Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[Eliphaz]

^^ whether you take "heavens" to mean the universe or the sky, either way it was attached to the earth. Could you please elaborate your doubt?

Okay I'm just adding my 10 cents here.

"The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book.'' Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.''

Now I want to focus on the last bit, 'They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.'

What this suggests is that the Earth is now a fully created structure - it already had an atmosphere, as suggested by the reference to 'air', and that the Heavens is clearly referencing the seven heavens the lowest one of which is adorned with stars. What this is saying is that the fully-formed Earth was attached to the lowest Heaven, and that it was split from that lowest Heaven. At the same time the Heaven was raised up by God.

Now this is totally and utterly in contraction to the Big Bang theory and the general structure of the universe. To talk about the Heavens being 'raised' is at best talking about the ongoing expansion of the universe, but this belies that space is a vacuum and the only way we sensibly can talk about things being 'attached' is through gravitational forces. Also, to talk about 'air' and 'vegetation' in the same breath as this verse, suggests that Earth was fully formed, although this did not happen until 4.5 billion years ago, whereas the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred over 13 billion years ago! That is a discrepancy of more than 8 billion years!

If you are so sure it represents the big bang, then can you please explain to us what 'this air' means and how we can discuss vegetation if the earth is not yet fully formed for another 8 billion years?

 

[Chuck]

Okay I'm just adding my 10 cents here.

"The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book.'' Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.''

Now I want to focus on the last bit, 'They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.'

What this suggests is that the Earth is now a fully created structure - it already had an atmosphere, as suggested by the reference to 'air', and that the Heavens is clearly referencing the seven heavens the lowest one of which is adorned with stars. What this is saying is that the fully-formed Earth was attached to the lowest Heaven, and that it was split from that lowest Heaven. At the same time the Heaven was raised up by God.

Now this is totally and utterly in contraction to the Big Bang theory and the general structure of the universe. To talk about the Heavens being 'raised' is at best talking about the ongoing expansion of the universe, but this belies that space is a vacuum and the only way we sensibly can talk about things being 'attached' is through gravitational forces. Also, to talk about 'air' and 'vegetation' in the same breath as this verse, suggests that Earth was fully formed, although this did not happen until 4.5 billion years ago, whereas the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred over 13 billion years ago! That is a discrepancy of more than 8 billion years!

If you are so sure it represents the big bang, then can you please explain to us what 'this air' means and how we can discuss vegetation if the earth is not yet fully formed for another 8 billion years?

air is not there in the verse, it is just their understanding.

 

[Ramadhan]

, but this belies that space is a vacuum

LOL.
There goes your credibility in talking about science and astronomy.

I feel sorry for the brothers who keep entertaining you.

 

[Eliphaz]

LOL.
There goes your credibility in talking about science and astronomy.

From wiki:

The modern concept of outer space is based upon the Big Bang cosmology, which was first proposed in 1931 by the Belgian physicist Georges Lemaître. This theory holds that the observable universe originated from a very compact form that has since undergone continuous expansion. Matter that remained following the initial expansion has since undergone gravitational collapse to create stars, galaxies and other astronomical objects, leaving behind a deep vacuum that forms what is now called outer space.[16]

Yes, granted its not a perfect vacuum, but for the purposes of this discussion it is enough of a vacuum to make the idea of the Earth being attached to anything called the 'Heavens' in a literal sense inconceivable to the serious mind, especially when one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Qur'an insinuates this Earth is fully formed! I feel that your lack in commenting on that clearly demonstrates your lack of faith in the early scholars and pious predecessors, who were supposed to be the most wise and skilled in exegesis were they not?

I feel sorry for the brothers who keep entertaining you.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

 

[Pygoscelis]

^^ whether you take "heavens" to mean the universe or the sky, either way it was attached to the earth.

It still is.

And what is this business about the heavens being raised up? Raised up? And why is the "heavens" being given equally billing to the "earth"? The earth is a tiny tiny fragment of the universe. And why is there zero detail about the big bang itself?

If you squint just right this may be consistent with the big bang, but it definitely isn't very descriptive. You'd never come up with the big bang theory by reading it if you didn't already have the theory, hence why it took scientists centuries later, with no reference to the Quran, to come up with it. So what's the point of the writing? If Allah is this indescriptive about other things in the Quran one has to be doubly critical of its claims.

 

[Eliphaz]

LOL.
There goes your credibility in talking about science and astronomy.

I feel sorry for the brothers who keep entertaining you.

Oh I think I see, you must have mistaken 'belies' for 'believes'. Easy mistake old chap.

 

[tetsujin]

You can't logically prove that there is no God, and you can't without a reasonable doubt prove that there is a God to everyone's satisfaction!

Funny how proving a negative is a matter of logic, and proving a positive is a matter of satisfaction. I think you've provided an adequate summation of this thread.

Furthermore, it's an interesting corollary that god is rejected due to a dissatisfaction from the offered arguments, and not due to any logical insufficiency therein.

I suppose you are right to say "...for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary."

All the best,


Faysal

 

[جوري]

Funny how proving a negative is a matter of logic, and proving a positive is a matter of satisfaction. I think you've provided an adequate summation of this thread.

Is it funny? or do you think your platitudes offer a sobering brand of cohesive evidence that holds some semblance of legitimacy?

Furthermore, it's an interesting corollary that god is rejected due to a dissatisfaction from the offered arguments, and not due to any logical insufficiency therein.

Nothing interesting here either I am afraid! I have not started the thread nor partook in the debate to any detailed extent, I don't enjoy frat boy games or frat boy mentality! I offered my own insight on the matter and is precisely summed up in the two sentences I have written!

I suppose you are right to say "...for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary."

All the best,

Indeed, and by the same token for the skeptic no amount of proof is enough!-- one thing to have it as a siggy, and another for you to beat it to death surely there are better ways for you to act out?

all the best

 

[tetsujin]

Is it funny? or do you think your platitudes offer a sobering brand of cohesive evidence that holds some semblance of legitimacy?

I have not started the thread nor partook in the debate to any detailed extent, I don't enjoy frat boy games or frat boy mentality!

I offered my own insight on the matter and is precisely summed up in the two sentences I have written!

...surely there are better ways for you to act out?

I'm glad we're on the same page.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[جوري]

I'm glad we're on the same page.

All the best,


Faysal

I am never on the same page with an atheist even by way of sarcasm!

have a great evening!

 

[GuestFellow]

Indeed, and by the same token for the skeptic no amount of proof is enough!-- one thing to have it as a siggy, and another for you to beat it to death surely there are better ways for you to act out?

all the best

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to sig that.

 

[جوري]

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to sig that.

I don't mind at all, the whole forum should keep that siggy .... I have been wanting to change it for sometime, but inevitably an atheist (comments on it in a negative fashion of course) and honestly it tickles me so, that I can't resist to keep it!

 

[Pygoscelis]

No amount of proof is enough? Hmm, I dunno. Some skywriting could go a long way Heck, something more than an ambiguous phrase in an old book could be a nice start. Maybe a few dozen talking animals like he's claimed to have done in times of old. And a direct conversation could help too, y'know without all the books and middlemen prophets claiming to speak for him. If God wanted us to see him, he could do a much better job of it and I'm sure he could reach most folks who are now atheists.

Sure, some really staunch skeptics would distrust their senses, proclaim they were hallucinating or whatever, but at a certain point they'd start being the ones who need faith rather than the believers.

 

[Ali_008]

Okay I'm just adding my 10 cents here.

"The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book.'' Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.''

Now I want to focus on the last bit, 'They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.'

What this suggests is that the Earth is now a fully created structure - it already had an atmosphere, as suggested by the reference to 'air', and that the Heavens is clearly referencing the seven heavens the lowest one of which is adorned with stars. What this is saying is that the fully-formed Earth was attached to the lowest Heaven, and that it was split from that lowest Heaven. At the same time the Heaven was raised up by God.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa!!!!!!!! Hold up Brother, if you don't know these are the people who, I think, existed over a millennium ago. These people had their knowledge totally based on the Qur'an and hardly any scientific or cosmological or astronomical data yet with that limited knowledge they have tried to prove the creation of the Earth as best as they could and Alhamdulilllah they succeeded in doing so. Firstly, its neither the words of the Qur'an or the Prophet :saws: which you find to be doubtful. If your objection were based on those two things then I'm sure it would've attracted a lot more attention and fascination from everyone. Anyway, the pious predecessors are respected by all believers because of their worship and understanding of the deen and inshAllah I'll try and prove that even they were correct as far as their understanding is concerned.

The paragraphs that you've quoted, none of them says that it was this "current" sophisticated earth that separated from the heavens. In fact, one of the scholars did mention that after the separation it was because of rain that vegetation grew on earth and that's an absolute scientific fact. Well, I can see that you're focusing on "the air" part. The universe has been expanding from billions of years and according to Science's laws itself, it takes force/pressure for a thing to move. The Universe is expanding like an inflating balloon. And this force that's pushing everything away is a result of what we call the "Big Bang" so you see the movements are not on their own, there is a force that's expanding the universe like how air fills in a balloon. That force is still alive and still pushing the celestial bodies away from each other.

So people living over a thousand years ago being aware of anything called vacuum or the forces caused by the Big Bang is unthinkable. You yourself are being able to question these statements with such facts to back you up because today you're familiar with what science has reached. The use of the word "air" is perfectly sensible. They used it to express the duress which is expanding the universe. It was their understanding that the reason behind the stretching universe was air.

The way you came up with these remonstrances, I assume that you think that the pious predecessors and the scholars have knowledge of the unseen, which is not true. What they have is a better understanding of the religion and hence their judgments and notions are the building blocks of the Shari'ah. Subhanallah, I wasn't even aware of what these scholars had said about this verse and its totally astounding to know that without the scientific proofs and only the knowledge of the Qur'an, they were able to attain such a beautiful and simple comprehension of the Big Bang which was discovered centuries after their departure. May Allah be pleased with all of them.

Now this is totally and utterly in contraction to the Big Bang theory and the general structure of the universe. To talk about the Heavens being 'raised' is at best talking about the ongoing expansion of the universe, but this belies that space is a vacuum and the only way we sensibly can talk about things being 'attached' is through gravitational forces. Also, to talk about 'air' and 'vegetation' in the same breath as this verse, suggests that Earth was fully formed, although this did not happen until 4.5 billion years ago, whereas the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred over 13 billion years ago! That is a discrepancy of more than 8 billion years!

It still is.

And what is this business about the heavens being raised up? Raised up? And why is the "heavens" being given equally billing to the "earth"? The earth is a tiny tiny fragment of the universe. And why is there zero detail about the big bang itself?

If you squint just right this may be consistent with the big bang, but it definitely isn't very descriptive. You'd never come up with the big bang theory by reading it if you didn't already have the theory, hence why it took scientists centuries later, with no reference to the Quran, to come up with it. So what's the point of the writing? If Allah is this indescriptive about other things in the Quran one has to be doubly critical of its claims.

About this the heavens being raised up, I can't actually give a real response to this because of the Arabic language. One word has multiple meanings and so I can't say much about it. But still even if we take the meaning of the heavens being raised. Well, initially the earth and heavens were one body and as we all know the earth is a sphere. This part of heavens being raised up also support the Big Bang. As the earth is a sphere, the heavens departed from it from every side, from every inch of earth they were raised up. In this way, the raising up of the heavens is also applicable.

May Allah be pleased with All the Pious Predecessors, May Allah accept this deed of mine and clean it of any corruption associated with it and may Allah guide all of us.

Wallahu Alim
And Allah knows best

 

[Ali_008]

Yes, granted its not a perfect vacuum, but for the purposes of this discussion it is enough of a vacuum to make the idea of the Earth being attached to anything called the 'Heavens' in a literal sense inconceivable to the serious mind, especially when one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Qur'an insinuates this Earth is fully formed! I feel that your lack in commenting on that clearly demonstrates your lack of faith in the early scholars and pious predecessors, who were supposed to be the most wise and skilled in exegesis were they not?

Show me where any of them said that the earth was fully formed when the division happened.

 

[Eliphaz]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa!!!!!!!! Hold up Brother, if you don't know these are the people who, I think, existed over a millennium ago. These people had their knowledge totally based on the Qur'an

I know who the pious predecessors are. And by your reasoning, someone should be able to look at the ayah in any circumstances and come up with the big bang or at least something on the right tracks, right? So why is what they have derived in such flagrant contradiction with the big bang? Why is it that recent scientific evidence has changed the apparent definition of this verse to fit said evidence?

yet with that limited knowledge they have tried to prove the creation of the Earth as best as they could and Alhamdulilllah they succeeded in doing so.

Uh, no they didn't.

Firstly, its neither the words of the Qur'an or the Prophet :saws: which you find to be doubtful. If your objection were based on those two things then I'm sure it would've attracted a lot more attention and fascination from everyone.

Ibn Abbas lived during the time of the Prophet, and he was a dedicated follower of the Prophet's teachings. What you seem to be saying is that as it wasn't the Prophet who said these things, then it is somehow okay for them to be a bit shaky, even though this man learned directly from the Prophet?

Anyway, the pious predecessors are respected by all believers because of their worship and understanding of the deen and inshAllah I'll try and prove that even they were correct as far as their understanding is concerned.

Considering their narrations form a large portion of Qur'anic exegesis I think that might be a good idea.

The paragraphs that you've quoted, none of them says that it was this "current" sophisticated earth that separated from the heavens. In fact, one of the scholars did mention that after the separation it was because of rain that vegetation grew on earth and that's an absolute scientific fact. Well, I can see that you're focusing on "the air" part. The universe has been expanding from billions of years and according to Science's laws itself, it takes force/pressure for a thing to move. The Universe is expanding like an inflating balloon. And this force that's pushing everything away is a result of what we call the "Big Bang" so you see the movements are not on their own, there is a force that's expanding the universe like how air fills in a balloon. That force is still alive and still pushing the celestial bodies away from each other.

And I never claimed it was the 'current sophisticated earth' (whatever that is supposed to mean). Wow, they managed to figure out that because of rain vegetation grew on earth? Well I have to concede that is a scientific fact, although I'd have to say that this 'miracle' was worked out quite a bit earlier than the 7th century (try the Neolithic Revolution in 10,000 BC).

So people living over a thousand years ago being aware of anything called vacuum or the forces caused by the Big Bang is unthinkable. You yourself are being able to question these statements with such facts to back you up because today you're familiar with what science has reached.

But do you not think these things could have been explained in terminology better suited to the time, instead of vague words which the Arabs interpreted as something totally different to what science has shown?

The use of the word "air" is perfectly sensible. They used it to express the duress which is expanding the universe. It was their understanding that the reason behind the stretching universe was air.

If you say so.

The way you came up with these remonstrances, I assume that you think that the pious predecessors and the scholars have knowledge of the unseen, which is not true. What they have is a better understanding of the religion and hence their judgments and notions are the building blocks of the Shari'ah. Subhanallah, I wasn't even aware of what these scholars had said about this verse and its totally astounding to know that without the scientific proofs and only the knowledge of the Qur'an, they were able to attain such a beautiful and simple comprehension of the Big Bang which was discovered centuries after their departure.

Sorry but I think you have not read the quotation properly and you also seem to be contradicting yourself. At one minute you seem to be saying 'Well, they were born 1400 years ago, they can't be expected to understand the Big Bang', then the next you are saying 'It's totally astounding to know that they were able to attain such a beautiful comprehension of the Big Bang!'

Show me where any of them said that the earth was fully formed when the division happened.

Okay. Earth formed approx. 4.5 billion years ago. Photosynthesis started approx. 3 billion years ago (start of atmospheric oxygen). 'Vegetation' started approx. 475 million years ago. What the salaf are saying 'they were joined together then they were separated by this air' implies, at least if we want to look at it in the simplest way, that the Earth's atmosphere became an immediate buffer between the Earth and space. Otherwise to talk about the Heavens being 'raised up from every inch' is nonsense, because there needs to be (1) a fully-formed spherical earth and (2) an intervening layer (atmosphere) to create that separation. So what they are saying is that when the Heaven and Earth were separated or cloved asunder, there was not only a fully formed Earth, but also immediately an atmosphere present. By implying this, you can in no way, shape or form be discussing the Big Bang.

 

[Ali_008]

^^ It utterly surprising to see that you are denying my claims and seem to be the most-learned student of these scholars because of the conviction with which you're doing this. Well, like I said before its neither a verse nor a Hadeeth that you have that needs to be explained to you. Its just the understanding of some scholars of some parts of the Qur'an. Islam is such a vast religion, it has had thousands of them. Islam is not made up of what the pious predecessors or the scholars have said, it stands solely on the Qur'an and the Authentic Ahadeeth of the Prophet :saws:. You're shoving their beliefs as if they have the entire knowledge of the Qur'an. Brother, nobody in the world can claim that he/she has the total knowledge of the Qur'an. No scholar has ever claimed that and so picking out one's statements and believing that Islam is what that one scholar says isn't fair. Anyway, I tried explaining of what might have made them say that.

you also seem to be contradicting yourself. At one minute you seem to be saying 'Well, they were born 1400 years ago, they can't be expected to understand the Big Bang', then the next you are saying 'It's totally astounding to know that they were able to attain such a beautiful comprehension of the Big Bang!'

I'm sorry but I seem to have confused you. My statements are not contradicting Bro, I'm just saying that the scientific explanation that you're demanding from these predecessors is not possible. They wouldn't even be aware of what's the Big Bang and all the reactions and explosion and the aftermath. Though they didn't have access to any Science textbook yet they had some knowledge of what happened billions of years ago that led to earth's creation. They had their own simple theory (no the Big Bang) about how the Universe was born and this theory came into picture only from the knowledge they could grasp from the Qur'an. Their theory was not any different from Big Bang, let alone contradictory. They are saying the same thing

Earth and heavens were joined together then because of some pressure they separated. After that, it rained and vegetation sprouted out. Creation started.

What's the contradiction? Do you expect them to tell you that there was a minute mass which had some nuclear fission/fusion reactions going on in it and this mass was scorching hot then this mass started to expand because of the energy/pressure created as a result of the reactions and the Universe started to expand??????

 

[Eliphaz]

^^ It utterly surprising to see that you are denying my claims and seem to be the most-learned student of these scholars because of the conviction with which you're doing this.

If checking the most highly regarded and easily available tafsir (ibn kathir) on verse supposedly describing the very creation of our universe makes me the the most learned student then I am quite surprised.

Well, like I said before its neither a verse nor a Hadeeth that you have that needs to be explained to you. Its just the understanding of some scholars of some parts of the Qur'an. Islam is such a vast religion, it has had thousands of them. Islam is not made up of what the pious predecessors or the scholars have said, it stands solely on the Qur'an and the Authentic Ahadeeth of the Prophet :saws:. You're shoving their beliefs as if they have the entire knowledge of the Qur'an. Brother, nobody in the world can claim that he/she has the total knowledge of the Qur'an. No scholar has ever claimed that and so picking out one's statements and believing that Islam is what that one scholar says isn't fair. Anyway, I tried explaining of what might have made them say that.

As I've said, Ibn Abbas was obviously relating something taught to him by the Prophet. Or are you saying that one of the most beloved companions of the Prophet was a liar? Or that he was talking out of his own imagination? To not have knowledge of a verse is one thing, but to claim that you do is another.

I'm sorry but I seem to have confused you. My statements are not contradicting Bro, I'm just saying that the scientific explanation that you're demanding from these predecessors is not possible. They wouldn't even be aware of what's the Big Bang and all the reactions and explosion and the aftermath. Though they didn't have access to any Science textbook yet they had some knowledge of what happened billions of years ago that led to earth's creation. They had their own simple theory (no the Big Bang) about how the Universe was born and this theory came into picture only from the knowledge they could grasp from the Qur'an. Their theory was not any different from Big Bang, let alone contradictory. They are saying the same thing

No they are not saying the same thing. As I have tried to show you numerous times, they are talking about a fully-formed Earth which did not happen until many billions of years after the Big Bang, they are talking about photosynthesis taking place and they are talking about the Heavens ( space being the lowest level) having already been formed. You might as well say Adam landed on Earth at the same precise moment!

 

[Ali_008]

Show me where any of them said that the earth was fully formed when the division happened.

x2. Snap. Ditto

 

[Eliphaz]

Show me where any of them said that the earth was fully formed when the division happened.

x2. Snap. Ditto

[They] are talking about photosynthesis taking place (i.e. atmospheric oxygen immediately after the separation of Heaven and Earth) and they are talking about the Heavens (space being the lowest level (a conundrum for a whole other thread I think)) having already been formed.

................