Hinduism VS Islam

[أحمد]

At best, time can be a scientific theory not a 'fact'. And all such theories have no independent existence outside of our minds; they are what our minds use to interpret a reality we cannot generally or conventionally directly perceive. Time, of course, is a little different from your run-of-the-mill theory in that its conception is so fundamental to the way we live, but that doesn't alter the fact that a mental construct is all it is. Just like gravity.

If you call time a theory, then scientifically you don't believe in the existence of facts, because they all take time to prove.

:wa:

 

[Insaanah]

First, please tell me whether Allah is God or is a word (name) used to call or denote Allah?

You know exactly what it is, and I have answered you in my post above. Words in a language, names, verbs, nouns, are not idols, no matter how hard you might try to make them out to be in order to try and make Muslims out to be idol worshippers. Go to any scholar of linguistics, and ask if words, names, verbs, nouns can be idols.

This is an idol (from Wikipedia): "An idol is a human-made object that is worshipped in some way". Murtis used by Hindus is an entry under that, as is Divinization. "Divinization or deification is the "making divine", the "self-deification" of an earthly entity, individual, group, or activity." This would apply to you, as you believe that you are god. Both spectrums of Hindus come under idolaters.

You will notice that a name is not stated as being an idol, because it is not one. An idol is not anything used to "reach God". That is your own made up wrong definition.

As such, I suggest you stop this baseless and desperate accusation of idol worship.

Peace.

 

[nousername]

It seems in Hinduism not everyone is given a fair shot at opportunities in life. If you happen by chance of birth to be a dalit than you are screwed and are considered "unclean" but if for example you are a brahman it's like being born with a silver spoon in your mouth. And this is all just by chance of birth! seems unfair

 

[Trumble]

If you call time a theory, then scientifically you don't believe in the existence of facts, because they all take time to prove.

The application of time in that context is no different from in any other context. 'Time' is simply a theory that we use to explain what we experience; I would hesitate to describe as (solely) a scientific theory as obviously it has been around long before anything resembling 'science'. It's not alone in that respect, either - many scientists as well as philosophers (indeed the boundary is very murky here) consider all our mental states to be no more than the postulates of such a theory.

 

[أحمد]

The application of time in that context is no different from in any other context. 'Time' is simply a theory that we use to explain what we experience; I would hesitate to describe as (solely) a scientific theory as obviously it has been around long before anything resembling 'science'. It's not alone in that respect, either - many scientists as well as philosophers (indeed the boundary is very murky here) consider all our mental states to be no more than the postulates of such a theory.

Time is neither a mental state, nor a theory. What limits your understanding so much as to call it a theory is the fact that time isn't an object you can see or feel, although you can measure it. It is like the other blessings of Allah, which can either be seen, heard, felt or measured, but due to the lack of understanding; some of us fail to distinguish the differences between reality and fiction. In the case of time; the reality is that time does exist, but due to lack of understanding, there are people who prefer to ignore its existence; as it weaken's the basis of their arguments against reality.

:wa:

 

[Lynx]

i think this discussion of time is bordering on a miscommunication of terms. the existence of some property 'time' is a part of our universe and this is independent of humans in that if all humans ceased to exist there would still be 'time'. time can be altered by physical objects such as large bodies in space like blackholes etc. But i think what people mean when they say time is a product of our mental states is that how we interpret the physical phenomenon of time is entirely dependent by our understanding of it (i.e., the theory of how time works).

Scientifically its a fact, philosophically its an idea. Philosophy is based on opinions, not facts.

philosophy, at least in North america and england is just a rigorous method of learning that incorporates facts to understand abstract truths. the nature of time would be such a 'truth' but this is also a topic in physics and as trumble rightly points out, the line between science and philosophy is murky.

 

[Trumble]

Time is neither a mental state, nor a theory. What limits your understanding so much as to call it a theory is the fact that time isn't an object you can see or feel, although you can measure it. It is like the other blessings of Allah, which can either be seen, heard, felt or measured, but due to the lack of understanding; some of us fail to distinguish the differences between reality and fiction. In the case of time; the reality is that time does exist, but due to lack of understanding, there are people who prefer to ignore its existence; as it weaken's the basis of their arguments against reality.

You seem to have resorted to complete waffle in the absence of anything substantial to support your proposition. Can you explain how time can be measured other than in terms of the perceptions and consequent interpretations of the experimenter's mind? Who are these people who are supposed to ignore the existence of time, and how do you explain their ability (presumably) to function at all? The issue is not whether time exists, but what it IS!

time can be altered by physical objects such as large bodies in space like blackholes etc.

Can it? When was the last time you passed by a black hole and experienced this? The only reason you suggest such a thing is that you are aware of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. But what is that other than a mental construct created to explain and predict observable phenomena? Indeed, in that instance, the theory even came before the observations. Were all those black-holes distorting space-time before Einstein, or was the observational data (if any) explained by some other theory?

Incidently, Ahmed, was time a 'fact' before anyone had ever thought about or theorized space-time? If so was it the same 'fact' as it is today, or a different one?

 

[Lynx]

Can it? When was the last time you passed by a black hole and experienced this? The only reason you suggest such a thing is that you are aware of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. But what is that other than a mental construct created to explain and predict observable phenomena? Indeed, in that instance, the theory even came before the observations. Were all those black-holes distorting space-time before Einstein, or was the observational data (if any) explained by some other theory?

Well I am sure we both know that when you put a clock into space, the further it goes from the massive body of Earth the faster it moves. So, given that, what is your objection to the existence of physical time? Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

 

[أحمد]

You seem to have resorted to complete waffle in the absence of anything substantial to support your proposition. Can you explain how time can be measured other than in terms of the perceptions and consequent interpretations of the experimenter's mind? Who are these people who are supposed to ignore the existence of time, and how do you explain their ability (presumably) to function at all? The issue is not whether time exists, but what it IS!




Can it? When was the last time you passed by a black hole and experienced this? The only reason you suggest such a thing is that you are aware of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. But what is that other than a mental construct created to explain and predict observable phenomena? Indeed, in that instance, the theory even came before the observations. Were all those black-holes distorting space-time before Einstein, or was the observational data (if any) explained by some other theory?

This is exactly what you get when confusing science and philosophy. Give yourselves time to think; try to keep an open mind and understand the science before going into philosophy. Prior to the introduction of philosophy of time; the discussion was about the failed atheistic argument using quantum physics. If you read the posts; there's no mention of philosophy; its all on the topic of science; there's no room for philosophy in or around the argument, no matter how murky anyone claims it to be.

:wa:

 

[أحمد]

Well I am sure we both know that when you put a clock into space, the further it goes from the massive body of Earth the faster it moves. So, given that, what is your objection to the existence of physical time? Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

Clock is a tool; its not time.

:wa:

 

[Trumble]

Well I am sure we both know that when you put a clock into space, the further it goes from the massive body of Earth the faster it moves. So, given that, what is your objection to the existence of physical time? Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

No, I don't 'know' that at all. Neither do you. Neither of us have ever observed or experienced it, or ever will. All we know is that we have read that that is what happens, and we can probably safely assume that is because somebody who has suggested that as a theory to explain certain observations has put pen to paper.

This is exactly what you get when confusing science and philosophy. Give yourselves time to think; try to keep an open mind and understand the science before going into philosophy. Prior to the introduction of philosophy of time; the discussion was about the failed atheistic argument using quantum physics. If you read the posts; there's no mention of philosophy; its all on the topic of science; there's no room for philosophy in or around the argument, no matter how murky anyone claims it to be.

I'm not 'confusing' anything, am not 'claiming' anything, have read the posts and have a perfectly open mind, thank you. You might follow some of your own advice, though.

Your own confusion seems to arise from a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of both science and philosophy. Firstly, the philosophy comes before the science and always has done; every other academic discipline is an off-shoot of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy is not to present 'opinions', but to analyse fundamental concepts.. concepts (depending on the area of philosophy) relevant to everything we think and do. One of the most important areas in which it is essential we fully understand the concepts we use and how to apply them is.. yup, you guessed it, science.. and the whole of the scientific method depends upon it. 'Philosophy of Science' is a significant discipline in its own right, and there was no science for the scientists until philosophers created it for them (although generally, historically, they were the same people, of course!)

That application of philosophy is not limited to the method itself, but to particular branches of science; particularly new ones. The classic example is probably cognitive science, studying the nature of mind, everything that goes on within it, and the relation of 'mind' to the physical brain, what exactly are mental states and so on. Quantum physics is another good example; you can open your text book and see the numbers and equations, but what - in terms of human experience - do they actually mean? How do we know they represent this real 'scientific' world of yours and are not just academic exercises, or just squiggles on a page? Even if we don't or can't know it, are we justified in assuming it? If so, why? Why are there still different 'interpretations' of quantum physics amidst all these 'facts'? What, exactly, is being interpreted and why does it need interpreting? How can we tell which interpretation is right? CAN we ever tell? And so on, and so on.

As yet science has not yet 'even' been able to prove there even IS such a thing as an external, physical world. Even that most fundamental of 'facts' is, in fact, nothing of the sort. All anyone, in any academic field or none, can do is theorize that there is such an external, physical world in order to explain and predict their own experiences; space, time, and all the rest of it are just theories within a theory .

Anyway, yet again, we are straying far away from Hinduism, here!

 

[Lynx]

Clock is a tool; its not time.

:wa:

You forgot to quote the part of my statement where I said otherwise.

No, I don't 'know' that at all. Neither do you. Neither of us have ever observed or experienced it, or ever will. All we know is that we have read that that is what happens, and we can probably safely assume that is because somebody who has suggested that as a theory to explain certain observations has put pen to paper.

And Therefore...?

 

[nousername]

why is everyone talking about time instead of points pertaining to Islam and Hinduism? One of you should make a thread about "time".

 

[Trumble]

why is everyone talking about time instead of points pertaining to Islam and Hinduism? One of you should make a thread about "time".

Oddly enough, the discussion is actually pretty indicative (albeit partly by analogy) of the fundamental difference between the 'Western' and 'Eastern' approaches to religion although we have certainly strayed rather too far from 'on topic', I agree!

 

[K.Venugopal]

It seems in Hinduism not everyone is given a fair shot at opportunities in life. If you happen by chance of birth to be a dalit than you are screwed and are considered "unclean" but if for example you are a brahman it's like being born with a silver spoon in your mouth. And this is all just by chance of birth! seems unfair

A Hinduism where some people were deprived while others were advantaged did occur for a period. However, Hinduism permits itself reformers to strive to set right circumstances and today, under the Indian constitution, which reflects the core of Hindu ethos, discrimination on the basis caste is illegal. On the contrary, affirmative action to set right past wrongs is one of the mainstays of the Indian constitution. In this context, it should be borne in mind that even in the worst periods of discrimination, there was nothing like ethnic cleansing in Hinduism as in some other societies. Therefore all the marginalized sections are still alive today and they are getting their place in the sun.

 

[K.Venugopal]

You know exactly what it is, and I have answered you in my post above. Words in a language, names, verbs, nouns, are not idols, no matter how hard you might try to make them out to be in order to try and make Muslims out to be idol worshippers. Go to any scholar of linguistics, and ask if words, names, verbs, nouns can be idols.

This is an idol (from Wikipedia): "An idol is a human-made object that is worshipped in some way". Murtis used by Hindus is an entry under that, as is Divinization. "Divinization or deification is the "making divine", the "self-deification" of an earthly entity, individual, group, or activity." This would apply to you, as you believe that you are god. Both spectrums of Hindus come under idolaters.

You will notice that a name is not stated as being an idol, because it is not one. An idol is not anything used to "reach God". That is your own made up wrong definition.

As such, I suggest you stop this baseless and desperate accusation of idol worship.

Peace.

But you have not answered my question as to whether Allah is the entity or the name or denotation of the entity.

 

[K.Venugopal]

why is everyone talking about time instead of points pertaining to Islam and Hinduism? One of you should make a thread about "time".

Thoughts on time, space, sound etc. would lead to the higher thoughts of Hinduism. For example, are sound and silence two entities or two aspects of the same entity?

 

[marwen]

Peace K.Venugopal,

The moon’s existence is not dependent of your proving it exists. It exists irrespective of your proof or others accepting your proof. This is because the moon is an objective phenomenon to man’s subjective reality.

But can you tell that to a group of blind people who never saw the moon. From your viewpoint it's objective : the moon is there all the time. But from their point of view, they don't think it's objective, they think it's only in your mind. You see : subjective / objective is just relative.

In the case of Allah, believe is a priori sine-qua non for establishing His existence. Where there is no believe, there is no existence of Allah.

That's totally wrong. First we see signs and evidences of the existence of Allah and then we believe in Him. We can't just believe in something (from scratch) without having a base : evidences/signs of its existence.


From the other hand, I don't know why you're stick on the idea of Allah being subjective. That's because of your Hindu background I guess. But in monotheistic religions in general, and in Islam in particular, Allah is not a subjective entity. He is even independent of his creation.

It has so far not been proved objectively that Allah is an object outside man's mind.

I say the opposite is correct. The existence of Allah is always proved Objectively, for the simple reason that Allah is outside our mind (I'll explain this later). Without receiving signs and evidences from the outside, a human will probably not be able to think about the existence of Allah. And that's the problem in the same time, because if you don't accept these signs and evidences coming from outside you will probably not be a believer.
Allah is outside our mind because He created us, He always existed before we start to exist, therefore He can't be dependent on our own subjective conception. If Allah were a subjective concept, there wouldn't a common conception/belief about Allah, because people's imagination is far from being the same.

Please give me a proof that Allah exists.

1) The existence of this universe necessitates a cause of its existence. Logically every part in this universe is produced by/after a cause. A house is caused by a man who built it. A stone is created after a volcano eruption, and the volcano is caused by some geological phenomenon which is caused by another physical phenomenon. There is a continuous chain of cause->effect, but there should be a first starting cause, otherwise, the chain of cause effects will be infinite back in the past, leading to an absurd conclusion which denies the existence of this universe (in other words, if there is no first cause (not caused by another cause) , then the resulting universe will not exist, which is absurd).
So there should be a first cause that didn't necessitate a precedent cause of it's existence : it just existed (always) (a). At this level let's not say that cause is a God, but let's say it's a phenomenon or an Entity that engendered/created/produced this universe.

2) If we observe this whole universe we realize the great power of its components : The energy of the sun, the power of the wind and the water, the wideness of this universe (infinite number of galaxies, etc.) and the magnitude of these planets and stars. There is so much power in this universe, and it necessitates a big power to maintain its existence. This moves us to the conclusion that the Entity responsible of the creation of this universe is Powerful enough to produce this great universe. This Entity is more powerful than everything in this universe because It's the source of power in this universe. We can say that this Entity is the Most Powerful(b).

3) The intelligence of design of every part in this universe : look at every planet and how it keeps moving in a precise orbit. Look at the plants how they are designed and how they manage to produce fruits from just water, air and dust. Look at the structure of animal bodies and how every species is created in a certain way that helps him to live in his own environment/ecosystem. Look finally at the anatomy of your body, how it's perfectly designed, and how every organ is created for a certain function, and look how our heart is made and how our brain works. This let us make the deduction that this Entity that produced our universe is Conscious (i.e Knows what He is doing) and Intelligent enough to produce the universe in that intelligent way. This Entity is the source of intelligence and consciousness. And It's The most Intelligent and Wise (c).

From (a), (b) and (c) we conclude that this universe is Created by an Entity that didn't necessitate a cause of its existence. That Entity is the Creator of this universe. This Entity is the Most Powerful, The Most Intelligent, the Most Wise, and knows what to do. This Entity did not create this universe for fun or without purpose, because it's more Intelligent than doing that. From these characteristics we conclude that this Entity is a God.

4) The scriptures revealed/sent to us through Prophets (prophets are people who are pure enough, sincere and honest enough to be chosen by God to spread his message to us), these scriptures like the Qur'an, the Injil, the Bible (and the other precedent monotheistic scriptures) are confirming the conclusions [ 1) 2) 3) ] about the existence of God. But also, these scriptures are covering the other aspects about God that we can't find out by our minds (i.e by ourselves) : These scriptures help us to know more about God, our Creator, to know more about his names (Allah, The Merciful, The Forgiving, etc.) And also these scriptures help us to know what is The purpose of our Creation, because Allah must have created us for a purpose, He is more wise to do something without purpose.

5) The miracles showed to us by Allah through his prophets : nearly every prophet have had material miracles. And the scientific miracles in the prophet-hood of the prophets informing their people about things that will happen in the future, and which really happen(ed). The scientific miracles in the scriptures. All these miracles are also confirming the truth of all the above [ 1) 2) 3) 4) ]

All these are proofs about the existence of Allah. But let me tell you some little points :

A] You don't really need someone to give you proofs about the existence of Allah. You can just observe the existence of this universe and how it's made and observe your body and how perfectly it's designed, and observe every thing around you. Then you will find out the proofs by yourself.

B] You have the full freedom to accept or refuse these proofs. But keep in mind that considering these as proofs or not is relative and depend on how you made your own criteria of what you consider a proof and what you don't. May be you're right. May be you're wrong. or may be you have to change your vision of what you consider a proof and what you don't.


And finally, as I probably said in other threads, people accept things as true when it comes to their daily life : they're sure they had lunch although they have no logical/rational proof if they ate lunch or not. When your boss calls you on phone and you guess it's your boss (from his voice), you don't ask him to give you a concrete/logical/scientific proof to show you he's really your boss. It will be stupid if we ask for a proof for everything we see, we won't be able to get out the maze. There is a lot of things that we accept as true and we don't ask for a further proof, and we are not supposed to accept a proof only if it is purely material or logical. We can sometimes accept a sign as a proof, or a trace of something as a proof of its existence.
But why when it comes to questions about the existence of Allah, we become totally rational and materialistic, we become like robots and we become insensible to the subtle signs and evidences presented to us, and we only accept a logical or mathematical demonstration. If we were always rational and purely materialistic in our lives we wouldn't be able to survive, because we will fail to give a rational conception of a lot of simple facts that we can't live without. So we need to reduce our exigency and accept them as true, or else we will be mad or we will die (by suicide probably).

If Allah was just logically obvious or materially concrete or visible, then there won't be a reward for the ones who accepted his existence for the simple signs and evidences they saw, and there won't be punishment for the ones who stuck on their arrogance and required proofs fitting with their desires.

These are evidences about the existence of Allah, there are also other evidences about the Uniqueness of Allah (no other God with him), and evidences showing the purpose of our creation. But all that could be discussed later in this thread or in other similar threads.

All the best.

 

[Zafran]

In the Hindu scheme of things there is no confrontation between God and idols. In Islam there is and therefore you need to debunk idols to pass God’s loyalty test.

This is the problem - we both believe that God is all poweful so thats where we can actually start to build a contructive talk - There is no debunking needed if we both accept that God is all powerful and the idols are not simply becasue the idols cannot move without humans, or clean themselves or even walk - the bottom line is that idols are dependent on humans - God is not otherwise God would not be all powerful - there is no need of debunking its quite clear that you have walked into a contradiction between idols and God.

A representation is just that, a representation of the real thing, not the real thing.

This is more confusing do you believe the idol is an aspect of God or not God? What is the real thing as you believed that all of existence is God? - here your saying the idol is not God????

As Muslims have made it out and insist, Allah is not just another word for God. God has become a generic word and Muslims do not want the same thing to happen to Allah. For example, I can call Krishna God and there will be no objections etymologically from any quarter. But I cannot call Krishna Allah. This is not permitted by Muslims because they have a unique meaning for the word Allah confined to Islamic understanding.

Its simple God which we both agree is all powerful from here we can carry on the talk - with Hindu names you have many Gods so why dont you use the word Gods rather then God?

The only difference between God and everything else in existence is that God is eternal, absolute etc., whereas everything else in existence is ephemeral, limited etc. This position however does not make God separate from the rest of existence, but one with existence, existence being nothing other than different aspects of God. There is an interplay of God and humans in the drama of existence and in the poetry of such interplay, God has proclaimed that He is a willing servant to his dearest pilgrims. These sorts of expressions are of course not to be taken in black and white but as creating the mood for man’s affair with God.

is "existence" all powerful like God or is it not? If existence is not all powerful then how can it be an "aspect" of the all powerful. Just to add you said the idol is not the "real thing" which is also part of existence - so what is the idol is it not an aspect of God?

all this is based around God being all powerful which we both agree on.

 

[K.Venugopal]

But can you tell that to a group of blind people who never saw the moon. From your viewpoint it's objective : the moon is there all the time. But from their point of view, they don't think it's objective, they think it's only in your mind. You see : subjective / objective is just relative.

Those who are blind, either by fate or simply by their refusal to see, are unfortunate people. Fortunately, blindness in many cases can be rectified.

By subject I mean the person who sees and by object I mean the thing seen. Many things are universally available for seeing. Seeing includes understanding also. If I see something, I could point out that thing for you to see or I could explain my understanding for you to understand. While seeing objects involves only our physical faculties, conveying understanding is often rather complex. You see Allah and Islamic teachings very clearly. If I do not see it, you would naturally seek to explain it so that I too may understand. Whether I finally understand or not is another matter. Or I may even say, I understand it differently.

I think in the understanding of Muslims and Hindus on certain matters, the issue is not so much as one group understands and the other does not. It is more about understanding differently. Of course, understanding differently need not necessarily mean contradictory understanding – it might only indicate the many possibilities of understanding.

we see signs and evidences of the existence of Allah and then we believe in Him. We can't just believe in something (from scratch) without having a base : evidences/signs of its existence.

Evidence is in the realm of facts. As far as Allah is concerned, you are only talking about belief.

From the other hand, I don't know why you're stick on the idea of Allah being subjective.

When I use the word subjective, what I mean is that Allah is not an objective phenomenon, placed somewhere outside us.

That's because of your Hindu background I guess. But in monotheistic religions in general, and in Islam in particular, Allah is not a subjective entity. He is even independent of his creation.

I understand the different positions on this between the monotheistic religions and the non-dual religions. And I do not think that either position is wrong. What I am arguing against is the Islamic position that the monotheistic position alone is correct.

I say the opposite is correct. The existence of Allah is always proved Objectively, for the simple reason that Allah is outside our mind (I'll explain this later).

I hold that you will never be able to prove Allah as you would be able to prove an object.

Without receiving signs and evidences from the outside, a human will probably not be able to think about the existence of Allah.

I hold that you are seeing a connection where none exists.

And that's the problem in the same time, because if you don't accept these signs and evidences coming from outside you will probably not be a believer. Allah is outside our mind because He created us, He always existed before we start to exist, therefore He can't be dependent on our own subjective conception.

This is your belief and I respect it and cannot say it is wrong because it is a matter of belief and belief need not tally with objective reality. Which, again, is not to say that belief is wrong because it may not tally with objective reality – because belief has its own truths to contribute to man – like they say, faith can move mountains.

If Allah were a subjective concept, there wouldn't a common conception/belief about Allah, because people's imagination is far from being the same.

That is the whole point – God is a subjective concept and therefore there is no common conception/belief about God (I would prefer to say no common expression). If in the case of Allah there is a commonality of belief, that is because Muslims are expected to follow the Quran, which is an objective reality.

The existence of this universe necessitates a cause of its existence. Logically every part in this universe is produced by/after a cause. A house is caused by a man who built it. A stone is created after a volcano eruption, and the volcano is caused by some geological phenomenon which is caused by another physical phenomenon. There is a continuous chain of cause->effect, but there should be a first starting cause,

Why, should there be a first starting cause – what about the concept of eternity. Does eternity have a starting point?

otherwise, the chain of cause effects will be infinite back in the past, leading to an absurd conclusion which denies the existence of this universe (in other words, if there is no first cause not caused by another cause) , then the resulting universe will not exist, which is absurd).

I am unable to see the logic of what you say here.

So there should be a first cause that didn't necessitate a precedent cause of it's existence : it just existed (always)(a) At this level let's not say that cause is a God, but let's say it's a phenomenon or an Entity that engendered/created/produced this universe. If we observe this whole universe we realize the great power of its components : The energy of the sun, the power of the wind and the water, the wideness of this universe (infinite number of galaxies, etc.) and the magnitude of these planets and stars. There is so much power in this universe, and it necessitates a big power to maintain its existence. This moves us to the conclusion that the Entity responsible of the creation of this universe is Powerful enough to produce this great universe. This Entity is more powerful than everything in this universe because It's the source of power in this universe. We can say that this Entity is the Most Powerful (b).

If the universe has great power and therefore it needs to be maintained, would not God have greater power? Does He not need to be maintained? If He can exist without maintenance, why can’t the universe exist without maintenance?

The intelligence of design of every part in this universe : look at every planet and how it keeps moving in a precise orbit. Look at the plants how they are designed and how they manage to produce fruits from just water, air and dust. Look at the structure of animal bodies and how every species is created in a certain way that helps him to live in his own environment/ecosystem. Look finally at the anatomy of your body, how it's perfectly designed, and how every organ is created for a certain function, and look how our heart is made and how our brain works. This let us make the deduction that this Entity that produced our universe is Conscious (i.e Knows what He is doing) and Intelligent enough to produce the universe in that intelligent way. This Entity is the source of intelligence and consciousness. And It's The most Intelligent and Wise (c).

Why can’t this entity that caused everything be something that is innate in the effect itself?

From (a) (b) and (c) we conclude that this universe is Created by an Entity that didn't necessitate a cause of its existence. That Entity is the Creator of this universe.

Even if we postulate a creator of this universe, that such a creator is called Allah and Mohammad is His last prophet is a belief extant only among the Muslims and is not universally accepted.

This Entity is the Most Powerful, The Most Intelligent, the Most Wise, and knows what to do. This Entity did not create this universe for fun or without purpose, because it's more Intelligent than doing that. From these characteristics we conclude that this Entity is a God.

This is your belief.

The scriptures revealed/sent to us through Prophets (prophets are people who are pure enough, sincere and honest enough to be chosen by God to spread his message to us), these scriptures like the Qur'an, the Injil, the Bible (and the other precedent monotheistic scriptures) are confirming the conclusions [ 1) 2) 3) ] about the existence of God. But also, these scriptures are covering the other aspects about God that we can't find out by our minds (i.e by ourselves) : These scriptures help us to know more about God, our Creator, to know more about his names (Allah, The Merciful, The Forgiving, etc.) And also these scriptures help us to know what is The purpose of our Creation, because Allah must have created us for a purpose, He is more wise to do something without purpose.

Scriptures are among mankind’s most valuable heritage. We should not attempt to limit scriptures to just one scripture.

The miracles showed to us by Allah through his prophets : nearly every prophet have had material miracles. And the scientific miracles in the prophet-hood of the prophets informing their people about things that will happen in the future, and which really happen(ed). The scientific miracles in the scriptures. All these miracles are also confirming the truth of all the above [ 1) 2) 3) 4) ]

Life itself is a miracle.

All these are proofs about the existence of Allah. But let me tell you some little points: You don't really need someone to give you proofs about the existence of Allah. You can just observe the existence of this universe and how it's made and observe your body and how perfectly it's designed, and observe every thing around you. Then you will find out the proofs by yourself.

The more we observe ourselves and our surroundings, the more we would come to realize that the oneness of everything is within us and the variety we see is but an expression of that oneness.

You have the full freedom to accept or refuse these proofs. But keep in mind that considering these as proofs or not is relative and depend of how you made your own criteria on what you consider a proof and what you don't. May be you're right. May be you're wrong. or may be you have to change your vision of what you consider a proof and what you don't.

OK.

And finally, as I probably said in other threads, people accept things as true when it comes to their daily life : they're sure they had lunch although they have no logical/rational proof if they ate lunch or not.

Really?

When your boss calls you on phone and you guess it's your boss (from his voice), you don't ask him to give you a concrete/logical/scientific proof to show you he's really your boss. It will be stupid if we ask for a proof for everything we see, we won't be able to get out the maze.

If I can make out it is my boss on the phone, what more proof would I want?

There is a lot of things that we accept as true and we don't ask for a further proof, and we are not supposed to accept a proof only if it is purely material or logical. We can sometimes accept a sign as a proof, or a trace of something as a proof of its existence.

A proof that satisfies one person may not be a sufficient proof for another person.

But why when it comes to questions about the existence of Allah, we become totally rational and materialistic, we become like robots and we become insensible to the subtle signs and evidences presented to us, and we only accept a logical or mathematical demonstration. If we were always rational and purely materialistic in our lives we wouldn't be able to survive, because we will fail to give a rational conception of a lot of simple facts that we can't live without.

You have become remarkably poetic here. I agree with you. The questioning is only because Muslims insist that Islam is the only true religion.

So we need to reduce our exigency and accept them as true, or else we will be mad or we will die (by suicide probably).If Allah was just logically obvious or materially concrete or visible, then there won't be a reward for the ones who accepted his existence for the simple signs and evidences they saw, and there won't be punishment for the ones who stuck on their arrogance and required proofs fitting with their desires.

A rewarding and punishing God. This is belittling God.

These are evidences about the existence of Allah, there are also other evidences about the Uniqueness of Allah (no other God with him), and evidences about the purpose of our creation. But all that could discussed later in this thread or in other similar threads.

Sure.