Does it not ...

[abuyusufalshafii]

Does it not contradict God's wisdom to believe he created almost endless time and place with no reason or purpose at all before humans (6000yrs. ago) and so far away from the earth? To me that is contradictory to common sense to create so much surplus time and place.

I also have to admit that the ancient Hebrew model of the universe fits in far more congruently with a Biblical and/or Quranic worldview (except with moisture in the sky, not a solid dome)

I'm a philosopher not a blind follower of modern scientists..

I think freely and like to brainstorm and relfect and use my own experience when scientists make ridiculous assertions.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Is it safe to assume that most of modern technology is rooted in projection and channeling energy?

 

[Thomas]

Does it not contradict God's wisdom to believe he created almost endless time and place with no reason or purpose at all before humans (6000yrs. ago) and so far away from the earth?

Humans – anatomically homo sapiens, evolved around 300,000 years ago. And the road to that appearance began long before that.

However, since there is neither 'time' nor 'space' in God, the question reflects our own relative understanding.

To me that is contradictory to common sense to create so much surplus time and place.

God is Infinite. The finite will reflect something of its origin.

If you create 'the heaven and the earth' then the whole shebang is there from the get-go. God and the Cosmos have that in common – there is nothing 'outside' God, and there is nothing 'outside' the Cosmos.

I also have to admit that the ancient Hebrew model of the universe fits in far more congruently with a Biblical and/or Quranic worldview (except with moisture in the sky, not a solid dome)

I think it's an error to assume Scripture is concerned with the mundane matters that occupy the physical sciences.

Scripture is speaking analogically.

I think freely and like to brainstorm and reflect and use my own experience ...

Subjective experience is fallible, that's the problem ...

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

thanks for the reply.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Also, I don't look at any knowledge as mundane as all topics of knowledge are interrelated. The Greek sages used to study various topics including theology, metaphyiscs, natural science, logic, ethics and cosmology as have sages from many other religious and philosophical traditions) traditions.

I try to focus on language (alphabet, vocab, grammar, rhetoric, poetry and literature) theology, science (physics and chemistry), psychology, philosophy (logic and metaphysics), law and anthropology (politics and the arts).

That's how I build my foundation and everything else builds upon those topics either directly or indirectly.

 

[RJM]

I also have to admit that the ancient Hebrew model of the universe fits in far more congruently with a Biblical and/or Quranic worldview (except with moisture in the sky, not a solid dome)

Yeah. But they didn't communicate with internet devices, did they?

The fastest they could get around was on horseback. Things have come on a bit since those days.

Of course you don't have to accept it -- but then you don't have to use a cellphone, or electric lights or take advantage of modern water supply and sewerage disposal, or travel by car or buy food from a supermarket that comes from a great distance away, by air and rail and road

 

[wil]

Does it not contradict God's wisdom to believe he created almost endless time and place with no reason or purpose at all before humans (6000yrs. ago) and so far away from the earth?

Not science.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Of course you don't have to accept it -- but then you don't have to use a cellphone, or electric lights or take advantage of modern water supply and sewerage disposal, or travel by car or buy food from a supermarket that comes from a great distance away, by air and rail and road

That's how they get people to believe them, how dare we question them when we use their technology when we don't trust their theoretical unverifiable teachings in theoretical sciences.

You'll notice that I didn't ever say that they don't know science just that they are dishonest with the public with what they know specifically things that we have to rely on their trustworthiness to accept (things that are unverifiable for the mass).

And this is exactly how they pressure people into believing them, using technology to say that how dare you question us when we gave you modern technology thus relying heavily on pressuring people to accept their second hand claims.

If you had any decency or objectivity, how about (non mockingly) asking for clarification as to why I believe what I do instead of trying to mock people you disagree with with your "chuckling".

Humans used to function fine before modern technology took over. We only need it because we have become accustomed to it psychologically and used to it.

Before we had internet forums there was much more teacher disciple relationships it's quality versus quantity.

You can learn a lot from the internet but before the internet we used to have the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, great schools like Azhar University and Qarawiyin University and we got along fine off of that. There were scholars to learn from in person.

When we become used to a certain lifestyle it's hard to do without it but people made due with what they had in antiquity and made great contributions to human civilization.

 

[RJM]

Ok, sorry I upset you. You have your belief and I'm not going to argue about it

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

you didn't upset me, but thanks either way.

 

[RJM]

Humans used to function fine before modern technology took over. We only need it because we have become accustomed to it psychologically and used to it.

There were a lot less people around in those days. A city like London couldn't function a day without all the power and transport and waste and sewerage disposal, to say nothing of feeding and clothing and housing, imo

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

There were a lot less people around in those days. A city like London couldn't function a day without all the power and transport and waste and sewerage disposal, to say nothing of feeding and clothing and housing, imo

Then humans would have adapted to bigger populations by spreading out more into rural areas and your saying this after telling me I could do without modern technology, kind of a contradiction.

Of course you don't have to accept it -- but then you don't have to use a cellphone, or electric lights or take advantage of modern water supply and sewerage disposal, or travel by car or buy food from a supermarket that comes from a great distance away, by air and rail and road

Basically modern solutions for modern problems (crowded cities/modern technology).

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Does it not contradict God's wisdom to believe he created almost endless time and place with no reason or purpose at all before humans (6000yrs. ago) and so far away from the earth?

If God did this, it cannot contradict God if we find out.

To me that is contradictory to common sense to create so much surplus time and place.

I don't think that common sense can explain God's creation.

I also have to admit that the ancient Hebrew model of the universe fits in far more congruently with a Biblical and/or Quranic worldview (except with moisture in the sky, not a solid dome)

No wonder, it's identical with the Biblical worldview. The Quran only differs in some details.

I'm a philosopher not a blind follower of modern scientists..

You should study science with open eyes.

I think freely and like to brainstorm and relfect and use my own experience when scientists make ridiculous assertions.

If you are serious, you cannot say that science is ridiculous unless you have understood the theory and find obvious errors in it.
Free philosophy is not ignoring the findings of others but challenging them.

 

[juantoo3]

If you are serious, you cannot say that science is ridiculous unless you have understood the theory and find obvious errors in it.

I hardly agree with the OP.

Having said that, I have challenged science on a regular basis with obvious errors...and often get rebuked and have my character impugned by those with blinkered vision speaking on behalf of science. Science is about being open minded enough to consider and weigh facts

Free philosophy is not ignoring the findings of others but challenging them.

...while being wary of Morton's Demon...that is to say, picking and choosing selective facts while ignoring the inconvenient facts.

One must also be mindful, science cannot address matters it cannot measure. Science does not answer all questions, nor should it be expected to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think freely and like to brainstorm and relfect and use my own experience when scientists make ridiculous assertions.

First think what is ridiculous - science or your beliefs?
What is happening is according to Allah's will, otherwise it could not have happened.
(lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāhi). My preferred translation is "All change and power is to Allah".
(I have derived it from various readings and translations)

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I hardly agree with the OP.

Having said that, I have challenged science on a regular basis with obvious errors...and often get rebuked

Scientists are not better people. Some like to defend their thesis. Those were called sophists in old Greece; they understood their challenge in the skills of argumentation, which is appropriate for lawyers but not for scientists.
There is also sponsored "research" with a commercial donor who expects results in his sense. That's not science but corruption. Those would rather not rebuke but refuse any dialogue.
But when you got rebuked, were you right?

and have my character impugned by those with blinkered vision speaking on behalf of science.

that's pseudo -science.

Science is about being open minded enough to consider and weigh facts.

Fully agree.

...while being wary of Morton's Demon...that is to say, picking and choosing selective facts while ignoring the inconvenient facts.

Found a good link to it

One must also be mindful, science cannot address matters it cannot measure. Science does not answer all questions, nor should it be expected to.

Yes. In particular, the lack of scientific proof does not imply that something is wrong. Only a comprehensible scientific refutation can prove that a statement is false or not universally valid.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does it not contradict God's wisdom to believe he created almost endless time and place with no reason or purpose at all before humans (6000yrs. ago) and so far away from the earth? To me that is contradictory to common sense to create so much surplus time and place.

Before or after humans came about, the endless expanse and what is contained in it does not make sense. Therefore, it was not created by anything intelligent.

 

[juantoo3]

But when you got rebuked, were you right?

Factually and truthfully, yes, and showed / cited support from recognized authorities (.edu, etc)

There's at least a half dozen discussions about Evolution to be found on this site to back what I say here, going back almost 20 years.

that's pseudo -science.

And far more common than first blush might indicate.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Factually and truthfully, yes, and showed / cited support from recognized authorities (.edu, etc)

So, you had good reasons. Scientists should then withdraw or modify the thesis or (if only the proof of it is questionable) acknowledge it as theory.

There's at least a half dozen discussions about Evolution to be found on this site to back what I say here, going back almost 20 years.


And far more common than first blush might indicate.

Discussion is good. I can't read the entire site. But I refuse to accept any thesis that runs against evidence.

 

[wil]

questionable) acknowledge it as theory

Lol...like gravity.

Of course one must understand the scientific definition of theory to stay conversive on the topic.

Life is good.