Big Bang... In the Quran

[kaiser]

Hi all,
Thought this might interest you.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Quran 21:30)

If you find this statement to be at all out of place of a book revealed between 611 and 634 A.D., do post here.

[Epsilon=One]

If you find this statement to be at all out of place of a book revealed between 611 and 634 A.D., do post here.My post is other than requested; though, apparently not prohibited.

There is nothing in said statement that would be out of place for speculation by any human being, at any time, that has been exposed to fanciful concepts of "heaven."

After all, in 2006, there are many persons that firmly believe in heaven and the Big Bang.

[OfficeShredder]

I don't see how this shows the big bang occured.

[kaiser]

Hi Epsilon=1,
The 'heavens' there is not 'heaven' as in paradise. It's 'heavens' as in 'the sky' or, in the the given context, 'the universe except earth'.

Also, I'm guessing you don't believe in the Big Bang by saying "After all, in 2006, there are many persons that firmly believe in heaven and the Big Bang." so my original statement probably doesn't mean anything to you.

Hi OfficerShredder,
I thought it's rather too obvious.
"...that the heavens and the earth", in this context, as in many occuring in the Quran, refers to the universe at large, with the 'heavens' meaning 'the universe except earth'.

"were joined together (as one unit of creation), " I think this doesn't need any explanation. Still, joining this with the previous part, to make it easier for you to understand, it says "The 'universe' was 'one unit of creation'".

"before we clove them asunder?"
cleave:1.To split with or as if with a sharp instrument (Free Online Dictionary)
asunder:1. Into separate parts or pieces: broken asunder.
2. Apart from each other either in position or in direction:
(Free Online Dictionary)

Maybe now you can understand it better.

[OfficeShredder]

It still doesn't really say anything.... it requires a very imaginative interpretation. For example, who is "we"? Did Mohammed shatter the pinpoint superatom with his scimitar? Especially since it claims all living things were created by water, which didn't exist before the big bang, so no, the unbelievers could not have been alive at the time of the big bang to see them clove the heavens and earth asunder.

Besides, it took 8 billion years after the big bang for the earth to form.... not exactly a very fast cleave

[kaiser]

"We" is God.

"Especially since it claims all living things were created by water, which didn't exist before the big bang, so no, the unbelievers could not have been alive at the time of the big bang to see them clove the heavens and earth asunder."

"See" obviously cannot mean to see visually. It means "understand", as we often use it. e.g. "Now i see what you mean."

"Besides, it took 8 billion years after the big bang for the earth to form.... not exactly a very fast cleave"

Sorry I don't understand what you're referring to. Besides, the cleave, we now know, was instantaneous. The singularity suddenly 'broke apart'.
I'm sorry if i'm misunderstanding you.

[Epsilon=One]

"We" is God.Any argument that starts with this kind of a statement gives me a queasy feeling; and, makes it difficult to seriously consider much that follows. It is difficult to imagine a dichotomy greater than god and we.

Suprisingly, there is much that both of you intuit that is insightful; however, except for OfficeShredder's implied Big Bang, I find OS's arguments much more persuasive.

The following is one concept of Kaiser's that has some (probably unintentional) insight.

Besides, the cleave, we now know, was instantaneous. The singularity suddenly 'broke apart'.The singularity is continuously, dynamically separating without ever actually “parting”; there is no single “cleave” or "bang"; however, there is such a separation, which is often referred to as “dark” energy, which is observed as emergent energy in astrophysics and the ephemeral energy of quantum chromodynamics’ super symmetry.

Of course, none of this could have been known by any person several hundred years ago; not to mention, well over a millennium in the past. Unless, of course, one were to believe in metaphysical manifestations on an anthropic scale.

[OfficeShredder]

Sorry I don't understand what you're referring to. Besides, the cleave, we now know, was instantaneous. The singularity suddenly 'broke apart'.
I'm sorry if i'm misunderstanding you.

This is the biggest problem.... there was no sudden separation between earth and the rest of the universe. The earth slowly formed over billions of years; at what point would you say it had officially formed as a planet?

And it certainly wasn't in a state you would call earth after the big bang at any rate

[kaiser]

Epsilon=1,
"Any argument that starts with this kind of a statement gives me a queasy feeling; and, makes it difficult to seriously consider much that follows. It is difficult to imagine a dichotomy greater than god and we."

The "We" mentioned is the "royal we", which refers to one person (here God). You can learn more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We

"The singularity is continuously, dynamically separating without ever actually “parting”; there is no single “cleave” or "bang"; "

Thank you for correcting me. My explanation for this may sound a bit 'stretched' so i'll spare it.

Thank you for discussing this topic with me. But before i leave, i'd like to mention two more citations from the Quran. If you find them interesting, do reply.

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke:" (41:11)

The first time I read this, I was a bit puzzled by it. But then I re-read a few books, and it became quite clear to me what this was referring to.
Ofcourse, you may not be thinking my lines. Would like to know what you think, though.

[Epsilon=One]

The "We" mentioned is the "royal we", which refers to one person (here God).The close juxtaposition of "person" and "God" (uppercase or not) makes me just as queasy. I have little patience with the philosophical intellegence of anyone that can equate god to anthropic mannerisms or anthropoidal connotations of any stripe.

Man and god are at the opposite ends of evolution.

Look into the deep Cosmos or deep into a living cell; then, try to convince yourself that an anthropic-type manifestation is responsible for creation.

Thank you for discussing this topic with me.You're welcome. It is not easy for me. I often lose patience with those who have been impressed with religious mythology because I know how futile it is to "open" such an impressed mind regardless of how much argument is presented; or, there is seldom ever enough time to replace an emotional "crutch."

But before i leave, i'd like to mention two more citations from the Quran. If you find them interesting, do reply.There is much wisdom and insight within all Scripture. That is why classic writings are classics. However, there is no sanity in the belief that any Scripture has been created, in any manner, by other than designing human beings.

[kaiser]

The close juxtaposition of "person" and "God" (uppercase or not) makes me just as queasy. I have little patience with the philosophical intellegence of anyone that can equate god to anthropic mannerisms or anthropoidal connotations of any stripe.

Since I intended this to be a discussion in physics and not in the God, i haven't been careful in the exact 'definition' of God my words may imply. But since you've pointed it out, I should've used 'being' or 'entity' for God, not person.

The close juxtaposition of "person" and "God" (uppercase or not) makes me just as queasy. I have little patience with the philosophical intellegence of anyone that can equate god to anthropic mannerisms or anthropoidal connotations of any stripe.

You misunderstood me by my carelessness in the previous sentence. I'm sorry for that. I believe in God as being Omniscient, Omnipresent and Eternal. But again I did not intend to discuss religion in a physics forum. I wanted to discuss the physics.

You're welcome. It is not easy for me. I often lose patience with those who have been impressed with religious mythology because I know how futile it is to "open" such an impressed mind regardless of how much argument is presented; or, there is seldom ever enough time to replace an emotional "crutch."

You may or may not be surprised that I have similar thoughts regarding you. But my purpose of this discussion is just to learn what other people think about something that I find very interesting.

However, there is no sanity in the belief that any Scripture has been created, in any manner, by other than designing human beings.

Of course I disagree here.

You did not respond to this:

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke:" (41:11)

I'd like to know what you think about this.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hi all, Thought this might interest you.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Quran 21:30)
If you find this statement to be at all out of place of a book revealed between 611 and 634 A.D., do post here.
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Like this, suspect that the differentiation between 'Earth' and 'Heavens' is the simplicity of the difference between solidity and space, Earth being substance/matter and Heavens being Space/falsevacuum/ether/continum/fabricofspacetime....

.......also supect that Many Miss that completely.....

They would have all been joined in whatever particle would have been the initiation of the Big Bang, (Starting in the face of the Deep?) the cleaving would have been the initiation of that (Silent) 'Bang' (Expansion) part....

Love how Scriptural Works so describe, with simple accuracy & in the Words of those days, how things have been done, the works of the Creator/God.

P.S. (I) do not find it out of place, but (I) posted anyways.

[Epsilon=One]

Since I intended this to be a discussion in physics and not in the God, i haven't been careful in the exact 'definition' of God my words may imply. But since you've pointed it out, I should've used 'being' or 'entity' for God, not person.It was you who made this a discussion of the mythical, metaphysical, and religious . . . even the ludicrous; not I! You’re opening title was: “Big Bang… In the Quran”; you then continued with Scriptural quotes. If this is not mixing science and religion then I am certainly deceived by your line of reasoning. Well, maybe not . . . I don’t consider the Big Bang true science; however, it is so considered by the standard models.

I am just as upset with your use of the term "being" as a connotation for god. I consider it as blasphemous. There can be no anthropic qualities applied to god; certainly, none that can be ascribed as design and consciousness.

You misunderstood me by my carelessness in the previous sentence. I'm sorry for that. I believe in God as being Omniscient, Omnipresent and Eternal. But again I did not intend to discuss religion in a physics forum. I wanted to discuss the physics.I can’t see that the discussion of physics was ever your true intent. And, by the way, god may be omnipresent and eternal; but certainly, no true scientist could ever consider that god might be “Omniscient” and remain true to the principles of science.

You may or may not be surprised that I have similar thoughts regarding you.I have no concern with anyone’s personal thoughts concerning my person. I do have concern with Natural truths.

But my purpose of this discussion is just to learn what other people think about something that I find very interesting.Exactly. Such is the purpose of my posts.

You did not respond to this: “"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke:" (41:11)I believe I responded explicitly to your quote when I stated elsewhere that the creation of Scripture has no connection to god; and, that god has no anthropic qualities, which would be such as “comprehended” and “design.” I see a crude analogy in the direct comparison of sky and smoke.

I'd like to know what you think about this.I hope, now, that you have no question as to my thoughts.

If there are still doubts concerning god, please see: Proof of God (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG)

Also, My Creed (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Creed) may be of interest.

[kaiser]

Mr. Robinson Parsons,
Of course, no one who either agrees or disagrees with me is prohibitted from posting here.

P.S. (I) do not find it out of place,

May I ask if you're a Muslim or a non-Muslim? Because in my experience, no non-Muslim has ever understood the quoted citation as I do.

Epsilon=One,

It was you who made this a discussion of the mythical, metaphysical, and religious . . . even the ludicrous; not I! You’re opening title was: “Big Bang… In the Quran”; you then continued with Scriptural quotes.

I said I didn't intend to discuss about "God" here. I didn't say anything regarding 'religion'. Obviously this discussion is related to religion since I presented a quote from the Quran. But I belive that that quotation is very relevant to modern science. I just wanted to know what others think about it. If you think it's irrelevant today, then I would like to know that. And if you think it is relevant today then I'd like to know that.

As for mythical, metaphysical, and religious . . . even the ludicrous

I don't think it's that so I opened this topic.

There can be no anthropic qualities applied to god; certainly, none that can be ascribed as design and consciousness.

I disagree but I won't pursue this since, as I said before, I did not intend to discuss God here.


"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke:" (41:11)

I believe I responded explicitly to your quote when I stated elsewhere that the creation of Scripture has no connection to god; and, that god has no anthropic qualities, which would be such as “comprehended” and “design.”

As I said, I'm not here do discuss God here. Besides, our definitions of God seem to be quite different. So I'd like you to ignore such terms as 'comprehended' and 'designed' which are incongruent with your definition of God.


I see a crude analogy in the direct comparison of sky and smoke.

Crude analogy??? Maybe this will make things cleared:

"Nearly 14 billion years ago, the Big Bang filled the universe with hot matter in the form of electrons and hydrogen and helium ions. As space expanded and cooled, electrons and ions combined to form neutral atoms. Those atoms efficiently absorbed light, yielding a pervasive dark fog throughout space. Astronomers have dubbed this era the "Dark Ages."

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0615.html

This same point was repeated in almost every site talking about the big bang.

First, I'd like to comment that the quotation is not completely accurate because it uses the word "fog" which connotes coolness. The word "smoke" mentioned in the Quran is more accurate because it connotes hotness, and obviously the universe was very hot at that time.

Please note that the Quran explicitly says "(the sky) ... was "as" smoke". It says the sky was 'like' smoke or 'looked like' smoke, which every physicist who believes in the Big Bang would agree with.

This, in itself, is great for me. But what follows is even greater. The stage immediately after this 'smoke-looking' period in the formation of the universe was the beginning of star formation.

"The first generation of stars began clearing that fog by bathing the universe in ultraviolet radiation. UV radiation splits atoms into negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions in a process called ionization. Since the Big Bang created an ionized universe that later became neutral, this second phase of ionization by stars is known as the "epoch of reionization." It took place in the first few hundred million years of existence."

This is the next paragraph from the same source. Similar facts are mentioned in every other website or book i've ever read.

The quotation I mentioned from the Quran is incomplete. I did so because I thought you would find it difficult to understand it since you were so meticulous about the choice of words regarding God. But I'll mention it here in the hope that you'll ignore that part.

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
(41:11)

Again you may consider it ludicrous since it implies that God is 'talking' to the sky and the earth. Since I didn't intend to discuss about God here, I hope you'll ignore this part.

You may believe it or not, but even I didn't know that the two parts of the verse mention two consecutive eras in the formation of the universe. I didn't know that star formation started immediately after the 'smoke-looking' perioud. It was just now when I was searching for a relevant website to quote from that I discovered this.

Finally, if you still believe that all this is preposterous in any way, you can simply say so.

[kaiser]

I forgot to mention one thing.

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
(41:11)

Here, since neither the earth nor any stars had yet formed, 'earth' refers to the particles that would eventually form the earth, and similarly for the stars. You may think that this is a ridiculous interpretation, but I understood it to mean that the very first time I read the verse. It came naturally to me. So if you think that this interpretation is far-fetched, you can simply say so.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mr. Robinson Parsons,
Of course, no one who either agrees or disagrees with me is prohibitted from posting here.

May I ask if you're a Muslim or a non-Muslim? Because in my experience, no non-Muslim has ever understood the quoted citation as I do. (SNoP)

#1) It is in reference to how you phrased your last words in your original post, as (I) seemed to get the impression that you only wanted people who couldn't get/understand it to respond

#2) Follower of the God of Abraham, follower of the God who IS, and IS the Truth.

Agrueing with EP=Nothing, about God, is Like banging your head on a Concrete Singularity, the one that resides in his Heart......

As for the 'Smoke', Gas clouds would do well, so would elements of the Primordial soup of the Formative time following the Big Bang, as you have already pointed out....

[kaiser]

Agrueing with EP=Nothing, about God, is Like banging your head on a Concrete Singularity

I'm not here too make him see what I see or to make him believe what I believe. I'm here only to know what others think about something I find very interesting. So I don't have to bang my head against anything. Thanks for the warning though.

[kaiser]

This discussion has proved to be personally very fruitful for me, for I've learnt quite a bit about the Quran. Today I re-discovered two quotations.

Talking about what will happen towards the end of the world:

"When the Sky is cleft asunder" (82:1)

"When the Stars are scattered" (82:2)

I'm not 100% sure exactly what the first quotation is referring to.

Epsilon=one, I gather from our discussion till now that you know quite much more about physics than I do. If you are aware of any possibility that the sky may be 'cleft asunder' in the future, I'll be pleased to learn about it. Just to be on the safe side, I'm neither joking nor, in any way, being sarcastic. I honestly want to know what the first quotation means. I'll read into it myself but your knowledge may make it clearer to me sooner.

The second one is very clear to me. It obviously refers to the state of the universe after a long time from now when, due to expansion, the stars will obviously be scattered. For me, it eliminates the possibility of a Big Crunch. It anyway seems that the density of the universe is equal to the critical density, so it already seems, to scientists, that the universe may expand forever.

All are welcome to comment on what they think about these quotations.

[Epsilon=One]

I said I didn't intend to discuss about "God" here. I didn't say anything regarding 'religion'. Obviously this discussion is related to religion since I presented a quote from the Quran.I see no relationship between god and the Quran.

If you didn't intend to discuss god, then, why did you mention god in your first post? And, also, most persons would closely relate god and religion; and you state you intended to discuss religion with your mention of the Quran.

It was not I that began the discussion of god, as you mistakenly argue. It was clearly you, in your first post, that you began the discussion of god! (See your discussion with OfficeShredder below)

We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Quran 21:30)“…it requires a very imaginative interpretation. For example, who is "we"?” "We" is God.…I belive that that quotation is very relevant to modern science. I just wanted to know what others think about it. If you think it's irrelevant today, then I would like to know that. And if you think it is relevant today then I'd like to know that.It is entirely irrelevant to “modern science,” physical manifestations, or Reality regardless of the date.

Nothing is out of place in a scientific discussion; except, to believe that such folderol as your quote, created by humans, should have any thoughtful bearing concerning an understanding of a god that is fundamental to the creation of what is physically observed.

Crude analogy??? Maybe this will make things cleared:

"Nearly 14 billion years ago, the Big Bang filled the universe with hot matter in the form of electrons and hydrogen and helium ions. As space expanded and cooled, electrons and ions combined to form neutral atoms. Those atoms efficiently absorbed light, yielding a pervasive dark fog throughout space. Astronomers have dubbed this era the "Dark Ages."
...

Finally, if you still believe that all this is preposterous in any way, you can simply say so.The Viewer can see the ommitted portion of your quote where it is posted above. Nothing you say therein can I take with any seriousness; to begin, there was never a Big Bang; a conclusion that is becoming increasingly evident from all astronomical observations of the Cosmos. Or, a critical analysis of collider data.

“Finally,” I believe that what you have implied with all that you have presented, regardless of what you cite, is beyond “preposterous”; it is ludicrous.

Your intent seems to be proslytization of those that can be so manipulated; such I cannot tolerate.

[Epsilon=One]

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
(41:11)What do you think "His" refers to if not god. Your discussion, throughout this thread, is consistently inconsistent.

Here, since neither the earth nor any stars had yet formed, 'earth' refers to the particles that would eventually form the earth, and similarly for the stars. You may think that this is a ridiculous interpretation, but I understood it to mean that the very first time I read the verse. It came naturally to me. So if you think that this interpretation is far-fetched, you can simply say so.Your interpretation is "far-fetched" if you are trying to relate to observed science.

[Epsilon=One]

This discussion has proved to be personally very fruitful for me, for I've learnt quite a bit about the Quran. Today I re-discovered two quotations.

Talking about what will happen towards the end of the world:

"When the Sky is cleft asunder" (82:1)

"When the Stars are scattered" (82:2)

I'm not 100% sure exactly what the first quotation is referring to.There is nothing wrong with trying to pry wisdom from the Quran; until you try to relate that wisdom to a metaphysical god or scientific revelations predicated upon little more than intuition that is counter to observation.

If you are aware of any possibility that the sky may be 'cleft asunder' in the future, I'll be pleased to learn about it. Just to be on the safe side, I'm neither joking nor, in any way, being sarcastic. I honestly want to know what the first quotation means. I'll read into it myself but your knowledge may make it clearer to me sooner.Words have many connotations that differ for everyone. Words that are translated are subjected to even more misinterpretation. You should strive for an understanding that is consistent with: All that is created will cease to exist; and, the Universe is eternal.

The second one is very clear to me. It obviously refers to the state of the universe after a long time from now when, due to expansion, the stars will obviously be scattered. For me, it eliminates the possibility of a Big Crunch. It anyway seems that the density of the universe is equal to the critical density, so it already seems, to scientists, that the universe may expand forever.The Universe is Oneness, it is perpetual, steady-state. There will be no universal "Big Crunch"; nor, will the Universe "expand forever."

All are welcome to comment on what they think about these quotations.The quotations are fine; just don't confuse them with science.

[kaiser]

Thanks for the discussion. I will not pursue it further because I understand your views on the topic. Thanks again.

If anyone else wishes to post his/her views, they're welcome.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This discussion has proved to be personally very fruitful for me, for I've learnt quite a bit about the Quran. Today I re-discovered two quotations.
Talking about what will happen towards the end of the world:
"When the Sky is cleft asunder" (82:1)
"When the Stars are scattered" (82:2)
I'm not 100% sure exactly what the first quotation is referring to.
Epsilon=one, I gather from our discussion till now that you know quite much more about physics than I do. If you are aware of any possibility that the sky may be 'cleft asunder' in the future, I'll be pleased to learn about it. Just to be on the safe side, I'm neither joking nor, in any way, being sarcastic. I honestly want to know what the first quotation means. I'll read into it myself but your knowledge may make it clearer to me sooner.
The second one is very clear to me. It obviously refers to the state of the universe after a long time from now when, due to expansion, the stars will obviously be scattered. For me, it eliminates the possibility of a Big Crunch. It anyway seems that the density of the universe is equal to the critical density, so it already seems, to scientists, that the universe may expand forever.
All are welcome to comment on what they think about these quotations.
The first one could easily be in reference to Dark Energy as it has been observed and is, in a manner of speaking, 'cleaving the sky'

As for when the 'stars are scattered' might mean a time when the Universe Finds/nears/hits it's limit on expansion, implieing that all matter (Stars) are as far away from Themselves as can be, to the point where the material of space itself rips open, as is presently observed with the above mentioned dark matter.

Good thoughts though, (I) think, but (I) don't read EP soooo don't know what he's/she's said

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Defining 'Smoke'

As a 'Gas/Gaseous Cloud' Matter/Particles interacting with their environment in such a manner as to be Luminous, Visible in the Sense that anyone either therein or from near-afar * could 'see' Visibly the matter as Having Depth because of the 'Mediumistic' (Matter-energy) interactivities' ability to generate Shadow and Light.

*"near-afar" is sorta problematic dealing with the Idea of How far the Light eminations (have) travel away from the more materialistic/matter core ....of the Entire Environment/Creation.

Does that sound/read right?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You might like this one A Wash Job (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=5605#post5605) .....sorta....maybe not?

(I) is why (I) endevour to stay away.....and be stayed away 'from' .....as well.