Let me tell you a story. This is a story about how God was born. Everything has a beginning - yes, even God. So gather around, boys and girls, and listen closely.
Once upon a time there was a universe. This universe was a wonderous place. It consisted of many things. It had many galaxies, many solar systems, many stars and planets. One of these galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy, had in it a solar system, located in the section known as the Orion Spur. In this solar system was a star we call the Sun, and many planets, one of them known as Earth.
On Earth there were people. There were men and women and boys and girls and all sorts of animals and they all lived together, sometimes in harmony and sometimes not.
Now you must realize, these people were the result of tremendous evolution. These people were, in fact, the result of billions of years of evolution. You cannot imagine that sort of time, so don't even try. It is beyond comprehension. These people, at any rate, were extraordinarily powerful. Through tremendous intellect, they were able to come to entirely rule the Earth, despite being physically weaker than many of the other animals.
These people were also different than the animals they lived with in another important way - they had self-awareness. They were sentient. In other words, they had a soul. And a soul, boys and girls, is a very, very important thing.
These people were wise, and they knew many things, and among the things they know is that everything has a beginning, that nothing comes from nothing. They looked around their world and they saw how incredible and perfect it was; they looked within themselves and they saw their souls and knew that their souls came from something, their souls were forever, their souls were not of this world.
They thought and they thought and they came up with an idea: God.
And as they believed it, as billions believed it, as generation after generation believed it, as through life and death they believed it, as their souls believed it - God was born. For those people had tremendous power - with their belief, with their faith, with their souls, they could create such a thing as a God.
So God was born. And God was wiser than those people - infinitely wiser. Wiser, and capable of many things they were not. Capable of doing anything he chose to do. Capable of knowing everything. Capable of controlling past and future.
And so God did something that was very simple to him, though how he did it is incomprehensible to us. He went back. Back before his birth, for time means nothing to a god. Back before there were people. Back before the planet called Earth and its Milky Way galaxy. Back before the universe. Back before time.
And then, God looked around, looked ahead, and knew what must be done.
And God said, "Let there be light!"
And there was light.
If you liked this post, please rate it and check out the rest of my blog!
First you say...
And then you procede to imagine and assign the very "attributes" which you say that "no mind can grasp."
This is either hypocrisy, or just poor reasoning...sometimes it is hard to tell which when dealing with religious folks.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
your quote "your creator has been genderized"
my quote, Creator is NOT subject to genderization,
there is difference of NOT in the middle.
Best wishes
He made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the general relativity.
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm
Your sincere well wisher
Quoted from http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
"In their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left in a well-furnished, well-built house with fine carpets, luscious articles of food and drink, various kinds of clothing and other necessities of essential use, all adequately supplied in proper quantity and placed with perfect decorum and ingenious design. In their blindness they fail to see the building and its furnishing. They move about from one room to ,another, advancing and retreating. If by chance, any one of them finds anything in its place to supply a need, and not knowing the purpose for which it is set there and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, he might begin to reprimand the architect of the building in his offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with his own inability to see."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Nice blog Kiota!
I have started to enjoy my little homework.
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Some years ago, I use to imagine God to be like some kind of a superman etc, I use to form a mental picture of him in my mind and after reading some books found out that actually what I have in my mind was not the real God, rather it was the product of my imagination. He created me and I in return, also created him in my mind, so there were 2 gods and then I thought, if billions of people on this planet do the same, then there would be billions of gods everywhere and the number will still keep on increasing because of the future generation and everybody will be god in this planet, but Glory be to the real God for his guidance, after some research found out my folly.
" Remember that His Being is so far beyond range, and grasp of human knowledge, experience, reason, and visualisation that imagination cannot conceive Him and profound thinking cannot understand Him; however deep human mind may try to probe the secrets of God-head it cannot apprehend them and however keen and sincere may be the desire of human heart to grasp realities of His Attributes it cannot envisage them, He has so ordained that every attempt and endeavour to understand the Divine Nature has failed and will always fail. And man is force to realise that the Being of God and His Might, Glory and Power cannot be understood by him with the limited mental capacity that nature has granted him and with equally limited knowledge at his disposal."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Based on what you have written in your comments, it sounds to me like that's still what you're doing.
I would suggest that all you have really done is replaced your imagined "god" with the imagined "god" of someone else.
Before worrying about two "gods" (much less "billions"), you might first want to consider that there isn't any actual, objective evidence that even ONE "god" exists.
If this was true, then how did the humans who wrote the books that you read figure out what to put in them?
TTFN,
Blackout
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
PLEASE use the reply link at the bottom of a comment to respond to it. You have so many threads going on in this discussion it's difficult to tell which of your above comments is in response to which person.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
:)) Well done!
Ha... Ha.... So I am an Indian by birth, English is not my mother-tung, I live in Sweden, I speak SWEDISH and neither am I, an english grammar teacher, so if I spell "HAVE instead of HAD" its a BIG NEWS, it means GOD DOES NOT EXIST uuuuum!
My suggestion, ponder on the substance and not on the grammar.
Good try though!
"began quibbling inimically with Truth"
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...since it was in fact the substance of your argument that I was criticizing. I had already guessed that you were not a native English speaker, and it would just be petty to hold your your poor grammar against you. The contradiction in your argument, however, comes from your repeated assertion that the attributes of "god" cannot be "fixed, limited or defined," but in comment after comment, you have insisted that YOU are able to do exactly that. If these attributes cannot be " fixed, limited or defined," well...that limitation includes you, too, my friend. It is inherently contradictory to say that it is impossible to define something in one sentence, and then procede to give your definition in the next. If you don't see the contradiction in that, then it isn't your grammar, but your ability to reason that I must question.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"He said, "O Mufaddal! The waverers failed to grasp the mysteries and causes underlying the genesis of the creatures, and their intellects remain unaware of the faultless ingenuity subsisting underneath the creation of the varied species of the sea and the land, the level and the rough."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...that before one can reasonably claim that others are "quibbling" with your "Truth," one must be able to prove that one's "Truth" is actually true. And that my well wishing friend, requires evidence...something which I must add your position lacks in spades.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"This analogy holds good in the case of the sect who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Well, your arguments continue to rely on baseless assertions. Unless you have actual, objective evidence that there really is such as thing as "divine design" (which would of course require you to objectively establish the premise that your "god" actually exists), then your favorite sermon-source is nothing more than a very poetic expression of idiocy. I would suggest that if you find the "wide world" to be too bewildering for your brain to grasp, then perhaps you need to work a little harder in school. It might also help if you spent less time studying the writings of those who lacked to intelligence and imagination to grasp the nature of the world around them, and a little more time studying the writings of those who do not suffer from such deficiencies.
TTFN,
Blackout
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." ~ Mark Twain
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"your favorite sermon-source is nothing more than a very poetic expression of IDIOCY."
"writings of those who lacked to intelligence"
Thanks for your enlightening comments above.
"If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.
Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is unaware who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what they say."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
The problem with your response, is that like everything else that you have posted in this discussion, it relies upon demonstrative statements that are utterly lacking in terms of evidenciary support. Can you provide objective evidence that your hypothesis concerning the existence of a divine creator is actually true? (If you could, you would be the first and well on your way to a Nobel Prize.) The truth is that this is nothing but more of the same Snake Oil that religious charlatans have been peddling to the ignorant masses since at least the beginning of recorded human history. It is intellectually vacuous CRAP that would be rather humorous if the kind of ignorance that these ideas perpetuate didn't have such a brutal and bloody history behind them.
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste." ~ Mark Twain
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
His being and His attributes are same.
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
First you say...
And then you say...
These statements inherently contradict one another.
Shaking my head sadly,
Blackout
"Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"His being and His attributes are same."
In The koran there are 99 atrributes of God (Rahman, Raheem, Karim....), plus His name Allah (God).
Ask any muslim, how many gods do you believe in?, and all of them will answer you 1 (one)
Then ask them again, but the koran says, He has 99 attributes (asma e husna) + His name Allah, so 99 + 1 = 100.
So you muslims believe in 100 gods, and all of them will answer, no, we believe in one God (Allah), why? because
His being and His attributes are same.
No contradiction.
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
If this is true, "His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined", then how can the Koran list attributes of him?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"then how can the Koran list attributes of him?"
The koran does not say He has ONLY 99 attributes. (cannot be fixed)
The Koran lists 99 attributes of Him.
There is difference of ONLY in the middle.
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
By saying god has these 99 attributes, the Koran, while not limiting god to those attributes is limiting god by saying that he can't not have those attributes.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
http://al-shia.com/html/eng/books/beliefs/attributesofgod/attributesofgo...
ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now time has come to explain in short what is our belief concerning God.. It should be apparent by now that there are many attributes which are a MUST for God, while there are others which are beneath His dignity and cannot be found in Him. Therefore, in our faith, the attributes of Allah have been grouped as 'positive' and 'negative'.
Sifate Thubutiyyah
The positive attributes which are benefitting Allah are Sifate Thubutiyyah. They are many in number, but only eight of them are usually mentioned. They are:
1. QADEEM :It means that Allah is Eternal, i.e., He has neither beginning nor end. Nothing except Allah is eternal.
2.QAADIR:It means that Allah is Omnipotent, i.e., He has power over every thing and every affair.
3. AALIM: It means that Allah is Omniscient, i.e., He knows every thing. Even our unspoken intentions and desires are not hidden from Him.
4.HAI :It means that Allah was always alive and will remain alive for ever.
5.MUREED :It means that Allah has His own will and discretion in all affairs. He does not do anything under compulsion.
6. MUDRIK :It means that He is All-Perceiving, as 'Samii' (All-Hearing), 'Basser' (All-Seeing). Allah sees and hears every thing without any need of eyes or ears.
7. MUTAKALLIM :It means that Allah is the master of the word, i.e., He can create speech in anything, as He did in a tree for Hadhrat Musa (A. S) and in the "Curtain of Light" for our Holy Prophet (S.A.W.)
8. SADIQ :It means that Allah is true in his words and promises. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX ANY LIMIT TO HIS ATTTIBUTES. This list is not exhaustive but is essential to understand the Glory of Allah. These attributes are not acquired but are inherent in the conception of Divinity.
Sifate Salbiyyah
The negative attributes which cannot be found in Allah because they are below His dignity are called "Sifate Salbiyyah." They are many, but like "Sifate Thubutiya" only eight are listed here. They are:
1. SHAREEK :The word "Shareek" means a colleague or partner. Allah has neither a colleague nor a partner in His Divinity.
2. MURAKKAB :This word means "Compound" or "Mixed". Allah is neither made, nor composed, of any material. He cannot be divided even in imagination.
3. MAKKAN :It means "Place". Allah is not in a place because He has no body, and He is everywhere because His power and knowledge is magnificently apparent everywhere.
4. HULOOL :It Means "Entering". Nothing enters into Allah nor does He enter into anything or anybody. Therefore, the belief of Incarnation in any form is abhorrent to the conception of Divinity.
5. MAHALLE HAWADIS : This means "Subject to changes". Allah cannot change.
6. MAR-I : It means "Visible". Allah is not visible. He has not been seen, is not seen and will never be seen.
7. IHTIYAJ : It means "Dependence" or "Need". Allah is not deficient in any virtue, so he does not need anything. He is All-Perfect.
8. SIFATE ZAlD : This means "Added Qualifications." The attribtates of Allah are not separate from His Being. when we say that God is Omnipotent and Mercifil, we do not mean that His Power and Mercy are something different from His Person. We see that a child is born without any power; and then he acquires strength day by day. It is so because power is not his person. God is not like this. He is Power Himself; Mercy Himself; Knowledge Himself; Justice Himself; Virtue Himself; Truth Himself; and so on.
It will thus be seen that according to Islam ALLAH is the name of God as preceived in the light of the above Positive and Negative Attributes. In other words, ALLAH is the Creator of the Universe, Self-Existent, the source of all perfection and free from all defects.
NAMES OF ALLAH
The proper name which Islam uses for God is "ALLAH". "ALLAH" means "One 'Who deserves to be loved" and "Into Whom everyone seeks refuge." This word, grammatically speaking, is unique. It has no plural and no feminine. So this name itself reflects light upon the fact that Allah is one and only one; He has neither any partner nor any equal. The name cannot properly be translated by the word "God" because God can be transformed in 'gods' and goddess".
Two more frequently used names are Rahman and Rahim. Rahman signifies that Allah is Merciful and that His Mercy encompasses each and everything in the universe without any distinction on account of faith or belief He makes, creates and sustains everything and every man whether he be a Muslim or Kafir.
Rahim signifies that the Mercy of Allah on the Day of Judgement will surround the true believers only, and that unbelievers and hypocrites will be left out.
It is apparent that both of these names signify a distinct aspect of God's Mercy. His Mercy in this world, as signified by 'Rahman' is general; and the one in the life-hereafter, as signified by 'Rahim' is special. It will be of interest to note that the word 'Rahman' cannot be used except for Allah, while 'Rahim' can be used for others also.
That is why it has been told by Imam that 'Rahman is a reserved name which denotes unreserved Mercy, and Rahim is an unreserved name which denotes Reserved Mercy."
ATRIBUTES OF PERSON AND ACTION
Question: One of the names of Allah is 'Khaliq' i.e Creator As Allah was Creator from ever, does it not follow that the 'created things, i.e., the universe is from ever?
Answer: Allah was not creating from ever. If you study carefully you will find that the attributes of God, as mentioned in the above chapter, may easily be divided into two groups:
First, there are those attributes which can never be separated from the conception of divinity. For example we say that God is Qaadir (Omnipotent) Aalim (Omniscient) and Hai (Everliving). These are such attributes which can never be separated from the conception of God, because there never was a time when God was not Omnipotent, Omniscient or Living. He was Qaadir, Aalim and Hai for ever, and will remain Qaadir, Aalim and Hai for ever. Such attributes refer to the person of Allah, and are, therefore, called 'Sifaat-e-Dhat' (Attributes of person of Allah).
Second, there are the attributes which describe the actions of Allah. For example, we say that Allah is 'Khaaliq' (Creator), 'Raaziq' (Sustainer) etc. These are the Attributes which describe the actions of Allah, and are, therefore, called 'Sifaat-el Afaal' (Attributes of Actions of Allah).
These actions were not from ever, and therefore these attributes were not used for Allah, from ever. You know that Allah is 'Mureed'. He acts according to His own plan and His own Will. He is not like fire which burns without any intention or will of its own. Nor is He like the sun which goes on giving light and warmth without intention and will of its own. Allah works according to His own plan. He created when He wished, and not before that.
It does not mean that God had no power to create. The power to create was there for ever; because the 'Power' is not separate from His person. But the appearance of that power, and bringing it into effect, was not from ever. In short, Allah had power to create from ever, but He did not create from ever, And when He created, He was called Khaaliq; but not before that.
Likewise, when he sustained, He was called 'Raaziq'; when He forgave, He was called 'Ghaffaar'; when He avenged, He was called 'Qahhaar'; when He gave life, He was called 'Muhyi', when He gave death, He was called 'Mumeet'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
God: An Islamic Perspective
By: Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi http://al-
shia.com/html/eng/books/beliefs/attributesofgod/attributesofgod.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
You are of course, completely avoiding the question (which is a typical tactic used to justify thesitic irrationalities). If you assert (and you have) that...
...then it is not logically possible for your to consitently assert that...
These two propositons inherently contradict one another. Simply ignoring the contradiction is a sign willful ignorance.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. PLEASE USE THE REPLY BUTTON!
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"God is Qaadir (Omnipotent) Aalim (Omniscient) and Hai (Everliving). These are such attributes which can never be separated from the conception of God, because there never was a time when God was not Omnipotent, Omniscient or Living."
Considering the statement you made above, how would Allah differ from the entire truth? Or would he?
"That which is beyond all names and forms is always bright. That is True God."
The Quran :
"The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited." Chapter 7 Verse180
"Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted, though We were to bring the like of that (sea) to add" 18:109
The verse above says beautiful names, it's in plural. which means 1000........? names.
"ENTIRE TRUTH" is also a beautiful name. So We can call him with this name, for Ex ..."O" Entire truth, forgive us our sins" ..."O" Lord, forgive us please" ..."O" kind, forgive us please" - In other words call Him by whatever name (Jehovah, Allah, God, Merciful, Bhagwan .....etc) you like, as long as the word is not contaminated, ( does not conjure up a mental picture) for Ex, if We say Muhammad is God, We conjure up a mental picture of an arab, who lived in mecka 1356 years ago ..... or something like that, therefore Muhammad is not God, why? because we conjure up something in the mind.
similarly any words like Jesus ( a jew, Bethlehem, ... AD), Budha......etc or any creation are not to be used for God.
well wisher
...but if this statement is true...
...then how did you come up with the "names" (which would constitute and attribute, surely) of your "god?"
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"The koran does not say He has ONLY 99 attributes."
I have a great many more than 99 attributes myself, and fall far short of the glory of God.
“I Am Who I Am”
"...Some people believe that all this is the outcome of the function of nature. ?
He (as)said: "Just ask them whether the nature which functions in such a well-planned and well-ordered fashion possesses knowledge and power or is it devoid of also of intelligence and reason, without power and without knowledge?
If they admit that it possesses knowledge and power, then what obstructs them from a belief in the Creator? What we say 's that all things are created by One Who is Master of Knowledge and Power. They say that there is no Creator and yet admit that nature had done this with ingenuity and plan. As such nature is the cause of their creation, while they deny the Creator.
If they say that nature produces such things without knowledge and power - not knowing what it is doing nor the power to do it - in connection with the type and having design and ingenuity that subsists in all phenomena, it is inconceivable that something may be performed without the corresponding power to do it and without a knowledge thereof. As such it is obvious that the action emanates from an Omniscient Creator, Who has laid down as only a method among His creation through his Omniscience, which these people call nature. In other words, God has ordained a method to produce everything according to its definite cause and principle."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Since you seem incapable of responding directly...
...to the challenges presented to you, I shall do likewise and respond to your quote with a few of my own...
"We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There’s not much personal about the laws of physics." ~ Stephen Hawking
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." ~ Albert Einstein
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. PLEASE USE THE REPLY BUTTON!
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I write to you an account of the arguments I had with an ATHEIST. He visited me frequently, always discussing his “NO GOD” theory and placing forth all his arguments in support of it. Once while pounding halila (Myrobalan fruit), a new idea came to him. “THIS UNIVERSE”, said he suddenly, has existed for ETERNITY before, and will still exist for ETERNITY."
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...might find a better answer to his questions if he turned to an atheist who was also a scientist (or at least someone moderately well informed about the relevant Theories).
"Eternity" is an ambiguous, and essentially meaningless term. Since the passage of time is relative, the age of the Universe is somewhat based on one's perspective, but in terms of cosmological time (as observed from our perspective as human beings living on earth), we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old (give or take about 120 million years). That's a very long time, but it isn't "eternity," and the evidence would suggest that there is in fact likely to be a limit to how long the universe will "last." The most prominent Theories suggest that the universe will undergo a "big crunch" (the opposite of the "big bang") in about 50-55 billion years from now.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. PLEASE USE THE REPLY BUTTON!
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
With due respect, my friend, what are your comments on the following.....
Can we realize, if God does Exist through the medium of the five senses ?
A thoughtful discussion between an atheist and a believer .
Atheist : “The existence of various things of the Universe whether real or not could only be determined through the medium of the five senses. Eyes with which we see, ears by which we hear, nose by which we smell and hands and feet with which we touch and feel". Continuing the chain of his (atheist) arguments to the extent of his self-made principles, he (atheist) said, “Now I have never known God through any of the above mentioned senses, and cannot therefore believe in Him.
Believer : “Because”, I (believer) replied, “things are 'murakkab' (compound, made of parts). Every murakkab possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay. For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses you mention; for, He is not a thing-which is murakkab or created. ……………If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being murakkab and created, and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator".
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
well wisher
That depends. If this "god" character that you attempt to invent through your argument is real, then yes, the five senses should be sufficient to determine the existence, or lack thereof, of that being.
Shapes and colors are real. They can be objectively measured and directly experienced. Your concept of "god" cannot.
Once again, you are contradicting your own previous argument that...
You have been presented with this frankly rather obvious contradition in your argument, and still have not responded to resolve that contradition. If "no mind can grasp" the attributes that you assign to your "god," then you may not rationally arrive at the conclusion that your "God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses."
Like ALL theists, your arguments rely on a very basic logical fallacy known as begging the question. Your presentation is speculative, but other wise baseless and extremely circular. This reliance on reasoning that is flawed on such an elementary level lends credence, in my opinion, to Einstein's comment which refers to such beliefs as "prmitive" and "childish." With all due respect, your arguments are not intellectually sound, and your source, poetic though he my be, is not a skillful thinker.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. Oh, and thank your for FINALLY using the reply button.
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I see. Very insightful.
please observe, it would help if you comment on the content of the blog itself and not on the blogger.
Extracts from the book.
"If you are inclined to persist in your obstinacy, do so; but at least assure me as to when this halila ( fruit ) created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards? If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created. The purpose of your assertion would be that the halila made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most absurd and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired (tahsil-e-hasil). If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really silly. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence. How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing? You consider my belief in an existing thing that creates another non-existing thing as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing, as absurd and silly. Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational".
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...instead of just quoting the same questionable source, over and over again.
It would also help if you actually responded to the questions and challenges put before you, rather than just quoting irrelevant passages from the same questionable authority. I also must point out that since you have predicated your comments on an appeal to authority (which is itself a logical fallacy in cases where the authority is not mutually recognized), then both the credibility and the competence of that authority is gemaine to the discussion. In this case, your authority has demonstrated a propensity in his reliance on faulty logic, which makes me wonder why you continue to reference him.
The only "obstinacy" I see here is in your refusal to acknowledge and respond to the obvious logical fallacies in the arguments you have offered.
Wow...there are so many fallacies in this statment, that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, the entire argument is circular, and continues to beg the question of your "god's" existence. The fact remains that your beliefs are predicated upon one great assumption, and in fact an assumption that clearly contradicts itself by claiming to know the attributes of an alleged being which you have also asserted cannot be known. This is a point that you have continued to ignore and avoid, which brings not only the reasoning behind your argument into question, but also leads me to question the intellectual honesty of your position.
Even if we were to ignore the several logical fallacies that bound up in the assertion that because the origin of a thing is not precisely know, that origin must be "god," your arugment in case is based upon an assumption that scientifice has proved to be false. In fact, science has theorized the existence of virtual particles for almost a century. Virtual particles literally appear "from nowhere," exist in space-time for a brief period, and then "wink" back out of existence. Their existence was first proved through experimentation in the 1940's. Thus, it cannot be rationally supported that it is impossible for something to be created from nothing. There are a number of related scientific concepts (such as the curved nature of space-time, the different but often confused concepts of boundlessness and infinity, and the fact that the rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to existence "outside" of space-time) of which your source would seem to be equally ignorant, and that would tend to challenge and dismiss the relevance of your comments.
TTFN,
Blackout
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." ~ Isaac Asimov
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Tell me my friend whose theory is absurd and irrational, A or B ?
A. Non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing.
OR
B. An existing thing that creates another non-existing thing.
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...is that the theory which conforms to the evidence makes sense, and the one that does not is absurd. In this case, your beliefs do not conform to the evidence, and mine do. I must also note that (once again) your response is demonstrative of more than one logical fallacy. In this case, the two options you present are a false dichotomy that is based on a premise that begs the question that objects must be "created" in order to exist. The fact is that we have clear scientific evidence that yes, objects can appear within space-time without having been "created" (such as the example virtual particles, to which I referred you, above). Thus, there is actual, objective evidence that challenges the circular premise of your argument.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"Well, wait - if the existing thing already exists, where'd *it* come from?
It's turtles all the way down?"
Let us apply this to both of them. - A. = God. B = Universe.
A. God....answer is - His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence, and He is NOT dependent upon time, matter and space.
B Universe.....answer is - Its Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence, and It is dependent upon time, matter and space.
So what's the difference ? Well, "NOT" in the middle is the difference.
A. God is NOT dependent upon time, matter and space.
Whereas
B Universe is dependent upon time, matter and space.
NO turtles all the way down!
well wisher
As a self contained statement, what you say makes sense, however, it does not work for one reason. There is no evidence, none, not a tiny shred, that gives me any reason to a) believe that god exists, or b) attribute to said deity, an independence from space, time and origin.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...though I will still add my two bits...
This assertion, of course, is STILL completely contrary to your previous statement that...
Your refusal to face this (if you'll pardon the pun) rather fundamental error in your argument speaks volumes.
The problem with your argument is that the evidence suggests that our iteration of space-time (and the matter in it) did not just come "into Being from non-existence." That evidence suggests that it is far more likely that our universe and everything in it is just recycled matter and energy in an ever expanding and contracting system that is from time to time (insofar as such terms have meaning outside of our space-time) excited by the collisions and friction between various spacial dimensions (i.e. branes).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"This assertion, of course, is STILL completely contrary to your previous statement that... No imagination can fathom the reality of His attributes and no mind can grasp the mode of His entity."
You probably missed out point nr 14, which states- He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being YET He has not prevented them from REALISING His Presence.
This is no imagination, grasp of human knowledge, experience, reason, and visualisation that imagination cannot conceive Him ..."And then you procede to imagine and assign the very "attributes" which you say that "no mind can grasp."This is either hypocrisy, or just poor reasoning...sometimes it is hard to tell which when dealing with religious folks," and profound thinking cannot understand Him ...bla bla bla......
This is REALISING! my friend ........YET He has not prevented them from REALISING His Presence. (nr 14)
NO CONTRARY, NO CONTRADICTION AND NO CONFUSION!
"It is not all about word games and misuse of the english language."
Simply REALISING His Presence. (nr 14)
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Sa Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Just screaming "NO CONTRARY, NO CONTRADICTION AND NO CONFUSION!" over and over again doesn't make it so. The fact remains that you have failed to resolve the obvious self-contradiction of your argument in any rational fashion, and your most recent response strikes me as frankly desperate.
LOL...dude, you take the cake..really. Even if we ignore the illogical premise (you're still begging the question of "his" existence, after all), if "'He' has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being YET," then your attempts to define "his" attributes are STILL contradictory. At their absolute best (and I am being very generous, here) you arguments would be premature. More likely, however, is that they are just an utter invention, or to be more plain pure bullshit.
Ahem...if you haven't been "permitted" to "grasp the Essence of His Being YET," then what are you "REALISING?" How is it that YOU (and I use the term loosely) "know" that your ideas are or are not contrary, contradicting or confused regarding the nature of the attributes of your imaginary friend?
The bottom line is that your argument has ONE thing, and one thing only that supports it...your baseless assertions. It lacks however anything that could be considered well-reasoned or based on actual, objective evidence.
TTFN,
Blackout
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Your use and mischarachterization of virtual particles should be an embarassment to you. Did you even read the links you provided? It is clear that you did not understand them.
"from nowhere," is not present in either article, and at most is a statement of your ignorance of where and how these particles come to be rather than an accurate description of their source. Such particles ONLY exist, as far as we have observed, in direct relation to more mundane particles and the poorly understood forces surrounding them. They NEVER exist "from nowhere," and have no bearing on the subject at hand.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
-Albert Einstein
... when you wash them with bullshit.
Since an in-depth response on virtual particles is off-topic for this blog, I wrote up one here to address what you say.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...for those who don't have the educational background to necessary to grasp a more technical discussion of the relevant theories. I guess I didn't dumb it down enough for some people. Many theistic arguments rely on the generally less well-educated state of their worshipers in order to flourish, and this is a perfect example of that.
I was going to respond with a more in-depth treatment of the subject, but I see that Darwin's Beagle has done me the favor of writing a thorough response to your uniformed denials in his own blog, here.
TTFN,
Blackout
"I can't have any respect for a religion that views the quest for knowledge as the first sin of man." ~ Smoking Coyote
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
We truly did create God.
In our heads.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
"We truly did create God."
You are quite right, some of us did, but not all of us.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
-Albert Einstein
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Albert Einstein had a tendency to respond to questions about religion with a clever sort of allegory that couched his agnoticism/atheism in seemingly religious terms. When taken out of context (as you have done here), these comments can seem to suggest that Eisenstein was a theist. However, when one reads the whole quotation thoroughly, a different picture emerges. For example, when one reads the passage you quote mined in its original context...
"The most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
Einstein took great pains to clarify his position on these matters, such as when he said...
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
It is unfortunate that so many theists attempt to twist Einstein's comments in order to paint such a dishonest picture, and this practice of lying about his beliefs is something that Einstein commented bitterly about in his later years...
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
This sort of machination might surprise some, but it strikes me that this sort of dishonesty is almost synonymous with the theistic position.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Yes, the multitude of voices and sources is confusing. It was confusing thousands of years before the internet. But now we hear voices and sources from all throughout history, from all over the world.
What are the qualifications of the judges who decides which statements of Albert Einstein are true or false? and what are the meanings of those statements?
What are the names of those judges? and what if those judges do not agree with each others? because I see their disagreements
on the internet, so whom should we trust? and why only them in particular? and what happens if they turn out to be bogus?
oh dear, now we are in trouble,
we are sinking more into bewilderment,
HELP!!!!!!!
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
...is to consider the source of the quotation, and to consider that source in its entirety. If the source is a primary source, then one should give it greater weight than if it is a secondary source.
Once one has established the nature of the source in question, then one must consider the quote itself. Is the quote taken in context? Was the quote intended by the author to be literal, figurative, ironic or even sarcastic? Does originator of the quote go on to explain what he meant, later in the same (or some other) source?
With some very ancient sources, this can be a difficult task due to the dearth of primary sources and the unavailability of witnesses and other corroborating factors. However, with Einstein it really isn't that difficult. Whenever you see someone trying to quote Einstein in a pro-religious context, you can rest assured (as I do now) that this person has never engaged in any real study of Einstein's life or his honestly very clearly stated beliefs.
In this case, the quotation I cited comes directly from a letter the Einstein wrote, in his own hand, and in which he specifically addressed the fraudulent claims that were so often repeated by overly religious people regarding his beliefs. This letter was brought to light after his death by Einstein's own secretary and legal trustee, Helen Dukas, in the book she edited, Albert Einstein: The Human Side.
I would suggest that the credibility of Mrs. Dukas as a source for reporting the contents of the letters left in her care is quite solid.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Do you believe in the following statement of Einstein?
"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein
secondly do you believe he had a proper reverence for the wonders of reality and the LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT.
If yes - "LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT".
Do you see any contradiction with the statement i posted "....the Being of God and His Might, Glory and Power cannot be understood by him with the LIMITED MENTAL CAPACITY that nature has granted him and with equally limited knowledge at his disposal."
-nahjul balagha
"14. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being YET He has not prevented them from realising His Presence" http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm
Does this mean, GOD IS BEYOND LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT?
"They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
First of all, I think it extremely funny that you wouldn't read your own source well enough to notice that it points out that this source is of questionable authenticity, i.e. when it says, "There have been disputes on the accuracy of this quotation."
Secondly, what is it that makes you think that this quote--even if it did turn out to be real--helps your case? Between the limits that Einstein proposes that "our minds cannot grasp," and the assumption that the "force" Einstein mentions is a "god" (and much less the "god" of any particular religion) is a wildly illogical leap that begs the question of the existence of your "god."
Let us pretend for a moment, that you have box. Now, based on the properties of the box, one can guess at what the box might contain, but one cannot actually know until one opens the box to look inside. Perhaps the box contains a book. Perhaps the box contains a cat. Or, maybe the box is empty. Until you can open the box, and show us what is actually inside, then your assumptions are no different than the child who is certain that the brightly wrapped box before him contains a much desired new toy, but upon opening it finds only socks.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"Let us pretend for a moment, that you have box. Now, based on the properties of the box, one can guess at what the box might contain, but one cannot actually know until one opens the box to look inside. Perhaps the box contains a book. Perhaps the box contains a cat. Or, maybe the box is empty. Until you can open the box, and show us what is actually inside, then your assumptions are no different than the child who is certain that the brightly wrapped box before him contains a much desired new toy, but upon opening it finds only socks."
Do you mean the mind cannot know the existence of any thing through any medium BUT that of the five senses?
Imam Sadiq (as) -
"If you will still persist in your absurd theory that existing things must be known through the medium of five senses, let me tell you that the senses can not know anything except through the mind's medium. The mind is the true guide. It is the mind which brings all things into close affinity. Your assertion is quite the reverse of this. You hold that the mind has no power whatsoever to know anything without the intermeddling of the senses-quite a wrong assertion".
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
well wisher
...but in essence, yes. There is no evidence of which I am aware that would suggest that the mind can perceive reality through any vector other than the five senses.
Your wonderfully poetic source unfortunately fails to understand the difference between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge. The problem is that what you source is describing is imagination, which though it is a wonderful property of the human mind has no actual bearing on the nature of reality. You may imagine a great many things that are wonderful, but simply not true. Children do it all the time when they invent imaginary friends to entertain and comfort themselves. Religion, and the "god" you worship is just a more sophisticated version of this same childish process.
TTFN,
Blackout
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses...a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." ~ Albert Einstein
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"...but in essence, yes. There is no evidence of which I am aware that would suggest that the mind can perceive reality through any vector other than the five senses."
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
" ..... Now tell me have you ever experienced a dream in which you were eating something and relishing its pleasant taste"
“Yes", said he.
“Have you ever dreamt" I asked, "that you are laughing or weeping bitterly, traveling in known or unknown countries, recognizing those countries you had seen or known"
"Yes" he replied, “I had had many such dreams".
“Have you ever", I asked, “seen in your dreams relatives parent or brothers that had died long ago, and identified them as you did in the life time"
"Why not" he exclaimed “I have experienced many such dreams."
"Well then", said I, "which of your senses felt the dead man and pointed him out to the mind that it could recognize him and converse with him Which sense relished the food, recognized the countries known or unknown, through which it traveled? Which sense wept and laughed?”
"I am confounded" he said, “I cannot reply, which of my sense (in this sleeping state) did the above things. In fact when one is asleep, he is like one dead, and in that condition, it is quite impossible for the senses to feel, know, see or hear anything."
"Tell me", asked I, “when startled, you woke from your sleep. Did you not recollect your dream sufficiently to narrate to your relations and friends, forgetting nothing?"
"Yes", he replied. “Sometimes I have seen a thing in a dream and the same thing again in a waking state."
"Alright", said I, "which of the senses imbued you with the memory of what you saw when those senses were asleep?"
"None of the senses", said he “seem to have had any hand therein."
"Can you not see now" said I, “that it is the mind that sees all these things, remembering (in a dreaming state) when all the senses have ceased working? Don't you know that the mind has been endowed with reason, by means of which Allah establishes His Hujjat?”
“What I see in a dream" said he, “is unsubstantial like a Surab' (mirage), which from a distance appears to be real water, but on approach is discovered to be only sand."
“How do you make comparison, when in your dream you relish different tastes?" I queried.
“Because", he replied, "when I approached that ‘Surab', I discovered only sand, and when I awoke I discovered nothing of that which I had seen in dream."
“Well" asked I, “if I give you an example of what you may have enjoyed in a dream, and which may have made you uneasy, will you believe in the reality of dreams?”
“Yes, why not?" He replied.
“Tell me", said I, “have you ever in a dream lived with a woman familiar or unfamiliar?"
"Many times", said he.
“Did you not feel then", asked I, “exactly the same sensation derived from the satisfaction of carnal appetite in the waking state, and were not the traces left the same?"
“This refutes the argument regarding the 'Surab'. Because the latter is quite unreal-when one approach, it fades away. But here the case is quite contrary. The action in the dream leaves behind traces ( SPERM ) to prove the reality of sensation."
"The dreamer", he said, "sees the same things that his senses in a state of wakefulness have witnessed."
"Very well", said I, "you strengthen my argument, when you admit the mind's ability to comprehend and identify the things of which the senses (no longer working} have no remembrance. Why did you first assert that the mind even with the help of the senses and in the state of wakefulness has not this power, and that they are the senses only which comprehend all these things? Will you tell me who (when the senses were out of work) gave this power to mind that has neither ears nor eyes? Because now you admit that it was the mind that saw the woman and enjoyed the pleasure of her company even though the senses were not at work?”
“It is foolish to admit the knowledge of the mind when the senses are sleeping and to deny it, when the senses are waking. A man of reason must believe that the mind is the king, and prime administrator of the senses. However foolish he may be, he cannot be ignorant of the fact that the hand cannot extract the eye, nor amputate the tongue, nor can have any senses any power to deal with any part of the body without its permission, suggestion and contrivance. Allah has created the mind to be the regent of the body, and the body can only feel, see or hear, through its agency. If the mind conceives retreat, the body can not advance and vice-versa. It is only through its medium the senses work. They are obedient to its orders. If the mind prohibits them to act, they at once obey its command. It is the mind on which sorrows prey, and joys enliven. Despite the loss or derangement of the senses, the mind remains intact. But if the mind gets out of order the senses share the same fate, the eyes do not see properly, the ears do not understand,"
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
well wisher
...but the problem is that he only seems to have conversations with uneducated idiots. I suspect that I can do a better job answering the good Imam's than his hand-picked victim did.
The first thing I must note, here, is that your source does not seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective knowledge.
"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."
...but...
"A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people." (LINK)
As I pointed out in my previous comment, something that you imagine is not "real" in any objective sense. Dreams are just an unconscious form of imagination that takes place when nerochemical levels in our brain reach a certain state, usually during REM sleep. The process is purely physical, and the images we see are part of a natural process which the evidence suggests is the way in which our brain "recharges" itself, shutting down certain areas permitting rest, and stimulating other areas to sort and strengthen various memory-related functions.
When you have a dream about "relatives parent or brothers that had died long ago," aren't really seeing them. When you enter a REM state, your brain begins to process what we call "procedural memory." These memories are normally part of the unconscious, and relate to the way we understand the world around us. Unlike our "declarative memory" (which our brain processes during non-REM sleep), procedural memory is non-linear, and often seems to randomly connect images due to mnemonic associations which may not be obvious to the linear, conscious mind.
Your source is obviously unaware that that brain interprets and stores the input of our senses. A dream is not a real event. It is an unconscious combination of memories and associations. That's why a person who is blind from birth doesn't have visual experiences when he (or she) dreams.
There are, of course, a number of problems with your example. A nocturnal emission is sometimes, but not always accompanied by an erotic dream. Thus, it isn't really accurate to suggest that the emission is the result of the dream. More likely, the dream is being triggered when the brain begins to associate the sensations of the involuntary orgasm. This response is directly related to both the levels of testosterone (higher levels in subjects correlate to more wet dreams) and excess sperm (in studies, frequent masturbation lowers the occurence of this response). There's nothing mystical about it, and the dreams that you sometimes experience with these are easily explained through purely physical processes.
The brain has a great deal of control over the body, and thus your example (in which your brain acts on your body) is a poor one. If you wanted argue that your subjective dream expeiences are just as real as what you experience in objective reality, then you need an example in which your actions in a dream result in a change to the real world that is outside the reach of your brain. For example, if you dreamt of going to the grocery store, and when you woke up the groceries you bought were actually in the cupboard...that would make for a meaningful example (assuming, of course, that you aren't a sleep-walker).
And here, again, your source has fallen back into the same illogical tactic of begging the question. The evidence suggests that our brains act the way they do because they have evolved to act in that way. It is a simple (or maybe not-so-simple if you've never taken an advanced biology course) matter to study the way that the human species has selected for bigger, more complex brains as our primary survival trait.
And once again, your source is making a uneducated assumption that is (at best) misleading. There is a neurological disorder known as synesthesia..."a neurologically-based phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway."
Now, you will probably say, "Aha! That proves that "the mind the mind is the king, and prime administrator of the senses," and with some loose defintions in terms, you would in a sense be right. The brain is the seat of our awareness, and as such it is responsible for how we preceive the world. However, the example of synestheisia proves that what the brain interprets from our senses does not necessarily correlate to objective reality. When the brain malfunctions in this way, the information acquired from the senses is misinterpreted. What the brain experiences through the senses is not a real event. It is rather an interpretation of a real event. Whenever you "sense" an event in the real world, that event has already taken place. Granted, neurons fire pretty fast, so you're only a few miliseconds behind, but your perceptions are inevitably taking place after the fact of the real event.
So yes, the brain does in a sense "govern" what we experience, but the brain also has the capability to invent experiences that do not correspond to reality. And, while these invented experiences my seem very real, they are in fact not real in any objective sense.
TTFN,
Blackout
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." ~ Sigmund Freud
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Just consider the stars and their distinctive velocities. There are some among them which do not budge from the positions appointed for them. There are others which move from zone to zone and have their distinctive velocities. Each one of them has two velocities - one due to the cosmic motion in the direction of the west, the other its intrinsic velocity in the direction of the east.
This is comparable to the two velocities of an ant on the upper piece of the grindstone. The grindstone moves to the right and the ant in the opposite direction. In such a case the ant will have two velocities - one its own direction, the front direction and the other unintended, along with the grindstone.
Now just inquire from these people who claim that these stars have come into being by themselves without the Design of' the Almighty Designer, as to what was the hindrance in their all becoming stationary or moving bodies?
well wisher
GOD IS A MYTH as OLDas MAN
gotta love the argument from ignorance!
Duhh..we aren't smart enough to understand stuff so god did it..there we're happy