Posts Tagged ‘material’

Science deals with specific physical or material matters; does not deal with abstract attributes like “beauty”

April 25, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/need-one-say-more/comment-page-1/#comment-14362

PAARSURREY says:
April 24, 2014 at 11:19 am

@ John Zande
A baby girl says
“According to religion I am:
-Broken
-Flawed
-Sinful
-Dumb
-Weak
-Nothing”
The truthful Religion does not say this.

If you think it is so; please quote from Quran.
Regards

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/need-one-say-more/comment-page-1/#comment-14364

PAARSURREY says:
April 24, 2014 at 11:31 am

@ John Zande
A baby girl says
“According to science I am:
-Full of wonder
-Smart
-a great learner
-Beautiful
-Potential for greatness!”

Please quote from a text book of science or a peer reviewed article in a journal of science. I think science deals with specific physical or material matters; does not deal with abstract attributes like “beauty or smartness” that are not quantifiable.
Regards

Science and Religion both essential for living normal life on the planet Earth

March 21, 2014

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13351

PAARSURREY says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm

@MYATHEISTLIFE says: March 21, 2014 at 6:29 am

“It occurs to me that this subject is about how the believer chooses their own morality over the dictated word of their deity. When there is a right and wrong way to interpret the text it is by definition not a perfect text and cannot be seen to contain perfect or objective morality.”

Interpretation is done by both Religion and the Science.
The experiments are made on the basis of the availability of certain data at a certain point of time and the results are interpreted and are accepted within a certain range of accuracy; and there is an implied condition always with the results “if other things remain unchanged” (since everything is moving, so other things don’t remain unchanged); the ultimate check of the results is with the Nature- the Work of God. If there is an anomaly detected subsequently in nature with the result of the experiments; then new hypothesis/theory is made and new experiments are made to remove the anomaly.
The same way in Religion; as we advance/change in time and place; the previous interpretation/understanding does not remain valid simply because our understanding, though previously it was thought to be correct; but due to the change of time and place an anomaly is detected; when more thought was applied on the original text of the Word revealed one gets to know the mistake of previous interpretation/understanding; it was not the fault of the Word of God, so to make a new and correct interpretation/understanding becomes necessary.

Science/Nature is the Work of God and religion is from the Word of God; both belong to the same source of One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara); both work in different domains for benefit of the humanity; both are complementary to one another and never contradict one another if correctly interpreted.

Science works in the physical and material domains; religion is for guidance of the humanity in the even more sophisticated and intricate issued of ethical, moral and spiritual realms; nevertheless both are essential for living normal life in this planet Earth, peacefully.

Let us see below what Wikipedia says on the usage of interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Interpretation

Philosophy[edit]
• Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration
• Interpretation (logic), an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language
• De Interpretatione, a work by Aristotle
• Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory
• Exegesis, a critical explanation or interpretation of a text
Math, science and computing[edit]
• Interpretation (model theory), a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure
• Interpreter (computing), a program (a virtual processor) that is able to execute instructions written in a high-level programming language
• Interpretation function, in mathematical logic a function that assigns functions and relations to the symbols of a signature
• Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature
• Interpreter pattern, a software engineering design pattern
• Left brain interpreter, the post-hoc construction of explanations by the brain’s left hemisphere
• Interpreted language, a programming language that avoidsit program compilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Is it ethical or moral to explore God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him?

March 14, 2014

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.

“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/#comment-8827

paarsurrey
MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:58:01

@ unkleE :MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:15:54

“we shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.” Unquote

I think I agree with you here.

I further have to submit.

We are discussing here the existence of One-True-God, an Immortal Being . Science and the scientific method as a tool of exploration has come into the field only yesterday; and it only deals in the things physical and material.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

[39:65] Say, ‘Is it other gods than Allah that you bid me worship, O ye ignorant ones?’
[39:66] And verily it has been revealed to thee as unto those before thee: ‘If thou attribute partners to God, thy work shall surely go vain and thou shalt certainly be of the losers.’
[39:67] Aye, worship Allah and be among the thankful.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=39&verse=67

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True- God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

Arguing with Preschoolers

July 17, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with you. You have refuted Smalley’s thoughts very clearly.
Thanks

 

 

  • agnophilo
    July 18th, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Me thinks you miss the point. You are arguing with the six year old girl rather than connecting to the fallacy she is meant to illustrate.

    • paarsurrey
      July 18th, 2013 at 8:38 am

      I think David Smalley was not clear on his argument. He or if you want to defend his point; they you should clear the point. I think he just wanted to say that believers of religions are silly; and that Debilis has been successful to point out. Nevertheless it is no reasonable argument, in my opinion.

Fide Dubitandum

92572265From Smalley’s “Top Ten Reasons Why I’m an Atheist”:

3. I asked my four-year-old daughter where the stars came from. She confidently said “The moon made them.” I followed by asking “Then where did the moon come from?” She strongly asserted “Daddy, the moon is the boss. Nobody made the moon.” This is an unmistakably familiar mindset; and rightfully embarrassing for an adult to hold such similar thought.

The problem with most arguments from analogy is that their proponents have done nothing to show that the analogy is a good one.

We see this very clearly in the passage above. Smalley seems to be claiming ignorance of the differences between a contingent, finite, material object like the moon and a necessary, infinite, immaterial God. Whether one believes in the later or not, this is the idea being discussed, and merely asserting “the moon had to be made by something, so…

View original post 401 more words

Ali Sina’s quoting Albert Einstein is inappropriate

November 20, 2009

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3552&p=81013#p81013

Ali Sina wrote:

A Reply from Ali Sina

Hello ….,
Truth cannot be found. Albert Einstein, yes that Jew whom Muhammad called monkey and pig said: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” There is a world of wisdom in these words. You can never find the truth. All you can do is expose the lies and get closer to the truth. In my writings I am not teaching the ultimate truth. I am exposing the lies of Muhammad and Islam.

Ali

Paarsurrey says:

Hi Ali Sina

It is not appropriate to quote a Scientist out of the faculty of Science in the ethical, moral and spiritual realms. Albert Einstein was a great Scientist and we acknowledge and respect him very much in Science. Yet, we would say that in the realm of Ethics, Morals, and Spirituality his words were and would be only an opinion and sometimes even a lay man’s opinion. Albert Einstein never claimed to be an expert in these realms as these are out of the Scientific Method where only things material are discussed.

Ali Sina should not have quoted Albert Einstein, in my opinion, as this does not make a relevant argument altogether.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim