We all argue that something cannot come from nothing when an atheist tries to prove his point you say god created us. But I am just curious how did nothing become into something which became god? I am not here to argue against anyones responses but just would like to hear people's opinions.
Salam bro, do you mind sharing these 'signs' or could you pm me.
Thanks.
Even if I tried to explain, you wouldn't understand... it is very VERY personal. I've tried before at the risk of people thinking I have lost the plot.
Allah does not speak to us in audible tone. But HE teaches us HIS signs in ways only we can understand on a 1 to 1 basis. It's individual according to your own path and choices...
I'm sorry, I really would like to tell you (and anyone else) but I just cannot. It won't make sense.
Oh, there is istikharah, which is a prayer for guidance - I can tell you about that if you want? Had some great results with that.
Salam bro, do you mind sharing these 'signs' or could you pm me.
Peace bro, if I may share a quote from the Quran.
"We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?" - [41:53]
Surah Fussilat
-------
That said, the Quran also mentions that there are people who are unable to see the signs even if it is presented clearly to them. I am not an expert on the Quran but to me such a scenario is probable when a person is arrogant/prideful (Islamic terms it is called kibr). It is these things that make us want to be"right" even when we are wrong.
What brother Scimitar is right in that not every sign we see can be simply related to another person, as I have said quite a few times before, some things can only be fully appreciated if experienced ourselves.
However there are some things which I think I can share from my own perspective.
There are quite a few things which I have personally observed that is said will happen in the afterlife are actually possible in this life on a minor scale.
"Our actions in this life will be displayed" When I was a child this was often described as sort of like a "movie".
This was 1400 years ago and such an idea would probably have been deemed in the realm of impossible back then. But yet here we are today in a world filled with video clips of people who have long passed. CCTV all around us capture our actions without us even noticing. If us humans in our limited capabilities can produce this, what about our Creator?
"Our deeds will be recorded down" Generally this idea has been accepted in text form and I think will be in book form. Now again 1400 years ago paper was incredibly scarce, even ten years ago for us to think that it is possible to have all our deeds recorded down is impossible. Yet now we are now in a digital age where a thumbdrive can whole thousands and thousands of pages worth of books. I'm not saying we will be using a thumbdrive in the afterlife but if we can find a medium that allows us to accomplish this I think our Creator is capable of something even greater.
"The bridge that is thinner than a strand of hair but is sharper than the edge of a sword." This refers to The Bridge Of Siraat. Siraat simply means path. I recently read an article about Carbon Nanotubes which is basically a very thin strand of tube but strong enough to bear the weight of a car. I don't think anyone back then would believe that something as thin as a strand of hair can bear the weight of a human being let alone a car(not that they had cars).
I repeat, these are simply my own personal observations, any mistakes are from me alone.
Oh and also one particular mention in the Quran I remember is God telling those who doubt that He would be able to "reassemble" us on the Day of resurrection The Quran mentions that God can reassemble us to our very fingertips.. And what is at our fingertips? Our fingerprints which is unique to each of us.
Edit: PS I am not saying that the verse I quoted is referring to the "signs" I mentioned. God knows best.
I agree that the "trend" of agonistisicm/atheism is increasing, because that is all it is, a trend. It is not a belief and not a way of life.
Maybe they did in the past, but it doesn't matter if someone disowns anyone in the current day and age, so why are people trying to learn about Islaam everyday? Why are lots of people reverting to Islaam everyday? Surely there is something in Islaam that causes people to revert? To them, God wasn't "passed on" from generation to generation?
Hafiz yes the trend of agonistiscim/atheism is increasing and will continue to increase because less pressure is put on by parents to their kids unlike the past to believe in a certain god or religion. I agree it is not a belief. But how can you say it is not a way of life? Just because I don't know if there is a god or not is not a way of life? I live by many morals that the quran, bible, or bhagvat gita says to live by. Now this doesn't mean I read the book and I tried to live by the morals of the book. I have lived life the way I wanted to and created morals within myself to live by based on observing life growing up. These morals happen to be very similar to the morals in the religious texts. This likely means that the people who wrote these books and myself have a lot in common in how to live life in peace and contempt and with some "morals" if you want to call it that. For me it is just to not hurt another person physically or psychologically. I don't disagree that the Islam might be a powerful book that it can persuade people to believe in their sayings when people feel "lost" or "misguided" in life. It may very well be a good way to live your life but just because you agree with a lot of things the quran say does it mean you should belive that there is a god? No it certainly doesn't. God has been created to fill the gaps to the "unknown" answers. Answers to which we do not know we proclaim that it is god's work and he is superior and we will never know and such. We may never know in our lifetime to the -"unknown" answers. But who is to say with science advancing at the pace it is in the next 500-1000 years we may have a lot more answers than we do now about "god" and "supernatural". Just a few hundred years ago the world believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. When astronomer/ scientist gallileo came about and disproved it he faced persecution and people were executed for these beliefs that the earth is in fact not the center of the universe nor is it flat. We have recently found something known as the "god particle"/anti matter. We have been able to transport an atom from one place to another. This 20 years ago would be considered the act of "god". I find it hard to understand why so many of you are against science and mathematics when you use it in your everyday lives calling someone on the phone. Going to the internet and posting on this forum. You couldn't have done any of this 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. Yet you want to disprove science in any and every way and say that god is above science. Haven't you just maybe thought that being such a new civilization/species comparitive to how long the earth has been in this universe that we have made amazing strides in science and mathetmatics and maybe just maybe we may have nearly all the answers that we don't know and proclaim it is god in the future?
Some paragraphs would be much appreciated dear joboman.
Seriously.. it is very painful to read.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm wondering have you read the last few posts? Or maybe I am lost in threads because a lot of what you mentioned has already been discussed so either you missed them or you're ignoring them.
Hulk what do you want me to reply in the last few posts. It shows quotes from the quran what would you want me to respond to that? Other than the fact that I don't believe it? And a lot of what I said was newer stuff and not something I have said before.
Is not this entire thread simply another way to discuss the "first cause" question, not just of God, but of anything?
The classic answer to that question was to continue back along the chain of creation asking, "And what created that?" "And where did that come from, what created that?"
The series would go ad infinitum until one concludes that there must have been a first cause, and whatever that first cause is is labelled God by those who believe in such a power. This is a cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause. Those who don't label that first cause "God" chose other labels such as the "Big Bang" or "the point of singularity" (presumably before the Big Bang) or some other of many different labels that the competing theories put forth. But regardless by what name you call the rose, the point is that there is someTHING from which the universe and all of creation blooms forth.
Now, there is another group which wants to try to circumvent even that idea. They resist the idea that the universe had a specific time of origin. They belong to a group like Arthur Eddington (who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity), stating: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole.... We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started." Some want to find not a Big Bang, but a steady state model for the universe.
I want to suggest it does not matter whether one speaks of God, Big Bang, steady state, or perhaps an even yet unprosed theory. The question is not even one of first cause or where did the universe come from. The question is actually not a question of physics at all, nor even a single question. The question is actually two questions of philsophy:
1) Do you believe that it is possible for something to be eternal?
2) Do you believe that it is possible for something to be transcendent?
All of the theories ever espoused eventually require the understanding that either the universe itself or whatever source that produced the universe was eternal. That there is something that has no beginning to it. For those who believe that the universe came out of nothing, not even God, then they are saying that there always was nothing -- in other words, that nothingness is what is eternal.
And then one has to consider is it possible that something might exist outside of our own experience, our ability to perceive and sense, our own world, our own universe and yet interact without and produce cause and effect with in it? Those who argue that our universe might have been given birth to from some other universe are making an argument of at least momentary transcendence just as much as those who argue for God's continual transcendence and power.
I would argue, that if you do believe in the philosophical possiblity that something can be eternal, that something can be transcendent, then the possibility of an eternal transcendent God must be granted. I don't argue that this proves God. I realize that some think that current theories of the origins of the universe make God superfluous. I believe that is a different discussion than the one taking place in this thread. The point is that no model of the origin of the universe is able to explain away the presence of God by excluding him. Rather, they all look back in time to an event in which the origin of all that we call creation comes out of that THING which has the two prime characteristics which all religions use to describe a creative God -- eternal transcendence.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 05-21-2012 at 08:56 PM.
We may never know in our lifetime to the -"unknown" answers. But who is to say with science advancing at the pace it is in the next 500-1000 years we may have a lot more answers than we do now about "god" and "supernatural". Just a few hundred years ago the world believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.
As Dr. Zakir Naik said in some of his talks - the Qur'aan has 80% proven by science, and only 20% if left. I think common sense people would take that 20% chance as 80% has already been proved.
format_quote Originally Posted by joboman24
Yet you want to disprove science in any and every way and say that god is above science.
Islaam has proven all those things 1400 years ago that science has just discovered. Please read all links below, then come back to this thread. Many Thanks.
As Dr. Zakir Naik said in some of his talks - the Qur'aan has 80% proven by science, and only 20% if left. I think common sense people would take that 20% chance as 80% has already been proved.
Islaam has proven all those things 1400 years ago that science has just discovered. Please read all links below, then come back to this thread. Many Thanks.
Hafizah where is this 80% of quran that has been proven by science? I don't see .00001% that is proven. Every quote that is written is so absolute metaphoric with nothing that is definitive.
“By the sky which
returns
.” (Quran 86:11)“[He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling…” (Quran 2:22)
if you honestly consider this as proof then I do not know what to tell you except for the fact that we have completely different views on what "common sense" is. Look at the mayans and aztecs they had more knowledge than islam 1400 years ago. I am sorry I don't mean to offend you when I say this but Islam doesn't prove ****. If there was one sentence that could show that the quran knew what they were talking about the sky or anything else some real definite backing would be nice. Even I would know what the hell the sky meant in relation to the earth 1400 years ago.
^ Read the links in the post above then come back to me. If you are not studying Islaam witha clear mind then you will never see Islaam for what it really is.
“Indeed the patient will be given their reward without account.” :love: { Qur’aan, Chapter 39, Verse 10 }
We all argue that something cannot come from nothing when an atheist tries to prove his point you say god created us. But I am just curious how did nothing become into something which became god? I am not here to argue against anyones responses but just would like to hear people's opinions.
I am kinda new and you made this question some 4 weeks ago, but I wanted to try and answer.
Anything which is created cannot come to existence by itself, obviously. Anything which is not created and has eternal/infinite capabilities is infinite and eternal.
The universe, as all accept and believe, had a starting point. We all know what the ingredients to making a cake are, however, it is us who 'intelligently' work on those ingredients and combine different amounts to get a nice by-product.
Now if we are to believe that the Universes came to exists by itself, then according to Atheists if we gather all the necessary ingredients for a cake into one bowl and don't touch it, we should see a cake forming by itself in front of our eyes.
One of Gods attributes is As Sabur (The Patient), this attribute, among many others, is eternal and God is always in a state of patience. God was never a 'nothing' which latter became something, if that was so then his attributes would not be eternal but instead they would have been inherited and thus anything which is inherited has limits.
Lets look at ourselves, we are not eternal, we go through the baby years having no strength, we then inherit strength once we grow up and as we get old our strength leaves us.
Another one of Gods attributes is The Originator. God can create something from nothing. Humans say that we 'create' when instead all we do is change the shape of some things and combine some different material and we only design rather than create. A car was made using aluminium which already exists, fuel which already exists, everything used for making a car already exists on earth. But can we create something out of nothing? NO.
On the other hand, scientists say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, in terms of materialism, and now we have all this universe. Something that doesn't exist cannot pop into existence out of nothing.
Christ, Jobo, you sound like the stereotypical American atheist. Loud, challenging, and in everyone's face. In other words, no better than those missionaries who advertise their religion to you on your own property. Take the example of your foreign counterparts and live and let live.
Last edited by Darth Ultor; 05-23-2012 at 01:00 PM.
I apologize for saying ****. Isn't comparative religion to argue the "other" side of everything as well? People seem to be too close minded and intolerant here if they don't want to hear what they believe in seems a bit sad. I said **** but in another thread a guy says he believes anyone who doesn't follow islam will burn in hell and evverybody doesnt say a word and agrees with him. what the heck is this? And no I am not a troll I wouldn't waste my time being one I have a life. I am a 19 year old college student born and raised in india currently living in southern california.
Christ, Jobo, you sound like the stereotypical American atheist. Loud, challenging, and in everyone's face. In other words, no better than those missionaries who advertise their religion to you on your own property. Take the example of your foreign counterparts and live and let live.
First off I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I just do not believe in organized religion created by random people that's all. I am living and let live. I am not telling anyone on this forum to become an atheist or an agnostic I am just arguing two sides to the point just like every other person here is arguing theirs, what is wrong with that? This is comparative religion isn't it?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Scimitar liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks