The God of the Quran is a Fact

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

Thank you for explaining it your way. It further highlighted that you do not understand what you are reading.

What can I say?

Since the Quran is God's message to all the people, regardless of their language, the Quran is accessible to the believers, regardless of their language (4144). This explains a profound phenomenon the believers who do not know Arabic know the Quran better than the Arabic speaking unbelievers. Because of the invisible forces serving the Quran, it is readily and enjoyably accessible to the sincere believers, and utterly inaccessible to the unbelievers (1745, 1857, 5679).

We may not agree. The question is what is the truth?

Peace.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, good logic.

Thank you for explaining it your way. It further highlighted that you do not understand what you are reading.

What can I say?

Since the Quran is God's message to all the people, regardless of their language, the Quran is accessible to the believers, regardless of their language (4144). This explains a profound phenomenon the believers who do not know Arabic know the Quran better than the Arabic speaking unbelievers. Because of the invisible forces serving the Quran, it is readily and enjoyably accessible to the sincere believers, and utterly inaccessible to the unbelievers (1745, 1857, 5679).

We may not agree. The question is what is the truth?

Your arrogance is evident through your posts. You form the conclusion that 'I don't know what I'm reading' merely due to my understanding the passages differently than you do. Is that the position that your god wishes for you to take? In fact, how do you know that I'm not the one who truly understands the Qur'aan and you're the one who is thoroughly misguided?

You can claim that the Qur'aan is 'accessible to the believers', regardless of their languages. However, in reality, this is nonsensical. If the Qur'aan was written in Arabic, then a qualified Arabic translator must be able to sufficiently translate the book in the language(s) of its readers. Otherwise, they wouldn't understand it, regardless of what the Qur'aan says about it... Unless, of course, you're trying to insinuate that Allah sends Gabriel (or any of the other angelic characters) to each of the "believers" to interpret the Qur'aan for them. But, as you know, an allegation like that would be ridiculous.

You claimed that "believers" who can't understand the Arabic language know the Qur'aan better than the "unbelievers" who can understand the language. Can you provide some type of verifiable evidence (proof) for this claim?

Thanks in advance.

Peace,

Ahmad

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

You want evidence of the existence of God? Am I right?

So how are you now claiming you understand His word?

Read also your posts and see who is denying?

Real arrogance is denying your creator. The one who created everything and provides everything.

Peace.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, good logic.

You want evidence of the existence of God? Am I right?

So how are you now claiming you understand His word?

Read also your posts and see who is denying?

Real arrogance is denying your creator. The one who created everything and provides everything.

To answer your questions, YES, of course I want evidence for the existence of God. I think everyone wants evidence for his existence. Does this mean that I believe he doesn't exist? I haven't made any type of affirmative declarations for his nonexistence, have I? I just said I wanted evidence for his existence... Does wanting evidence for his existence mean that I can't understand the books that he has (allegedly) authored, such as the Qur'aan and Torah? Of course not! That's like saying that you'll never be able to understand Shakespearean poetry unless you're related to the late writer!

Contrary to your assertion, "real arrogance" is claiming to have the facts (truth), when you actually only have faith (belief). Arrogance is claiming that you know the answers to all of life's questions, simply because you've read ONE BOOK that was written by Middle-Eastern nomads about 1,400 years ago in a language you can't even understand - and that this makes you wiser than those who've dedicated their lives to examining and investigating the world around them and discovering verifiable truths through science. Arrogance is promoting the "I'm right, you're wrong" position, placing your judgments upon everyone who disagrees with your personal theological position, even though it can't be verified by anything other than your own religious book!

Denying your "creator" is arrogance? How can this be formulated as an objective conclusion, especially if there's no evidence for the existence of this "creator"? He provides everything for me? Again, how? He doesn't put money in my pocket or food on my table to feed my family; I have to do these things for myself. He doesn't wake me up in the morning; my alarm clock (and my biological clock) does that. He doesn't teach me anything; my reading, studying and investigative skills do that for me. I can invoke him five times daily, but he doesn't answer me. I can get on my knees and beg him for water, but he doesn't quench my thirst. I can even take a basic measure of asking him to make the rain stop during a storm; but this doesn't stop my clothes from getting soaked when I go outside... So, tell me - what exactly does he (God) do for me? And more emphatically, what does he do for me that I can't do for myself?

Real arrogance is claiming that, despite the critical lack of evidence for his existence, YOUR god is the only true god, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to his existence is worthy of being thrown into a scorching pit for all eternity.

Peace,

Ahmad

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

Quote what exactly does he (God) do for me? And more emphatically, what does he do for me that I can't do for myself?

If I told you he makes your heart beat, your organs work in harmony with each other..., you will deny it.
However I will restrict this conversation to one simple fact

He will terminate your life when your time to die comes. Now I challenge you to stop Him?

Peace.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, good logic.

If I told you he makes your heart beat, your organs work in harmony with each other..., you will deny it.
However I will restrict this conversation to one simple fact

He will terminate your life when your time to die comes. Now I challenge you to stop Him?

This is YOUR perspective, not mine. And again, it's based on belief, not knowledge (truth). I don't want you to tell me what you believe God does for me. I want you to show me (demonstrate) what God does. That's the basis of providing verifiable evidence for a claim, thus making it a scientific dialogue or objective discussion. You say that God will terminate my life when the time comes. Perhaps that's the case. However, the arrogance of your position lies in the wording

"...I will restrict this conversation to one simple fact."

The word "fact" is an implication that the position has been proven and authenticated. Again, your position isn't factual; it's based on your personal theological beliefs. You don't know whether or not God actually terminates my life; you believe he does. I'm under no obligation to attempt to "stop" God from doing anything, since we haven't confirmed his existence. Are you grasping the point now?

If I said, "I'll leave you with this fact If you jump off of this tall building, Superman will fly up and catch you; now I challenge you to stop him!" - you'd think I was a lunatic. Why? Because there's no verifiable proof for the existence of Superman at all. Regardless of how strongly you believed in Superman, would it persuade you to jump from the building? And, if Superman didn't fly up and catch you, would you even be aware of this? Of course not, since you'd be dead!

The same can be applied to God. I merely infused a positive assertion rather than a negative one. If your life was terminated when your 'time to die' came, how would you know whether or not it was actually God who did it? You wouldn't! And that's the point! When you accept that your position is based on preconceived, and unauthenticated, religious beliefs (not facts or truths), then my position will be a lot easier for you to understand. You just need to step outside of the box.

Peace,

Ahmad

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

Quote I'm under no obligation to attempt to "stop" God from doing anything, since we haven't confirmed his existence. Are you grasping the point now?

Now try this point
A creator or mere chance?
Let us refer to the well known law of conservation of matter. This law states that 'Matter cannot be created nor destroyed'.

What that means is that all that we are able to do is convert one form of substance to another. We can never create matter from nothing, and similarly we cannot turn matter into nothing. Trees are brought down to make wood and paper, sand is used in the making of glass.........etc., but we can never create wood or glass out of vacuum.

Similarly we cannot completely destroy wood or glass, for even if we burn wood, we are only converting it to ashes and gases that are given off in the process.

There is also the law of thermodynamics1 which states that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created. By joining these seemingly contradicting statements together

Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Laws of physics states that matter cannot be created!
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning, and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only.
In his 'Theory of relativity', Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist.
It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable.
Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!

A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.

Like I said I am not the one to convince you, I am only posting some lead/ suggestions!

Peace.

farida

Peace Ahmad.

Now try this point
A creator or mere chance?
Let us refer to the well known law of conservation of matter. This law states that 'Matter cannot be created nor destroyed'.

What that means is that all that we are able to do is convert one form of substance to another. We can never create matter from nothing, and similarly we cannot turn matter into nothing. Trees are brought down to make wood and paper, sand is used in the making of glass.........etc., but we can never create wood or glass out of vacuum.

Similarly we cannot completely destroy wood or glass, for even if we burn wood, we are only converting it to ashes and gases that are given off in the process.

There is also the law of thermodynamics1 which states that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created. By joining these seemingly contradicting statements together

Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Laws of physics states that matter cannot be created!
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning, and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only.
In his 'Theory of relativity', Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist.
It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable.
Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!

A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.

Like I said I am not the one to convince you, I am only posting some lead/ suggestions!

Peace.

Salaam good logic
Another excellent post! As I said; I read you posts with interest and actually this is what we have been learning in the haruf's of al-qur'an.
God bless you

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, good logic.

There is also the law of thermodynamics1 which states that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.

Your point becomes unsubstantiated right here (^^^). There is no law in the system of thermodynamics stating or implying that matter (and/or energy) had a beginning, and there's no law of thermodynamics that implies that the universe (e.g. existence) was created by anyone or anything. If there is such a law, please post it. Thanks in advance.

Peace,

Ahmad

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

Here it is

The second law of 'thermal dynamics' states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.
If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder) . When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.

To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things

The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
The rate at which gas is consumed.

If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room are equal (call this stage B).

Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, ...etc.. This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following

From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.

Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars.....etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument's sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.

Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years.. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago,. The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.

What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning. That beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago. The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born.. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.

But 'thermal dynamics' is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory states that sometime between 15 and 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.

Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.

Hence the Universe had a definite beginning?

Peace

good_logic

Peace Ahmad.

( Please read the post above first).

I am going to wind up my conversation here, and leave you to ponder /search your creator.

I am going to state clearly that "There is only one God" . the creator There cannot possibly be more than one God!
Some may ask
If God exists, how many gods are there?

Let us first look at these basic word definitions.
The words absolute and relative are quite straight forward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.

If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ....etc.

If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!

We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that supreme power , and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.

The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.

If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.

TRUTH AND REVELATION
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the middle ages, made a clear distinction between truth which could be deducted by reason (for example, the existence of God and the moral law) and truth which must be given by revelation (for example, the way to salvation). #2 (Historical Selections in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Ninian Smart, page 62)

Essentially, if God is one, there must be One 'Truth'. Do we conclude that there must be one revelation ? The answer to this is that 'truth' and revelation are not absolutely equivalent terms. Because 'truth' is an absolute term it is situated independent of form, whereas revelations are related to time, people and a place, and thus require a form. But to speak of form is to speak of diversity and thus plurality.

May He " The one God" guide us to His truth.

Peace and God bless.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, good logic.

Thank you for your (lengthy) response. In it, you said the following