Help me Believe

[anvandarnamn]

I've had anxiety, panic attacks and depression for quite some time now, as I perceive it, mainly because of existential angst. I've heard that, if you see meaning in life you can live though unspeakable torture with hope, ambition and happiness intact. I see no meaning at all, and indeed, I seem not to be able to cope with the simplest problems since my mood disorders started. Meaning and purpose comes automatically with religion, and since Islam is the most logical and reasonable religion that I know of, I want to become a believing Muslim. Also, I have quite strong connections to Islam. I imagine it might give me some balance and meaning.

However, the problem is that as a modern student, the importance of logic is the mantra that I just can't help myself to discard. My first question is therefore whether a good Muslim under appropriate circumstances may disregard logic, perhaps with the argument that Allah is above logic? I suspect that the answer you will give me is that there is no need to disregard from logic because Islam is totally logical. Well, it better be, because otherwise, I will probably surrender very quickly. I have tried practicing Islam with the hope that doubtless faith will come automatically. It goes alright for a while, and actually feels refreshing, until I start questioning the logic and loose motivation.

The main issue with Islam and logic is for me that I see neither proof nor evidence that any of the beliefs in Islam are true. That means that I should have no more reason to believe in Allah than I have to believe in any other religion or pink penguins hiding in the Sahara desert. If there is no requirement of proof or evidence, then what we choose to have faith in and call truth is arbitrary. The burden of proof must be on the party making a claim opposite to the apparently obvious. Allah's existence is not obvious to me. I can't see, hear, feel or perceive him in any way and I cannot conclude that he exists by means of reason (deduction or induction). Therefore, I'm forced to surrender to the belief that it is at least as probable that he does not exists, as it is that he does exist. With what logic can I then believe in the existence of Allah?

In addition to this, I obviously have many queries concerning the nature of Islam, but if this question can be answered, I’m sure it will be easier to go on from there. Feel free to go off topic if it helps answering the question, but please try not to make it too messy of a discussion.

I'm sorry if this seems like criticism! I know Muslims get plenty of criticism already; I have myself given and taken my fair share, so that’s not my intention. I must confess that I don't expect any good answer because if I did, I wouldn't be depressed in the first place. But I hope you trust in my good intentions anyway and feed the little hope i have left.

Thank you!

 

[Tilmeez]

:threadapp

Moving to Advice and Support.

 

[gladTidings]

Salaam =)

I believe this guy may be able to help answer your questions: http://adamdeen.blogspot.com/
You may be able to contact him via his website/facebook.

All the best

 

[aadil77]

Belief in islam requires both faith and logic

you can't truly believe unless you have both

 

[جوري]

I'm sorry if this seems like criticism! I know Muslims get plenty of criticism already; I have myself given and taken my fair share, so that’s not my intention. I must confess that I don't expect any good answer because if I did, I wouldn't be depressed in the first place. But I hope you trust in my good intentions anyway and feed the little hope i have left.

Greetings anvandarnamn,

You're struggling with life's great questions as many before you have and will continue to do.. unfortunately this is a journey where people can accompany you but not really lead you anywhere, guide you but not make the decision for you.. So I'll tell you what I told an atheist colleague of mine just a couple of weeks ago upon the death of his father though I'll tweak it a little...See he loved his father very much and couldn't deal with the idea of never dealing or seeing him again and of course the fact that he's an atheist precludes anyone from offering him anything by way of comfort, for death denotes becoming no more than plant manure.

I told him that even though he doesn't believe in God, he should ask God for comfort and perhaps a dream but not force it on, well he text me at 3 am a week later with his dream of comfort.. and asked me if it will be a recurring thing because he really wants to believe doesn't think it was his subconscious but needs to have another and another .. I said I really don't know .. other than it doesn't hurt to ask.. and that signs come to those who seek them in different forms.

So with that I'll advise you to ask God to sincerely guide from the heart and God will guide you..I tell you this because the intricate details of religion are easy why this and why not that, it is indeed a matter of what satisfies both the heart and mind, but belief in God is your query to workout.. People believe for the some reasons other disbelieve... so when you go deep into your queries and standing at the cross road of the origins of life, let your rational mind work out the finite details and see if they're a product of chance or intelligent design, humans weren't always on this planet.. there was a very forward process even if starting with one cell that has moved forward times zillions of biochemical pathways, physiological ones across a plethora of species..So you work that out in your mind and see if you can explain it away with science..

I'll leave you with the story of Dr. Lawrence brown:

 

[anvandarnamn]

Thank you for your answers!

I've been watching some hours of videos of Adam Deen and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, and I'm impressed with the rhetoric and clarity of these speakers. However, I still see the same logical fallacies as I did before. Both of the speakers emphasized the impossibility of the world existing without God according to the following reasoning.

(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.

Premises (1) and (2) means that time is limited and that the universe was once created out of nothing, because time cannot have existed for an infinity. Furthermore, something must have caused the creation of the world, and in the absence of any logical explanation relying on natural laws or science, it is concluded that a supernatural deity must have caused/created the universe.

It is then natural to ask, what caused God? And this is where it gets complicated. The argument here is that the question is absurd, that Allah is supernatural and does not need to be caused. Now, if premises (1) and (2) are proved faulty, then the whole reasoning falls, so premises (1) and (2) must still hold, and that means that Allah must be an exception to the premises. So there is a hidden premise:

(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

Putting the three premises together gives the conclusion that Allah exists:

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

THEN
Allah exists.

The problem with this reasoning is not in the first two premises or in the logical deduction; that all makes sense. Although some of it is controversial, I'm willing to accept it. The problem is rather in the arbitrariness of the third premise. The very premise holds as an axiom that Allah exists, because how could he otherwise be exempt from something. So the conclusion (that Allah exists), proves the premise (that Allah exists), and the other way around, making it circular reasoning:

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).
- based on the axiom that Allah is an existing supernatural being

THEN
Allah exists.

Now it should be obvious that this is not satisfactory. To see the point, compare the reasoning to the following alternative logic.

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) The existence of time is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

THEN
Allah may or may not exist.

In conclusion, the creation argument in this form, is a fallacy. But please prove me wrong

__________________________

There were also some other, in my opinion, weaker arguments for the existence of Allah, which I will briefly account for.

One argument was that the Quran could only have been created by Allah. This is a huge conversation so I will summarize my stance as this: There are statements and combinations of statements in the Quran that at least on the surface seems contradictory. Much of its content is ambiguous and some seems faulty. Many facts that one could have wished for from an all-knowing being, are omitted. Hence, I find it plausible to believe that a person or group could have written the Quran 1400 years ago. Then again, I'm not an expert.

One argument was that without Allah, there would be no objective morality. This is a simple case of wishful thinking. One wants objective morality to exist, and therefore one set ups the premise that Allah exists, in order to justify objective morality.

The specified design perspective is interesting when applied to metaphysics. It is astonishing how everything in the universe, especially physical laws seems to be fine tuned for our existence. But then again, how is this proof for the existence of Allah?

An aspect that I missed in the video lectures/debates were the nature of human consciousness. I wish they would have analyzed the idea of the soul in depth. It is a mystery to me how our mind and emotions, our souls if you wish, are connected to the dead matter that the molecules in our bodies constitute. It is tempting to explain it with a belief in God, but my scientific schooling has taught me that the absence of a good explanation does not justify adopting a bad or arbitrary explanation.

So still, I'm finding myself without proof or evidence of the existence of Allah.

I think aadil77 has a good point in that faith is a necessary component. Probably, the vast majority of believing Muslims build their faith on tradition, emotion and logical fallacies, and it seems to be working just fine. I actually don't think I can start believing by means of logical reasoning, but I don't know how to do anything else. I was brought up in a rational family, in a secular society, in a school devoted to scientific methods, and logic is the one thing that I just can't refute. At the same time, the cognition that secular society has imposed on me, makes me depressed and at times even suicidal. I think much evidence shows that if Allah exists, he must be above logic; exempt from the principles of logic. How can I learn to accept that something doesn't adhere to the principles of logic?

Sorry for the very wordy reply! I'll probably be quiet while awaiting your replies for a while now as I have a lot of other stuff to do. Thank you!

 

[anvandarnamn]

Thank you for your reply τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ, I will comment on it at a later time because I'm tired now, sorry!

 

[CosmicPathos]

Thank you for your answers!

I've been watching some hours of videos of Adam Deen and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, and I'm impressed with the rhetoric and clarity of these speakers. However, I still see the same logical fallacies as I did before. Both of the speakers emphasized the impossibility of the world existing without God according to the following reasoning.

(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.

Premises (1) and (2) means that time is limited and that the universe was once created out of nothing, because time cannot have existed for an infinity. Furthermore, something must have caused the creation of the world, and in the absence of any logical explanation relying on natural laws or science, it is concluded that a supernatural deity must have caused/created the universe.

It is then natural to ask, what caused God? And this is where it gets complicated. The argument here is that the question is absurd, that Allah is supernatural and does not need to be caused. Now, if premises (1) and (2) are proved faulty, then the whole reasoning falls, so premises (1) and (2) must still hold, and that means that Allah must be an exception to the premises. So there is a hidden premise:

(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

Putting the three premises together gives the conclusion that Allah exists:

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

THEN
Allah exists.

The problem with this reasoning is not in the first two premises or in the logical deduction; that all makes sense. Although some of it is controversial, I'm willing to accept it. The problem is rather in the arbitrariness of the third premise. The very premise holds as an axiom that Allah exists, because how could he otherwise be exempt from something. So the conclusion (that Allah exists), proves the premise (that Allah exists), and the other way around, making it circular reasoning:

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) Allah is exempt from premise (1) and (2).
- based on the axiom that Allah is an existing supernatural being

THEN
Allah exists.

Now it should be obvious that this is not satisfactory. To see the point, compare the reasoning to the following alternative logic.

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
(3) The existence of time is exempt from premise (1) and (2).

THEN
Allah may or may not exist.

In conclusion, the creation argument in this form, is a fallacy. But please prove me wrong

__________________________

There were also some other, in my opinion, weaker arguments for the existence of Allah, which I will briefly account for.

One argument was that the Quran could only have been created by Allah. This is a huge conversation so I will summarize my stance as this: There are statements and combinations of statements in the Quran that at least on the surface seems contradictory. Much of its content is ambiguous and some seems faulty. Many facts that one could have wished for from an all-knowing being, are omitted. Hence, I find it plausible to believe that a person or group could have written the Quran 1400 years ago. Then again, I'm not an expert.

One argument was that without Allah, there would be no objective morality. This is a simple case of wishful thinking. One wants objective morality to exist, and therefore one set ups the premise that Allah exists, in order to justify objective morality.

The specified design perspective is interesting when applied to metaphysics. It is astonishing how everything in the universe, especially physical laws seems to be fine tuned for our existence. But then again, how is this proof for the existence of Allah?

An aspect that I missed in the video lectures/debates were the nature of human consciousness. I wish they would have analyzed the idea of the soul in depth. It is a mystery to me how our mind and emotions, our souls if you wish, are connected to the dead matter that the molecules in our bodies constitute. It is tempting to explain it with a belief in God, but my scientific schooling has taught me that the absence of a good explanation does not justify adopting a bad or arbitrary explanation.

So still, I'm finding myself without proof or evidence of the existence of Allah.

I think aadil77 has a good point in that faith is a necessary component. Probably, the vast majority of believing Muslims build their faith on tradition, emotion and logical fallacies, and it seems to be working just fine. I actually don't think I can start believing by means of logical reasoning, but I don't know how to do anything else. I was brought up in a rational family, in a secular society, in a school devoted to scientific methods, and logic is the one thing that I just can't refute. At the same time, the cognition that secular society has imposed on me, makes me depressed and at times even suicidal. I think much evidence shows that if Allah exists, he must be above logic; exempt from the principles of logic. How can I learn to accept that something doesn't adhere to the principles of logic?

Sorry for the very wordy reply! I'll probably be quiet while awaiting your replies for a while now as I have a lot of other stuff to do. Thank you!

Seems you are depending on one thing to make your argument: Muslim faith is based on logical fallacies. If you are here to learn then you have to show how Islamic faith is logical fallacy, not just machine-gun personal biases. You are projecting a dogma here: belief is illogical, if one had to be logical, he had to be an atheist. Hence to become a believer, one has to resort to illogic. That is the dogma you stringently adhere to. It has many assumptions.

I will only address your statement of calling tzortzis's argument because according to you it is "circular reasoning" when you introduced the "hidden premise" as premise 3 in the argument. It is by necessity that Allah has to be exempt from premise 1 and 2 otherwise the whole argument wont work. So its a valid logical deduction/inference that if a God exists, He has to exist outside the created events. Regarding it presuming God exists, well you can replace it by "something outside of created events." And that is a necessity as if nothing was outside of created events, created events would be infinite and we wont be here.

Regarding objective morality, its your assumption that hamza is trying to wish for objective morality while it doesnt exist. If that is so, let someone kill the one you hold dearest and lets see if you take the killer to the court or not.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

why must things be so complicated lol



Allah exists because the Quran has no flaw, Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam came with clear proof and perfect guidance and mankind have a natural yearning for a creator.


its always been that simple for me, ive looked at every logical fallacy and objection to the existence of God and its never ever made me doubt in a God.


Why? Because ive seen too much which indicates that God exists.

Mainly signs in life,



you know you can give bread anonymously to two people by leaving it in the street, one may thank his luck not caring how it got there, the other may thank the one who put it there....

 

[Amat Allah]

do you believe in soul existence?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

I've had anxiety, panic attacks and depression for quite some time now, as I perceive it, mainly because of existential angst. I've heard that, if you see meaning in life you can live though unspeakable torture with hope, ambition and happiness intact. I see no meaning at all, and indeed, I seem not to be able to cope with the simplest problems since my mood disorders started. Meaning and purpose comes automatically with religion, and since Islam is the most logical and reasonable religion that I know of, I want to become a believing Muslim. Also, I have quite strong connections to Islam. I imagine it might give me some balance and meaning.

However, the problem is that as a modern student, the importance of logic is the mantra that I just can't help myself to discard. My first question is therefore whether a good Muslim under appropriate circumstances may disregard logic, perhaps with the argument that Allah is above logic? I suspect that the answer you will give me is that there is no need to disregard from logic because Islam is totally logical. Well, it better be, because otherwise, I will probably surrender very quickly. I have tried practicing Islam with the hope that doubtless faith will come automatically. It goes alright for a while, and actually feels refreshing, until I start questioning the logic and loose motivation.

The main issue with Islam and logic is for me that I see neither proof nor evidence that any of the beliefs in Islam are true. That means that I should have no more reason to believe in Allah than I have to believe in any other religion or pink penguins hiding in the Sahara desert. If there is no requirement of proof or evidence, then what we choose to have faith in and call truth is arbitrary. The burden of proof must be on the party making a claim opposite to the apparently obvious. Allah's existence is not obvious to me. I can't see, hear, feel or perceive him in any way and I cannot conclude that he exists by means of reason (deduction or induction). Therefore, I'm forced to surrender to the belief that it is at least as probable that he does not exists, as it is that he does exist. With what logic can I then believe in the existence of Allah?

In addition to this, I obviously have many queries concerning the nature of Islam, but if this question can be answered, I’m sure it will be easier to go on from there. Feel free to go off topic if it helps answering the question, but please try not to make it too messy of a discussion.

I'm sorry if this seems like criticism! I know Muslims get plenty of criticism already; I have myself given and taken my fair share, so that’s not my intention. I must confess that I don't expect any good answer because if I did, I wouldn't be depressed in the first place. But I hope you trust in my good intentions anyway and feed the little hope i have left.

Thank you!

Hello there hope your well. Please have an open mind and have a read of the following:

Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator



The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’ (kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat).

Certain areas where the doubt casters attempt to undermine our proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article.

Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.

The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is the movement of my hand. Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let’s agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. It was stationary. When I lifted it, it began to move. The movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be ’something which began to exist’. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. We maintain that this is simple conveyance of meaning based on clear use of language. In the first premise we are not ‘proving’ anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction.

‘Beginning to exist’ is a simple meaning which is clear. What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence. What else do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question. Forget what we believe. Do you or do you not accept that the hand was stationary. Subsequent to that, it began moving. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it exactly what it is.

If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which did not begin to exist, then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’. We obviously believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the entire argument. The point is that our first premise does not in any way depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of ‘beginning to exist’ one is not required to acknowledge at the very outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist, i.e. eternally existent. This is not the only opposite to our phrase ’something which began to exist’. The more obvious and universally agreed upon opposite are those possible acts which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice. We can now move to the second premise.[1]

Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the previous premise (something which began to exist) and have made a universal judgment upon it. If we are successful in demonstrating the truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever we say here regarding ‘things which begin to exist’ as a class will need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the movement of my hand. This is an intuitively valid form of deduction. We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence. It involves 2 premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes a universal judgment on it. The purpose is to extend the judgment on the class to the particular contained within the minor premise.

The Great Rule is very powerful and, as mentioned, intuitively deductive. It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach. We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.[2]

How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? Is it by accepting this to be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction, or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature. This knowledge is not ‘acquired’ through experience. Instead it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true claims. Had it been inductive, an old person, 70 years of age would be more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more opportunities to have tested the principle] than say a child of 8 or 9 years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt. This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle. If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction.

As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method of demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one 1st principle (the causality principle) and explaining it in light of another more clear 1st principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:

The direct opposite of ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be necessarily existent [whether such a category actually exists or not is not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible things do not happen in which case it would not have begun to exist. Since such a thing can neither be necessary, nor impossible, it must be merely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore, with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal.

Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such as the movement of my hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer. This is a contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existence and non-existence of that wherein equality of the two was assumed [in the previous paragraph]. The thing we’re talking about like the hand-movement was not necessary, nor was it impossible. It’s existence and non-existence were both equal, i.e. not required by its very nature.. so now, if it comes to be without a cause, then this means that existence [in relation to its very nature] is preponderant over non-existence, and just a minute ago we agreed that the two were equal. So how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence. Since contradictions are impossible, our antithesis ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ is definitely false. Since both a thesis and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is necessarily true.

The conclusion of the argument until this point is:

Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.

The above concludes the first leg of our argument. We will now take the conclusion arrived at from the above, namely ‘a cause’ and make it the subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once. Even the term ‘necessarily existent’ only occurred once, and that too in a hypothetical context. The phrase ‘eternally existent’ similarly occurred once in order to illustrate that the first premise did not rely on our adversary’s acceptance of eternal existence. This is an important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to be true.

Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no sane human being can doubt. The example of it is that of a man whom we observe walking into a house through the door. The house has only two rooms and no windows. We then follow him through the door and look for him in one of the two rooms. We do not find him to be there. What is the conclusion? He must by rational necessity be in the other. He can not be in neither. So, sometimes our knowledge of him being in a particular room is by observing him there directly, and at other times it is by finding the other room empty of him.

In the previous argument we established with zero probability of the opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument within two exhaustive possibilities. One of these two will be based on what our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause for the movement of my hand can not be what he understands from both causality and existence. This will be because his side of the disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally accepted. Contradiction is impossible. Therefore his side of the disjunction is likewise impossible. This will force us to look into the other side of the disjunction. Naturally, this other side, by rational necessity, will need to contain
whatever it takes to remove the absurdities inherent within the false side of the disjunction. Just as both of our positions can not be true at the same time, it is not possible for both to be false at the same time. One will necessarily need to be true, while the other will need to be false. This is the Rule of Opposition.

Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.

This has been thoroughly explained in the previous section. The B side of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not worry. We will do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it right there in the premise for the world to see is totally valid, since we are now dealing with a disjunction. It will be our task to illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we will place on the B side of the disjunction. This is what the Rule of Opposition is supposed to do after all.

Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.

To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did move.
If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.

At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of: Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof.

We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] is itself unwarranted and unjustified based on your own principles. We do not entertain any of this. Our position is yet to be explained. Do not worry.

If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.

In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, there was an Entity in the background all along who pulled the trigger for the first soldier. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?

We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all.[3]

From the above, it is quite clear that the movement of my hand can absolutely not have been caused by something which is of the same nature as the movement itself, namely contingent.[4] This is because, for the cause to be contingent results in an infinite series of causes going back in the past which can never be traversed and concluded. Since the series can never be concluded, the movement of my hand can never have had a chance to exist, whereas we confirmed that the hand did move. Both the movement of my hand (Premise 1) and the non-existence of this movement (Premise 5) at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore, side A of the disjunction is clearly impossible.

Premise 6: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

This brings us to the conclusion of our argument. There is not much left for us to do at this point! Everything has already been explained in sufficient detail. Having disproved the false side of the disjunction, naturally, the only way my hand could have moved, since that could not have happened causelessly (Premise 2), and it also could not have happened based on a contingent cause (Premise 5) — the true reason my hand moved must have been by the creation of a necessarily existent Being, free of all of the properties which led to the glaring absurdities discussed above. This must be so. This Entity can not have a beginning for its existence. Otherwise He too would need a cause [or Creator], thus bringing us back to the soldiers. Moreover, He does not need a Creator, because He is not attributed with events or any of the spacetime dependent attributes that things in the universe are attributed with. In short, He is exalted and pure from all of the possible reasons why someone can ask the question, Who created him?
This not having a beginning coupled with positing the non-existence of the Entity leading to absurdity is exactly what we mean by necessary existence. Nothing else. At this stage of the argument it is not a claim. It is not something we are respectfully asking our skeptic to entertain. No. It is the very conclusion proven through a compelling argument, with zero probability of the opposite alternative. The whole point behind this is my hand did move. There is no doubt about that. Making the movement dependent on any of the things discussed until now leads to its non-occurrence, which contradicts its beginning to exist. Therefore, we will have to entertain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities. There is no other way.

Part of this ‘whatever it takes to remove the absurdities’ is will, power and knowledge, constitutive of which is life. Will, power and knowledge can not occur without life. Along with the essence of this necessarily existent being [which we can not comprehend due to our limited intellects], we argue that there is something there on the B side of the disjunction which is specifying the time, place, quality, quantity etc. of all the bodies, attributes and events occurring in the universe. We will call this ’something’ will. So that by which the specification of the contingent beings occurs is will, and that by which they are brought into existence is power. Furthermore, a necessarily existent Being who creates based on specification, can not create what he does not know.[5]

Finally, He must be one. Because if there were multiple such necessarily existent beings then the removal of the absurdities discussed above could have alternatively been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other, whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent. This is a contradiction, and what led to it must be impossible, namely the positing of multiple necessarily existent beings. Therefore, He must by rational necessity be one.




[1]What this means is that the true division according to us is a three-way division: 1. Things which began to exist, 2. Possible things which are yet to actually begin. Instead they remain in the realm of imagination e.g. a hypothetical movement of my hand which could have occurred, but did not, 3. The necessarily existent Entity which exists in a real sense and has no beginning.

The opponent agrees with us on the first two types but denies this third one. According to him everything which exists [period] has a beginning. According to him, there is no such thing as an Entity which exists and yet has no beginning. In other words, our opponent maintains only a two-way division, instead of a three-way division like we do.

The point behind this paragraph in the article is to illustrate that in order for the phrase ’something which begins to exist’ to be meaningful, all we are requiring from our opponent is to accept the agreed upon two-way division. He is free to believe that everything which exists [without exception] has a beginning. We will force him to the third type (which is our ultimate conclusion) through the remaining steps of the argument.


[2]Before moving on to demonstrate the truth of our second premise we need to clear up quickly one objection the doubt casters like to use to undermine our proof. They think very highly of what is to come. I think the objection is complete nonsense and doesn’t apply to begin with. For this reason, I’m placing it in the footnotes for anyone interested. They claim that the statement ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is a mere tautology, void of any real meaning. There is no room for this objection, but they like to keep repeating it. They are suggesting that our premise is a mere wordplay. According to them, ‘Everything which begins to exist’ [based on our elaborate understanding of it] already contains the idea of causality. Thus it is a redundant and repetitive statement similar to ‘All bachelors are unmarried’. Since that is the case, the premise does not even convey any new information.

We say, our adversary forgets that he or she already agreed with us, when we asked about the movement of my hand and whether it is accurate to call that movement something which began to exist. He or she forgets that it is this very term agreed upon between us in the earlier premise which is being carried forward to the second premise. Forget our own elaborate understanding. Concentrate on what the words actually mean. So, if the term already contains causality, then this is what we want from them in the first place. By agreeing to the term earlier, they have simply relieved us from one step in the argument. The truth is that this criticism is utter garbage. They know very well that causality is not constitutive of ‘beginning to exist’ just like the angles of a triangle totaling 180 degrees is not constitutive of the reality of a triangle. Meaning it is possible to conceive a triangle which is nothing more than a figure encompassed by three sides without being aware of the reality of the angles needing to total 180 degrees. In exactly the same way, beginning to exist is something, and having a cause is something else. Yes. The two are definitely concomitant and it is not possible for something to begin to exist and not have a cause [as we will demonstrate in the main proof], just like a triangle can not exist without its angles totaling 180 degrees. But does that mean causality is contained within the very meaning of beginning to exist? This is nonsense. This is an objection brought solely to undermine our proof with no other justification besides not wanting us to use the premise.

[3]At this point, we are forced to add another footnote. Without any fear of the footnotes becoming lengthier than the body of the article, we ask you to please bear with us on this very important point. It is not every day that one is able to see these issues explained in this much clarity. What just happened in the article in these last two paragraphs is very significant: The atheist thought we were getting ready to establish a first cause, thinking we too must reply to the soldiers’ analogy. He misunderstood and believed the soldiers were there to represent entities and attributes which exist in the world. Since we also believe in the existence of such entities and attributes, we also must offer a solution. He then assumed our solution was to invoke a first cause. Based on this, he attempted to put words in our mouth: “there was an Entity in the background..” We, instead, took this very objection of the atheist and made it a component of our proof.

The soldiers are not there to represent entities and attributes which began to exist. Therefore, not everyone who accepts the existence of these entities and attributes will be confronted with this ‘riddle’. Rather they are there to represent existing entities and attributes only in their capacity as causes leading to the movement of my hand. This is the understanding of our adversary. The analogy was tailored specifically for him. We do not adopt this position. Therefore the soldiers do not apply to us.
We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the adversary. Positing a first cause is not what we do. Like we mentioned in the article, ‘our position is yet to be explained’. If you bring in the Entity now to resolve the soldiers’ problem that would be irrational also, because he was never part of the equation. The skeptic is the one who rightly and justifiably pointed this out.

Further down in the argument we will establish the attributes of ‘will’ and ‘knowledge’ for the Creator based on the need for specification within the entities and attributes which are being brought into existence. This combined with what was just mentioned in this footnote are the reasons why we do not adopt the ’setting-in-motion’ or ‘first cause’ solution to the soldiers’ problem.


[4]As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the second premise. The Creator who created the movement of my hand through his will, power and knowledge and maintains my existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to always co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case.

Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis for miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect. In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, ‘My servant has spoken the truth’.



[5]Why was this specification needed? Exactly the same reason why the coming into existence of the ‘things which began to exist’ needed to be based on an external cause. Here it is even more obvious, because the possibilities discussed earlier were only two equal possibilities, namely existence vs. non-existence. These two were equal. Claiming causelessness entailed non-equality. Equality and non-equality are contradictory to one another. Therefore there must be an external cause.

Regarding the time, place, quantity and quality etc. of the entities existing in the universe we have an almost infinite amount of possibilities. Take figure and shape for instance. Having a specific figure is nothing more than being surrounded by a specific configuration of dots forming boundaries on all 6 sides. So the question is: was this particular configuration necessary or was it merely possible? It was obviously not impossible. Otherwise it would never have happened. Also, it wasn’t necessary, since it would have been like that since eternity past (which is not even possible) and also would be fixed and unchangeable. So prior to the existence of the being, attribute or event, we have an almost infinite amount of equal possibilities.

If you say, it adopted its specific configuration without a specifier, then this leads to non-equality of the possibilities in something wherein equality was assumed. If this happens within only two assumed to be equal possibilities, it is absurd, as we showed earlier in the main proof when establishing the causality principle. How then can it happening among an almost infinite amount of possibilities not be absurd? So there is definitely need for specification for each and every attribute. Regarding each attribute (location, moment of existence, height, width, weight, color, texture etc. etc.) there were so many possible ways it could have happened. In the mind’s eye, all were equal. So when the thing enters into the realm of extra-mental existence attributed with only one specific configuration in all of the above, this must be on account of something causing it. Otherwise it contradicts our previously assumed equality.

In the previous footnote, we explained one of the reasons why we consider replying to the infinite regress problem by positing a ‘First Cause’ an incorrect position, and any rational argument seeking to do this a weak argument. The second reason why positing a ‘First Cause’ is absurd can be understood from the point under discussion:

This ’setting in motion’ position is absurd and irrational. The atheist says this and so do we. You see, the immediately preceding skeletal muscles, or tissues do not have ‘will’ and ‘power’, let alone knowledge. How can the specification of the hand-movement be attributed to them? The human is also not the one ‘creating’ these things, because he or she is not aware of which muscles/tissues/cells are being employed and in which ways, let alone the person willing these things to happen in the very specific ways in which they are happening. We can not attribute the hand-movement to anything contained within the person in the sense that the individual or any part of him or her independently caused the movement without the Creator willing and knowing about this. If the Creator, whose existence we’re assuming is by this point absolutely irrefutable, was unaware, unwilling for this movement to happen, and incapable of creating it or stopping it, then this is ignorance and helplessness; things which by rational necessity He must be free from. His will, power and knowledge MUST relate to every possible thing. Otherwise he is not the necessarily existent Being we are seeking.

The manner in which this issue has been dealt with here is quite remarkable. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the only place this issue has been explained in this specific manner - and Allah knows best.


(Original Source: http://deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/ )

 

[anvandarnamn]

Greetings anvandarnamn,

You're struggling with life's great questions as many before you have and will continue to do.. unfortunately this is a journey where people can accompany you but not really lead you anywhere, guide you but not make the decision for you.. So I'll tell you what I told an atheist colleague of mine just a couple of weeks ago upon the death of his father though I'll tweak it a little...See he loved his father very much and couldn't deal with the idea of never dealing or seeing him again and of course the fact that he's an atheist precludes anyone from offering him anything by way of comfort, for death denotes becoming no more than plant manure.

I told him that even though he doesn't believe in God, he should ask God for comfort and perhaps a dream but not force it on, well he text me at 3 am a week later with his dream of comfort.. and asked me if it will be a recurring thing because he really wants to believe doesn't think it was his subconscious but needs to have another and another .. I said I really don't know .. other than it doesn't hurt to ask.. and that signs come to those who seek them in different forms.

So with that I'll advise you to ask God to sincerely guide from the heart and God will guide you..I tell you this because the intricate details of religion are easy why this and why not that, it is indeed a matter of what satisfies both the heart and mind, but belief in God is your query to workout.. People believe for the some reasons other disbelieve... so when you go deep into your queries and standing at the cross road of the origins of life, let your rational mind work out the finite details and see if they're a product of chance or intelligent design, humans weren't always on this planet.. there was a very forward process even if starting with one cell that has moved forward times zillions of biochemical pathways, physiological ones across a plethora of species..So you work that out in your mind and see if you can explain it away with science..

I'll leave you with the story of Dr. Lawrence brown:

I did try praying as sincerely as possible. At minutes I have had faith and at those times it feels very great. But at times I have negative thoughts during prayer. I get distracted, question God in the middle of the prayer, and the mind wanders. It's easy and nice to seek comfort in religion when you feel bad, but then I always tend to eventually question my own rationality. If I only pray for my own well being and comfort, that doesn't in any way mean that God actually exists. It just means I have a psychological need to seek a higher power. In this situation, do you think I should keep praying with my doubts or should I stay away from it all together if I can't be totally sincere?

Seems you are depending on one thing to make your argument: Muslim faith is based on logical fallacies. If you are here to learn then you have to show how Islamic faith is logical fallacy, not just machine-gun personal biases. You are projecting a dogma here: belief is illogical, if one had to be logical, he had to be an atheist. Hence to become a believer, one has to resort to illogic. That is the dogma you stringently adhere to. It has many assumptions.

This is not at all the case. I want to believe but I'm having trouble doing so because the inevitable conclusion through deductive reasoning seems to be that the existence of God necessitates illogic. This stands in the way of my belief. Also, it is not the case that I am questioning what seems to be the most basic and obvious axioms. Cogito ergo sum, everything must have a cause, I'm not a brain in a jar, other people are not figures of my imagination, the socks doesn't disappear when I close the drawer and so on. I'm willing to accept all of this and a great deal of premises based on inductive reasoning.

I will only address your statement of calling tzortzis's argument because according to you it is "circular reasoning" when you introduced the "hidden premise" as premise 3 in the argument. It is by necessity that Allah has to be exempt from premise 1 and 2 otherwise the whole argument wont work. So its a valid logical deduction/inference that if a God exists, He has to exist outside the created events. Regarding it presuming God exists, well you can replace it by "something outside of created events." And that is a necessity as if nothing was outside of created events, created events would be infinite and we wont be here.

Having reconsidered the premises I wrote down I come to the conclusion that (1) contradicts (2). If everything has a cause, then time must be infinite. But OK, let's ignore that. So we have:

IF
(1) Everything that happens must be caused by a previous event (or several in combination).
(2) Actual infinity is solely a mathematical idea without foundation in the real world.
THEN
(3) Something outside of created events must have caused the universe.

If (1) and (2) is classified natural then the something outside of created events can be classified as supernatural and be given the name Allah. The problem with this reasoning is that something outside of created events cannot exist according to (1). So again, the existence of God necessitates illogic.

Regarding objective morality, its your assumption that hamza is trying to wish for objective morality while it doesnt exist. If that is so, let someone kill the one you hold dearest and lets see if you take the killer to the court or not.

Exactly my point.

why must things be so complicated lol



Allah exists because the Quran has no flaw, Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam came with clear proof and perfect guidance and mankind have a natural yearning for a creator.


its always been that simple for me, ive looked at every logical fallacy and objection to the existence of God and its never ever made me doubt in a God.


Why? Because ive seen too much which indicates that God exists.

Mainly signs in life,



you know you can give bread anonymously to two people by leaving it in the street, one may thank his luck not caring how it got there, the other may thank the one who put it there....

Well, I could say a lot, but I'm just gonna say that I wish it was that easy for me.

do you believe in soul existence?

This is a tricky one, and a very interesting one!

I guess it depends on the definition of the soul. As I mentioned before, this is a great mystery for me. Atheists would say consciousness instead of soul and reduce it to a so far unsolved scientific question. The truth is that science doesn't have any explanation for how the essence of consciousness functions. There have been attempts at explaining why it exists, namely as an incentive to survive and reproduce if I recall correctly. But this helps little.

I tend to find evidence for the consciousness' existence to be dependent on the body's existence. I say this because I was unconscious before my body existed and nobody shows any signs of consciousness upon death.

I'd love to know where you're going with this?!

Hello there hope your well. Please have an open mind and have a read of the following:

Thank you Hamza81! Judging by the name of the article its spot on. It's quite long though and I need some time to read and comment on it.

 

[anvandarnamn]

Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

The essence of my objection is as follows:

Premise 5 rests on the assumption that time is finite (had a start). This contradicts premise 2, that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The deduction has already failed. As I said, the principle of causation necessitates actual infinity in time. One must reject either premise 2 or premise 5 in the article.

Instead, the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises, which are allegedly based on logic. Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic.

So, Sorry, I'm not convinced.

 

[Amat Allah]

Bismellah Tawakkalna ala Allah wa laa hawla wa laa qowata illa bEllah...

This is a tricky one, and a very interesting one!

No my respected and noble brother, it is not a tricky one but too simple and has two answers one is shorter than the another...Yes and No...if you do believe in its existance then the answer would be Yes if not then No; nothing is easier than that...

this is a great mystery for me.

the existance of one of Allah`s creation like the soul is mystreious to you cause your vision comprehend it not and you neither could ever touch it, taste it or see it...if you couldn`t grasp and perceive one of Allah`s creation then How would you want to perceive grasp and comprehend Allah; The Creator?... all Praise and Glory be to Allah...

Allah says:"And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." (85)" Surat Al Israa.

everything you can touch, see or taste is not a god and will never be but a false god and Allah The Only True God Who deserves to Be worshipped alone Is never characterized by the attributes of His creatures ...

Allah created for us many things which we can not touch, see , taste or comprehend to teach us and prove for us that there are things which don`t need to be grasped to prove their existance but gave us signs proving their existance my noble brother...

if I asked you: do you believe in the existance of emotions? I think you would say: Yes. And if I said: why? you would say because I feel them...but have you ever touched them, tasted them or seen them...No...

all what you are seeing are signs of their existance such as the facial expressions and some actions and behaviors...

there are many things which we can never understand their existance and the reasons behind their existance my respected brother; because we are creatures and we have not the knowledge of the unseen but Allah
Allah says:"And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record. (59) " Surat Al Anaam. and says:"Say, "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected." (65) " Surat Annamil.

And there are many things which we can never ever grasp, percevie or comprehend but still we can feel them and see signs of their existance...

want signs to prove for ya the existance of Allah? then open your eyes, heart and mind and surely you will see understand and believe by Allah`s Willing without the need of asking and returning to creatures like you...

Allah says about Himself :" Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware. (103)" and in next verse He says:" Proofs have come unto you from your Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind is blind to his own hurt. And I am not a keeper over you. (104)" Surat Al Anaam.

and says the Most Exalted:"Have they not travelled in the land, and have they hearts wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind. (46)" Surat Al Hajj.

"Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day, and the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men, and the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing all kinds of beasts therein, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds obedient between heaven and earth: are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for people who have sense. (164)" Surat Al Baqarah.

"And in the earth are portents for those whose faith is sure. (20) And (also) in yourselves. Can ye then not see? (21) And in the heaven is your providence and that which ye are promised; (22) And by the Lord of the heavens and the earth, it is the truth, even as (it is true) that ye speak. (23)" Surat Athaariyaat.

and whether you want to believe my respected brother or not then it is your free will and none would ever force ya to do something you desire not and whatever your decision would be then its consequences will be only on you or for you and Allah says:"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Surat Al Kahff...

May Allah lead your way to the path of the endless happiness and give you the best of both; this life and the Hereafter Ameeen

take care of yourself...

Humbly; your sister:

Amat Allah.

 

[anvandarnamn]

Thank you for your reply Amat Allah!

No my respected and noble brother, it is not a tricky one but too simple and has two answers one is shorter than the another...Yes and No...if you do believe in its existance then the answer would be Yes if not then No; nothing is easier than that...

There is a third answer, which is "I don't know". The answer to what the objective truth is must be either yes or no, but again, this answer may very well depend on the definition of the term "soul". So it's not as easy as you want to make it seem.

the existance of one of Allah`s creation like the soul is mystreious to you cause your vision comprehend it not and you neither could ever touch it, taste it or see it...if you couldn`t grasp and perceive one of Allah`s creation then How would you want to perceive grasp and comprehend Allah; The Creator?... all Praise and Glory be to Allah...

I disagree. The soul is a mystery to me because I see evidence of it, yet neither science nor logic offers any satisfactory explanation for how it functions. I do perceive the soul, but I do not perceive Allah.

Allah says:"And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." (85)" Surat Al Israa.

everything you can touch, see or taste is not a god and will never be but a false god and Allah The Only True God Who deserves to Be worshipped alone Is never characterized by the attributes of His creatures ...

I realize Islam offers a good explanation for the existence of the soul, and indeed, this is an attractive attribute of Islam. Given that Allah exists and is what you say he his, it is an elegant solution. But how does the existence of the soul necessitate Allah?

Allah created for us many things which we can not touch, see , taste or comprehend to teach us and prove for us that there are things which don`t need to be grasped to prove their existance but gave us signs proving their existance my noble brother...

If there is no evidence of the existence of these "things", then I have a hard time believing they actually exist. Are we talking about things like magnetism or things like angels?

if I asked you: do you believe in the existance of emotions? I think you would say: Yes. And if I said: why? you would say because I feel them...but have you ever touched them, tasted them or seen them...No...

Indeed, I perceive emotions. Therefore, I believe it exists.

And there are many things which we can never ever grasp, percevie or comprehend but still we can feel them and see signs of their existance...

Like what?

want signs to prove for ya the existance of Allah? then open your eyes, heart and mind and surely you will see understand and believe by Allah`s Willing without the need of asking and returning to creatures like you...

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. My eyes are open, my mind is open, but my heart is just pumping blood . By open heart, do you mean faith based on emotion? without a foundation in logic reasoning? arbitrary belief without evidence or proof? You see, that is problematic for me. But like I said, I do have an open heart in the sense that I am willing and even eager to believe. But it seems like this is not enough.

Allah says about Himself :" Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware. (103)" and in next verse He says:" Proofs have come unto you from your Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind is blind to his own hurt. And I am not a keeper over you. (104)" Surat Al Anaam.

Perfect! Proof from Allah himself would obviously help a great deal! Could you please point it out for me?

and says the Most Exalted:"Have they not travelled in the land, and have they hearts wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind. (46)" Surat Al Hajj.

"Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day, and the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men, and the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing all kinds of beasts therein, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds obedient between heaven and earth: are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for people who have sense. (164)" Surat Al Baqarah.

"And in the earth are portents for those whose faith is sure. (20) And (also) in yourselves. Can ye then not see? (21) And in the heaven is your providence and that which ye are promised; (22) And by the Lord of the heavens and the earth, it is the truth, even as (it is true) that ye speak. (23)" Surat Athaariyaat.

and whether you want to believe my respected brother or not then it is your free will and none would ever force ya to do something you desire not and whatever your decision would be then its consequences will be only on you or for you and Allah says:"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Surat Al Kahff...

I don't see how any of this is proof.

Again, thank you for your reply! Take care!

 

[CosmicPathos]

Perfect! Proof from Allah himself would obviously help a great deal! Could you please point it out for me?

well you tell us what kind of a proof you are seeking so that we know what your requirements are?

 

[anvandarnamn]

well you tell us what kind of a proof you are seeking so that we know what your requirements are?

Any kind of proof or evidence will do. It must off course be absent of contradictions, which is what gives arise to absurdity.

 

[جوري]

Any kind of proof or evidence will do. It must off course be absent of contradictions, which is what gives arise to absurdity.

With any art or science you start with a book and use your logic to see if there is truth/ logic and absence of contradiction in it..The very first word revealed to the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) from the Quran was 'Read' 'Iqra'a'-- I think that is very telling of the fundamentals of this religion..

all the best

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Have a look through the clips in the following link as you will find them very interesting:

Islam, Qur'an and Science

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=39357

 

[Amat Allah]

Bismellah Tawakkalna ala Allah

Thank you for your reply Amat Allah!

You are very welcome my respected brother at anytime...

There is a third answer, which is "I don't know". The answer to what the objective truth is must be either yes or no, but again, this answer may very well depend on the definition of the term "soul". So it's not as easy as you want to make it seem.

I know, there are tens of answers my respected brother like: I am not sure, maybe...etc

but at the end you will return to the absolute answers..Yes and No according to the answer you will give and your reasoning for giving it...

I disagree. The soul is a mystery to me because I see evidence of it, yet neither science nor logic offers any satisfactory explanation for how it functions. I do perceive the soul, but I do not perceive Allah.

as long as you see evidences of its existence and can perceive it then the answer would be yes but you are a little bit confused about it...you are the one who knows my respected brother if believing in it or not but the confusion you have drove ya to say I don`t know cause you are seeking some answers which Allah knows about them...

the evidences of the soul existence are life and everything happens becuase of it, death and everything comes with it and happens to the body and Allah`s words to us. We as Muslims know things about the soul and that the soul has its food which I think and Allah knows that you believe not in...and it is the remembrance of Allah, supplications, prayers, reciting Qur`aan, doing good deeds, asking Allah His forgiveness , avoiding sins, the good manners shortly and simply submitting to Allah and being a real Muslim...

I realize Islam offers a good explanation for the existence of the soul, and indeed, this is an attractive attribute of Islam. Given that Allah exists and is what you say he his, it is an elegant solution. But how does the existence of the soul necessitate Allah?

that was an example for ya my respected brother to tell ya that not everything is exist needs to be perceived(means: sensed with the five senses as I meant before)...and none ever saw Allah even messengers (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all) those chosen people and most pure and righteous amongst Allah`s creation...

Moses(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked Allah to show him the Al Mighty Himself but he couldn`t see Allah here you are the verse:" And when Musa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: "O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You." Allah said: "You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me." So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Musa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers." (143)" Surat Al Aaraaff

the mountain which is stronger than human being couldn`t stand still in front of Allah Al Mighty then how would us? and if you would ask me what about the day when Allah shows the people of Paradise His al Mighty face?...then the answer is: because in that day the body nature and its functions of the people in the Hereafter will be something else not the same as in this temporary and mortal world... as Muslims believe...

asking to see Allah in this worldly life is a big insult to Allah and His Majesty...

Allah says about people of Moses:"And (remember) when you said: "O Musa (Moses)! We shall never believe in you till we see Allah plainly." But you were seized with a thunderbolt (lightning) while you were looking. (55)" Surat Al Baqarah...

who are we my respected brother to demand something against Allah`s Willing or something that He forbade on us and desires not ? How for a slave to boldly request something like that from His King and Creator...

If there is no evidence of the existence of these "things", then I have a hard time believing they actually exist. Are we talking about things like magnetism or things like angels?

Maybe magnetism but you can`t say this about Angels (peace be upon them all) cause many people saw Angels in different forms from believers and none while they are alive. and surely %100; you will yourself and everyone see them right before the moment of death, while dying, in grave and in the Hereafter too... at these times there will be no benefit of believing cause all chances are gone and the time of truth has came...

Indeed, I perceive emotions. Therefore, I believe it exists.

what I meant by the word perceive in my previous post was to sense things with your five senses not the meaning you are using here and I apologize for the confusion I made and for being neglected to clarify this for ya my respected brother, pardon me with all my respect...

Like what?

Like: soul, emotions, time, pressure, death ...etc think and you will find more in shaa Allah...
and there are things which you can never see in this life but you will in the Hereafter..

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. My eyes are open, my mind is open, but my heart is just pumping blood . By open heart, do you mean faith based on emotion? without a foundation in logic reasoning? arbitrary belief without evidence or proof? You see, that is problematic for me. But like I said, I do have an open heart in the sense that I am willing and even eager to believe. But it seems like this is not enough.

I am hoping that your eyes and mind are opened and May Allah open your heart Ameeen...

Perfect! Proof from Allah himself would obviously help a great deal! Could you please point it out for me?

wants proofs from Allah Himself then search for Qur`aan and Sciences and you will see many...The Book of Allah is full of them and never forget it is here since 1400 years before devices of science and everything we have now...

I don't see how any of this is proof.

you will in shaa Allah when you read about Qur`aan and Sciences with an opened mind...

Again, thank you for your reply! Take care!

you are always welcome my respected brother, May Allah give you the best of this life and of the Hereafter Ameeeeeen

take care of yourself....

Humbly, your sister:

Amat Allah