The perfect proof of ALLAH's existence - In a single quranic verse!

Edip_Yuksel

The point then is that as THE observer of "his" creation, ALLAH is that which created the universe in the beginning then evolved it. This is the definition of ALLAH, that is to say ALLAH exists by definition. There is no way to run away from this fact.

There is no way whatsoever to separate your will of "I will do this" from ALLAH's will of "I will do this" (see 7630, 8129). Hence your sense of "I am" is only because of ALLAH's "I am".

Where are the circles here? I never intended any philosophy. ALLAH's existence is provable using logic, not the semantic dribble that the majority of philosophy gets lost into. The existence of the creator is as clear as the definition of a square having 4 sides.

Dear friend. I have trepidation regarding my interference in this discussion. On one hand, I feel like I sholud leave you alone thinking that you really proved God's existence. On the other hand, I do not want you to promote a circular argument and provide another excuse for atheists to mock deists and theists.

I am glad you think you have proved God's existence, but what you are declaring with an exclemation mark is indeed a circular argument. Just because you have come up with the definition of a word (a combination of letters/sounds) does not make that word exist in real world.

As for your square, it is more complicated than perhaps what you are thinking. Square, like point, does not really exist in our three dimensional world, yet it is a mental abstraction based on existing beings.

As for your backward "logic", one cannot create things by just coming up with a definition or description. If one could, then all the movie characters, from Spider Man to Superman, from Santa Clause to Bart Simpson should also exist. There should be also ontological presence of numbers, all numbers somewhere in the universe! Nothing is better defined than numbers and they do not exist as your finger exists.

I am familiar with St. Anselm's Ontological argument and Descartes' meditation, and they are very complicated and not persuasive. Yours is a miniature version of those arguments.

Peace,
Edip

mmkhan

Salaam OPF and all,

I believe in Allah's existence strongly and believe that who ever reads AlQuraan/AlKitaab with understanding will surely know the Allah's existence which is NOT possible put it in words. To show the existence of Allah to those who doubt, I show them the following aayaats that starts from the birth of a human till his death.

5657
5657 We have created you, so why do you not believe!

5658
5658 Have you noted that you emit?

5659
5659 Did you create it, or were We the Ones who have created?

5660
5660 We have predetermined death for you. Nothing can stop Us,

5661
5661 On that we may change your likenesses, and wishing you in what you do not know.

5662
5662 And indeed you have come to know about the first wish. so why do you not remember.

5663
5663 Have you noted that you reap?

5664
5664 Did you grow them, or were We the Ones who grew them?

5665
5665 If We wished, We can turn them into hay. Then you will be left in wonderment

5666
5666 Indeed we are lost.

5667
5667 No, we are deprived!

5668
5668 Have you noted the water you drink?

5669
5669 Did you send it down from the clouds, or is it We who sent it down?

5670
5670 If We wished, We can make it salty. so why do you not give thanks.

5671
5671 Have you noted the fire you kindle?

5672
5672 Did you wish its tree, or was it We who wished it?

5673
5673 We rendered it a reminder, and a useful tool for the users.

5674
5674 So you shall glorify the name of your Lord, the Great.

5675
5675 I do not swear by the positions of the stars.

5676
5676 And indeed it is an oath, if only you knew, is great.

5677
5677 Indeed it is an honorable Reading.

5678
5678 In a protected Book.

5679
5679 None can hold it except those the purified.

5680
5680 A revelation from the Lord of the worlds.

5681
5681 Are you scorning this narrative?

5682
5682 And you make your provisions, that you are denying?

5683
5683 So why not when it reaches your throat.

5684
5684 And you at that moment looking.

5685
5685 And we are closer to it than you are, but you do not see.

5686
5686 So why not if you do not owe any account.

5687
5687 Then return it, if you are truthful?

These are the aayaats that I have shown to some who don't believe in existence of Allah, but they don't have any answer on that. MashaAllah.

May Allah guide us all to His only path pr
Mohammed M. Khan

yushua

Dear OPD,

I really enjoyed reading your reply to Asana.

You have done a very hard job with ease, well done.

Yes, as you had right mentioned in your note, it is not possible to explain, it is to be experienced.

Allah do not exist, Allah is existance.

In Sanskrit GOD is called 'Satchitananda' which means Existance, Knowledge, Bliss Absolute.

Wishes with regards,
Brother Yushua

unknownuser

Peace,

Thanks for the replies people.

Edip

I do not need to prove God's existence. That comes prior to my own existence. Just as I cannot objectively ever prove to myself that my mother and father had intercourse to create me, I cannot prove that ALLAH exists. Yet do I not most obviously see that both cases are the truth?

Regardless I am merely quoting from al-quran, which asks the reader, IS IT NOT SUFFICIENT that your lord is the witness of all things? Make of that what you will. Perhaps for you this may be insufficient, it is up to you to understand why. I cannot without writing a novel explain why this single sentence is proof alone to me.

So here again is a similar argument. The definition of a human can be "that form created as a result of the interaction of two extremely similar preceding forms" and this definition combined with additional information on what a "human" is tells me that for sure I know that my mother gave birth to me.

Now the rest of your argument is caught in a silly trap. You assume that "numbers do not exist" and that "words do not exist". So my argument appears to lose its entire foundation in this light. This concept is old school thinking; in 2011 where we know quite a little bit more about the universe and I shall explain soon.

This is the hole in your argument that you missed numbers and words and all conceptual things that posess names exist as relative truth. Your fingers exist as absolute truth.

You only know that you have five fingers when you count them relative to each other. You need two entities to agree on the definition of a word, just as the connection of two points creates a straight line.

The kicker is that there is only ONE absolute truth. That is, ALLAH, al-haqq. Your entire body exists as ONE with the entire universe, there is no "you AND the rest of the universe", you are embedded into the geometry of spacetime like all other things. And that spacetime manifold is one fluidic evolving structure. It can be split into parts but these are only abstractions, they are not the real deal.

Now as I said before, we are in 2011. Why is this important? It's that we KNOW now that there is an absolute existence to numbers and words in a very very specific way. We know this for sure because all interactions between any entities in this universe are information transactions. Information is analogous to energy in a sense.

Why do you think ALLAH created adam and taught him the names?

And here is the thing. ALLAH's existence can easily be proved. The panacea you are perhaps looking for that will turn atheists into theists and turn the world aright does not exist. Also nobody is "creating" the creator with words, do be serious sir! You do not create anything when naming a thing but the name itself. There is no "creating the creator" here, there is only using the definition of the creator that "He" himself gave to us.

MMKhan If ALLAH's existence cannot be put into words, please explain the purpose of al-quran! It can be done but only those with open eyes will see it.

mmkhan

Salaam OPF,

MMKhan If ALLAH's existence cannot be put into words, please explain the purpose of al-quran! It can be done but only those with open eyes will see it.

I mean we cannot put it into OUR words , but I have already explained it above with the word of Allah which is more than enough to understand. )

And yes, I agree, those with open eyes only will see.

May Allah guide us all in His path pr
Mohammed M. Khan

nimnimak_11

Peace all

OPF

I think I know where your coming from but philosophically your position would not hold unless you have some more premises IMO. Its a great idea this thread. I've been wanting to post something like this but I wanted to make sure i've thought enought on the topic.

I am familiar with St. Anselm's Ontological argument and Descartes' meditation, and they are very complicated and not persuasive. Yours is a miniature version of those arguments.

Peace Edip

I am in my second year of philosophy and i have been obssessed with the ontological arguments (im hoping to do it for my dissertation) I have been thinking much on this issue and have been making notes. I have formed my own ontological argument (I say my own as I spent time thinking on the issue and was inspired things) i have also looked at other versions of the ontological argument and have not come across the version I am proposing

Descartes suggested that because he had an idea of a supremely perfect being and that existence makes something more perfect (or rather is necessary to being perfect).....God must exist (very short version of his ontological argument for all who are not familiar with it)

Kant rightly pointed out, existence does not add or takeaway to the perfection of something. Now I know where Descartes went wrong but he was on the right track. Here's my onotological argument in short

I have the concept of perfect
Existence precedes essence
For this concept (perfect) to be possible at all, something in the real external world must have the property of perfect to give rise to such a concept. In other words some existence must precede the essence of perfection.
the only thing that can potentially be perfect is God
Therefore God exists NECESSARILY (not because it makes it more perfect, but because something must have the property of being truely perfect for the concept that we have to be even possible)

More info on premise 1 Something that is the best of everything and cannot be any better (which would necessarily entail being almighty, infinite and so on) I have covered this in more detail but this is just a short post so i will not go into details on this issue.

More info on premise 4 I have had people say to me "I can think of a perfect watch, pen, partner, human etc." My response All these things by definition are imperfect because they have imperfect boundries. For example let's say that a blind person with attributes x,y,z is a "perfect" blind person. By definition blindness is an imperfect boundry and you cannot fit perfection within imperfect boundries. Pen, human, watch and all other things that are not God have imperfect boundries thus rendering them imperfect no matter how flawless they are within their categories. Their categories are flawed thus rendering them flawed. (this is somewhat similar to how you cannot fit infinity within finite boundries)

More info on premise 2 Even if it was the case that this whole world is just a dream or something like the matrix, it must be the case that for the construction of such a dream world, foundations are needed to even make construction of such a world possible. For example shape, colour, function and so on. These foundations are core things in which they cannot be broken down anymore and thus for them to exist means that something in the real external world MUST have these properties to make it possible to be able to use these properties (colour, shape and so on) for the construction of a dream world or a virtual world. Either this OR something higher must exist that entails these core things (foundations) for the contruction of such a dream world (in the same way that 3D entails 2D or should we say 2D is a part of 3D)

Infinity is a concept which can only exist if something has the property of infiniteness. How else would we so easily distinguish finiteness in objects if truly nothing infinite in the real world existed? It there was nothing with the property of infinite in the real world, then we would make no sense of infinity. It MIGHT be the case that when we look at the sky and see no end to it, it would just be the case that we would AUTOMATICALLY assume that it has an end. For us to even consider that it may be infinite proves that something in the real world must have the property of infiniteness OR something that entails the property of infiniteness (just as 2D is entailed by 3D such that 2D is a part of 3D. (note that 3D cannot be entailed by 2D))

Similarly Perfect is a concept which can only exist if something has the property of perfectness. How else would we be able to distinguish everything else as imperfect and to some extent objectively talk meaninfully about something that is perfect (without any imperfections). It there was nothing with the property of perfect, we would not have the concept of perfect in the sense that (it is the best of everything and cannot be better).

There is more to this which I need to cover which is why I havn't posted this on the forums yet. There are loose ends which Im working on and was planning on then posting this. But in short Im proposing that to reject something with the property of perfect in the realest world possible is to reject apriori reasoning.

Something thinks (or something higher that entails the function of thinking), therfore I am. This is also cricular but how can this be denied as necessarily true?

Peace

Asana

Peace OPF

Thank you for your lengthy response although it didn?t benefit me if did for others because I already knew very well your system of belief. Please bear in mind that I understand you/non-duality very well otherwise I wouldn?t get involved in discussion. I?m looking for Quranic proof. What you?ve given me is only your personal interpretations without solid proof.

Baha?u?llah/prophet of Bahai faith who is the master of manipulation in interpretation. He says likewise those who don?t understand him are those who don?t understand mysterious meaning of the verses. He says that he came after 1400 years to reveal/explain to us what Qyiamah/resurection,Saat/Hour,sama/Heaven,Ard/Earth,Naba-on azim/The great news , paradise and hell mean in the Quran and they all refer to his advent. God is in him. God has manifested in him and His mouth is God?s mouth who speak to us. And yet when Salat was revealed to him it gets stolen by his brother who claimed to be promised Messiah/Mahdi after Bab and then God revealed another Salat to him!!?He was the son of the prominent minister and yet was Omi/illiterate like Prophet Mohammad because illiteracy is part of prophethood!.He was 27 years when became a believer in Bab and 33 when took the seat of prophethood.when his followers/believers are asked about his illiteracy and stolen Salat they say YOU don?t understand unless you believe in him!And this man has over 5 million followers.Does that make him a prophet?Well he should first answer to my question how is it possible being a son of prominent minister whom his other children were highly educated yet he isn't!

Therefore I should remind you here please never ever underestimate the mind/knowledge of your readers by saying that you don?t understand! No matter how many verses you quote until you don?t have answer to each verse that contradicts your belief you do not have truth in your hand although your belief is respected.
Please do not consider/see your belief above the others because there is always possibility that you might be very wrong which in my opinion you are.
Let?s be humble in what we know and try to learn from each other.

I am not arguing with you here?I respect your belief?I only asked you about your utterance (I am He) if it is a shirk utterance or not. I asked you what shirk is.
That was the third question which I put to you and I didn?t receive proper answer from you?..First it was about 587 and second one if God, His Essence is the starting point of universe then how you would define the word of Creator.

As far as I know we were not discussing whether God exist or not?We were discussing the Essence of His Being.
You believe that the whole universe is His Being and I?d like to know what would be your answer to those questions. It is enough if you answer to my question regarding definition of ?Creator? then the rest is history.

You repeated yourself by explaining over and over the same thing except with different words.
I?m not interested to know how universe came to exist because God has already told us in the Quran?I?m interested to know according to your belief if universe is His Being then what has He created as the Creator?
You?re telling me about the incident that took/take place at the starting point/His existence .My question is that if starting point/universe was there then God is not Creator anymore and you don?t have answer to it.

If universe is His existence/Allah then His Essence is full of imperfection .This is very gross contradiction. Glory be to God, He is above that. If His Existence/His Essence is universe then we are all playing in a very distasteful game .free will is a big joke?Predestination is a fixed choice by God?God warns His Part of existence by giving them retribution .His existence depends on us as much our existence depends on Him which is another contradiction . He teaches us He doesn?t need us.

The below verse God use the term of heavens & the earth at the starting point as a joint entity not as His Existence?Why didn?t He use the term ?Existence? as you use for it/Him? Isn?t it because your belief doesn?t apply to His Being?

Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?

,He is the creator, and the evolver.

According to your belief He can?t be creator. He is the evolver.

,To understand why people say the essence of the creator is the origin, we can refer to the bible - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I?m suspicious if the translation or even the revelation in above is without tampering.
God teaches us for example the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary was word from God AND a spirit from Him.
Therefore if the word/Messiah according to above verse and your system of belief was God then those who say Jesus is God are right. And that?s not what God teaches us in the Quran?..Since Jesus as the word is not God therefore Word is not God?.Glory be to God, His essence is unfathomable.

Here is what God says in the Quran.
O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation/a spirit from Him.

BTW God uses two term/word in 4171 for Jesus word and spirit?Why?

,Now the creator is the first, and the last.
The first thing in "time" of course is original cause. And at the end of it, is the last thing in "time", which just so happens to also be original cause! The alpha and the omega.

God created the time for us. Time doesn?t exist for Him. Therefore alpha and omega doesn?t apply to what you wrote. He is Alpha because He is there before His creation and is Omega because He is there again after His creation. It means that His mighty Power encompass everything as He teaches us in His Book.

from ALLAH we come, to ALLAH we go.

We come from Allah doesn?t mean that we come from His Essence/Beings?God could have told us if that was what He meant by.
He brings us to exist and we return to Him as He plans. We call it life span. The point the life span of His Creatures/creation comes to the end although it is beginning of another thing but in a sense it is their return to Him according to His plan.
In 589 the word of preposition for the ?gathering? on the judgment Day is ?ilayhe? which means to Him not in Him.

Refer to 5527 and other verses which state that ALLAH is the beginning of all things and the end of all things - from ALLAH we come, to ALLAH we go. Because everything is one in that state of alpha and omega, there is nothing to distinguish "creator" from "creation". If everything is one, there is no duality. All that exists is ALLAH. So this is a striking display of the power of ALLAH - ALLAH is that which created the distinguishment between one thing and another thing ..

Contradiction again. According to non-duality God didn?t create things as His creation to be distinguished from Him because universe is God?..please remember creator and creation are one in your belief?BTW He only turned His being into diversity according to you.

ALLAH is prime cause, keep this in mind. I will try to convey something of my union experiences - one of them involved listening to some beautiful music in one of the deepest meditations I have attained and suddenly I just truly "heard" God. Keep in mind also that I was in a state of pure dissolution, this feeling cannot be conveyed in words. Anyway, the thought process was along the lines of "this music is beautiful - the producer is to be praised - the artist arranged a pattern most beautifully - but something created the artist, the music, sound itself, the pattern of beauty itself". And continuing on this chain of thought, I arrived at the most wonderful conclusion which you can read in the quran - 12, all praise belongs to ALLAH. If you ever see harmony's true face, you will be shattered, believe me! There is perhaps one perfectly simple yet infinitely complex pattern behind this universe and that pattern is the pattern of truth seeking. There is nothing further I can say with regards to this, it must be experienced directly and so many have. In truth you do not experience anything new, but rather you remember what you truly are, seeing yourself with a clear eye.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
If you meditate to attained to that state to hear God?I can easily switch off my mind any time in any place to hear the voice of God when birds sing or I hear one speak etc?..It?s me who have trained her mind to get to that state. It doesn?t mean that the voices/sounds are God?s real voices??.I hear the rhythm of La Elaaha Ella Allah in every music ?...I?ve been to some state without being aware of what was going around me/unconsciously seeing myself along the whole universe rotating/going round/circulating of unknown point by uttering La Elaaha Ella Allah?.As you can see it?s not only you non-duality believers who experience things?I do not believe in non-duality and experience things even without meditating like you?.I do not go around telling people that you do not understand my belief till you experience it?Belief must be based on rationality? God is asking us to reflect .Reflection needs study?To study things one needs to have analectic minds? It?s through study that we reach to conviction what is right what is wrong?Therefore telling others that you don?t understand it till experience it not only goes against God?s teaching but also it is a sign of having proof.

,Now what has all this to do with free will and things? Check out verse 4111. Everything has free will because all things are under the will of ALLAH.

Contradiction. If everything is under will of God then the free will doesn't exist.... You do not make sense there. I?m saying this because of your system of belief.

I do not utter "I am He". I do not need to say a thing in this state of total dissolution, it speaks for itself! To say "I am He" you must define who "I" am.
Another way to put it that will be more linguistically clear is "God is Me yet I am not God".

It doesn?t matter whether you utter it or not. The state that you go into by seeing yourself as Him is the whole point here?That state to me is allowing yourself to sense Him in you and you in Him. It means become one?It means Creator and creature become one?it means in a sense two become one?Here is the contradiction?You need to tell me now who is the creator there at that point of unity?Please do not tell me God because unity in that state means ONESS.

"God is a tree yet a tree is not God".

What you wrote is impossible?If God is tree then God is a bird too. And it goes on and on?In this manner you create gods. And all these gods are God?Then La Elaaha Ella Allah is an in correct phrase.
It only makes sense if you say tree is part of God.

The quran shifts from I to We the whole way through yet essentially all the way ALLAH is doing the talking. If you understand why it switches back and forth then you understand why both duality and unity are true in their respective contexts. The usage of I and the usage of We is perfectly specific, ALLAH never says I when a "We" should be fitting.

What you say is that I and We are One entity in the Quran only God swiches from duality to non-duality some time?Then if I implore to We I?m imploring to God?..At this point in another word I can say myself being as part of God are one with God??..Therefore whatever I do I?m not responsible for it?.It?s God who is doing it!...It's Him who doing it by my name and yet I?m told that I?m responsible for my deeds!...Is this God?s teaching?

May God increase our knowledge.

Asana

Asana

Peace nimnimak

I like your concept??It makes sense very well.

For this concept (perfect) to be possible at all, something in the real external world must have the property of perfect to give rise to such a concept. In other words some existence must precede the essence of perfection.

Totally agreed.

More info on premise 4 I have had people say to me "I can think of a perfect watch, pen, partner, human etc." My response All these things by definition are imperfect because they have imperfect boundries. For example let's say that a blind person with attributes x,y,z is a "perfect" blind person. By definition blindness is an imperfect boundry and you cannot fit perfection within imperfect boundries. Pen, human, watch and all other things that are not God have imperfect boundries thus rendering them imperfect no matter how flawless they are within their categories. Their categories are flawed thus rendering them flawed. (this is somewhat similar to how you cannot fit infinity within finite boundries)

Agreed too.

Wish you all the best

Asana

Edip_Yuksel

Dear OPF, If you wish to refute my criticism, you should put your argument in logical argument format, with premises and conclusion(s). You may use, modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, Disjunctive syllogism, Constructive Dilemma, etc. Every argument (or proof) can be summarized according to the rules of logic. Then, it is easier to see whether it is valid or not. Then, we can check the accuracy of premises so that we can conclude that your argument is indeed sound.

So, I am looking forward to see the summary of your argument. Just list your premises and then your conclusion.

Peace,

nimnimak_11

Peace nimnimak

I like your concept??It makes sense very well.

Totally agreed.

Agreed too.

Wish you all the best

Asana

Thanks Asana. This is good to know.

Edip_Yuksel

Dear Nimnimak

I am glad to learn that you are studying philosophy. I am impressed by your acumen in constructing arguments. However, I believe that within a year or so you will laugh at your argument, which is the beauty of philosoph, that is seeking wisdoum without rest.

There are a few problems with your argument. For instance, the second premise... It is originally attributed to Sartre. Here is my brief criticism of this premise

?Existence precedes essence? means that the original seed of existence does not have any essence. How can it be? We assume that Sartre is using the conventional language. Essence means ?the true nature or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.? If a newborn human baby does not have any essence then it is no different from a newborn monkey or snake or frog. If it is different then the new born must have an essence that will lead him/her to invent the probable combination of his/her future stages. Why a toad ?is condemned every moment to invent? frog, but not man? Similarly, why a baby is condemned every moment to invent man, but not frog?

Atheistic Existentialists should provide answer for another simple question. How can a being without any essence will be able to invent his/her future? Isn?t ?to be able to invent certain things? is a great essence by itself? Furthermore, when does a ?man? start inventing his/her future freely? In the first month, or first year, or teenage years, or later?

You might modify it as "Existence precedes perfection" but that too run into problem regarding the First Cause that did not reach perfection through evolution...

I do not have time to continue further now. If you want, this weekend we could discuss this issue on the phone.

nimnimak_11

Peace Edip

Check your pm

Jack

Peace nimnimak_11,

If you don't mind, why don't you post your response publicly? I think this is making for an interesting discussion. Would be a shame to put a halt to it.

Edip_Yuksel

Peace nimnimak_11,

If you don't mind, why don't you post your response publicly? I think this is making for an interesting discussion. Would be a shame to put a halt to it.

Jack, as it seems you have not read my response to him. I have not looked at PM yet, but most likely he has sent me his phone number, which is not perhaps a good subject for public discussion )

PS Nimnimak, a moment ago I checked my PM and could not find a message from you.

Peace,
Edip

nimnimak_11

Jack, as it seems you have not read my response to him. I have not looked at PM yet, but most likely he has sent me his phone number, which is not perhaps a good subject for public discussion

PS Nimnimak, a moment ago I checked my PM and could not find a message from you.

Peace,
Edip

Peace Edip

Sorry Edip. I tried PMing you last night (or morning i should say) but my laptop crashed on me (it's been doing that alot lately) and it was like 4am in the uk and i kinda gave up because it would take time to reboot and i was tired. So i thought i'd pm you today.Which I will after this post.

Jack of course I don't mind. This is easily one of my favourite topics and there are things I have in mind which I have not yet added to the post which I think would be of interest to people pursuing knowledge regarding the God. But before I do there are some uncertain areas which i don't have enough info on.

I already have what i believe is a solid response to Edip but I have to verify a couple of things before I can make that response. I will respond publicly and if i discuss this with Edip over the phone then I will post here of how that discussion went (so long as Edip is ok with it).

unknownuser

Peace peeps;

Edip

It's fairly difficult to place this argument because I'm not sure how how exactly the circles arise but I'll give it a go. It is indeed very much like the ontological argument in a lot of respects.

1.) There is an absolute truth that none can disagree upon - the terms "existence", "knowledge", "energy", "the universe" all refer to this absolute truth
2.) We hold no separate identity to the universe at large as we are a part of it
3.) Given that we each have an identity as an observer of the universe and taking account of (2), we acknowledge that the universe has a single identity
4.) We must agree then that there is fundamentally connected observation taking place; the single identity observing the universe
5.) The fundamental connection between all observers is the observer which we may then call "God"

Asana

I apologise for any implication put forth that I am underestimating your knowledge. What I mean by misunderstanding is that we are talking about exactly the same thing but we have two different perspectives on it that seem to disagree.

To be honest I am getting confused by some of the words you're using. The idea I'm trying to put forth is that at first is only the creator then comes the duality of created/creation. Yet the omnipresence of the creator demands that they are fundamentally inseparable.

We disagree in that I hold that the physical universe is perfect. But I am looking at its workings here, not the froth on the top; a perfect paintbrush makes art that some may call imperfect. Predestination is half-fixed by the creator as I already gave reference in my first post. And a supporting verse is 7039; stating that not all beings are created wanting to even enter paradise. Predestination is inevitable if anything is to have form.

You refer to 2130, why should it say "his existence"? The quran is perfectly strict in its wording, leave it be. My belief is not "the universe is his being" but that creation is inseparable from creator. Regardless, mine or anyone's belief does not change anything about the creator. We are indeed in agreement that "his essence is unfathomable". Then we move onto 4171; refer to 6612, Jesus is brought to Mary as spirit. Why it says both word and spirit in 4171 I could not precisely tell you, I don't know enough about that. If you have an answer let me know. No, Jesus is not the creator and nor does the framework I think in hold him to be so. Who is creator, that is exclusively decided by who is there at the beginning of all things, none but ALLAH.

As for alpha/omega, you said what I said essentially word for word yet somehow managed to disagree. This is where we are in misunderstanding. I already showed you that time does exist for the creator exactly the same way as it runs for us, see 711. That does not mean that creator is limited by time.

As for returning to the creator, nowhere has it been said in my posts that we go "in him". Indeed if we use take the strawman you are using we are already "in him". However that is not what I mean. The creator is the source, like an infinite well that does not run out. See 2546 for something similar. Any kind of energy comes from the source of energy and returns back to the source.

You misread my next statement. I think that alpha and omega refer to the two states in which there is only ALLAH and nothing else. Those two states are the beginning and the end. In between, creation exists. You have constructed a strawman in your mind about what I believe perhaps based on your past discussions with "non-dualists". The concept I am running with is that ALLAH is in some fashion the substance that the universe is made of. I get this from 2435 which seems to explicitly state to me that this is the case. What you refer to by "Essence" and "Being" confuses me, these are very vague terms.

Regarding meditative experiences, consider that you don't need to train your mind to see or hear the creator. The fact that you hear a sound at all, you hear the creator. Now if rationality and logic were surefire in proving the creator's presence, then perhaps there wouldn't be such an onslaught of people of the new age claiming to herald science and all things sane yet vehemently denying their very source. One of the key aspects of Zen thinking is that breaking the tired old environmentally conditioned patterns of rationality can be a much easier/faster/cheaper way to a direct experience of the self.

The brain can work much faster using its experiencing/creative aspects unhindered by glacially slow conscious thought. It must work logically regardless because it is a computer at its core. Instead of running through a long series of "what ifs" in our brain circuitry we can run through a single "what is". We arrive at the same point either way, assuming the logical method is even guided by absolutely correct information, which it rarely is. Both methods are harmonious with one another when guided properly. Sure, belief must be based on rationality. Yet the questions the quran poses work both ways.

On free will - I seriously do not understand where you find yourself to be lost. The creator has shaped the sun to be round and humans to be human shaped. These things utterly dominate our free will. We know via science that there is only a very precisely defined set of possible movements you can carry out within a given time interval. The key concept here is that you cannot change the past but you can affect the future. The further back in time something comes to be, the more influence it has over the entire universe in time to come. As ALLAH is at the beginning, ALLAH has total control of all things.

We then move onto the state of unity. There is an issue of putting this into words here. You say "That state to me is allowing yourself to sense Him in you and you in Him". This is not the case, being in this state is nothing like that. There is no "you in Him" and "Him in you" at all. There is no "sensing" either. There is no "me" in this state. When you sleep, there is no "you" experiencing the sleep. Likewise, the concept of "you" is seen to be an illusion here. How best to put it, I don't know. Energy experiencing energy, the universe seeing itself see itself see itself see itself ad infinitum, awareness being aware of awareness. There is no "two become one". It is ineffable.

Regarding trees and the creator; the creator runs through all things, that is what I am trying to express. This is a question of semantics. If a musician makes a song or a painter creates a work of art, I hold that creation to be part of the creator. It is "them". Perhaps you make the distinction here. I do not. We do not "create gods" because here we fundamentally acknowledge that no matter what everything is from the sole creator of all things. Nothing can truly create anything, we can only rearrange existing energy.

Final point - yes, the creator is doing it all. As they say on the back of crisp packets, your statutory rights are not affected. Think about it, honestly. You still have to eat, sleep and bomb the toilet every day. You still have to spin around the sun once a year. Finding out that 2+2=4 does not change the fact that you have always had 5 fingers. It merely puts it into context. God's teaching is that everything is his will and that man was created to endure stress (904) and to work for a specific purpose (559).

May God increase our knowledge indeed!