Print Page | Close Window

Open challenge to atheistic science

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Science & Technology
Forum Discription: It is devoted for Science & Technology
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24327
Printed Date: 25 October 2014 at 2:12am


Topic: Open challenge to atheistic science
Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Subject: Open challenge to atheistic science
Date Posted: 18 November 2012 at 11:29pm
Atheism at the physical level has been challenged as Einstein's all theories have been shown to be incorrect and consequently openly challenged on the basis of published articles. Open challenge is on World Science Database & General Science Journal
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 - -
index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=D - isplay&id=6476&tab=2 and also on.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018 - - Science-Journals/Essays/View/ - 4018



Replies:
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 November 2012 at 12:07am
There is no such thing as atheistic or theistic science. There is only science.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 20 November 2012 at 12:50am
Einstein changed the paradigm of physics in 1905 and thereby defined a paradigm of physical sciences under which existence of God is not possible. The articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward expose the trickeries of Einstein in his articles of 1905. Thus science was converted to atheistic science by Einstein. Now so-called scientists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Tyson & many others are just selling this atheistic science to promote atheism. Their whole knowledge is reduced to trash as the consequence of the scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Under the alternative paradigm of physics which emerges after rectifying the fallacies of Einstein existence of God is obvious & evident.


Posted By: bunter
Date Posted: 21 November 2012 at 3:08pm
Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

Einstein changed the paradigm of physics in 1905 and thereby defined a paradigm of physical sciences under which existence of God is not possible. The articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward expose the trickeries of Einstein in his articles of 1905. Thus science was converted to atheistic science by Einstein. Now so-called scientists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Tyson & many others are just selling this atheistic science to promote atheism. Their whole knowledge is reduced to trash as the consequence of the scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Under the alternative paradigm of physics which emerges after rectifying the fallacies of Einstein existence of God is obvious & evident.


Can you point out where Einstein said these things? What on earth do you mean by insulting brilliant men in this way, it's absolutely outrageous to call Hawking for example a 'so called scientist'. Can you justify this by telling us who therefore are 'proper scientists'?


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 21 November 2012 at 11:41pm
I have justified every word of what I have stated through scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and following is the list of articles & sites where these articles are available
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012)
2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010)
3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (www.indjst.org; April 2011)
4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life (www.indjst.org; August 2010)
These publications are also available on www.gsjournal.net, http://www.wrldsci.org - www.wrldsci.org , viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.


Posted By: bunter
Date Posted: 22 November 2012 at 3:31am
Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

I have justified every word of what I have stated through scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and following is the list of articles & sites where these articles are available
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012)2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010)3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (www.indjst.org; April 2011)4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (www.indjst.org; August 2010)7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life (www.indjst.org; August 2010)These publications are also available on www.gsjournal.net, http://www.wrldsci.org - www.wrldsci.org , viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.


I have never heard of this journal before and it appears to publish anything from how to mix concrete to flower growing. One wonders who would go there? Any journal worth it's salt would peer review publications so there is nothing special there. As far as I can tell this site is the only place you have visited or know about and you trust it or att least your understanding implicitly. The idea that there is Aetheist science is totally absurd - do you think there are Aetheist versions of Ohms law or gravity? One is sceptical about an article that claims to be an 'ultimate proof' or charge Einstein with trickery. Perhaps you would like to outline one or both of these


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 22 November 2012 at 9:47pm
What is stated in my previous post is shown mathematically, theoretically & experimentally in the articles. Whatever the journal but the contents are verifiable. Open challenge is actually for information of all members of this forum so that they could inform all the physicists of the world to produce the rebuttal of the articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward in the relevent forum. It is simply improper to reject or question the open challenge on this discussion forum (This forum could be only rebuttal articles which are to be published in some peer-reviewed journal). However there could be discussion regarding the consequences of the paradigm shift in physics on theology, social, biological & political sciences.


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 22 November 2012 at 11:14pm
The question is not whether God could be seen or not. The question is whether God can exist. No one can physically see God but God has to exist and the existence of universe is the proof of existence God. This is my concern as a theoretical physicist and a theologian. Following is the list of published scientific research articles which substantiate my perspective and the contents of the book 'Natural World Order & The Islamic Thought'.
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things
3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment ( April 2011)
4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology
5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries
6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology
7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life
These publications are published in Indian Journal of Science & Technology and are also available on General Science Journal, World Science Database, viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 23 November 2012 at 2:22am
It is the nature of science to constantly question itself. But this doesn't mean that new answers, just because they are new, are always right.

Good new answers are peer reviewed and only then do they become mainstream. None of the claims made by Mohammad Shafiq have successfully passed this test. Mixing science with atheism is nonsense. Atheism is the nonbelief in God. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The predictions of Einstein and all the other great sciences are still excellent. Relativity, for example, plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS).



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: bunter
Date Posted: 23 November 2012 at 3:15am
Just to add note to show the nonsence postulated by Shafiq I post a review probably the greatest Muslim scientist of the 20th century. The only trouble as you will see in the eyes of the narrow minded is that he was an Ahmadi

Book information Cosmic Anger: The first Muslim Nobel scientist by Gordon Fraser, Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199208463. Review by Professor Jim al-Khalili, a theoretical physicist at the University of Surrey, UK. His review was published in New Scientist, issue 2663 page 49.

UNTIL I read Gordon Fraser's excellent Cosmic Anger I knew just two things about the Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam: he won the Nobel prize for physics in 1979 for his part in developing the electroweak theory which unifies two of the four forces of nature, and he founded the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, to support researchers from developing countries.

Actually, let me add a third fact that I was vaguely aware of but which crystallised after reading this biography: Salam stands as the greatest physicist of the Islamic world for 1,000 years. Not since the 11th-century polymath Ibn al-Haytham has there been a more influential figure in the field.

Born in the Punjab in 1926, Abdus Salam - a western corruption of a single first name - showed early signs of talent. At school he quickly solved a problem posed by the Indian maths genius Srinivasa Ramanujan, using an approach far more elegant than that of the great man himself.

Salam was a devout Muslim, but his life was hampered by his adherence to a controversial and relatively obscure sect called the Ahmadis, so much so that his religious convictions led him to be excommunicated from Pakistan in the 1970s. Despite this, he remained loyal to his country and worked tirelessly to promote science in the Islamic world. He also spent much of his life lobbying world leaders and the United Nations for funding to help science in developing countries. Not since Einstein has any one scientist been so influential on the world stage.

But without the support of his own country, Salam's dream of a scientific renaissance in the Islamic world was doomed to failure. It is to Pakistan's eternal shame that its greatest scientist was not acknowledged because of a narrow-minded intolerance towards his brand of religion. I believe that until Salam is given the respect he deserves there can be no true Islamic renaissance in science.

The early "Golden Age" of Islam, from the 8th to the 11th century, was notable not only for the many great scientific advances that were made, but for its acceptance of scholars from all races and religions. The reasons for the subsequent slow decline of science in the Islamic world between the 11th and 15th centuries are complex and varied, but the fact remains that Islamic countries today have a lot of catching up to do.

Salam's main devotion in life, however, was not to religion but to physics. His genius left its mark wherever he went: Cambridge, Princeton, Imperial College London and finally Trieste. The post-war decades saw tremendous advances in our understanding of the subatomic world. Together with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, Salam created a theory that brought together the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, one of the most beautiful and powerful ideas in physics.

More than a biography of a great scientist, this book provides a wider political and historical commentary. And while some of the details of Salam's physics may be incomprehensible to those without a background in the subject, the politics of the Indian subcontinent, and the status of science in Islam, both past and present, make this an important and enlightening read.


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 25 November 2012 at 1:11am
A very brief synopsis would clarify my work to all members & justify the relevance of my work to philosophy & theology. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute accordingly thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but he defined God with the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter) & an uncaused cause. Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter.Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time Newton also same perspective of space was held. Now finite space means the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes's aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces absolutely no resistance but under second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Representation of planetary motion of solar system by Newton Laws mathematically was the only criteria for adopting the Newton's Laws; though his Laws were irrational, incorrect & untenable; was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This Newton did to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. Newton by introducing irrational & incorrect laws closed the doors of investigation into the existence of God especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of reality. Later this was very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach & others; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing fallacie (described in detail in my articles). Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist. Four constituents of the universe were reduced to two by Einstein namely space-time concept and matter & energy transmutability where space is emergent, matter is emergent and time is interconnected with space. Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements namely space & substance. Without discussing the substance; by the emergent space is meant that space came into existence at a point in time as such there is no possiblity that eternal God could have existed before the space came into existence i.e. 13.7 billion years ago or thereafter. Both of them; Newton & Einstein; had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute, time is relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. Now for emergence of matter & time the existence of God is a pre-condition and once we investigate the matter, aether & forces in nature there have to be substances which do not have electromagnetic properties & cannot be seen. Soul & God are substances without any electromagnetic properties so these substances cannot interact with light/radiation which are electromagnetic waves and as such we cannot physically see soul or God.   


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 25 November 2012 at 7:28pm

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

Now so-called scientists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Tyson & many others are just selling this atheistic science to promote atheism.
I am thankful to S. W. Hawking and N. Gajendran for their words of encouragement.
- Mohammad Shafiq Khan Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things and Living Things http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6342.pdf - Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No.9 (Sep 2010)
The humanity was deceived by denying the existence of ether in the space which is visible to even a layman. If during the night anybody stands near an electric lamp with the filament and stresses the muscles of the eye; he would see the shining ether around the lamp.
- Mohammad Shafiq Khan Michelson– Morley experiment: A misconceived & misinterpreted experiment http://www.indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.10/25-oct11khan.pdf - Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 4 No. 10 (Oct 2011)

In years to come it will be seen as a tragedy that such a gifted intellect was forced to settle for a career in the Department of Social Forestry.



Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 5:14am
I have shown mathematically, theoretically & experimentally what I have stated in the published scientific research article 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) which is also available on www.gsjournal.net, http://www.wrldsci.org - www.wrldsci.org , viXra, Intellectual Archives & Researchgate in my profile. You could see it on http://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 10:43pm
Einstein is proved fundamentally incorrect mathematically, theoretically & experimentally in the following scientific research article published in peer-reviewed journal 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) available on the link http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eindjst%2Eorg%2Farchive%2Fmar-2012%2F1-mar%2520khan%2Ehtml&urlhash=R0uj&_t=tracking_disc -


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 12:49pm

Mohammad Shafiq, I would suggest that for you to push your "theories" on a debate forum and not expect to be debated is both naive and arrogant.  It also indicates to me that perhaps settling for a career in social forestry (whatever that is) was a wise choice. 



Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 29 November 2012 at 1:29am
I have put forward an open challenge and anybody who believes in the adopted paradigm of physical sciences where existence of God is not possible could participate in the debate.


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 29 November 2012 at 5:28am
Most of the religions are corrupted by so-called scholars or corruptors.The best approach would be to rectify religions of the wholesale corruptions for which humanity would need courageous philanthropist philosophers. The human religion is very simple in principle and also very simple to explain. Humans have souls and souls have three characteristics namely
1. Human Ego (the I of the individual)
2. Innate knowledge of the Creator
3. Innate Moral Law (innate knowledge of rightness & wrongness of all actions humans may do & even think of doing)
Now souls are not made up of matter and are made up of substance which cannot be physically seen.
There have been messengers of the Creator whose job was to convey good news & warn humanity.
Good news is that human souls are eternal and warning is that humans will be answerable for the actions of their lifetime as to whether they lived in accordance of the defined Moral Law and in the afterlife their state of existence would depend upon their actions of the lifetime.This is crux of religion & everything which contradicts these basic principles of religion is corruption.
Now their has to be a system of governance where the law is based on Moral Law. Any other system of governance where laws are not based on moral law would be just impracticable. This is the task of genuine & courageous philosophers to rectify religions of the corruptions & conceive a system of governance based on moral law.
A very brief synopsis would clarify my work to you & all members & justify the relevance of my work to paradigm shift in physics. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but he empowered God with the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter). Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter.Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time Newton also same perspective of space was held.
Now then finite space means that the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes's aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces absolutely no resistance but under second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Adoption of Newton's Laws was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This was done by Newton to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. Newton introduced irrational & incorrect laws which closed the doors of investigation into the existence of God especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of reality. It is very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach & others; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing trickeries (described in detail in my article Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eindjst%2Eorg&urlhash=ekLO&_t=tracking_disc -


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 9:29am
What I don't believe is your fabricated conflict.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 2:52pm
Me too. How can God's existence ever be in conflict with mere 'laws' of nature? God can do anything, surely. He has a track record of intentionally fabricating physical evidence, just to lead people astray. Take fossils, for example, all expertly buried in just the right places to indicate evolution. Why would God not choose to interfere in the same manner with cosmological observations, or inside particle accelerators? The less direct evidence for God that we are allowed to see, the greater is the test of Faith, and therefore the more worthy are those who still Believe. Or so we are told.



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 8:08pm

I like it Nospam.  God put the false scientific evidence out there to test us, or rather, them.



Posted By: bunter
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 3:02am
Originally posted by schmikbob

I like it Nospam.  God put the false scientific evidence out there to test us, or rather, them.



No, this would imply that God deliberately lies


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 3:48am
Humans have to 'Know Thyself' (in the Socrates's sense) to understand their purpose and creator. Consciousness & conscience are beyond the domain of physical & biological sciences and if you ponder on the origin & existence of the universe through correct physical sciences one arrives at one & only one conclusion and that is there is evident & obvious God Who cannot be visible to humans physically.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 7:38am
Sarcasm, Bunter, sarcasm.


Posted By: Helios
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 12:13pm
It is most interesting to read that someone would rely solely on a tale told by a fallible man than the product of millions of experiments on a singular question. Your logic speaks only of accepting an a truth that cannot proven beyond the word of man. I call this ignorance. I believe in God, the creator of all living and nonliving entities within the cosmos. However, Islam/religion in general is the product of man's, who in his essence is fallible, desire for power and control of the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Those who cannot find God within them and have to be shown God through a flawed creature is a creature that subconsciously wants nothing more than to be told what to do, how to do it, and when. I pity those fools of Islam.


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 1:44pm
Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part. 


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 4:29pm
That's already been done, Nothing.  However, when I get told on a debate site that I'm not allowed to disagree with his thesis, it tends to bring out my sarcastic side. 


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by nothing

Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part.

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist.
I'm pretty sure Einstein never said that, and I don't know of any mainstream 'atheist scientist' who ever has. Richard Dawkins, for example, talks of probabilities, not certainties. In The Grand Design (2010), Stephen Hawking only concludes that supernatural intervention was not required. (Forget the silly newspaper headlines.)

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 12:51am
Hawkings Tysons Krausses & Dawking are making claims on the basis of science which has been openly challenged and accordingly put for discussion here. They are making claims on the basis of paradigm defined by Einstein. Now this is straight & relevent to the discussion that Einstein has been mathematically, theoretically, experimentally proved to be great trickster in a published scientific research article titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012) available on the link http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eindjst%2Eorg%2Farchive%2Fmar-2012%2F1-mar%2520khan%2Ehtml&urlhash=R0uj&_t=tracking_disc -


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 2:57am
Mohammad Shafiq has the right to question scientific hypotheses and theories. And the scientific community has a right not to embrace Mohammad Shafiq's findings. That's how science works. Peer review is critical. So far there are no peers with a good science reputation who endorse Mohammad Shafiq's views.

On a side note: Einstein and Planck can't both be right. Something's missing in either Einstein's general relativity or current quantum theory.

So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them?



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 9:20am
Matt, there's a huge difference between "Einstein and Planck can't both be right" and Einstein's theories being "trickeries and trash".  Einstein's genius had nothing to do with his belief or disbelief in a God and he wasn't trying to and didn't prove or disprove God's existence.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them?

If God never violated natural laws then there could be no miracles, only remarkable coincidences. And what use is a miracle without at least one witness? e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun - Miracle of the Sun .
 
On the other hand, a lot of Christian theodicy (eg Plantinga) points to the relative scarcity of such good old-fashioned 'in-your-face' miracles. These days, it seems that God is more inclined to intervene mysteriously and indirectly, so as not to 'give the game away'. Revealing Himself would only make Faith unnecessary, which rather defeats the point. Even the most unworthy souls would start believing, fervently. But then, if everyone is special, no-one is. Which is why the tsunami of 2004 was made to look as if it had been caused naturally, by geophysical forces. No direct evidence of God's handiwork.
 
The same reasoning is relied on by creationists to explain away empirical observations that don't 'fit'. You could call it divine 'evidence tampering', but for a higher purpose. Let's face it, God is pretty clever. And whenever the end justifies the means, why would He not violate His own laws?

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:45pm
Originally posted by Helios

It is most interesting to read that someone would rely solely on a tale told by a fallible man than the product of millions of experiments on a singular question. Your logic speaks only of accepting an a truth that cannot proven beyond the word of man. I call this ignorance. I believe in God, the creator of all living and nonliving entities within the cosmos. However, Islam/religion in general is the product of man's, who in his essence is fallible, desire for power and control of the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Those who cannot find God within them and have to be shown God through a flawed creature is a creature that subconsciously wants nothing more than to be told what to do, how to do it, and when. I pity those fools of Islam.


You are drifting away from the current. I took a liberty by copy and paste it for you. Please don't be a couch potato.

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

I have put forward an open challenge and anybody who believes in the adopted paradigm of physical sciences where existence of God is not possible could participate in the debate.





Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 11:48pm
Read my all comments it is logically & scientifically shown that under adopted paradigm of physical sciences God just cannot exist. Adopted paradigm of physical sciences leaves only one alternative for existence of God and that is transcendentalism which is unjustified & philosophically absurd explanation of existence of God.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 2:05pm

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

I have put forward an open challenge and anybody who believes in the adopted paradigm of physical sciences where existence of God is not possible could participate in the debate.
That's a pretty exclusive group - close to empty, in fact. What about others who would argue that the adopted paradigm does not rule out God?

Hubris and obfuscation might be enough to establish a name in the fields of theology and/or philosophy, but in the physical sciences it only invites ridicule or pity. 

Einstein took a very different approach. He made straightforward predictions that could be tested independently and publicly, using standard equipment.

No doubt he was sure from the start that he was onto something big, but still he managed to appear humble at all times. His contribution was not widely appreciated until a few of his more strikingly unusual predictions were validated empirically, by a community of professional sceptics.

Because it works, relativistic physics is now at the heart of many established technologies which would be hard to explain any other way. As Matt Browne noted above, relativistic time dilation must be corrected for in the GPS devices we now take for granted. Better known, perhaps, is the fact that energy from nuclear fission was predicted mathematically (from relativity theory) well before it was ever observed.

If you want to overturn something as convincing as that, then re-interpreting observations from a few published experiments will only go part of the way – peer-reviewed or not.

Perhaps Dr Mr Khan could deign to make an a priori prediction that (a) conflicts decisively with the established theory and (b) may be tested in the conventional manner.

That is the real challenge facing any theoretician.



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 4:00am
Originally posted by schmikbob

Matt, there's a huge difference between "Einstein and Planck can't both be right" and Einstein's theories being "trickeries and trash".  Einstein's genius had nothing to do with his belief or disbelief in a God and he wasn't trying to and didn't prove or disprove God's existence.


Absolutely. And by no means did I imply this. I just wanted to give an example why it makes sense to question science. But questioning science has to be done with the means science has at its disposal. Belief or disbelief in a God has indeed nothing to do with science.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 4:05am
Originally posted by nospam001

If God never violated natural laws then there could be no miracles, only remarkable coincidences. And what use is a miracle without at least one witness? e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun - Miracle of the Sun .
 
On the other hand, a lot of Christian theodicy (eg Plantinga) points to the relative scarcity of such good old-fashioned 'in-your-face' miracles. These days, it seems that God is more inclined to intervene mysteriously and indirectly, so as not to 'give the game away'. Revealing Himself would only make Faith unnecessary, which rather defeats the point. Even the most unworthy souls would start believing, fervently. But then, if everyone is special, no-one is. Which is why the tsunami of 2004 was made to look as if it had been caused naturally, by geophysical forces. No direct evidence of God's handiwork.
 
The same reasoning is relied on by creationists to explain away empirical observations that don't 'fit'. You could call it divine 'evidence tampering', but for a higher purpose. Let's face it, God is pretty clever. And whenever the end justifies the means, why would He not violate His own laws?


Indeed, I don't believe in miracles that violate natural laws. I don't believe in divine tampering. When we say God is pretty, we use human thinking. Yet God is beyond our comprehension. By the way:

"In casual usage, miracle is seen as any event that is statistically unlikely but beneficial, such as surviving a natural disaster, or simply a wonderful occurrence, regardless of likelihood, such as a birth. Other miracles might be survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds'."

Humans can actually "walk" through a door without opening it thanks to quantum tunneling. Magic. Now try to calculate the likelihood of such an event. It is 0.000 ... 001 and all that ... stands for wouldn't fit into the space of our current universe.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

I don't believe in miracles that violate natural laws...Humans can actually "walk" through a door without opening it thanks to quantum tunneling. Magic. Now try to calculate the likelihood of such an event. It is 0.000 ... 001 and all that ... stands for wouldn't fit into the space of our current universe.
Likewise, creating stuff out of nothing, virgin birth and resurrection may also be said to 'comply with' natural laws, under conditions approximating Infinite Improbability.
 
Objection sustained. With 'laws' like that, God could indeed do anything at all and still never actually 'violate' any of them. 
 
The defendant is hereby acquitted, on a legal technicality.


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Mohammad Shafiq
Date Posted: 05 December 2012 at 12:44am
The Creator of laws knows how to cause virgin birth even under the same natural laws. Let everyone ponder on as to how the initial cell with so much of complexity which might take another a few thousand years to unravel came into existence by natural laws; even if we accept evolution.


Posted By: al-amiyr
Date Posted: 11 December 2012 at 10:50am
Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

Read my all comments it is logically & scientifically shown that under adopted paradigm of physical sciences God just cannot exist. Adopted paradigm of physical sciences leaves only one alternative for existence of God and that is transcendentalism which is unjustified & philosophically absurd explanation of existence of God.


al-hamdulillaah brother

Allah has given you insight to shake the foundations of Atheistic science. Keep going, we are behind you inshaa allaah.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 12 December 2012 at 11:29pm

yes.. is everything ok?



Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 7:20am
Good post, Nospam01 !

And the term "atheistic science" is nonsense, Al-amiyr. Sorry.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: StopS
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 9:59am
It always cracks me up when I see the people who have the least understanding of science create these artificial "challenges" using the words science and atheism. They don't understand either, yet repeat the terms often and think they can generate some emotional bonding for their followers.

Are these the ones that buy the chrome plate saying "Turbo" for their cars?

Do they test their ideas on real scientists? No.
Sorry, there is an exception: the character "al-amiyr". He did and immediately got moved into pseudo-science and when he complained he was trashed.
That's the way to do it and test something you think has validity in the real world. Have it tested by real people.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:15pm
The OP hasn't signed on since 07 Dec. I'm no psychologist but after what happened recently (in the UK following a certain prank call) I'm suddenly more alert to unintended consequences. http://www.manicdepressive.org/dsm.html - www.manicdepressive.org


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Russell
Date Posted: 10 February 2013 at 7:05pm

Can you cite any single article in a truly peer reviewed journal? Can you explain what your problems are with Einstein or any of the other scientists you mention other than that they undermine your religious preconceptions?

I don’t care what you think of any of these people as people I care only what you can prove scientifically so please get specific here.  Show me what’s wrong with the ideas of Einstein!




Print Page | Close Window