The supernatural

[junkshop]

Quantum science revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and called into question the principle of causality. Quantum science took categories into another world. Discussion of the origin of the universe, the range of singularity, and the astonishing rate of expansion of the universe after expansion, the quantum quantum nature of photons, electrons, and neutrinos, which were stable elementary particles at the beginning of pure light and still retain their stability.
The dominance of photons in the material and transmaterial worlds (transmaterial waves, not outside the material world) showed that the principle of uncertainty is valid only to the extent of theoretical physics. And quantum science is the hidden world of transmaterial. Hence, philosophy can no longer use the tools of theoretical physics as a basis for its justification. In other words, its era is practically over.
It is beyond the realm of theoretical physics to place "stone, tree, and material designations" whose existence is visible next to "intellect, understanding, consciousness" which exists but is inaccessible, and to seek its causes. It is a big mistake to look at these two issues with one approach.
Using mathematical formulas and precise calculations, the scientists declared the Planck time range to be ten to the power of minus forty-three seconds. Which is an obvious violation of uncertainty. That is, with the decisive mathematical formula, they announced the Planck constant of time. While these formulas do not apply to Planck. And that's where quantum science comes into play. The laws of theoretical physics in the Planck range lose their validity. Based on new theories of astronomers and advances in quantum physics, exactly the theorems that are consistent with the reality of Planck's range have been identified. With the ideas of theoretical physics, one cannot talk about the scope of quantum science. The field of quantum science is the domain of God.
I have referred to Einstein and Heisenberg's discussions of quantum dependence and the sending of information at speeds beyond the speed of light in the same group in my previous messages. This discussion has a long history in physics. In 1925 when quantum scientific theory was expressed. Albert Einstein challenged this theory. He described it as a "distant ghost". And insisted that no speed could move faster than light. Einstein, together with his fellow physicists Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, wrote an article entitled "Is the description of reality by quantum mechanics complete?" And tried to expose the contradictions of quantum theory. Scientific circles called this article the EPR paradox. The basis of this paper was that the description of quantum mechanics in terms of physical reality is not complete by wave functions.
The unknowns of nature are beyond theoretical physics. And only quantum science can unravel its mystery. And the main factor is photons. (They are wise - Suarez's experiment proved) God guides everything with His light. God is the light of the heavens and the earth. 24/35 ( اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ -The light of God is the manifestation of the heavens and the earth)
The extraordinary order of the material world cannot be answered by The principle of causality and indecision.
God Almighty knows the hidden dimension of the material world. (It differs from the hidden world of the manifestations of matter) and puts its matter in it with its light. And guides it.(They are wise - Suarez's experiment proved)

You seem to have forgotten to cite the author.

 

[IanS]

Hi
Nature has consciousness. Suarez's experiment on photons proved this. The universe is made up of photons and quarks. Therefore, the whole universe has consciousness. And follows the principle of causality. until the Quantum boundary. This is a scientifically proven fact.

None of the above is true at all. You simply have no regard for honesty.

Suarez experiments have never "proved" that so-called "Nature" has anything like human "consciousness". Please produce the actual peer-reviewed papers where Suarez and you yourself claims to have to have proved that.

And, No., the universe is NOT "made up of photons and quarks" ... when you write things like that, it just shows everyone here that you have no understanding at all and no education at all in science ...

... you are scientifically ignorant, and you clearly have no regard for truth and no interest in learning anything at all about the results of real published science.

 

[IanS]

Hi
Exactly all the discoveries of quantum science prove the existence of God. And there is no doubt about it.

You are replying as if you agree with what I had just told you, even though I just told you the exact opposite of what your are claiming - all of genuine peer-reviewed publshed science shows zero evidence for any God ... that's the complete opposite of you simply inventing claims out of thin air to preach that "quantum science proves God" ...

... there is nothing in science (or "quantum science") that claims to have proved any God.

At this point your are yet again, for at least the 100th time here!! , simply lying for God in everything you post. You are a religious fanatic who has no regard for truth or honesty. And that does not go down well on forums like this where the rest of us do respect truth and honesty (and where, incidentally, truth & honesty is the actuall complete basis of all of science).

 

[Pixel42]

Nature has consciousness.

No it doesn't. Only individual brains have consciousness.

Suarez's experiment on photons proved this.

No it didn't. There are many possible interpretations of the remarkable experiments of quantum mechanics. This helpful table in the excellent wiki article lists thirteen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons

In only one of them does consciousness play a significant role. [ETA and even then it's the consciousness of individual observers, not of the universe as a whole].

The universe is made up of photons and quarks.

And leptons. And bosons. And whatever dark matter consists of.

Therefore, the whole universe has consciousness.

Unsupported assertion.

And follows the principle of causality. until the Quantum boundary. This is a scientifically proven fact.

You have shown repeatedly that you have no idea what qualifies as a scientific fact, don't you think it's time you started to think twice before making this statement?

I accept all your talk about civilization and civilized people. And you explained well. Thank you. But what are human instincts? Instincts are from nature. So instincts are not to blame.

As I said, it's inadequately civilised people who are to blame for the harm they do by not controlling and occasionally overruling their instincts.

I accept all your content that I have highlighted. And I understand from your words that nature is not terrible and guilty. Humans can not control their instincts.

I can control and, if necessary, overrule my instincts just fine. So can billions of other people. It's only a minority of humanity who either cannot or choose not to.

They are prejudiced. And this eventually leads to war and killing.

Correct for that minority.

The conclusion I want to draw is this: nature is good with civilization. Each of these should not control man alone.

I don't agree. Civilisation was invented to improve on nature, and should always take precedence where they conflict, which they often do.

 

[heydarian saeed]

It perfectly suits the error you made, though.

What was your understanding of what “Schrödinger's cat theory” says? What do you think it would convince me of, and how do you think it would convince me?

Schrödinger's cat is an intellectual experiment that offers different interpretations of quantum mechanism. It does not deny the existence of what is not seen. And probably knows. My use of this experiment is that what is not visible is not a reason for its absence. There may be other ways to prove the existence of something that is not seen. This thinking comes to us after the philosophy of the originality of existence. And not in our priorities. I suggested it to you who believe in modern science. To see that according to this mental experiment, the existence of invisible objects is also possible. And can not be rejected. Quantum has many experiments in this regard. The bottom line is: Truth exists as something independent of what is actually done.

 

[IanS]

Quantum science revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and called into question the principle of causality. Quantum science took categories into another world. Discussion of the origin of the universe, the range of singularity, and the astonishing rate of expansion of the universe after expansion, the quantum quantum nature of photons, electrons, and neutrinos, which were stable elementary particles at the beginning of pure light and still retain their stability.
The dominance of photons in the material and transmaterial worlds (transmaterial waves, not outside the material world) showed that the principle of uncertainty is valid only to the extent of theoretical physics. And quantum science is the hidden world of transmaterial. Hence, philosophy can no longer use the tools of theoretical physics as a basis for its justification. In other words, its era is practically over.
It is beyond the realm of theoretical physics to place "stone, tree, and material designations" whose existence is visible next to "intellect, understanding, consciousness" which exists but is inaccessible, and to seek its causes. It is a big mistake to look at these two issues with one approach.
Using mathematical formulas and precise calculations, the scientists declared the Planck time range to be ten to the power of minus forty-three seconds. Which is an obvious violation of uncertainty. That is, with the decisive mathematical formula, they announced the Planck constant of time. While these formulas do not apply to Planck. And that's where quantum science comes into play. The laws of theoretical physics in the Planck range lose their validity. Based on new theories of astronomers and advances in quantum physics, exactly the theorems that are consistent with the reality of Planck's range have been identified. With the ideas of theoretical physics, one cannot talk about the scope of quantum science. The field of quantum science is the domain of God.
I have referred to Einstein and Heisenberg's discussions of quantum dependence and the sending of information at speeds beyond the speed of light in the same group in my previous messages. This discussion has a long history in physics. In 1925 when quantum scientific theory was expressed. Albert Einstein challenged this theory. He described it as a "distant ghost". And insisted that no speed could move faster than light. Einstein, together with his fellow physicists Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, wrote an article entitled "Is the description of reality by quantum mechanics complete?" And tried to expose the contradictions of quantum theory. Scientific circles called this article the EPR paradox. The basis of this paper was that the description of quantum mechanics in terms of physical reality is not complete by wave functions.
The unknowns of nature are beyond theoretical physics. And only quantum science can unravel its mystery. And the main factor is photons. (They are wise - Suarez's experiment proved) God guides everything with His light. God is the light of the heavens and the earth. 24/35 ( اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ -The light of God is the manifestation of the heavens and the earth)
The extraordinary order of the material world cannot be answered by The principle of causality and indecision.
God Almighty knows the hidden dimension of the material world. (It differs from the hidden world of the manifestations of matter) and puts its matter in it with its light. And guides it.(They are wise - Suarez's experiment proved)

You were asked (many times now actually) to produce links to real peer-reviewed published research papers from Suarez, or from Penrose, or Hawking or any genuine scientists, where their papers had claimed that God had been proved from quantum theory or proved from double slit experiments or from any experiment or any part of real science ... but your post above just makes a whole mass of the same old claims that you have made here many times before, without even one genuine link to any such genuine paper that has any claim of God at all!

Please produce the actual peer-reviewed published papers that claim any evidence or "proof" of God ... where are the real papers please??

Your whole post above is clearly something that you have copied from an Ijaz site by just cutting & pasting it in here ... the words there are clearly not something that you yourself originally wrote ... you are just preaching from Islamic fundamentalist Ijaz literature/sites ... BUT, you do not, and clearly cannot produce any of your claimed science papers that claim any proof of your GOD!!!

Where are the real papers please? You must have been asked 20 times or more, and you still cannot produce any such papers ... instead all you can do is cut-&-paste a whopping pile of rotted dishonest Ijaz beliefs!

 

[heydarian saeed]

You are replying as if you agree with what I had just told you, even though I just told you the exact opposite of what your are claiming - all of genuine peer-reviewed publshed science shows zero evidence for any God ... that's the complete opposite of you simply inventing claims out of thin air to preach that "quantum science proves God" ...

... there is nothing in science (or "quantum science") that claims to have proved any God.

At this point your are yet again, for at least the 100th time here!! , simply lying for God in everything you post. You are a religious fanatic who has no regard for truth or honesty. And that does not go down well on forums like this where the rest of us do respect truth and honesty (and where, incidentally, truth & honesty is the actuall complete basis of all of science).

Please answer my question: Which science and scientific article denies God?
Thanks

 

[Pixel42]

No one here has claimed that there is published science that denies God, heydarian. Only that there is no published science which shows evidence for God.

You have claimed that there is published science that proves God.

Either point to it, or stop making that (completely untrue) claim.

 

[Mojo]

Schrödinger's cat is an intellectual experiment that offers different interpretations of quantum mechanism. It does not deny the existence of what is not seen. And probably knows. My use of this experiment is that what is not visible is not a reason for its absence. There may be other ways to prove the existence of something that is not seen. This thinking comes to us after the philosophy of the originality of existence. And not in our priorities. I suggested it to you who believe in modern science. To see that according to this mental experiment, the existence of invisible objects is also possible. And can not be rejected. Quantum has many experiments in this regard. The bottom line is: Truth exists as something independent of what is actually done.

I think we can safely conclude that you haven’t a clue what the point of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was.

 

[heydarian saeed]

No it doesn't. Only individual brains have consciousness.


No it didn't. There are many possible interpretations of the remarkable experiments of quantum mechanics. This helpful table in the excellent wiki article lists thirteen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons

In only one of them does consciousness play a significant role. [ETA and even then it's the consciousness of individual observers, not of the universe as a whole].


And leptons. And bosons. And whatever dark matter consists of.


Unsupported assertion.


You have shown repeatedly that you have no idea what qualifies as a scientific fact, don't you think it's time you started to think twice before making this statement?


As I said, it's inadequately civilised people who are to blame for the harm they do by not controlling and occasionally overruling their instincts.


I can control and, if necessary, overrule my instincts just fine. So can billions of other people. It's only a minority of humanity who either cannot or choose not to.


Correct for that minority.


I don't agree. Civilisation was invented to improve on nature, and should always take precedence where they conflict, which they often do.

What are the many possible interpretations of quantum mechanical experiments? Is quantum science based on probabilities? Even if we accept this, what does the result of quantum experiments prove? Does not it prove the unknowns that theoretical and natural physics cannot answer? Aren't all these various arguments and objections that you say and even quantum science for not accepting the truth? Definitely your goal is just not to accept the truth. Sometimes I get overly optimistic. While this association is professional skeptics! And super professional skeptics !! ... I'm really sorry.
"The truth is basically undeniable. And is independent of reality. To doubt the truth is a very ugly approach. The end result is absolute annihilation."
Civilization, human science, and technology have been invented to control forces and beings in nature.So that man can make the best use of nature.
The main cause of wars is pride, arrogance and selfishness. Superiority hurts if it is not controlled. Advances in science and technology are a source of pride. But if he becomes the cause of pride and arrogance, he commits the worst crimes. See date. Especially in the present age. Civilized people who have advanced in science and technology are waging war. Of course, primitive humans do the same. But do we not expect more from civilized human beings? Who will not fight? But they are fighting. What is the cause of this? It is pride and arrogance and selfishness. They have advanced in science and technology, but they have also said goodbye to God with humanity. Forgotten humanity ...
Rejection of the truth results in war and destruction.
Apparently you want to deny God by quoting science. But inwardly it is because of pride and arrogance that it prevents you from accepting the truth. Of course, you can not deny God by any means. I asked this question to IanS dear, I also ask you, please answer: In which scientific article or in which science has God been denied? And has this been done with reason and documentation? ... or is it just a claim? "Science and scientific articles prove only matter and everything related to matter. But it does not deny God." If, according to your claim, God has not been proven in any science or scientific article, there is no reason to deny God. Be a probability in probable quantum experiments. So wait for quantum science to prove God to you for sure. To relax your mind.
Do these photos sent by James Webb from the universe show the existence of forces and celestial bodies that were created by chance? Definitely not. None of this is accidental. Stay tuned to see more. See very carefully. And think that these are all coincidences? No.
Pixel dear, deny God scientifically so that I can accept and become an infidel.
Waiting.

 

[heydarian saeed]

I think we can safely conclude that you haven’t a clue what the point of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was.

My specialty is not quantum science. You are right. In my discussion, I use these intellectual experiments or theories to prove God. Think about the essence of my argument, which is to prove God and defend the existence of God. My main goal is not to express scientific theories and their details. Because it is not in my specialty. I am a Muslim and my discussion in this group is about "God" and not Schrödinger’s cat .... so your objection to me is rejected. I have no claim to understanding quantum science. This is not my claim.
But I use it as a tool to prove God. My claim is the proof of God. And there is a God. And he has not denied any science or scientific article of God.
I hope you understand.
Thank you

 

[heydarian saeed]

No one here has claimed that there is published science that denies God, heydarian. Only that there is no published science which shows evidence for God.

You have claimed that there is published science that proves God.

Either point to it, or stop making that (completely untrue) claim.

Thank you. That's enough for me to argue with professional infidels and skeptics. "No science or scientific article denies God." You seemed more rational than all the disbelievers. And it certainly is. I enjoy discussing with you. I'm glad we have at least one thing in common. This is a big turning point. Thank you very much.
Bye

 

[Pixel42]

What are the many possible interpretations of quantum mechanical experiments?

I already gave you the link to the wiki article that describes them. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Is quantum science based on probabilities?

That's a bit simplistic but, essentially, yes.

Even if we accept this, what does the result of quantum experiments prove? Does not it prove the unknowns that theoretical and natural physics cannot answer?

No.

Aren't all these various arguments and objections that you say and even quantum science for not accepting the truth? Definitely your goal is just not to accept the truth.

No, that's clearly your goal. My goal is to understand what modern physics can tell us about the true nature of the universe. Even with the headstart of a Maths degree I fall far short, but I do so honestly, without trying to shoehorn what I'm reading into beliefs I already had in the way you do.

"The truth is basically undeniable. And is independent of reality. To doubt the truth is a very ugly approach. The end result is absolute annihilation."

The only one denying any truth here is you.

Civilization, human science, and technology have been invented to control forces and beings in nature.So that man can make the best use of nature.
The main cause of wars is pride, arrogance and selfishness. Superiority hurts if it is not controlled. Advances in science and technology are a source of pride. But if he becomes the cause of pride and arrogance, he commits the worst crimes. See date. Especially in the present age. Civilized people who have advanced in science and technology are waging war. Of course, primitive humans do the same. But do we not expect more from civilized human beings? Who will not fight? But they are fighting. What is the cause of this? It is pride and arrogance and selfishness.

I don't disagree with any of this.

They have advanced in science and technology, but they have also said goodbye to God with humanity.

I do disagree with this. Many of those who commit the worst atrocities not only believe in God, but are doing so in the name of that God.

It's those who cling to primitive supernatural beliefs like yours, who think their ignorant superstition is telling them more about the true nature of the universe than decades of painstaking accumulation of actual knowledge and understanding, who are the problem.

Apparently you want to deny God by quoting science.

No. I only point out that science does not support belief in God, however much you stamp your feet and insist otherwise.

But inwardly it is because of pride and arrogance that it prevents you from accepting the truth.

Again, it's you that's doing that, not me. I'm prepared to accept the truth even if not's what I want to believe, even if it means I am just an unimportant and temporary accident in a purposeless universe. You are the one too proud and arrogant to do so.

Of course, you can not deny God by any means. I asked this question to IanS dear, I also ask you, please answer: In which scientific article or in which science has God been denied?

I answered that in my previous post.

If, according to your claim, God has not been proven in any science or scientific article, there is no reason to deny God.

I never said there was. I only said it means there's no good reason to believe in God. I cannot completely rule out the existence of God, I can only say I see no good reason to rule it in.

Be a probability in probable quantum experiments. So wait for quantum science to prove God to you for sure. To relax your mind.

I have no expectation that will ever happen, but if it does I will certainly be open to it.

Do these photos sent by James Webb from the universe show the existence of forces and celestial bodies that were created by chance? Definitely not.

The James Webb telescope is not yet operational. If, when it is, it shows anything which can only be explained by postulating a God, I will again be open to it, but I'm not holding my breath.

None of this is accidental. Stay tuned to see more. See very carefully. And think that these are all coincidences? No.

Unsupported assertions.

I note you're still labouring under the misapprehension that the only possible explanations for anything are "God" and "Coincidence".

Pixel dear, deny God scientifically so that I can accept and become an infidel.
Waiting.

Heydarian dear, prove God scientifically so that I can accept and become a believer.
Waiting.

 

[Pixel42]

Think about the essence of my argument, which is to prove God and defend the existence of God.

There's your problem in a nutshell. You are not trying to find out what is true. You have already made up your mind what you're going to believe is true, based on indoctrination, pride and arrogance. You're just trying to twist and misinterpret everything you read so that you can convince yourself it supports what you have already decided to believe, even if it actually flatly contradicts it.

Scepticism means looking at the (objective) evidence first, and then deciding what is most likely to be true. There will be no meaningful discussion here until you understand the fundamental difference in these two approaches.

 

[Pixel42]

Thank you. That's enough for me to argue with professional infidels and skeptics. "No science or scientific article denies God." You seemed more rational than all the disbelievers. And it certainly is. I enjoy discussing with you. I'm glad we have at least one thing in common. This is a big turning point. Thank you very much.
Bye

I'm still saying exactly what I, and all the other sceptics here, have been saying all along. If it's a "turning point" for you it can only be because you have finally understood something that has been explained to you dozens of times.

 

[IanS]

Please answer my question: Which science and scientific article denies God?
Thanks

Science does not try to answer religious claims about beliefs in supernatural gods. Scientists rarely if ever get involved in arguments about religion and miraculous gods (at least, not in their real published research).

But; what science does do, is study the actual evidence for anything & everything that has ever happened or existed anywhere in the entire universe (ie going right back 13.8 billion years to the Big Bang), and in all of that testing, checking, study etc., not a single one of the billions of religious claims about any gods, has ever been found to have any truth to it all. No evidence or any sign of any such God whatsoever.

Quantum physics finds no evidence of any God, and nor does any part of physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, astronomy etc.,... no part of any modern science has ever found any evidence whatsoever of your God.

The same thing has happened with all the other numerous religious and mystical claims/beliefs about things such as ghosts, spirits, angels, demons etc. Those are also all things once claimed by religious believers (& others), but in all of the millions of things that science has studied, and studied in vast detail, none of the evidence claimed by the faithful believers, has ever been found … none of it at all, nothing, precisely zero evidence for any of that.

In your posts above you have made the direct claim that "science proves God". And we have asked you to produce links to the papers that make any such claim of God. You have been asked many times. But you have never produced those links to such papers.

Where are those papers with their God claim, please?

If there were any such real papers claiming evidence that proved God, then every scientist in the world would instantly drop their own research and start investigating that claimed evidence of God instead. It would be the greatest discovery in the entire history of mankind. Every scientist in the world would be publishing papers with their studies on that. You would have thousands of papers on the first day alone! So ....

... where are all these papers showing the evidence of God? You should have at least 1000 such papers being published every week on a discovery as amazing as that. So where are all these papers "proving God"?

The true fact is that there are no such credible real papers. None. What we do have is literally millions of real papers describing the most astonishingly accurate studies of everything ever known in the entire universe ... and not a single one of them has ever found evidence of God or ever claimed to "prove God" (as you have claimed, repeatedly!).

 

[Mojo]

My specialty is not quantum science. You are right. In my discussion, I use these intellectual experiments or theories to prove God. Think about the essence of my argument, which is to prove God and defend the existence of God. My main goal is not to express scientific theories and their details. Because it is not in my specialty. I am a Muslim and my discussion in this group is about "God" and not Schrödinger’s cat .... so your objection to me is rejected. I have no claim to understanding quantum science. This is not my claim.
But I use it as a tool to prove God. My claim is the proof of God. And there is a God. And he has not denied any science or scientific article of God.
I hope you understand.
Thank you

Your claim here is that the Schrödinger’s cat experiment says the same thing as the Quran, and that this somehow proves God exists:

Please read Quantum Science. Read Schrödinger's cat theory. I think you should be convinced. We have read. This science says the same thing as in the Qur'an.

How can you know that it says the same thing as the Quran if you don’t understand what it says?

 

[skepticsalamander]

Were you just joking ? I don't see any article.

 

[IanS]

Pixel dear, deny God scientifically so that I can accept and become an infidel.
Waiting.

The above from you is again not actually an honest question from you, is it! You have no wish, nor any actual intention, of accepting any such scientific denial of God!

On the contrary you are very specifically denying and rejecting all of science where it has found explanations that completely reject and rule out any sort of God.

But if you want an example of where science has very clearly "denied" (to use your word) God, then the very clear example is Evolution ...

... before the discovery of evolution, all Christians and all Muslims insisted that their holy books, i.e. the Bible and the Quran gave the word of God himself saying that he, God, directly created human people. Well, that is flatly 100% contradicted by the discovery of evolution ...

... evolution shows absolutely beyond all sane doubt that humans evolved from earlier apes. So that, no humans even existed until about 200,000 years ago. Further back than that, our earliest ape ancestors did not even exist themselves before about 8 million years ago. And that is only a very tiny almost microscopically small percentage of the time for which all sorts of other living creatures have inhabited our planet Earth ... ie humans are only very VERY recent as creatures existing on Earth.

That proves, as much as anything ever can be "proved", that the bible and the Quran are completely wrong in what is actually their main fundamental basis for all of their religious belief, i.e. their claim/belief that God made Man directly himself ... well that is now known to be simply and completely wrong, isn't it!!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

With reference to heydarian's claim about wars and violence, it it worth noting that there are actually fewer wars going on now than at pretty much any time in previous human history.
Levels of violence are also at historical lows.
If you can get BBC where you are, this documentary is fascinating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000vsdy
As for nature being more peaceful and civilised, as well as the examples already mentioned, what about lions? When a new male takes over the pride, one of its first actions is to kill all the cubs from other males.
Divorce would be horrifyingly different if we acted as the animals do...

Just to poke at heydarian's peculiar version of Islam, it is generally agreed among Muslim scholars that man was created superior to animals by God, having the qualities of dignity and spirituality. heydarian seems to be saying that Allah rather messed up his creation here, producing something cruel and violent instead of what was supposed to be the pinnacle of creation.