PAGE 13

6981
  Home Page | Links  | Comments | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15  






PROOF,WAY OF PROVING AND PROVING

Lets be logical.

I think, before we start examining religion we need to know why we need to do so and how we may do so. We also need to understand some terms normally used and their proper context and perhaps a bit of explanation as regard logic that we think we are using.

 

We need to examine religion because in one sense or another it is a major and fundamental cause of conflict in the world. The conflict is not between countries, cities and villages only but even between the members of the very same family eg if some members of family hold one religion or sect true the others hold a different religion or sect true and battles are fought over it. All this because we have not understood religion as to what it really is and what it stands for and how it came about. I hope together we are going to help each other clarify this situation for the good of our own very selves.

 

Before we actually talk about religion, we need to understand what the truth is? What a theory is, what a hypothesis is, what is meant by logic, axiom, fact, proof, the way of proving and actual proving. We will explain things as we go along because they are far too many to be talked about in one place.

 

Theory means an assumed best explanation of a given set of facts or assumptions. If the explanation is the best available and is based upon facts and works, it proves the theory otherwise it remains an unproven assumed explanation or mere hypothetical explanation of a set of hypothesis or self evident facts. This is the reason the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is the pudding is cooked for the purpose of eating but unless all its necessary ingredients are used and are used properly and the cooking is also done properly, it would not be enjoyed by those who are supposed to eat it. Instead it would be thrown out and so it would prove it was not a good pudding. On the other hand, if it all turns out alright then it would end up something that people would enjoy eating and thus it would have served its purpose and proven its worth.

 

Before the pudding is actually cooked one needs to know the theory and the related facts ie one needs to know how the pudding is made and what things are involved in it. The theory is merely an assumption till it is used to produce the result in practice. Thus the theory would now be known as a fact because it has passed the practical=logical test. Let us explain it in another way, if a person claims to be a good cook, how can he prove that he really is a good cook or how can we know that he is really what he says? The answer is, either he or we come up with a testing method and if the claimant passes that test, we accept the claim. For example, in this case we devise a cooking test and allow the person to show his cooking skills. If he cooks things as he claims, he proves himself to us. If he messes up things instead, he disproves his claim.

 

Hypothesis also means an assumption or guess but this time we are not guessing an explanation of facts but merely guessing a new fact for verification in addition to already known facts. For example, I want to meet my next door neighbour but I do not know whether he is in or away out. I see that lights are on in his house and music is playing etc etc, so I assume=guess, he is at home. In order to verify my this assumption I may go and knock at his door to see if he is really inside the house. So I knock his door and he comes and opens the door thus my assumption proves true or correct. Had he not been at home, my guess would have proven wrong. 

 

Many a time we suggest each other, let us be logical but the question is, what is logic? Logic simply put is a statement, a thought, a fact, a step or a link with a definite place in sequence or combination of things that work as a set or unit that has a purpose to fulfil. In other words, logic is a mechanism whereby objects, thoughts or actions are interconnected so that they function properly in order to achieve a set out purpose or end product. If the end product is achieved the logic is sound otherwise not.

 

Mechanism eg leavers, links, wheels, gears, pulleys, belts, chains, shafts etc etc are interconnected in such a way as to serve a purpose. Take a bike as an example. The mechanism is designed for a set purpose eg for a person to travel from one place to another a bit faster and easier than walking. However, force that is used by a person to move it needs to be transferred from the rider of the bike to the bike wheels in a desired way. So the person must be linked to the bike wheel by a set of mechanical links. If all links are properly connected to each other for this purpose ie for transfer of force the bike will work otherwise it would not. This is logic at work in two respects a) in the sense that things are connected together ie they are combined to work as one unit or a single mechanism b) they are connected in a proper order or sequence. If any two things in this chain of mechanism were not linked together at all or properly, the force that rider applies will not find its way to turn the wheels and the bike would not work thereby proving inconsistency or fault in this mechanism. The other example that comes to my mind is that suppose, you want to take water from the tap to the plants in your garden by using a hose then this hose needs to be sound for this purpose. If it is cut off at any place from the tap to the garden, the water will fail to flow through it and thus it will fail to fulfil its desired purpose.

 

Our thoughts and actions also need to be interconnected in a similar manner to show that there is no flaw in our reasoning of things. Just as any mechanical part of the bike connected wrongly, missing or damaged would not allow the bike to function nor would any flaw in our reasoning prove our point. So logic is merely the linkage which could be linking things or their thoughts and actions for a set purpose eg to prove a claim or to make a point. Logic is only and only combinational or sequential ie it is about putting things together as a single functioning unit and about putting things in their proper order that works. If some things are left out or put in wrong order of sequence then they will not work and so the purpose that was set out for the exercise will not be achieved.  

 

Another important term often used by us is, proof. We ask each other, what is your proof for your claim or prove this or that etc etc but we do not give a thought to, what the proof actually is, so the question is what is proof? The answer, a proof is called a proof because it is evident and is complete, perfect or consistent with the allegedly claimed purpose ie it has no holes, imperfections, faults or missing bits in it and is obvious therefore it fulfils the claimed or stated purpose. For example, when we say something is fireproof, what do we mean by it? We mean, it does not catch fire. It is perfect for the purpose of not burning when exposed to fire or that fire cannot find any holes in it to get to it or through it. Word waterproof likewise means that water cannot penetrate the thing that is said to be waterproof, if it does then the thing is not waterproof, for it is damaged or flawed. A claim is only a word and proof is the deed that if it is found according to the claim then proves the claim otherwise disproves it. For example, if one claims to be a plumber then that is only his word but if he could show his claimed plumbing skills in practice then that would prove his claim. However, if he fails to show his claimed skills in practice then that would prove his claim false.

 

A proof is a reliable testimony of a witness=certified or approved evidence after thorough examination. It is a testimony that has been found free of all faults and flaws, having no contradictions within and with respect to self evident facts and is perfect for the purpose of the claim ie it backs the claim. A qualified plumber will be given a certificate by a qualified teacher or authority stating that this person fulfils the requirements of being a competent plumber because this fact has been witnessed by the attester. However, the plumber will be tested for his plumbing skills again and again where-ever he goes for a job, just to make sure he has not forged the certificate himself or that he has not forgotten the skill etc etc. He will be given and kept on a job only and only if he keeps on proving himself to the employer and the customer or consumer he is serving or as soon as employer or customer sees him lacking in what is required of him, he will be told to go home.

 

The question now is, how do we use logic to prove a claim? Let us take for an example a witness, who claims that he saw a man who took out his gun from his pocket and shot another man twice in the head killing him instantly. The question is, is this witness telling us the truth? Well we need to test his sequential logic against itself as well as against his own combinational logic. What do I mean by that? By that I mean that we will see whether the sequence of events in the incident as told by this witness are actually possible or not? If the sequence of events is correct, the claim passes the first hurdle or else not. If the sequence did not make sense to begin with, we will know straightaway that the witness is a liar, for he has failed the very first hurdle. What I mean by sequence is that suppose one has to go from a place called A to a place called B but this involves ten breaks in the journey. Some part of journey is may be by air, some by train, some by bus and some by ship etc etc. Now one needs to make sure that one is on time for each part of one's journey or missing any linked journey will result the person not being able to reach the destination that one set out to reach on time. Earlier I explained how force must get from one point to the other by means of mechanical linkages in case of a bike. The whole idea is to ensure that the chain of events is complete or the story would not make the sense the way it is supposed to according to its claimed purpose.

 

Next we look for things involved in the incident eg the killer, the victim, the murder weapon etc etc etc. If we find all these things then we check them out eg examine the dead body for bullet holes, take out bullets and match them with the gun (the murder weapon) and check out the gun for the fingerprints of the user for example. Once we have all these things, we lay them out together in an orderly manner to show the connection between them eg the killer will be connected to the gun by way of clues like fingerprints. The gun will be connected to the bullets (we recovered from the victim's body) by way of ballistics tests and so one will be able to see clearly that the witness is telling the truth and thus case will be proven against the accused. On the other hand, if our evidence was patchy with a bit missing from here and a bit missing from there, we will not be able to prove the reliability of the witness ie the logic sequence or combination would have in it some steps or bits missing, making little or no sense at all. Evidence is called evidence because it is obvious, hence one cannot call just anything an evidence, it truly has to be evident.

 

It is also important to realise at this stage that if there exists no way to prove a claim, then claim will not be treated as proven even if the claim may be true as a possibility. It is because as far as we are concerned, if there is no way of doing something then it cannot be done. If something can be done then there has to be a way to do it. However, the burden of proof, the way of proving and actual proving rests with the claimant. It is for others to examine whether the way of proving put forth works or not and whether the evidence put forth as a proof is reliable or not and so the claim has been proven or not. One thing is important though that judgement must be impartial or fair ie according to the presented evidence. It is impossible to twist the reliable evidence hence those who would decide against the presented reliable evidence will be providing evidence against themselves for being partial and unfair. Moreover, today it may be somebody else who you are judging but tomorrow it could be you who is being judged, so better have a system that you would feel comfortable with when things go wrong for you.   

 

I had to explain all this because most of the time it seems that we have problems with the definition of terms like absolute truth, proven truth, probable truth, possible truth, theory, hypothesis, axiom, philosophy, assumption, logic, fact and proof etc etc as well as with the interrelation between them. This is exactly what leads us to confusion about things when it comes to judging the issues for their truth. For example, the truth is categorised into four different categories a) absolute truth, b) proven truth, c) probable truth and d) possible truth. The absolute truth is called an axiom, which is self evident and self explanatory therefore is common experience or if you like universal. In other words that is how far we can be sure of something or an event or a phenomenon etc etc. For example, it is absolutely true that there is such a thing called the sun. It is also absolutely true that the sun is a globe and that it is hot and that it is at a distance from the earth. It is not possible for anyone to deny these facts because all this is a universal experience and universally accepted fact. One person therefore cannot accuse another of any wrong doing eg that you must be imagining things or biased etc etc. This is why an axiom is the foundation against which all the rest has to be tested and proved or approved or even disproved. Things that cannot be called universal experience or universally accepted cannot be called axioms or absolute truths.

 

The next category of truth is that which is weaker than axiom but is stronger than any other form of knowledge and that is called the proven truth. The problem here is that just as axiom is a universal experience the proven truth is not. The proven truth is experience of some people that others only accept because it is proven to them to their satisfaction by way of a proof. The absolute proof is that which is witnessed by the testifier and the testimony proves to be true under test or cross examination. Again such a truth cannot be explained any other way nor denied, because the person who was absent from the event under question cannot contradict the person who was present there. The only thing that can prove the present person wrong is his own self conflicting statement or if it contradicts the self evident facts or axioms or things that are considered absolutely true beyond question. This is why we must and we do look for faults in the statements of a person who claims to be the first hand witness to a fact or an event or a phenomenon.

 

The next category of truth is, probable truth. This form of truth is not self evident nor there is any reliable witness to it. What one does in this case is, gathers as much as is possible the related clues as evidences and assumes as best explanation as possible for them that one can come up with and accepts this truth on that basis. However, in this case, the best explanation is that which is not self contradictory not contradicts proven or absolute facts and is well detailed but simple or easier to understand. This is the weakest form of proof hence it does not stand against proven truth nor against absolute truth.

 

The next category of truth is, possible truth ie we cannot be sure about the truth of a matter one way or the other. Hence there is nothing to compel us to go one way or the other. In other words we could come across situations where the clues and explanations are equally valid or for that matter invalid hence we are free to believe or not to believe in the truth of the matter under consideration. So anything that does not fit the categorised truth is absolutely false and there is no doubt about it.

 

Word theory means an explanation and an explanation is about things or situations or events and phenomena, which is only needed where things could be misunderstood or may not even be understood at all in the absence of the absolute truth or the proven truth. Things that are clear to us do not need any explanation whatsoever. Since explanation is given in the absence of an actual experience or reliable first hand witness therefore it is bound to be an assumption ie it is circumstantial based rather than experience based or reliable first hand witness based. For example, if I saw a murder taking place right in front of myself, I need no proof or explanation as to how it happened, because I know it. However, if I found a dead body and clues around it but no witness then I need to think out what might have happened here all by myself. I could be right as well as wrong, for this will be my assumption or if you like my guess , not an actual or proven fact.

 

So why a theory may end up as an acceptable or even accepted probable fact is, because it is the best possible explanation around for explaining the situation. Whatever I assume about the dead body, I put it in front of everyone else along with evidences I gathered and they cross examine it. If they find nothing wrong with it nor anything against it, they approve it, perhaps with further supporting evidence. Hence to treat an accepted theory as mere an assumption is incorrect and a serious mistake. Science is all about finding out about things or their aspects that are unknown to us. Maths is best example of that eg a=lb ie area of a rectangle equals length of its longer side multiplied by the length of its shorter side. So those who dismiss science are far from being called knowledgeable people. Anyway this is what makes the accepted theory different from a mere hypothesis or just a guess. It is because just a guess is not as good as a guess that is tghe best explanation and is based upon circumstantial evidence.

 

Most of the time word theory is used in sense of an explanation but at times it is used in its proper sense ie the best explanation. It is best because it cannot be rivalled or refuted. If it could be rivalled or refuted then it would not be the best, would it? Thus a theory even though a hypothesis differs from hypothesis because hypothesis is merely a guess that may or may not be true whereas an accepted theory is held true and it remains true for as long as we do not have anything to refute or replace it with. Many a time people use terms like absolute, proven and probable interchangeably when it comes to expressing truth about something but that is a serious mistake, because probable truth is not as true as the absolute truth or proven truth. Likewise the weaker evidence is not good enough to refute the stronger evidence.

 

In rationality rules are necessary to understand things. They are called axioms because they are derived from real situations that face us. We make rules because we need them to solve problems or to reach solutions or conclusions. Philosophy is all about reasoning or rationality but mostly uses abstracts ie hypothetical situations or facts for understanding purposes. Once we have real problematic situations, we analyse them and by so doing try to figure out their solutions. Once we have solved the problems, the ways we have solved them become the rules. For example, what do you think happened when somebody long ago faced the problem of finding the area of a rectangle? Did he get the revelation from god via an angel telling him how to measure or quantify things or create measuring units? No. The way we did things then that is the way we are still doing them ie the same way eg whenever need arises we devise a system or method and thus solve a problem. When people saw the need, they invented the wheel and when they invented the wheel, they saw the need for laying down the paths on which the wheel could role or run. Roads were not build because god told people to do so, it was their own need that forced them into inventive thinking ie one step led them to next. By our little tiny steps we travel the distance of many many miles. Just think about how you yourself figured out things as you grew up. When you decide to do something because your need dictates it to you, then you start thinking and so you started gathering things as and when you realised them.

 

Maths is full of such inventions eg a=lb. This is the rule but it was invented by using real situation eg one can take a real piece of paper that is measured by using a real ruler and cut 4cm long and 3cm wide. To know the surface area of it, one can cut it into 1cm squares and count them, one will have 12 of them and that is the proof. By realising that if length is timed by breadth of any rectangle of any size we get the same result as by doing the practical exercise, people found a pattern emerging whereby they found a way of solving this problem hence it became a rule, for it worked every time. It was not there till we invented it by trial and error, hence the saying that need is mother of invention.

 

One must remember that a rule is only a way of doing things, it is not a proof on its own but is deduced from the real situation and that situation many a time can be recreated ie the experiment can be repeated to prove that the rule is correct. So proof is based on deductive reasoning ie it can be shown that it is based on reality. It is such rules that help us know the past as well as help predict the future to a degree. For example, a plant grows 1cm daily. When we measure it one day we find, it is 20cm tall, we therefore know with reasonable certainty that ten days ago it was only 10cm tall. Likewise we can predict that if we measured it after another couple of days, it will be 22cm.

 

This is what we call knowledge=science. It does not mean some totally baseless assumption that makes no sense and is impossible to verify in any respect whatsoever. Science is all about hypothesis for verification not assumptions that are impossible to verify. Science is study of natural world not supernatural, so calling baseless assumptions, knowledge, is wrong and against such principles. To look at it in another way, knowledge is about knowing something about something. When one says: I know something; think, what one is saying. When you know something then you know it ie you are not ignorant of it in the respect that you are aware of it.

 

 

 

 

 

   Many people take religion to mean just one fixed thing but in my view religion is defined differently by different people. For example, religion at times is defined as culture or if you like a way of life. Since there are different cultures in the world hence there are different religions ie people on the earth have evolved in different directions hence became diverse.

 

Now word religion is interpreted differently by various human groups. For example, some take religion to be divine in the sense that it is a way of life that came about naturally. Here word divine signifies the comprehensiveness of religion and how widely it is adhered to and not in sense of its origin from any god.

 

Some also take it to mean a god appointed system of life that cannot be transgressed or deviated from or god will become angry and punish etc etc.

 

Some take religion to mean a way of life that is organised or regulated by human beings themselves so that there is some sort of order in life for sake of ease and betterment of humanity.

 

Some take it to mean a controlling system invented by dominant members of human societies to secure their status and economic advantage over others.

 

All these trends of humanity can be explained quite easily if we look at human development or evolution itself. For example, what did the original human being think? How capable was that human being or his children and grand-children and so on.

 

First of all humans were like animals ie not much capable of thinking. Take the example of a new born human baby, what does a baby think about? Now allow him to grow bit by bit and observe how the baby starts learning from within the environment wherein he exists and interacts. Likewise the earliest humans grew into humans of today.

 

Their first priority was not god, not even where the hell this world come from but survival eg food and shelter from danger as well as reproduction. A baby does not ask questions about world or god, he cries when he is hungry. It were peoples' natural needs that stitched them together in form of groups just like other animals, for people developed from animals. As they became organised into family gangs or clans or even tribes to meet their needs, they gradually became more and more aware of their own needs and environment, they began to solve their problems. Only when basic needs of people were met that some began to have spare time to think more and more about their environment and how it might have come about and that is what prompted them to look for and find the answers. We are talking here about thousands of human generations before they began to reach this stage. It was not an instant thing. The little Knowledge the first generation experienced, it passed it to the next generation and the next generation added to that body of knowledge their experience and passed it to their next generation and so on. Thus after hundreds of thousands of generations of people we know what we know today. The daily learning of a person from birth till adulthood accumulates and becomes something significant. These insignificant little steps turn into a giant leap after a certain time. By one step at a time we travel the distance of thousands of miles. However if a person saw you as a baby and then when you are an adult, he would not recognise you because he missed the tiny steps or changes that took place in between the extremes of the range or spectrum.

 

If we keep this in mind then the rest of explanation would begin to make sense.

 

So original people who thought big, posed themselves a question ie where did this world come from? In order to answer this they began to assume various possibilities. For example: they may have thought; somebody may have created it, may be nobody created it because it may have been there always or may be it created itself ie it just happened etc etc etc... By thinking and questioning things and ideas people developed bigger and better imaginations or ideas bred ideas. Thus in minds of early human beings there were many things they could not explain because they seemed grand to them eg rain, sunlight, darkness, lightening and thunder etc etc etc. Looking at such huge things with a tiny mind which hasn't developed yet nor has accumulated much knowledge, they could not think big explanations could they? They were like babies. You can see, babies cannot think big but they slowly get there provided their brain keeps on developing biologically as well as in sense of their experience in their own environments wherein they interact.

 

To think big both the biological development of brain must happen as well as the increase in volume of knowledge must occur. The same baby who cannot even talk when born does not let you say a thing when he starts talking. The baby born in our time develops in knowledge faster because we have already accumulated or gathered vast banks of knowledge that he has access to, to which babies of earlier humans did not. This gap of knowledge can be imagined between the baby of a rich household and of a poor household. It is not the difference between biological make up of brains here that makes them different but availability of information to each person . Rich household have access to ways and means to gain more knowledge but poor households do not. This is going to affect then all their lives. For example, people with better know how are likely to get jobs and yes the better ones. So merit is, what you make of it.

 

Now coming back to various concepts of religion, they came into play along with human development. Natural order of things came about naturally. For example, there is an order emerging on this forum as more and more people are joining in and talking about different things. Slowly some people will become dominant over others in various respects. Nobody is intending this order of things but it emerges all by itself as we interact in this environment. Besides natural emergence of order, when people see need for organising differently, they try and change things the way they see them better for themselves so they reorganise or restructure ideas and practices and that brings in new order of things. Likewise, when people saw that the way of life being a very important thing for them and deserved preservation, they gave it social significance and some brought in divine sanction as well because they thought they were doing this in service of humanity. This is how divisions came about between people ie some liked one idea for reason that appealed to them and the others, the other idea etc etc.

 

There also occurred another problem, just as some people try to dominant other and use things to their advantage so these people began to use the divine aspect of religion to their advantage ie they got the idea of exploiting weaker people in the society to their advantage in the name of god. Thus religion became more and more confusing thing by today because over a very, very long period of time, many different groups of people played many different parts in there (ie some positive and some negative) hence the original purpose of religion is lost into insignificance as far as most people in the world are concerned. It is therefore necessary that we retrace our steps and see religion what it meant to be. In order to do that, it is necessary to examine religion for its truth. For example, which is true origin of religion, the natural way of life or god’s appointed way of life?

 

If religion is taken as a natural way of life ie the way people decide themselves to live their lives then religion does not cause any problems but helps us learn from what we have gathered so far as knowledge and plain our future with confidence. There is no need for religion in this sense to prove its divine origin and none can use it for exploitation either, for it is basically a rule by people, for the people themselves.  However, if we take religion as a god appointed way of life then there arise some serious problems. For example, how do we know for sure that god really exists and that he himself has appointed for us a religion to live by? This is where come in questions like, do nature of god and the nature of this world work out together or are there inconsistencies between the two? How do we know that this concept of religion is not invented by some clever people to whom it may be giving some sort of advantage over others to fool them? This is where a thorough examination of such claims becomes absolutely necessary.

 

Having explained the basic principles involved in learning the truth and having stated the fact that religion as god appointed way of life is the problem hence we should concentrate only and only on such religions as claimed to be based upon god's word. In doing so I will cite the absolute fact that there exist conflicting religions in the world in which we live with conflicting sects within them. This being the case the possibilities are only two a) none of the religions is true and b) only one may be true. It is because if we have more than one claimant or witness to the same thing yet each claimant or witness contradicts the other than they all cannot be telling the truth. Either all of them must be assumed lying or only one of them may be assumed telling the truth.

 

The question now is, how can we find out who is lying and who is telling the truth if any at all? The only possible answer is that we must examine testimonies individually one by one, looking for clues which help us prove them false. If we succeed in proving all of them false, that is fine but if we fail to prove one of them false that too is fine, because that is logical conclusion of such sitautions as an established absolute truth that cannot be denied. What one must remember is that each testimony must be examined exactly the same way. For example, if we are looking for contradictions in one scripture to prove it false, we must do this for everyone of them.

 

Another point that is worth noting is that we are looking for two things here a) verifiable connection between the allegedly revealed word of god and god himself and b) perfection in the allegedly revealed word of god. For example, if a person says, this is my book and that it is perfect. There are two claims a) about belonging ie to whom belongs the book and b) about perfection ie the book is perfect. Just to establish the book is perfect would not automatically establish to whom it belongs and likewise to establish to whom it belongs would not establish the perfection of the book. These are two separate things that need to be verified individually. For example, the quran is word of god, it is sent by god are two claims and that the quran is perfect is yet another claim. So the question is, is it possible to prove the link between god and the quran being his word and being sent? Also is it possible to prove that the quran is perfect book ie without any kind of fault? We know for a fact that the claims about the quran cannot be categorised as absolute truth otherwise we would not need to raise questions like this, because absolute truth is self evident.

 

Such questions as we are asking, only arise because the claims about quran cannot be categorised as the absolute truth. However, if that is not the case then, can the claims about the quran be categorised as proven truths? That we can only answer yes if the claims about the quran could be proven true. One must also realise that we only need to prove one single fault in any allegation or claim or evidence etc etc to prove it false, however we can prove it true only and only by showing that each and every bit or part of the claim or evidence is perfect. In other words proving is much more difficult or harder than disproving. Muslims do claim that the quran is word of god because it is unique and therefore who else could be the author of the quran but the unique being? This idea seems fine till we have a closer look at it, that is Allah is allegedly perfect in every possible sense hence he is unique but, is the quran unique in the same way? The answer is, no.

 

There in lies the problem in the attributive method of linkage.  Because if we only and only have attributive basis to establish that something originates from something then either we must be familiar with the signature, the author and the authored or we will fail to establish the connection between the two. For example, suppose that I am a farmer who has grown water melons in his farm. Normally, I keep a watch over my farm so that things do not damage my crop in the farm but suppose, one day I find some water melons damaged by some animal, how would I know which animal may have caused that? To establish which animal may be responsible for doing this, I would have to be familiar with the clues like bite marks of various likely suspects, would I not? If I am not familiar then just bite marks on damage melons would not help me establish which animal has done the damage. Looking at it in another way, I can only attribute a piece of writing to you, if I know how you write eg by knowing your handwriting or writing style. This is how the police establish if a letter is written by the person it is attributed to eg by comparing it with his hand writing in other writings he is known to have produced.  

 

Please note here the point that probability and possibility factors should not apply here because the quran is either the testimony of god or it is not. If it is, it must prove itself as such but if not then that is it ie that is the end of the road. By using the attributive method of proof for establishing the quran as word of god, one is lowering the standard and quality of the evidence yet further down the line ie it is then no longer an absolute truth nor even a proven truth, so all that remains is the fact that the quran may be a probable truth or possible truth or just a false claim. To establish that the quran is a probable truth I have explained what tests it would have to pass. Since the quran cannot be proven as unique as its alleged author by merely attributive method, it loses its credibility even as a probable truth. This brings down the quran categorically to level of possible truth but then you believe in it as a word of god or not is all your own choice because there no way whatsoever to prove it the word of god under any category. I have used the quran as example here to help understand the ideas but the ideas can be applied equally to any alleged divine scripture.

 

Now this being the case, does it really make any sense at all for anyone to live by what the quran says, or for that matter what any allegedly divine scripture says, when it cannot prove what it says and nor can any of its followers? This is the reason we must keep religion out of politics or be condemned for being unreasonable. If god was as obvious to us as the sun, we would not have any need for any proof or explanation. If god had testified to some people to prove it to others, his testimony should have been provable as such anywhere and everywhere but it is not. Moreover, it would be unfair of god to reveal himself to some and not the others yet expect from each and every person exactly the same response. So god either has to reveal himself to all or none otherwise things do not make sense because they do not work out. That is what the argument is between followers of religions and intellectual thinkers or if you like free thinkers. Since I have laid the foundation here as to how to look at this matter, it should be easier for anyone to familiarise with arguments for and against religion from various religious and anti-religious sites or books etc. For example, regarding examination of the quran, we can read the quran ourselves as well as consult muslims and nonmuslims about it to see what each has to say about it and that would help us to make our own minds up ourselves about it.   

 

 Logic, science, proof all these things are physical in their very nature so believing in things other than physical and claiming they can be proven is a false notion in itself, for logic cannot be tested for its truth in that case. This is why I have explain these things because even educated people miss the point. Scientific methods of testing only apply to physical world and as far as science is concerned, non-physical world does not exist. Matter and energy are physical phenomena or processes not spiritual as religious doctors would have us believe.

Some religious people claim that nonreligious people deliberately do not believe in god because they do not want to believe. Is this true?

For example, a man tells us that god spoke to him and that we must believe him yet fails to prove this to us and not only that but he also condemns us rather than reconsidering himself for his inability to prove his claim. On top of all this we are told by some that that man is the one who is really logical and we are all irrational who do not believe him.

I have explained already what proof and proving means. Proof is an actual connection between things or ideas that is consistent with principles of logic. For example, to claim the quran is word of god and that others should believe so or be condemned to hell, yet fail to connect quran to god is a huge blunder on the part of the claimant. A muslim claims, the quran came to him from muhammad through muslim generations. This is fine but where did muhammad get the quran from? We are told from an angel? Is it possible to verify this link in the chain? No. So there goes the chain, for a chain is as perfect as its weakest link. The next question would have been, where did the angel get the quran from and is that link in the chain verifiable? No. Why god did not reveal the quran directly to muhammad, or does god not talk to people? He talked to adam, iblis and moses and took muhammad to heavens yet thought it necessary to send an angel to Muhammad to convey him the quran? The god who can produce magical miracles and uses them to prove his power fails to convey the quran by using the same miraculous method, why? Why would not this god produce his book for the prophet from the heavens in front of people to witness? What difference would it make whether it was brought by an angel or thrown down the heavens or for that matter produced in on the earth by god like he produced the book of moses? Please do think about this chain of revelation carefully and see it fall apart yourselves, for putting extra unnecessary links in the chain would be wrong for god as he ought not to do things the way an ignorant person would. People attack christians about god incarnating as jesus or hindus for that matter but they did this to prove that god talks to people directly. Though for an infinite to incarnate into a finite being is possible or not is quite another argument.

Logically speaking, as religions define their gods, such being cannot exist. For example, some hindus believe god is infinite yet they also believe that god himself is manifesting himself in form of the world. The problem is that the world is finite and god is not so how do we reconcile this inconsistency? Muslims believe that god is an independent infinite being and he created the world. This again limits god, for two beings cannot exist in the same place at the same time, for one is bound to limit the other. The absurd explanations lead to yet more absurd explanations come to think of it.

Moreover people who must run to scholars for answers leaving their own brains behind are open to exploitation. Organised religions are mechanism invented by some to exploit others to their advantage. So if one runs for answers to some one who is part of the process, one is leaving oneself open to abuse. A simple minded person against a sophisticated exploiter is like a child against an adult. It is therefore better to devise rules and apply them to decide the issues rather than running around in circle.

Not only that the quran fails to prove its divine origin but that it can be proven false from within as well, as I have explained in my writings. The main advantage of being capable of thinking better for oneself is that one is not compelled to prove or disprove religion for any third party interest. One simply looks at the available evidence and if the evidence compels, one believes otherwise not.

To believe in anything without first assuming that it may be true or false when verified takes faith ie leap in the dark not science. Science questions things and only accepts things as facts when verified directly or by way of deductive reasoning ie proving.

Islam has no scientific basis whatsoever. Many people quote harun yahyah (adnan okter) as authority but he refused to discuss islamic science with us on another forum. Deep inside many who claim to be muslims doubt islam and are afraid to come out because they know what happens to those who do that. One only has to look at people locked up in jails of muslim stats eg Pakistan or those who are killed in cold blood by muslim lunatics here and there. After all some one encouraging and appeasing them. This is real islam. I wonder how many muslim people here on this forum have raised the issue regarding killing of apostates of islam and have campaigned for the release of those who are in jails under the blasphemy law? We know what happened when rushdie wrote satanic verses? The true islam was also notice in Nigerian riots.

Let us leave nonmuslims aside take those who claim to be muslims eg qadyanis or ahalaqurans like lahoris and perwazis or nation of islam or freeminders and submitters etc etc.

More recently 52 shias were blown up in a masjid in north west frontier in pakistan by sunnis. We are told well, muslims are not the only terrorists so are others. True but it is only muslims who initiate jihads in the name of islam and the whole ummah runs to them to support them in the name of islam. This is what makes the big difference. Other people are fighting for other reasons than establishing religious rule. For example, the trouble in UK with irish republicans. That is not a war between catholics and protestants for establishing one or the other but between nationalists and republicans who happen to be belonging to different sects of christianity. They want north of ireland to become a republic and join the main ireland. Nationalist are fighting to keep it the way it is. It is only and only muslims who are fighting for islamic state, sunni state, shia state and so on. Iran is trying its best to remain a shia state and pakistan a sunni state. All because some people want sunni rule others shia rule etc etc.

Althought other people did not fight on basis of religion before but things are changing ie muslim actions are giving rise to reactions worldwide. The numbers of Hindu, sikh, christian etc fanatics are on the increase. This trend if continues, the world would become a very dangerous place indeed. So this jihad mentality of muslims must cease or things are going to heat up for muslims anywhere and everywhere. Religion based violence is going to get out of control if commonsense is not given the respect it deserves.

So as one can see there are many problems for muslims to face and face they must. Things that are cooking up do not look good for islam or muslims and the ball is in muslim court as well as time is very limited and does not wait for anyone.

Muslims need to stop cursing others and start thinking for themselves and good luck to them. If muslims could put their own house in order and bother not the rest of the world perhaps they too would stop reacting the way they do.

If one asks for my definition of GOD. To me any definition is acceptable that stands to reason, the problem is that I myself have not found one so far and the definitions put up so far by religions as far as I am aware of them are no good.

As far as believing in god is concerned, it is not a matter of personal choice because we humans do not have the capability to know each and everything. Likewise we know from our experience that we cannot know about god (if there is one) ourselves.

There are many things in life we are not capable of knowing and they do not matter to us either. For example, the child that is not born in your household matters not to you. The brother you never had, the sister you never had, the dog you never had, the cat you never had, and the list is unending. Likewise the god you never had matters not to you either.

Many people have children from their marriages or affair of whom they are not made aware, many people have brothers and sisters of whom they are not aware. So long as they are not aware of them, they are not bothered and there is nothing wrong with that, for that is the way things are in this world. Likewise even if there was somebody there called god but we cannot become aware of it then that is the end of the matter.

Just as one cannot sit and cry our a child one never had or brother or sister one never had, likewise we should not worry over god we never had.

So you see, things only matter when they make us aware of themselves otherwise they do not and they should not.

Likewise, if god (if there is one) himself makes us aware of himself only and only then he would matter for us not otherwise.

Now the question is, if we are made aware, what is the proof? Moreover there are a whole lot more questions to be asked before our minds are satisfied that there is a god who made us aware of himself.

I am making speculative philosophy an issue because all alleged religions are based upon speculative philosophy alone which is not a good start.

To explain what speculative philosophy is, let us use an example.

Let say, there are two thieves and they decide to break into a house.

When they come to the house, they start discussing with each other whether there is anybody at home or not.

They see no such signs as would give them definite clues as to somebody is at home or not but they just speculate infinite number of possibilities.

Let say that one said that nobody is at home, for there is not a light on nor any noise coming from inside the house. Let say that the other replied that somebody is definitely in the house, for it is the night time. It might be that the whole household is asleep so all the lights are off and there is no any kind of noise due to any activity.

They argue over it the whole night and finally daybreaks and they go home without breaking-in and thereby finding out if the house was empty or occupied and if occupied by how many people etc etc.

Dear friends, theist people say that they believe in god but they believe in god either on basis of speculative philosophy or on the basis of alleged divine revelations. These two are distinct ways that cannot me mixed for one contradicts the other.

Many people do not realise this contradiction. You see dear griends, if god tells you to believe then you do not need to speculate about god because he has revealed himself to you. If despite god revealing himself to you, you still remain dependent on speculations then there must be something wrong with what you think is revelation from god. So either one has to choose speculative philosophy and so have blind faith in god, (and I cannot understand so far why anyone would do that but then superstition has no bounds, for people even keep different kinds of stones and amulets just for good luck so why not god) or divine revelation that proves to be true and have faith in god as required by god himself.

Now it is up to oneself to tell which of the two ways one has chosen so that we could discuss that particular way to test its soundness. Speculative philosophy is flimsy by its very nature ie it is unsound because it starts as an assumption and remains an assumption to the end.

For example, by observing the universe one assumes (as one of the possibilities) that it may be created by a creator. This assumption remains as such because there is no proof that you could use to prove it true ie there is no reliable witness. What I mean is that you cannot definitely link anything in this universe to god as his work. Please call to mind my explanation of what the proof is. Even the quran says to pagans who say they believe that the angels are daughters of Allah. The reply is, were you a witness to that when Allah created them 43/19, 53/23? These are only words of your mouth ie not a proof.

Abraham used speculative philosophy when he assumed that star was a god, the moon was god or the sun was god etc etc. He too came to conclusion that this idea of faith in god did not work, for it did not solve the problem of faith in god with certainty that could only come from god himself. He said that if god himself had not guided me I would be lost 6/76-80 etc.

In fact there are many incidents reported in the quran that clearly contradict speculative philosophy when certainty is the requirement.

The quran itself repeatedly says that speculations are no replacement for certainty 6/116, 148, 17/81, 10/36, 18/5, 21/18, 25/43, 28/75, 31/20, 34/49, 45/32, 53/28.

The pure and simple fact is that no matter how much we speculate or conjecture one after the other, our all speculations and conjectures end up as such and nothing more.

So I would seek clarification as to why one claims to believe in god? Is one doing so on the basis of speculative philosophy just for good luck or has one the necessary proof from god? If one believes on the basis of speculative philosophy, that is one’s choice which leads one to keep one’s faith personal, for one cannot prove it to anyone else so one would have no right to condemn anyone who does not choose to live by this standard.

All this because, when one is not sure of something oneself, how can one be right in condemning others for rejecting it? To state another example, an explanation, let say that a baby boy was born after the death of his father. As this person grows and thinks about his father, imagining all sorts of things about him, would he get the right picture of him in his mind no matter how hard he tries? The answer has to be, no. Let say one never has been to a place but one intends to visit it. One will imagine a lot of things about it, will one find it exactly as one imagined it when one gets there? No. Likewise one can imagine all one likes about the universe but the truth will only come to light when we have the proof. Anything other than proof is mere conjecture, assumption or speculation.

Now this is the way speculative philosophy works and no matter how qualified anyone may be in philosophy one cannot change this fact. So quoting any sources to prove speculative philosophy is the right way to follow god does not make sense to me, for I am interested in proof not baseless conjectures that lead nowhere near certainty that god demands and would throw one in hell if one fails. I hope this explains arguments based upon speculative philosophy.

As for discussing the verses of a scripture, we must realise a couple of things.

1) That if one does not believe in a scripture as a true divine revelation, there is no point in discussing allegedly divine religion on the basis of speculative philosophy. It is simply a wrong approach because it does not work. Discussing any scripture as god’s word only matters if it is believed as such. If the scripture does not serve that purpose for a person then it is no use and so no point in talking about it, for a scripture is either a proof from god or it is not.

2) that the science is a way of understanding objects and concepts and thereby can be used for proving or disproving claims that are science related because they fall within the realm of the science. It is not part of speculative philosophy nor of religion but an independent discipline or axiom to judge things by.

Rules are only rules if they work for a set out purpose otherwise they are useless regardless who puts them forth or invents them. Hence the saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.



As for 4/82,

1) The verse is stating that any piece of work by other than Allah is inconsistent. So the argument is that since it is impossible for any human to produce any work that is consistent therefore if the quran is a consistent piece of work then it has to be from Allah, full-stop.

The problem is, is that statement true ie are all works produced by human beings so full of discrepancies as the quran claims them to be? In my view this is not the case which proves the quranic statement wrong. For example, many people have produce excellent works. Music writers, song writers, play writers, fiction writers, factual writers etc etc etc..... So the presumption that a perfect book can only and only come from god is wrong. Also even if the quran was perfect that does not lead to the only conclusion that it is work of god, seeing the nature of works humans are capable of producing.

2) The verse is stating something impossible to verify. The quran as a whole cannot be judged to be true or false because a lot of its information cannot be verified. To verify that the quran is consistent we should be able to have access to all its related things it contains for verification purposes but we do not. For example, how can we verify that Adam ever existed or for that matter anyone else stated in the quran eg Noah and that he lived for 950 years 29/14? The point is not that we do not know so the quran cannot be proven wrong but that the question is, why the quran tells us to do something which we cannot do? Is it sensible to ask a blind person to see things? Likewise asking human beings to verify consistency of the quran is senseless when they are not capable of doing that.

Besides, how can we know whether the quran is consistent are not regarding statements it makes as regard life in hereafter, when we do not have any access to hereafter? So asking people to judge consistency of the quran and preventing them from knowing the related facts does not add up. Once again the quran proves to be inconsistent itself even in the statement its makes for proving its consistency. It is possible to see whether the quran is right or wrong where we have access to related information but not where we do not, so why the quran makes this mistake of telling us to do something impossible?

3) Suppose we did not have the problems I pointed out and the quran was consistent, would that automatically mean that it is the word of god and that it could not have been written by humans? Of course not, for we need a clear cut criterion as to how to distinguish between the works of god and works of humans as well as how to judge the perfection or faults of such works themselves. The quran is silent as to the criterion for judging it, showing clearly that the authors were just trying to pull wool over peoples’ eyes. So the criterion for judging the perfection of the quran and other human works is missing showing clearly that the quran is flawed hence not word of god.

In my experience this verse 4/82 is held in high esteem by muslims, for it puts forth the starting link of the criterion for judging the quran ie it tells that if the quran is perfect as compared to other human works then it is work of god yet fails to complete the criterion just like the challenging verses in the quran. 2/23, 10/37-39, 11/13, 17/88 etc etc. Once again the quran fails to produce the explanation for the challenge for those who may wish to take on the challenge or for those who may wish to judge whether the challenge is met or not. Again this flaw shows human origin of the quran not divine.

Some times muslims ask, if Allah has not written the quran then who did? If you cannot answer this question then that proves that you are wrong as well as it proves the quran was written by Allah. This way of thinking is inconsistent with logic. For example, if a person claims that a book is his but fails to prove it so, yet another person proves that it is not his book but this person has no idea to whom it really belongs, does that invalidate his proof? Of course not. So if the quran can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not the word of god, that is the end of the argument. It does not matter who wrote it, when, where, how or why etc? Although people can try asking and answering these like questions. My view is that the quran was written gradually and by more than one person and the authors were different for beginning as compared to the middle and ending period of the Quranic compilation. Or that these people themselves changed with time due to the changing circumstances they faced at the time.

Anyhow, the idea is very simple here that science can disprove the quran because faults in it can be verified but it cannot prove it because perfection cannot be verified. For anyone to prove that the quran has any fault in it even a single examples is sufficient as proof because it is not necessary to prove each and every word of the quran false in order to disprove it as a perfect book. On the other hand it is absolutely necessary for everyone to prove that each and every word of the quran is perfect so that it could be accepted as a perfect book not word of god, for even then it cannot be proven the word of god because even humans can produce perfect works thus disproving the quranic claim that they cannot. The computer software could be taken as an example ie it is logical and fulfils its purpose therefore perfect. If it has faults, the computer would not execute the instructions. By throwing around open challenges, the quran has trapped itself and that is why the saying, shooting oneself in the foot.

Let see if I can clarify the issue involved here a bit more. You see if the quran was accepted as word of god as it is then challenge that 4/82 puts forth would be meaningless, because something that can be proven without the necessity of a challenge does not need a challenge.

The point here is that anyone can write anything and raise any claim about it. For example, christians have a book just like muslims have and they too just like muslims claim that that book is from god. In fact the quran itself states that people do such things ie write a book themselves and then claim that that is from god 2/79.

If people did not do so, there would not be any need for warning against impostors and false scriptures. This warning is found in all alleged divine scriptures in one form or another and not only in the quran. It means that this is an accepted fact that people do write books for the purpose of religious use and that they do try to get them recognised as religious scriptures so that they could somehow benefit of them. Not only that but books which the quran accepts authentic revelations before it even their followers are accused by the quran for twisting or hiding their words perhaps by means of interpretations that go against what the quran wants 2/75, 159,174,211, 3/71,77-79,99, 5/44 etc . Now this is one aspect of it but the other is that the arab pagans themselves are accusing Muhammad and his companions of writing the scripture themselves by helping each other and getting the help of anyone else they can from amongst foreigners 16/101,103, 21/5, 23/38, 25/4, 32/3 etc.

The point here is that just as the quran accuses others of writing scriptures themselves and attributing it to god so the others are accusing Muhammad and his companions of the same. These accusers are Arabs and they cross-examine Muhammad’s claims and find them not convincing but false like many others before Muhammad. They say, they are not interested in the idle chit chat but proof, its definition and proving and the quran clearly repeats what they said. For example, they said that the quran is merely history of the ancient and nothing special in this regard. It is written in a kind of poetic form and again nothing special there, for they say, if they wished they too could write like that but they see no point in wasting their time 8/31. They also accuse Muhammad of acting like a madman. The question is, has the quran managed to put forth any credible defence against the said accusations? The answer is there in the quran for all of us to see even today.

One can see that the quran fails badly in addressing the accusations because it fails to address them properly in a sensible way. This is where we come to definition of 4/82 because it is the only response to those accusations ie that the quran is such a piece of writing or recitation that is perfect. It defines the perfection as freedom from inconsistencies or contradictions etc but yet again fails to define what inconsistency or contradiction exactly is in the Quranic sense. For example, the quran claims to be clear as well as unclear 3/7. Now anything that is unclear no matter how much cannot be consistent or free of contradictions, because a contradiction leads mind to confusion. So the claim of the quran that it is free of discrepancies in 4/82 is clearly conflicting with the claim that a bit of the quran is ambiguous as well 3/7. The claim that the quran is such a book in which there is no room for doubt 2/2 or that the quran is free of any ambiguity 18/1 etc seem to be false. So the verses which are supposed to be principle for proving the perfection of the quran are themselves a problem to begin with, for they themselves seem to be very confusing indeed.

So as I was saying that 4/82 is not about the quran being word of god therefore it is perfect but is stated as a criterion whereby all alleged divine books should be judged including the quran to decide whether they are really from god or not. You see, anyone could write a book telling people things he wants to tell them speaking in the scripture in form of a god and could place in it a verse that if this book was not from god there would be many inconsistencies in it. If we look at history, people always used religion to gain advantage of each other. The quran also tells the same when it talks about people writing or misinterpreting their scriptures in verses quoted already. So none can dispute this fact. The question therefore is, does the quran fall under the very same category? That is exactly what we are trying to answer or discuss. I am putting forth the evidences from the quran as I understand them that the quran also falls under the same category like the other religious scriptures. My starting point is the criterion verse itself. What I am saying is that verse that is said to be the criterion is actually not the criterion. It is not the criterion because it does not work the way it ought to ie by following what this verses says we cannot establish beyond doubt that an alleged divine scripture is actually divine. It is because perfection of the book beyond any doubt is a separate issue from the book being from god beyond any doubt.

In my view there is no proof that the quran is a perfect book nor is there any proof that it is from god. Let me try and explain it in another way. Suppose a person claims that only he owns the only unique work of art and that we must believe him or we would be thrown into jail and punished for neglecting his claim or disbelieving him. Another person also launches a similar claim and then yet another and so on. The question is what should we do? Should we just believe the first person that comes along and ignore the rest and would that solve our problem? My answer is, we should not do so because our problem will remain still, so what should we do? We should try our best to invent a rule, a criterion, a way of dealing with this situation so that we could have peace within ourselves as well as with each other. So we would seek some way of dealing with this situation that is created by those who have launched such claims to tell us how we can clearly deal with this situation so that he who is telling us the truth could be clearly known as well as those who are lying.

The possibilities are that they all could be lying or only one of them may be telling the truth. It is not possible that they all could be telling us the truth. What caused us to know that they all cannot be telling us the truth? The conflict in their claims. This way of judging things therefore becomes the criterion. This is why we must look through each and every claim for conflicts within hence the rule that if any testimony contradicts itself then it is false. So if the quran claims to be perfect but contains contradictions then it too is false regardless how many people claim to have faith in it as a word of god. Just because we want to believe in a god does not mean we have to accept anything that says it is word of god, we still must cross examine it even if it was the only scripture claiming to be god’s word and even if it was truly from god, which it is not, for we should never make the mistake of attributing anything to god that is false, for it would not solve our problem of uncertainty and confusion in our minds because that is the way the human brain works. So testing the truth of the claim is two separate things here ie we are testing whether the art work is truly unique or not as well as whether it is owned by the claimant or not. Each claim needs different proof and proving method, for what the uniqueness of an art work has to do with its ownership by a person? Even if the art work is proven to be unique yet it could belong to anyone of the claimants or none of them. Even if universe was perfect or unique it does not follow automatically that it is created by god. Even if the quran was perfect it would not mean that it is word of god, for that needs a different proof ie proof of ownership or creation etc etc.

Just as the quran is not perfect nor is the universe, for there are many conflicts within the universe eg good and evil are real not mere concepts. Opposing forces interacting with each other make things happen the way they happen eg stars and planets are caused to collapse upon themselves by gravitational force acting upon them yet as this force causes crushing of atoms deep inside these bodies it releases the energy raising temperature deep inside these bodies causing another pressure from inside outwards to oppose the gravitational pressure acting from outside inwards like a boiling pot or inflated baloon. The very forces that are responsible for bringing forth the life on earth are also the cause of its destruction. So perfection is just a term used in a very limited sense. Likewise all books are perfect not in divine sense but in sense of their intended purposes by their authors. The quran is bound by the very same rule and is nothing unique to be treated any different. The idea of god has the very same problem when one comes to define god. You either accept that god is infinite or he is not. If god is infinite then you cannot define god, for that limits god in one sense or another. On the other hand if you define and thereby limit god then that which is limited cannot be god. So when the quran tries to define god then it lends itself to many contradictions leading to the evidence that it is not god’s word. This does not mean that if the quran did not define god that would prove it god’s word, for that too would be absurd, for what is the point of a scripture that does not define its author?

Besides the criterion verses there are various other verses as well that are conflicting and confusing. Take 2/29, 21/30, 41/9-12, 79/27-30 etc etc. Can anyone explain from verses like these what the quran is talking about? Is quran confirming science here or contradicting it? Was universes created in six days are eight days or steps and is that according to science? What is meant by universe as far as the quran is concerned ie how many things are mentioned in the quran as universe eg heavens, earth, the sun, the moon and the stars ? How are they located with respect to each other? Please read my post about cosmology according to the quran. What can one tell about when the earth, the heavens, the sun, the moon or stars etc were created with respect to each other as far as the quran is concerned? How the universe would be destroyed at the end according to the quran and does that strike accord with science?

In 2/29, 41/9-12 etc we are told that the earth was created first and then the rest of the universe. The heavens were yet a cloud of smoke after Allah created the earth. However, if we then look at 79/27-30, 88/18-20, 91/5-6 etc we seem to told that the earth was created after the creation of the heavens. In case of 21/30 it contradicts both ideas by stating that the heavens and earth were created all at the same time. All three versions of the story contradict what science has to say in this matter.