby building larger than average density of energy in peek areas that coalesce into matter. This would give the appearance of a singularity beginning when in fact it's just quantum effects building up over time and expanding away from each other. In fact there are dozens of candates that are all equally logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I am thinking back to some research that I conducted in the past, there are experts who theorize that the universe has always existed. Perhaps not in the sense that we commonly associate with the universe, but as a singularity prior to expansion.

So the singularity state is infinite? You see u are visualising a fireball in vast space! You don't get it do you. Singularity appeared from nothing which expanded into existence. There is no export of the infinite in our reality ie our universe!

You are making an assumption that it had to have come from something, which is not necessarily true.

It's not assumption, it's fact, you can't get nothing from nothing! We know this scientifically, mathematically, logically, rationally and experientially. So not an assumption, in fact it's conjecture on your behalf based on absolutely nothing tangible that something can come from nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lion.. is there any new Muslim that can honestly get a chance to hold a decent discussion without you coming in again and again to row with skepttic? I am sorry but this new guy is trying yes, but you sure are not helping ..

It is posted on the skeptics board for a reason.. Sceptical posts are to be expected..

To the guy - al-amiyr... Ignore the bickering.. and stick with what you set out to do..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker what I mentioned about singularity to alien comes from,

Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.

Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.

Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.

Prior to singularity according to the above there was nothing! Time, space and matter began with the expansion of that singularity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody keeps talking about the singularity like it is a thing, but in reality it is the infinity symbol at the bottom of the black board. Which actually means there is something wrong with the equation. In science you keep picking at it until you figure it out, With religion you chuck it out the window and leave it for god to pick up. That is the fundamental difference between religion and science. There is no faith in science. There is no science in religion.

Edited by Darkwind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lion.. is there any new Muslim that can honestly get a chance to hold a decent discussion without you coming in again and again to row with skepttic? I am sorry but this new guy is trying yes, but you sure are not helping ..

It is posted on the skeptics board for a reason.. Sceptical posts are to be expected..

To the guy - al-amiyr... Ignore the bickering.. and stick with what you set out to do..

What decent conversation are peeps having with him? They say it's flawed, wrong, incorrect, etc etc but don't substantiate their claims, all I'm doing is putting nay Sayers right, correcting their fallacies, injecting a bit reason and philosophy into it. Join us :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving your post alone as usual most of it has no substance at all! You imply that god should have said specifically "singularity", "matter" etc etc.

Well, yes; if his intentions were for people to understand the actual processes as to how the universe was created, then he should have. He is, after all, the designer and creator of everything... so, I fail to see as to how an accurate explanation regarding the processes would be that difficult.

Lmao you prove my point, you are so dependent on the translations you actually judge the original based on it. Like I said the actual Arabic when it refers to the heavens and earth, it means the universe and everything in it, what is high above and below, what is vast space and solid as matter as earth, these are the meanings and more the original words carry, all are applicable and correct, and clearly indicate that heavens and earth, space, time, matter, etc etc were all united. No scientific terms that your looking for, cause those are English terms plus they only came into existence in the 20th century! You don't have believe the Quran or me or the OP, but at least provide tangible and appropriate arguments please!

No, he provides arguments that satisfy your own deluded agenda.

From what I am getting from your argument is that you are suggesting that the translations are incorrect, meaning that what they are translated into saying in BOTH contexts, it really means everything (all matter)?

Your statement that scientist (you mean clergy) are working tirelessly to find out where singularity came from, the origin and cause of existence! Lmao!

You truly are a jovial fellow.

Again you prove my point, if you believe the above statement it only shows how little you know, science finishes at singularity, beyond that is metaphysics. Science works from one physical plane to another like physics, all physicality, matter diminish at singularity! Thus science cannot go beyond it, but we can deal with what we have and reason based on that data as to what caused it and where it came from! If science could answer it, that would mean there was a physical existence prior to singularity and our universe, if so we would have empirical evidence but we don't, cause your dealing with metaphysics. Let me put it in a way which you will understand!

Firstly, metaphysics is (and always has been) code-word for BS. It has no place in the realm of tangible research...

Secondly, I believe that I would much rather grasp on to what science can prove as being irrefutable fact instead of adhering to untestable metaphysical clap-trap.

We can't prove god cause he's metaphysical concept, we can't prove him through science because it's limitations are physical reality ie universe, it can't go beyond singularity, that's why we say you can't prove god either way empirically! Same applies for tired clergy, they can't prove empirically beyond singularity, they can only reason about it and their reasoning is shoddy!

And you can't prove the existence of unicorns either, nor can you disprove them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singularity maybe an infinity symbol but it's not an export of the infinite. Singularity mathematically equals= 0. 0 was invented to represent the infinite in mathematical axioms and conventions and it means nothing ie zero too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What decent conversation are peeps having with him? They say it's flawed, wrong, incorrect, etc etc but don't substantiate their claims, all I'm doing is putting nay Sayers right, correcting their fallacies, injecting a bit reason and philosophy into it. Join us :)

Of course they will say it is flawed, it is their right ..It is posted on the skeptics board.. So it is to be expected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold fire alien, I'm off to Footy, be back later and I will address you properly and the fallacious points you make

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they will say it is flawed, it is their right ..It is posted on the skeptics board.. So it is to be expected

I know that but they ought to grow a pair and substantiate their claims!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold fire alien, I'm off to Footy, be back later and I will address you properly and the fallacious points you make

Okay. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely debates. Continue!----------->

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker what I mentioned about singularity to alien comes from,

Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.

Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.

Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.

Prior to singularity according to the above there was nothing! Time, space and matter began with the expansion of that singularity!

I understand lion, but they are using the term nothing to describe a state of pure vaccume. By " " no time" they are describing a time :) in which there was no standard energy to move through the vacuum because it had not appeared yet, by space they are talking about THE ----SPACE--- BETWEEN things. If there are no things yet, then obviously there cannot space between them. Non of those theories have any reason to propose that the actual vaccume was not here. prior to the emergence of the energy for this universe. No evidence and no reason to assume. In fact SUSKIND builds a lot of his models on this very notion.

Most of those very scientist tend to think that this universe started as a quantum fluctuation within the vacuume. Quite obviously the virtual particle dance had to exist if there is going to be a universe creating fluctuation in the first place.

The point here is that the way scientists use the word "nothing" does not mean nothing at all which I try to separate as "THE BIG NOTHING"

Even in creation models quite obviously god was here before, so THE BIG NOTHING is pretty much a fantasy for every one concerned.

Just to add: there is also no reason to assume within this vacuum very far away beyond the expansion horizon other big bangs do not exist.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singularity maybe an infinity symbol but it's not an export of the infinite. Singularity mathematically equals= 0. 0 was invented to represent the infinite in mathematical axioms and conventions and it means nothing ie zero too!

No infinity is not zero. Pi is not zero, but it is an infinite number. A Mandelbrot set is infinite and it is not 0. Oh got to pick up the neighbors kids from school bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody keeps talking about the singularity like it is a thing, but in reality it is the infinity symbol at the bottom of the black board. Which actually means there is something wrong with the equation. In science you keep picking at it until you figure it out, With religion you chuck it out the window and leave it for god to pick up. That is the fundamental difference between religion and science. There is no faith in science. There is no science in religion.

I agree for the most part, but the two can reconcile in potentials. I

Infinity does not mean something is wrong. That is an assumption. Infinity might well be the answer.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes; if his intentions were for people to understand the actual processes as to how the universe was created, then he should have. He is, after all, the designer and creator of everything... so, I fail to see as to how an accurate explanation regarding the processes would be that difficult.

It's not that an explanation in detail is difficult, the point is it's not needed, as long as the fundamental aspects are relayed. Plus who's to say the a full detailed design etc is within our comprehension? Your assuming you have the same capacity as god, that's illogical in itself. The beginning process, the expansion the end process etc are referred to and science with its limitations confirms the beginning process and expansion so far, self discovery via science seeing and observing the mechanisms and structure in place do not negate the agent behind them. Do you not comprehend this?

From what I am getting from your argument is that you are suggesting that the translations are incorrect, meaning that what they are translated into saying in BOTH contexts, it really means everything (all matter)?

No the translations are best the fit some linguistic expert deemed for the original words. To understand the full depth of the verses you have to be versed in Arabic. the Arabic words used denote splitting, separation, expanse, etc. There are no English words equivalent to the Arabic that carry that much depth hence you can only choose one or two words to convey the meaning in English! It's simple really!

Firstly, metaphysics is (and always has been) code-word for BS. It has no place in the realm of tangible research...

Lmao, metaphysics is BS, says it all! You really lack any scientific understanding because science only operates on a physical plane, beyond the singularity is known as metaphysical because if it was physical then our science would not breakdown at singularity it would go beyond it to another physical plane where our science would function. Clearly you have no clue!

Secondly, I believe that I would much rather grasp on to what science can prove as being irrefutable fact instead of adhering to untestable metaphysical clap-trap.

Lol, really. So how cone accept the clergies clap trap regarding what is beyond the singularity? They have no scientific proof!

And you can't prove the existence of unicorns either, nor can you disprove them.

But you could reason for them or not, but if you believe in a multiversity then all possibilities exist, even unicorns! Lmao!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand lion, but they are using the term nothing to describe a state of pure vaccume. By " " no time" they are describing a time :) in which there was no standard energy to move through the vacuum because it had not appeared yet, by space they are talking about THE ----SPACE--- BETWEEN things. If there are no things yet, then obviously there cannot space between them. Non of those theories have any reason to propose that the actual vaccume was not here. prior to the emergence of the energy for this universe. No evidence and no reason to assume. In fact SUSKIND builds a lot of his models on this very notion.

Most of those very scientist tend to think that this universe started as a quantum fluctuation within the vacuume. Quite obviously the virtual particle dance had to exist if there is going to be a universe creating fluctuation in the first place.

The point here is that the way scientists use the word "nothing" does not mean nothing at all which I try to separate as "THE BIG NOTHING"

Even in creation models quite obviously god was here before, so THE BIG NOTHING is pretty much a fantasy for every one concerned.

Just to add: there is also no reason to assume within this vacuum very far away beyond the expansion horizon other big bangs do not exist.

No before the singularity there was nothing, as in we font know what metaphysical reality existed if any. The singularity appeared, consisting of time space and the sum of all matter condensed to such a small size it virtually equals 0.

Anything proposing other universes other physical planes existing before are conjecture and philosophically flawed.

The vacuum you refer to is a rich structure of fluctuating energy, it's matter thus came into existence at the bigbang!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No infinity is not zero. Pi is not zero, but it is an infinite number. A Mandelbrot set is infinite and it is not 0. Oh got to pick up the neighbors kids from school bye

Like I said we can only comprehend infinity through mathematical axioms and conventions. Hence we created symbols to represent it 0! However there is no export of the infinite in reality ie in our universe, if there is, show me please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not rejecting the possibility of multiverse or string theory I'm simply saying there is no empirical data for them nor are they philosophically sound, nor does it negate a cause to it all and that cause to be god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that an explanation in detail is difficult, the point is it's not needed, as long as the fundamental aspects are relayed.

This very thinking is the reason as to why scientific progress has been impeded throughout the centuries.

"It is how it is; we don't NEED to understand anything any further!".

Plus who's to say the a full detailed design etc is within our comprehension?

Who is to say that it is not?

Your assuming you have the same capacity as god, that's illogical in itself. The beginning process, the expansion the end process etc are referred to and science with its limitations confirms the beginning process and expansion so far, self discovery via science seeing and observing the mechanisms and structure in place do not negate the agent behind them. Do you not comprehend this?

Your sentences are confusing in this response. Please re-word it so I can formulate a proper response.

No the translations are best the fit some linguistic expert deemed for the original words. To understand the full depth of the verses you have to be versed in Arabic. the Arabic words used denote splitting, separation, expanse, etc. There are no English words equivalent to the Arabic that carry that much depth hence you can only choose one or two words to convey the meaning in English! It's simple really!

I do not see how usage of the words "splitting", "separation", "expanse", etc. would be at all difficult to translate in to English, especially when it is being translated by a linguistic expert.

Lmao, metaphysics is BS, says it all! You really lack any scientific understanding because science only operates on a physical plane, beyond the singularity is known as metaphysical because if it was physical then our science would not breakdown at singularity it would go beyond it to another physical plane where our science would function. Clearly you have no clue!

Just because we are uncertain as to what existed beyond singularity, that does not indicate that what existed beyond it is completely beyond our realm of scientific understanding; it simply means that we just have not found an answer yet.

Lol, really. So how cone accept the clergies clap trap regarding what is beyond the singularity? They have no scientific proof!

These are theories, I never said that I irrefutably accepted them. I just said that there are THEORIES surrounding the notion that the universe was ALWAYS here.

But you could reason for them or not, but if you believe in a multiversity then all possibilities exist, even unicorns! Lmao!

Assuming the Michiao Kaku is right in his theory of multiverses.

All of your arguments are laced with red herrings, straw-men and other logical fallacies. . . . And you type "Lol", "Lmao", etc. in an attempt to belittle and berate my disposition. . . .

You are an interesting character...

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vacuum you refer to is a rich structure of fluctuating energy, it's matter thus came into existence at the bigbang!

How so. How do you/we know this? I can tell you it's not by taking our observations backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.