[RogerButton33]

Of course, Craig has his obvious problems, such as clinging to Trinitarian ideology (and this is obvious even in his more generic defenses of divinity, as when he says that "God was outside of time, then became temporal"). This is why in the other thread I was really trying to focus the attention of those brothers who can use the rational arguments to attack other non-Muslim religions. I totally agree that different people are influenced by different things, but those who take ratioanlity as their basis should not be shunned, as Islamic thinking tries to reach the people based on what they are.

I have always wondered why a person like William lane Craig who has a very good rational and philosophical clarity would support something as irrational as trinity. The question has been posed to him that how does trinity fall into your kalam cosmological argument in specific and your logical scrutiny in general and his response is that trinity can not be derived from rational argumentation but its derived from the divine knowledge preserved by the christian tradition. I think it is his stubbornness which is stopping him from becoming a Muslim and subscribing to monotheism.

[Imalaycle]

So the scientist speaking in the video in the opening post (uploaded in 2009) is out of date now. We have a mathematically coherent explanation of reality (ToE) Theory of Everything.

The answer to that will be no, as Dr Atif has pointed out, but some further explanation is requited.
TOE was the name given for string theory, an attempt at eye catching nomenclature.
People soon developed distaste for it -the terminology, not string theory.
String theory seeks to give unified description of all four fundamental interactions/forces, strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational.
In scientific realm your theory should be experimentally verifiable.
String theory at present and in near future is not experimentally verifiable because it requires unattainable energies.
So we do not have falsifiable theory of everything.
Theoretically we do have the beautiful edifice of of string theory - the missing part is experimental.
So the empirical process is not complete here.

But as I have said in earlier posts we do have a theories that explain nearly everything that we know experimentally. We can not use the acronym TOE for these for these are three separate theories for three separate type of phenomena.

[herbalviagra]

could you please elaborate more on this please, for the benefit of myself and others who are unaware of Imam Ghazali's cosmological argument. jazakumullah

Aristotle , the famous logician and philosopher , had certain views about God. His views were based on his own critical thinking and the rudimentary logic. The Aristotelian thought effected many Muslim philosophers as well. Notable among them were Ibn Sina , Al farabi and Ibn Rushd. They tried to induct the Aristotelian thought into Islam and somehow make Islam compatible with their own rational (which was governed by Aristotle). In an effort to do so , they came up with some disturbing ideologies , one of which was the Qadm , eternal of universe. They used to believe (like Aristotle) that the universe is Qadeem (old) and not Hadis (new , created). A further tributary of this preposition was the the universe is in the continuation with the being of God and hence matter is uncreated.

Imam Ghazali rahimahullah wrote his ground breaking book "Tahafatul Falasifa" (the incoherence of philosophers) in which he refuted their claims with rational argumentation. He addressed this "universe being eternal" issue as well. He came up with the argument that if one believes that the universe is eternal , he would have to assume that the past events are infinite (or say time is infinite). However we see that infinity is just a notion of maths with no practical existence. If one starts collecting coins and heaps them up in a ground , he can never reach an infinite number of coins no matter how many coins he adds up. So if infinity is something which does not exist in the real world then one will have to conclude that the past events can not be infinite as well and hence there was must have been a beginning point of the universe and time. This argument later evolved into the famous cosmological argument for the existence of God.

In 1932 , the Hubble observations ( which were later formulated into the big bang theory confirmed the non-eternity of universe and the presence of a beginning point. Rest ,Shaykh Maripat has shared a detailed explanation of cosmological argument which you may like to go through.

[vvxtiopmx]

I have always wondered why a person like William lane Craig who has a very good rational and philosophical clarity would support something as irrational as trinity. The question has been posed to him that how does trinity fall into your kalam cosmological argument in specific and your logical scrutiny in general and his response is that trinity can not be derived from rational argumentation but its derived from the divine knowledge preserved by the christian tradition. I think it is his stubbornness which is stopping him from becoming a Muslim and subscribing to monotheism.

I hope everybody has seen Craig vs Shabir Ally debate. I loved it - Shabir Ally sent Craig into circles.
And all Praise is due to Allah (SWT).

No , We don't have the mathematical structure to encompass String theory , let alone a TOE. String theory can be taken as the TOE of physics and it an a chain of the long efforts to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics into coherence with each other. For doing so , string theory invokes 7 further dimensions than our four dimensions and we don't have any evidence or mathematical coding for any other dimension , let alone 7 dimensions. The Hadron collider data has been disappointing for the string theorists as well as it was expected the such high energy Proton collisions might lead into the loss of energy or debris which may be attributed to the presence of another dimension but as far as i know it nothing as such has been recorded.

Here is a discussion on the present and future of string theory by the key players. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg

Mathematical structure is actually in place. The trouble is to make verifiable predictions. That is where the buck has stopped.

[intorkercet]

I hope everybody has seen Craig vs Shabir Ally debate. I loved it - Shabir Ally sent Craig into circles.
And all Praise is due to Allah (SWT).

Craig is one of the best public-speaking logicians I have ever seen- better than Ally- until he starts talking about the trinity. At that point, it's like all the rules go out the window. A real shame. I hope Allah guides him and lets him use his talents to serve the deen.

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

Here is a discussion on the present and future of string theory by the key players. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg

When Brian Greene, the man on Skype, says that the mathematical structure for amalgamating quantum mechanics and gravity is not there he is actually setting the stage of string theory - the theory that has that mathematical structure.

[Lvnufcdc]

When Brian Greene, the man on Skype, says that the mathematical structure for amalgamating quantum mechanics and gravity is not there he is actually setting the stage of string theory - the theory that has that mathematical structure.

I was pointing in a different direction. The supposition of string theory or a TOE rests on the nation of super-symmetry which if discovered would describe the whole set of physical reality found in the universe. The super-symmetry must be explained through maths as we have no other tool to explain any symmetry. String theory proposes that this symmetry can be found at the very fundamental level of matter ie strings, However i don't think so that there is no unanimity on the nature of maths to describe the super-symmetry as there are certain other proposals such as the presence of certain binary codes which are more fundamental to the super-symmetry than the equations of string theory. Its a kinda like going back to that old platonic thought "reality is mathematical not physical". Jim gates talks about it 1:00 onwards.

[hansen384cbh]

We know that philosophy - it is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He proposed the solution the problem: How to differentiate between scientific and non-scientific theories? His theory of demarcation is that scientific theories are falsifiable, these can be tested in laboratory. Now that is empiricism.

What you are saying in above highlighted text is of course true. Let me repeat an anecdote from a Karl Popper interview in Scientific American by John Horgan. Horgan asked Popper whether his theory of demarcation falsifiable. Popper leaned forward and put his hand on Horgan's and said, "I do not want to hurt you but that is a silly question?" "Why?", asked Horgan. "My theory is not a scientific theory", said Popper.

I think that here we are talking about two different things. First of all , types of "incompleteness theorem" have always been around there. Ibn Taymiyyah invokes something similar to Godel's incompleteness in his critique of logic where he tries to show that the initial axioms of logic can not be explained by logic. Science starts with a simple narrative ie Observe some aspects of the universe , make some predictions based upon your observations , make experiments to test your predictions and if consistent , the predictions which will qualify the experiments shall be taken as science or scientific facts. However , we find out that these premises can not be proved by science as no experiments were or can be done to arrive at this narrative. Science sets a rule of business with in which the initial rule can not be explained by the set of rules set. So , there are points with in the system (as Godel predicted) that can not be proven with in the system and hence they point towards an unavoidable inconsistency in the systems.

Secondly , as i said that the upper limit of science is governed by the philosophy of science where things like " Is the experiment enough to test the prediction? , Can one conclude so and so from the observation? etc" are decided through philosophical arguments and they are never (as they never can be) exposed to empirical scrutiny.

[Katoabralia]

=dr.ati;810845]

Here is a discussion on the present and future of string theory by the key players. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg
I watched most of this video. I was struck by the notion held by these scientists that man is ignorant and he needs to engage in science to maybe discover what it is all about and they may even fail in their own lifetime to discover this. This means human life is assumed to be a mystery which if it cannot teach one how to live in this lifetime then seriously what a waste. According to Islam we already know what life is about and how we must live...science is just to admire the Attributes and Names of the Creator as manifested in the creation. I have heard a shaykh say that tawheed (unity) as practised by Muslims (where all of an individuals life is based on unity and not fragmented...work, family, eating, worshipping, etc. are all One and united in a belief in tawheed gives its own enlightenment and knowledge. Because these scientists do not believe or live tawheed in their amal they are 'blind'.

[shkarpet$]

derived from the divine knowledge preserved by the christian tradition.

i think it is here that we Muslims have a very very big advantage. let them study the chains of transmission of all religions and have them traced to their Divine Book(s). it will fail with every religion except Islam and when somebody studies the chains and reaches the conclusion that Qur'an and Authentic Ahadith now are indeed the same as when Prophet (PBUH) conveyed them to us by means of his blessed speech, that somebody can still ask : how can you prove that Qur'an is the word of God?

to which the answer is simple: the Prophet (PBUH) was unlettered and testified to be Saadiq and Amiin.

and I have not even begun on rational arguments. the above is basically empirical evidence.

for rational arguments then again the Qur'an is itself a miracle if one studies it in detail. Nouman Khan's lecture might be good here.

they don't have an argument against Islam, just plain rhetoric.

[Thomas12400]

I watched most of this video. I was struck by the notion held by these scientists that man is ignorant and he needs to engage in science to maybe discover what it is all about and they may even fail in their own lifetime to discover this. This means human life is assumed to be a mystery which if it cannot teach one how to live in this lifetime then seriously what a waste. According to Islam we already know what life is about and how we must live...science is just to admire the Attributes and Names of the Creator as manifested in the creation. I have heard a shaykh say that tawheed (unity) as practised by Muslims (where all of an individuals life is based on unity and not fragmented...work, family, eating, worshipping, etc. are all One and united in a belief in tawheed gives its own enlightenment and knowledge. Because these scientists do not believe or live tawheed in their amal they are 'blind'.

I am glad that you have caught some of the idiosyncrasies of American high science, particularly theoretical physics. My desire is that more of us should be aware of these things. If you are familiar with these things only then you can engage them in a dialogue. Science is difficult but public outreach is about making it simple for the layman. That should not be difficult for common people to follow. It is meant for them.

@Dr Atif,
I shall drop the discussion hear in spite of the fact that it is both interesting and enjoyable.
It might irritate you but let us make some consideration for those people who might get left behind.
You might be aware that I am sort of desperate to have a science culture amongst us.
The question therefore is how to bring more people to discuss these matters.

I have made a suggestion and I shall repeat it here that we should have a separate Science and Technology Section here at SF.

[Rwujnezq]

In his early days while working on the "incompleteness threorem" , this came from Kurt Godel.

"In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. “Matter” refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter."

[nushentelve]

In his early days while working on the "incompleteness threorem" , this came from Kurt Godel.

"In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. “Matter” refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter."

May be this lapsing of west into materialism is a recent phenomena. I would like to place it more precisely in time. This has some relevance for our Dawah to to them.