Atheism

[Ayesha Rana]

I would look to what "God" was? considering the question I am just about to ask you.

Can I ask you, given the same scenario. If the creation was a simulation run by alien supreme beings, would you accept them as "God"? and why not if you choose no.

All of them? God? I don't think so cos they would all be the most powerful and that would contradict that God has no equal. Get it?

 

[Ayesha Rana]

It wasn't aimed at me though, and I thought it would be rude to answer for her.

Thanks. I gotta go now Salaam.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

It's cool.

 

[root]

All of them? God? I don't think so cos they would all be the most powerful and that would contradict that God has no equal. Get it?

Bear that in mind when you stray into the fields of ID!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I think there's a lot of assumptions made in the hyphotesis in this thread that should be point out. And most of the assumptions are the result of difrent interpretations of a word.

Take "nothig" . When we say we hold nothing in our hand, we actually do hold somthing (air molecules) in our hand. When we pull a bottle vacuum (= airfree) we still have something inside that bottle. Even empty space (the area of nothingness between stars and planets) is a materialistioc fabric. It's made out of higsparticles. And gravity bends this so called "empty" space.
(BTW, the space between atoms is very much finite. A line between to points cannot be infinite since the two points limit the lenght of that line. that's basic geometry)

So what is beyond the boundry of our universe. You say there is "nothing" beyond it. I say there is no "beyond" for your nothing to be present. What happens when we would forcly cross this boundery? Well we cant, the bounderey expands by the speed of light, so there's no cathing up on it, let alone pass it. What if hypotetically we could? Well my guess is, the matter you're build up of would disintegrate and be used to create empty space in the "nothingness". Edit: on second thought, this could be confusing, because there is no nothingness, otherwise it would be something. and if it's something, then your disintegrated energy would probably build that up to. Mast part is pure speculation of course.

Who cretaed the nothingness? Does nothing need creation when it's not there? Empty space was created by big bang. But nothingness isn't cretaed. If it were, it would outomaticly become something rather then nothing.

Can I ask you, given the same scenario. If the creation was a simulation run by alien supreme beings, would you accept them as "God"? and why not if you choose no.

There's a whole lot of assumptions lying in that question.

First of all We believe in the oneness of God, so that's an obvious obstacle in answering your question, so for simplicity I 'm going to answer the question as if you suggested a single alien, rather then a group.

Next important word: "creation". Creation can be interpreted in many ways. There's creation with full knowledge (big bang already calculated in that right now i would be writing this sentence, it all goes by a devine decreet (wich is the commonly accepted pov in islam). But then there's also weaker interpretations of creation. An impuls set loose to lead it's own life by luck. A scientific expierenment meant to produce data. etc...

Now if you repeat the quetsion considereing the devine decreet kind of creation, wich implies that what you call this alien is the creator, this entity is omnipotent, the one that planned and caused the events to happen, that made the qur'an, that granted us gifts and blessing more then we could ever count, and so on, yes then I suppose we would accept him. I mean, what's in a name. You call it alien, but by defenition anything that didn't origenate on earth is alien. So an entity that has no beginning at all would also be "alien".

Another interesting word choice is simulation. Is life real under this hypothesis? Are the promisses of the afterlife still standing. Is this simulation the test we are going to be judge for. Basicly is this just our religion with a lil twist. (Because in the end, all we know beside the 99 names of allah, is that e is beyond anything our mind can imagen, so let's keep an open mind).

Now; I know what your thinking. I took your question out of context, and I projected, tried to merge it with Islam. Some people might think I'm loosing my mind, and you might think I'm trying to avoid your question. But there's actually a point to all of this. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this is:
We do not believe and worship our creator simply out of respect because he created us, but also out of thankfullness for the method in which he did so, out of love for the blesings we recieve, our of fear for responsability over our acts we have been given, out of guilt for this perfect creation we do not do justice, out of joy that is granted in our hearths, etc. At first sight your hypotetical alien doesn't come close.

 

[root]

I think there's a lot of assumptions made in the hyphotesis in this thread that should be point out. And most of the assumptions are the result of difrent interpretations of a word.

Agreed.

Take "nothig" . When we say we hold nothing in our hand, we actually do hold somthing (air molecules) in our hand. When we pull a bottle vacuum (= airfree) we still have something inside that bottle. Even empty space (the area of nothingness between stars and planets) is a materialistioc fabric. It's made out of higsparticles. And gravity bends this so called "empty" space.
(BTW, the space between atoms is very much finite. A line between to points cannot be infinite since the two points limit the lenght of that line. that's basic geometry)

Agreed, I will clarify "nothing" as massless space. BTW the void between two atoms as space is quite acceptable to me.

So what is beyond the boundry of our universe. You say there is "nothing" beyond it. I say there is no "beyond" for your nothing to be present. What happens when we would forcly cross this boundery? Well we cant, the bounderey expands by the speed of light, so there's no cathing up on it, let alone pass it. What if hypotetically we could? Well my guess is, the matter you're build up of would disintegrate and be used to create empty space in the "nothingness". Mast part is pure speculation of course.

Yes, pure speculation. massless space is comparable with a mathamatical number in that it has no beginning and no end it just exactly what I have described "massless space". Anything else, for now is pure speculation.

Who cretaed the nothingness? Does nothing need creation when it's not there? Empty space was created by big bang. But nothingness isn't cretaed. If it were, it would outomaticly become something rather then nothing.

Correct, and yet the universe would appear to expand into massless space?

There's a whole lot of assumptions lying in that question.

yes, and so to the question of finding God I simply reversed the question and aked if the "God" found was not actually God. Would islam accept thenm as God.

First of all We believe in the oneness of God, so that's an obvious obstacle in answering your question, so for simplicity I 'm going to answer the question as if you suggested a single alien, rather then a group

Somehow I don't think you are going to.

Next important word: "creation". Creation can be interpreted in many ways. There's creation with full knowledge (big bang already calculated in that right now i would be writing this sentence, it all goes by a devine decreet (wich is the commonly accepted pov in islam). But then there's also weaker interpretations of creation. An impuls set loose to lead it's own life by luck. A scientific expierenment meant to produce data. etc...

I suppose I could clarify. Creation (for this question) is simply matter and physical laws (within my question). Everything else, and us are formed randomly within the laws of physics.

Now if you repeat the quetsion considereing the devine decreet kind of creation, wich implies that what you call this alien is the creator, this entity is omnipotent, the one that planned and caused the events to happen, that made the qur'an, that granted us gifts and blessing more then we could ever count, and so on

Hold on, your being sneaky the question of the intelligent designer was that they created the universe and dictated the rules of nature and never actually created nature planets or anything, they don;t know nothing about us and nothing about no Koran. Woukld you accept them as God?

, yes then I suppose we would accept him. I mean, what's in a name. You call it alien, but by defenition anything that didn't origenate on earth is alien. So an entity that has no beginning at all would also be "alien".

So if life never originated on Earth, we are all aliens. I quite agree.

Another interesting word choice is simulation. Is life real under this hypothesis? Are the promisses of the afterlife still standing. Is this simulation the test we are going to be judge for. Basicly is this just our religion with a lil twist. (Because in the end, all we know beside the 99 names of allah, is that e is beyond anything our mind can imagen, so let's keep an open mind).

If our universe was a simulation, we are still very much alive but your purposely refusing to accept that "us" an "intelligent designer" and "Islam" are all linked, my question was if we found proof that they are not linked in anyway and you found your intelligent designer WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEM AS GOD

Now; I know what your thinking.

You should not try to pre-empt me my freind. It does not always bode to be correct.

I took your question out of context, and I projected, tried to merge it with Islam. Some people might think I'm loosing my mind, and you might think I'm trying to avoid your question. But there's actually a point to all of this. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this is:

Yes I know you did.

We do not believe and worship our creator simply out of respect because he created us, but also out of thankfullness for the method in which he did so, out of love for the blesings we recieve, our of fear for responsability over our acts we have been given, out of guilt for this perfect creation we do not do justice, out of joy that is granted in our hearths, etc. At first sight your hypotetical alien doesn't come close.

You have not answered the question.

I wonder why it is that when I (atheistic) am answered a question similar to this "what happens if we prove God" it's fairly easy to answer. yet ask Islam a similar in return and all you get is "interpretation" "hypothosis" questioning of definitions of this that and the other.

It's a straight forward Question.

"If our universe was created by super intelligent beings" would you accept them as God?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Agreed, I will clarify "nothing" as massless space. BTW the void between two atoms as space is quite acceptable to me.

It might seem as I am picking hairs here. But those interpretations are still questionable. First the void between two atoms is simular to the vacuum and still materialistic space. second, materialistic space (build up out of higgs-particles is assumed to be massles to). I'm not well informed enough to know why these massles particles are still influenced by gravity. I can only assume for the same reason as masseless photons are influenced by gravity. So why is it materialistic? becouse it's made up by the same energy as materials (and mass) are made up of. But I get the idea. you're hinting to an abstract "container for space" right? "a place for the space to be at" right?
So why am I still picking hairs? To get to the following ->

Correct, and yet the universe would appear to expand into massless space?

Who's to say that container exists? By okhams razor, there is no need for such a notion. The barrier of our universe as it expands, on its path it creates empty space (the materialistic kind) from energy. So one could have enough with that theory to explain the sudden increase of "room" .
Like I said:
You say there is "nothing" beyond the barrier. I say there is no "beyond" the barrier for your "nothing" to be present at.

As for the aliens, sorry if I frustrated you by apearently avoiding your question, I just had to make you go more in detail before I could answer. Now I think I can give you a more direct answer.

No, I would probably not accept them. I would feel misguided. Because in the hypothesis you suggested, my religion would turn out to be false. And as I said, we do not only worship and praise out of respect fro creation, but for many other aspects of religion that in your hypothesis would turn out to be an illusion.

edit: about this "nothingness, this room , this container. I believe the correct word is "ether". Listen to how Stephen hawkins explains how relativity got rid of the suggestion of a nether in his book, a brief history of time:

Maxwell’s theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton’s theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to.
It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!

Between 1887 and 1905 there were several attempts, most notably by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether. However, in a famous paper in 1905, a hitherto unknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, pointed out that the whole idea of an ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. A similar point was made a few weeks later by a leading French mathematician, Henri Poincare. Einstein’s arguments were closer to physics than those of Poincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical. Einstein is usually given the credit for the new theory, but Poincare is remembered by having his name attached to an important part of it.
The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton’s laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell’s theory and the speed of light: all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass. In other words, it will make it harder to increase its speed. This effect is only really significant for objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. For example, at 10 percent of the speed of light an object’s mass is only 0.5 percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light.
An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time. In Newton’s theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one place to another, different observers would agree on the time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but will not always agree on how far the light traveled (since space is not absolute). Since the speed of the light is just the distance it has traveled divided by the time it has taken, different observers would measure different speeds for the light. In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on how fast light travels. They still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has traveled – which the observers do not agree on – divided by the light’s speed – which they do agree on.) In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.

Source: A brief history of time

 

[root]

It might seem as I am picking hairs here. But those interpretations are still questionable. First the void between two atoms is simular to the vacuum and still materialistic space. second, materialistic space (build up out of higgs-particles is assumed to be massles to). I'm not well informed enough to know why these massles particles are still influenced by gravity. I can only assume for the same reason as masseless photons are influenced by gravity. So why is it materialistic? becouse it's made up by the same energy as materials (and mass) are made up of. But I get the idea. you're hinting to an abstract "container for space" right? "a place for the space to be at" right? So why am I still picking hairs? To get to the following ->

You are picking hairs because your trying to predict an answer that we do not yet know. For example, if our universe is currently inside a super massive dark energy star then be sure it has a "boundary". If it was an string under "m" theory the "container" will not exist. "Nothing" to me is a comparable with a numbers, it has no beginning & no end can be infinately small or infinatly large. Massless space therefore is a credible use of term.

Who's to say that container exists? By okhams razor, there is no need for such a notion. The barrier of our universe as it expands, on its path it creates empty space (the materialistic kind) from energy. So one could have enough with that theory to explain the sudden increase of "room" .
Like I said:
You say there is "nothing" beyond the barrier. I say there is no "beyond" the barrier for your "nothing" to be present at.

Yet the universe "expands", without a barrier (what I actually beleive) then it is truly is expanding into massless space (ie:nothing). What lies beyond the universe if we assume we are not inside a dark energy star. I for one would suggest "nothing" (mass-less space).

As for the aliens, sorry if I frustrated you by apearently avoiding your question, I just had to make you go more in detail before I could answer. Now I think I can give you a more direct answer.

You did not frustrate me, under the theory of pamspermia (my favourite for the origins of life), we are all aliens by your own definition.

No, I would probably not accept them. I would feel misguided. Because in the hypothesis you suggested, my religion would turn out to be false. And as I said, we do not only worship and praise out of respect fro creation, but for many other aspects of religion that in your hypothesis would turn out to be an illusion

An expected answer.........

 

[Abdul Fattah]

You are picking hairs because your trying to predict an answer that we do not yet know. For example, if our universe is currently inside a super massive dark energy star then be sure it has a "boundary". If it was an string under "m" theory the "container" will not exist. "Nothing" to me is a comparable with a numbers, it has no beginning & no end can be infinately small or infinatly large. Massless space therefore is a credible use of term.

Well I didn't do so on purpose, but I guess you're right, I did stick to the clasical, currently accepted vieuw of the univers. As atractive and wild all new theories might sound, I think it makes more sense for us to stick with the more "established" theories.

Yet the universe "expands", without a barrier (what I actually beleive) then it is truly is expanding into massless space (ie:nothing).

Yes, I see your point, but why? I don't see any problem with there being no "beyond", not even for "nothingness". Either way, as far as I see, that nothingness is not something that calls for a previous creation since the barrier creates empty space while progressing.

Let me try a more philosophical aproach. Bare with me for a while. We look at dimensions as degrees freedoms. An object in a point has absolutely no freedom. An object on a line, can go left and right. An object on a plane can go left right, up and down. An object in 3d space can go left right up and down, backwards forewards. An object in 4d can even move trough time.

But what if we try to aproach it difrently. And rather then looking at dimensions as freedoms, we look at them as limitations. An object on a line can only go left and right because it is bound to that dimension. When we believe Allah, the creator of time is without beginning, it's not because he is infinite in the dimension of time but because it is not bound to that dimension. When we say Allah is everywhere, that's not becasue Allah is streched out infinitly over space, but because he is independant of it.

Ok, well you don't believe in Allah, but still, I think those two examples showed you how a dimension can be regarded as a restriction rather then a freedom. In that line of logic, does "nothingness" beyond the dimensions of our universe require an "ether" (empty space as you like calling it); considering this ether wouldn't be restricted by that dimension. Or is it perhaps because our minds fail to understand the meaning of dimensions; because all objects we observe are bound to the 4 noticable dimensions; that we have dificulty understanding there is no "beyond" the border of the universe. Theat there isn't even "empty space" beyond it.

Edit: oh btw, I did an edit of my previous post, and when it was finished I noticed you had already made a response, so you might have missed out the text in blue that I added, You might find it interesting...

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Oh, another thing I forgot to say (I constantly got interupted while making previous post). I said:

Well I didn't do so on purpose, but I guess you're right, I did stick to the clasical, currently accepted vieuw of the univers. As atractive and wild all new theories might sound, I think it makes more sense for us to stick with the more "established" theories.

There is something else to add here. Remember we had a simular discussion about time being infinite? And you brought up the theory of multiple big bangs, and I showed how that just shifted the problem back. Well the same logic aplies here. If we are in a dark star. Or i there was a previous universe, and the border of our current universe is just the outer riple of big bang changing the old universe (like a riple that changes the water when a rock fals in. The water already exist prior to the rock (= big bang). Then the problem gets shifted, in either one of those cases. Because then teh border of our universe isn't a real border, but rather a transitionzone (the furtest ripple). So that just shifts the problem to the real border. (perhaps the riples of the very first big bang). Or parhaps you can suggest infinite big bangs, bould that would imply infinite space, and even worse, infinite time. And we already agreed time dating back infinitly is quite paradoxal isn't it?

 

[Sabi]

What if time is just entropy/decay. no decay no change no change no movement no movement no time. Time is subjective (relative) and if the only witness to objective time is massless space then does objective time exist?

Higg particles if they exist (this is the first time I have heard of them) seem to be nothing more than a way of explaining fields, i.e. explaining the structures of the physical laws at the most fundamental level. Aren't they an extension of matter itself then? If you take a void of massless empty space for example then cause an atom to pop in there, the higg particles would suddenly be there too governing certain physical characteristics about the atom. But it is still independent of the void of massless empty space which was in the beginning.

Of course the only truely infinite thing is that which encompasses all finite things. At the moment, to the best of our knowledge this seems to be massless empty space. If it were something else which we have no concept of in this universe, then the Muslim idea is that it is still aware of the smallest things contained within it by its knowledge. Personally that leaves me rather cold. I may not know and worship it but it may know me? Then if not to know and worship it then why was I created? According to the strictest islamic Tawheed this vision of God is unacceptable as it goes against the concept that Allah was a hidden treasure and willed to be known, thus we exist to find and worship it.

That is why I believe that massless space is God. We can not touch it nor contain it nor really measure it (if we were to magnify a view of the space between two particles we could mignify to infinity). Thus I also believe that Massless Space has no boundary (that is my belief too) it is infinitely small or infinitely large. I it were contained, then Steve you are right that if massless space is contained within a dark energy star, then the boundaries of the question are pushed back. And when you think about the sizes we are talking about in that case, we really are infintesimally small, and it is no wonder that anyone might think what would the creator of all that if there was one care for nano specs like us? Hence since we are probably not something it is concerned with, why should we be concerned with it.?

So I think that Massless empty space is the best candidate for God that we can consider in the current sphere of Knowledge.

:brother:

 

[Abdul Fattah]

What if time is just entropy/decay. no decay no change no change no movement no movement no time. Time is subjective (relative) and if the only witness to objective time is massless space then does objective time exist?

Time is defenitly not abstract. It is not an abstract measurement we invented to define the speed of changes. Time is very much a materialistic fabric. That's what Einstein's general relativity proved. And that theory is tested. the same goes for space, it is not an abstract container. The key idea is that even the dimensions are build up out of enegry.

I'll show you why, but it'll take a while.
Einstein spent many years of his life trying to find out what time is exactly. According to presentism, only the present exist. The past is already gone and the future is yet to come. This fits well with Newton’s view of the world. But then Einstein showed how time is actually a fourth dimension. He believed in eternamlism; where both past and future exist simultaneously. That’s kind of hard to imagine, time as a dimension. As a visual aid, picture a film role. It consists out of different pictures. Each picture represents a scene of a movie or in the case of the dimension: a single unit in time. This unit is a timeless 3-dimensional universe. Exactly like the one we see around us, but then motionless. The film role’s length represents the fourth dimension; the dimension of time. The present is just one still picture of a whole movie. All these different pictures -or units- exist simultaneously. So both the past; the present and future exists. The past does not fade away, we simply move away from it. Likewise the future already exists; we simply haven’t reached it yet. Both exist on the same filmstrip as pictures next to each other. When one moves these pictures rapidly in front of a projector; one creates the impression of a single moving picture, which is in fact the sum total of different still pictures: units in time.

There are some natural limitations to the events of our world. Take temperature for example. Nothing can go below 0°Kelvin. That’s because heat is a side effect of movement. When you have no movement at all, there’s no heat created either and we thus have 0°K. In a similar way speed is related to mass. The heavier an object is, the harder it will be to accelerate it, according to Einstein’s E=mc2. So according to that equation, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass grows exponentially. To reach a speed equal to c would require infinite energy. A photon for example, can approach the speed c (speed of light) because it has such a low mass. The speed of light is thus also a natural limitation which can’t be surpassed because it would take up infinite energy

Well, this brings a problem. First remember movement is relative. For example if you are driving in the middle lane with your car; the car to your left, which is going faster seems to go forward, while the car to your right which goes slower will seem to go backwards. Then again, all three cars are on earth, which rotates and goes around the sun. The sun, which also is in orbit throughout the galaxy, takes earth along with it. To calculate the actual movement of the three cars would be rather pointless now.
We need a reference point when considering movements.
Let’s take a train station with a guy waiting as reference point. Now say I fire a gun inside a moving train. The bullet would now be accelerated by the gun in addition to the acceleration of the train . So the speed of the bullet to our reference train station would be calculated by adding the speed of a normal bullet to the speed of the train. But what do you do with the photons emitted by the headlights of the train? Do these photons travel by the speed of light added to the speed of the train? No the photons will go by the speed of light for both the conductor on the train, as for a person waiting in the train station. To go beyond the speed of light, even if it’s only a small bit -the bit that would come from the train- would require too much energy; which cannot be produced. But ponder on this: both the conductor as the traveler in the train station see the light moving at the same pace, but both see the train where the light comes from moving at a different pace. For the conductor, it will seem the train is stationary, and the train station is moving backwards. But for the traveler in the train station, the train station seems stationary and the train is going forward. How do you combine that difference in observation combined with the similar observation of the photons?
I think Einstein explained it best with general relativity. He figured: speed is distance traveled over time. So considering that obviously the distance traveled by the photons is the same for both the conductor watching as for the guy watching in the train station; the only possible explanation is that the time passing by for the conductor does not equal the time passing by for the train conductor, right?
This theory is tested. Two atom clocks were set at exactly the same time. One was left on the ground and the other traveled along with a high-speed jet. The second one later showed a slight difference, as if its trip allowed it to travel a millisecond forward in time. Later NASA did the same experiment with a satellite and they got an even clearer results with a difference of 11 seconds.

Higg particles if they exist (this is the first time I have heard of them) seem to be nothing more than a way of explaining fields, i.e. explaining the structures of the physical laws at the most fundamental level. Aren't they an extension of matter itself then? If you take a void of massless empty space for example then cause an atom to pop in there, the higg particles would suddenly be there too governing certain physical characteristics about the atom. But it is still independent of the void of massless empty space which was in the beginning.

Well the existance of higss particles haven't been proven yet. But, we have sen how gravity bends empty space. And if gravity can bend it, that means it isn't an abstract container, but a fabric build up out of energy.

And when you think about the sizes we are talking about in that case, we really are infintesimally small, and it is no wonder that anyone might think what would the creator of all that if there was one care for nano specs like us? Hence since we are probably not something it is concerned with, why should we be concerned with it.?

Hasn't anyone ever told you, size doesn't matter ;D

So I think that Massless empty space is the best candidate for God that we can consider in the current sphere of Knowledge.

Isn't it offensive to say Allah (s.w.t.) is nothing more then an ether in which teh universe lies?

 

[root]

Steve - Or parhaps you can suggest infinite big bangs, bould that would imply infinite space, and even worse, infinite time. And we already agreed time dating back infinitly is quite paradoxal isn't it?

Yes, the problem of regressive universes is apparant. But we are talking here massless space without a boundary which I think you subscribe to, I certainly do and Shabi has indicated he does.

Why would "nothing" need be created for by definition it has no beginning and no end, a point often raised about the universe is that it has a beginning so must have an end and thus a starting point of creation.

mass-less space does not have a beginning nor an end and since it does not exist nor does it need multiple regression

Sabi

I am prity much in agreement with you entirely other than I don't worship it. however, I find your appraisal of it beautifull.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Why would "nothing" need be created for by definition it has no beginning and no end, a point often raised about the universe is that it has a beginning so must have an end and thus a starting point of creation.

mass-less space does not have a beginning nor an end and since it does not exist nor does it need multiple regression

But why do you think there is such a massless space, such a container that creates room?

 

[root]

This theory is tested. Two atom clocks were set at exactly the same time. One was left on the ground and the other traveled along with a high-speed jet. The second one later showed a slight difference, as if its trip allowed it to travel a millisecond forward in time. Later NASA did the same experiment with a satellite and they got an even clearer results with a difference of 11 seconds

Why have you concluded that one clock travelled forward in time, why did you not consider one clock had experienced a slowing of time. Doh, I just realised it's because the time was ahead of GMT right. Have you got a source, if correct two seperate experiments show both a speeding up and slowing of time. Incidently, the moleculao clock of all life on UK, a gene responsible for it is the same no matter what species of animal or tree you are!

A recent experiment which seeked to look into the common claims that during a time of extreme stress "Time seems to slow down", I am sure you know seomeone who at some point when reliving a car crash for example state that it all happened in "slow motion".

The test was to have a wrist device attached to a person and it flashed so quickly that you could not read the numbers. Only by reducing physical time could you see the numbers. they raised this guy up on a massive bunjy and let him loose (subjecting his body to zero gravity and stress on his body and mind. Result: Correctly read the number............

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Why have you concluded that one clock travelled forward in time, why did you not consider one clock had experienced a slowing of time. Doh, I just realised it's because the time was ahead of GMT right. Have you got a source, if correct two seperate experiments show both a speeding up and slowing of time.

Actually It doesn't matter which one was slowed down or which one speed up. The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity. What does matters is that the clock who traveled advanced lesser units in time then the stationary one.

Incidently, the moleculao clock of all life on UK, a gene responsible for it is the same no matter what species of animal or tree you are!

Euhm, I have no Idea what you're talking about here. Honestly , I'm clueless.

A recent experiment which seeked to look into the common claims that during a time of extreme stress "Time seems to slow down", I am sure you know seomeone who at some point when reliving a car crash for example state that it all happened in "slow motion".

This is often confused with timerelativity. In deep blue sea, a movie about sharks with ll cool J. One of the characters explained relativity as the difrence between putting your hand on a hot stove for a second and putting it on a hot woman for a sec. However that explenation is wrong. Einstein's theroy of relativity talks of a measurable difrence in times. It has nothing to do with psychologically induced speed of reception. stress just speeds up the processes that happen in your brain, and a faster processing causes a slower "perception". (if you proces quicker, that leaves you to interpret and think more in between difrent perceptions, leaving you to think that more time has passed by)

The test was to have a wrist device attached to a person and it flashed so quickly that you could not read the numbers. Only by reducing physical time could you see the numbers. they raised this guy up on a massive bunjy and let him loose (subjecting his body to zero gravity and stress on his body and mind. Result: Correctly read the number............

Hmm thats interesting, but here you could have a combination of both, because the jump simultaniously triggers adrenaline for faster processing of the brain and thus slower perception, while the downward movement woudl also make him travel foreward in time. The time travel however at such slow speed is almost neglectible. So I think the main contributor here is the adrenaline.

 

[Sabi]

Hasn't anyone ever told you, size doesn't matter ;D

:giggling:

Isn't it offensive to say Allah (s.w.t.) is nothing more then an ether in which teh universe lies?

Subahanallah! I don't think you realise what you are saying to me. All praise belongs to the Lah (SWT) the Lord of all creations! The All Encompassing! The Infinite, The Omnipresent, The eternal, The indivisible and there IS no god but IT!

I am actually trembling at the fact that I am including your above words, may the Lah (SWT) forgive me, in my own post here, but I have to let you know that to me your words seem like blasphemy.

Peace and love be unto you brother, I will be unable to talk more about that statement and hope you will understand my terror at your words.

:hiding:

 

[Sabi]

The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity.

This is what I said.

 

[Sabi]

we are talking here massless space without a boundary which I think you subscribe to, I certainly do and Shabi has indicated he does.

Not too Shabby I hope. kay:

I am prity much in agreement with you entirely other than I don't worship it. however, I find your appraisal of it beautifull.

Thank you so much :statisfie it really isn't my own though, so I think you are true a believer. I have no idea how to make you into a worshipper though. Its probably because you are just too lazy though. kay: But seriously, to be honest I think the way you described you appreciation of the sea in Pakistan is pretty close to giving praise, at least in my books. Increased aesthetic appreciation of the creations is the path to what Sabi`een call the mehemodan state (i.e. enlightenment), so just keep on appreciating beauty as you are doing and you will always be fine inshallah.

God Bless

:brother:

BTW, if there are any other "atheists" reading, I wonder what your opinions are on this topic?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Peace and love be unto you brother, I will be unable to talk more about that statement and hope you will understand my terror at your words.

To be honest, no, I don't understand. I'd like to though.
Is it something along the lines of sufism? I don't get it, Isn't Allah much more? It seems uncalled for to define him as an ether. Because by any ability, charesteristic that you asign to Allah you deny Allah the oppposite of IT. (well not physicly deny him, but deny the image you form.) Let me try to give an example of what I meant. If one would say Allah has eyes that see, then they woudl imply that allah only sees as humans do, and not IR, uv, and so on. So even if it seems good to atribute a certain charesteristic to Allah, we always need to be carefull because by doing so we might not do him justice. I hope that explains why I said this could be considered blasphemy, I'm looking forewards to your response.