> The scientific nature of time and space and it's implications to aqeedah

[Qatada]

:

Bismillah, alhamdulillah, wa sallallahu wasallama ‘ala rasoolillah.

I noticed that many are asking about the reality of “time” and “place”. So let us discuss both concepts beginning with “place” …

What is “place”?

A place of something is a mere concept that only exists in our minds. There is nothing outside the mind that is “place”.

Let me explain …

If you did not exist, where would your place be?

The answer is that you would not have a place, because you do not exist.

So, a “place” is just a concept that we associate with things that already exist outside the mind. It is a way for us to relate the existence of an object to the existence of other objects in this universe.

It is not that Allah created a place for us, and then put us into this place!

Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask: “how could Allah assume a place when a place is a creature of Allah?”

This is what the Mutakallimeen ask. It is ridiculous, because a place is not something that you assume. It is a concept that results from your existence. A relationship between you and the universe.

A “place” of something cannot exist in our minds if that something did not exist.

At the same time, we cannot perceive of something existing outside out minds and it not having a place. If it is to relate to other beings then it must have a place. So it makes no sence to say “Allah exists without a place”. It will result in making Allah SWT into a mere mental being that has no existence outside the mind.

Next we’ll discuss “time” InshaAllah …

Now as for “time” …

The relationship between: place and matter … is the same relationship between: time and action.

Time is a measure of action, and the measurements of the series of actions makes Time (uppercase).

The duration of an action locates it in Time, just as the place of an object locates it in space.

So time is not something that exists outside the human mind. It is only associated with actions. If there is no action there would be no time.

Allah SWT has always existed, so there was always a “place”, and He has always acted, so there was always “Time”.

To say that “time” and “place” are creatures of Allah is not correct. They are mental beings that exist as an extension to the existence of action and matter, respectively.

Wallahu A’lam.

What are �time� and �place�? - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth


My comments: The 'time' and 'place' in the context of the above is referring to metaphysical concepts.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum

A question that is frequently asked by the Mutakallimeen. In fact is it one of their important principles.

If Allah (SWT) is ultimately perfect, why does he act?!

If He was ultimately perfect (with no room for added perfection) before acting, then why does He act?! Does He increase in perfection?!

The simple answer was presented by Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) and others.

Allah (SWT) is never free from ultimate perfection. Prior to His action, the ultimately perfect thing was for Him (SWT) not to perform this action. While performing the action, the ultimately perfect thing is for Him (SWT) to perform the action. And after performing the action, the ultimately perfect thing is for Him (SWT) to have performed this action and not to perform it at this time.

Perfection for actors is through their actions.

Wallahu A’lam.

If Allah is ultimately perfect why does He act? - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

[Qatada]

Will is one of Allah SWT attributes. Allah SWT has always had this attribute. He SWT has always been Willing for events to take place.

However …

Allah SWT did not pre-eternally Will for certain events that are occurring now to occur. Allah SWT Wills for them to occur and they occur immediately.

This is the belief of Ahlussunnah, unlike people of Kalam, including Ash’aris.

When Allah SWT Wills for something to occurs is occurs without delay.

It is inconceivable for an action to be delayed from a will that is firm and an ability that is full.

If you have a firm will to do something, and you are fully able of doing it, then it is inconceivable for you not to do it immediately.

Allah SWT’s Will is always firm, with no doubts or hesitancies.

Allah SWT’s Ability is always full with no hindrances.

Therefore, it is inconceivable for His Actions to be delayed from His Will.

People of Kalam believe that Allah SWT pre-eternally Willed for everything that is occurring now to occur. This belief is based on another belief which they have, and that is: Allah SWT cannot initiate within Himself new events, otherwise He would have to be temporal.

We do not have a problem with Allah SWT continuously generating new events within Himself. In fact we view it as an aspect of perfection.

Wallahu A’lam.

Is Allah SWT�s Will pre-eternal? - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Again, I'm inclined to disagree.
A "place" is not a mere abstract concept. A place is a physical entity, space is made out of energy, and space can even be bended by gravity!
Under the standardized theory, all elemental particles can be sorted into fermions and bosons. The fermions are particles which make up all mass. The bosons are all messenger particles which cause the four forces of nature. Now scientists noticed that each fermion came in two different types. For each type of matter there was also an antimatter particle. Secondly both seem to cancel out each other's existence! The standardized theory explains this, by proposing that both the matter and antimatter particle are made up by the same raw particle. And these raw particles interacts with space. According to the theory, space is like a big checkers board, with empty boxes. Some of these boxes have a negative charge, and some of them have a positive charge. Now if we put a raw particles, in all off the negative boxes, and leave the positive boxes empty, the end result would be empty space; a vacuum. If however a particle ends up in a positive box, then we will be able to perceive that particle as matter. Likewise, if we leave a negative box unfilled, that will show up as antimatter. This is why matter cancels out it's corresponding antimatter. The extra raw particle fills up the empty box. This confirms my philosophical approach on dimensions, where I see them as grades of restrictions rather then grades of freedom. Space is a "container" and a physical entity.
The same can be said about time. What is time? some see time as an abstract measurement of speed:Those who see space as an abstract thing, usually have the same intuitive idea about time:
Time as a measurement of movement over space!
And some would say that without change, there wouldn't even exist time, just as they feel that without matter, there wouldn't exist (empty) space either. The reason people intuitively think like this, is because we have never observed change without time. But we haven't observed change without space either! I could just as well argue:
Space is a measurement of movement trough time! And likewise I could go extreme and claim that without movement over time, space wouldn't even exist. Of course that is absurd, but it works as an argument ad absurdum. We cannot observe space, without movement over time. Has anyone ever perceived space without some movement in time? when we feel, we rely on movement of electrical charges in our nerves, when we see we rely on photons moving trough time. All of our senses and physical equipment are in one way or the other inevitably linked to movement over time. So without any changes in time, we wouldn't be able to perceive space. However most people will argue, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there! Well the same can be said the other way around to those who say that without movement over space, time would not exist. Just because we wouldn't perceive time, doesn't mean it wouldn't be there. The only fundamental difference between space and time is our freedom in it.
According to general relativity the dimensions of space, and the dimension of time form a 4D space-time-continuum. So it would follow that what the standardized theory says about space also goes for time, and time would thus be a material construct to.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


I understand which approach you're coming from akhi Abdul Fattah, the only reason why the shaykh explained the points i quoted was because he wanted to respond to Ash'aris (who are a philosophy influenced group) who say that Allah is neither within His creation, nor outside His creation [all this being based on logic.]

Their logic is that either Allah has to be within the creation, because if He is limited to the outside of His creation only - then you are saying that Allah has a limit [hadd in arabic]. But this argument of Allah being a part of His creation is against Islam because otherwise the christians are right for arguing that Jesus (peace be upon him) is 'god incarnate' or 'the holy spirit of god is everywhere', or the hindus are justified to worship their idols [pantheism.]

The sunni and the belief of the salaf is that Allah is outside of His creation and above it [above His 'Arsh (throne), check Qur'an 2:255], due to many verses of the Qur'an and ahadith proving this to be the case.



That's why he argued that Allah is in a direction - above, and that He is somewhere [and not nowhere like the ash'aris said] - otherwise, we're just atheists and saying that Allah is only within the imagination (this is what they had to conclude based on their reasoning.)


That's why, shaykh haitham hamdan explained that Allah is somewhere, and in a direction (above everything), with a limit in His Self [Dhat] so He doesn't mix with the creation, although His attributes of Knowledge etc. are everywhere (i.e. He knows all things that are happening in the universe etc.)

He also replied to the ash'aris because logic in of itself isn't enough to understand the religion, but the religion is about understanding the texts, and following the way of the salaf.


I hope you understand where all this is coming from, and i hope bro salman can give some useful links on the issue abit more insha Allah.


Allah knows best.

[salman]

@Abdul Fatteh

akhee, I don't agree with you and please give me few days to respond to your points. I need to find my notes, they are somewhere in big pile of my books. Space is nothing but a medium to describe existence of created things. Time is nothing but measurement of events occurring in space. If they were no created things or events occuring, there will be no space or time.

What shaykh has stated follows logically and also it is correct considering the context of the argument as explained by bro Qatada. The "place" reffered is in regard to whereness of Allah from creation's perspective. This is different from what deviants claim or what you maybe referring to. We're not talking about some sort of confined place or anything of that sort. So, in context, we're talking about two "dimensions" (for lack of better words), that explains whereness of whatever exists. Whatever eixts is either inside of creation or outside of creation; from creation's perspective, these are the only two "places", there is no third. If a thing is not inside of creation, nor outside of creation, then it doesn't exist, becuase there is no third "place". So, Ahlus Sunnah believe that Allah is outisde and separate from His creation, as He has relayed in the Qur'an, the Prophet (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) told us in his Sunnah and the Salaf understood it this way.

However, the devaints attack us with a straw man saying that we're confing Allah in a place, like some sort of box. And they claim Allah doesn't exist in a "place" implying He is nowhere. Some others say that He is everywhere. Hence, we use these arguments to refute them and to prove that their belief of Allah being nowhere implies that He doesn't exist ('auodubillah).

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Originally Posted by salman

Space is nothing but a medium to describe existence of created things. Time is nothing but measurement of events occurring in space.

Most people believe this intuitively, but there is no proof for that view. This is strictly speculative. The view that I mention on teh other hand is strongly suggested by science.

akhee, I don't agree with you and please give me few days to respond to your points. I need to find my notes, they are somewhere in big pile of my books.

Well I look forward to them, but to be honest I doubt you can refute this view, it comes hand in hand with general relativity and the standardized theory.

If they were no created things or events occuring, there will be no space or time.

How do you know that? This is like saying, if a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it it doesn't make a sound. Of course I can't prove that it does make a sound, but logic tells us that just because we can't perceive it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

What shaykh has stated follows logically and also it is correct considering the context of the argument as explained by bro Qatada. The "place" reffered is in regard to whereness of Allah from creation's perspective. This is different from what deviants claim or what you maybe referring to. ...
However, the devaints attack us with a straw man saying that we're confing Allah in a place, like some sort of box. And they claim Allah doesn't exist in a "place" implying He is nowhere. Some others say that He is everywhere. Hence, we use these arguments to refute them and to prove that their belief of Allah being nowhere implies that He doesn't exist ('auodubillah).

Well I wasn't discussing whether or not what he tried to prove was right. I was merely saying that his philosophical argument is flawed because it contradicts science. However it could still be that his beliefs are correct. Just because somebody makes a flawed argument, doesn't mean that this which he argues about is flawed to. However, I still found it important to mention, because we should try not to use flawed arguments, even if they do attempt to defend the correct view.

We're not talking about some sort of confined place or anything of that sort.

Well that is my point, the "space" that is generaly consider to be self-evident, and not some sort of confinement, is by science regarded as a confined place afterall!

So, in context, we're talking about two "dimensions" (for lack of better words), that explains whereness of whatever exists. Whatever eixts is either inside of creation or outside of creation; from creation's perspective, these are the only two "places",

I would translate this as: whatever exists, exists either inside of the (created) universe or outside of it. Thus confirming my earlier argument, that the universe, space, time, the dimensions have all been created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum
Again, I'm inclined to disagree.
A "place" is not a mere abstract concept. A place is a physical entity, space is made out of energy, and space can even be bended by gravity!

asalamu alaikum

this is an illogical deduction. a place is NOT a physical entity. a physical entity is a thing that simply "exists". It's existence by default brings forth its "placement" within the creation. So "place" is a concept by which a thing exist at. therefore the following speech that you brought is of no value here

Under the standardized theory, all elemental particles can be sorted into fermions and bosons. The fermions are particles which make up all mass. The bosons are all messenger particles which cause the four forces of nature. Now scientists noticed that each fermion came in two different types. For each type of matter there was also an antimatter particle. Secondly both seem to cancel out each other's existence! The standardized theory explains this, by proposing that both the matter and antimatter particle are made up by the same raw particle. And these raw particles interacts with space. According to the theory, space is like a big checkers board, with empty boxes. Some of these boxes have a negative charge, and some of them have a positive charge. Now if we put a raw particles, in all off the negative boxes, and leave the positive boxes empty, the end result would be empty space; a vacuum. If however a particle ends up in a positive box, then we will be able to perceive that particle as matter. Likewise, if we leave a negative box unfilled, that will show up as antimatter. This is why matter cancels out it's corresponding antimatter. The extra raw particle fills up the empty box. This confirms my philosophical approach on dimensions, where I see them as grades of restrictions rather then grades of freedom. Space is a "container" and a physical entity.

as for the following

The same can be said about time. What is time? some see time as an abstract measurement of speed:

this is incorrect. time is not the measurement of speed. time is merely the perceptional concept of the human mind that defines an event by another point event that happened prior. In other words, the measurement of time is the measurement from one event to another event.

Those who see space as an abstract thing, usually have the same intuitive idea about time:
Time as a measurement of movement over space!
And some would say that without change, there wouldn't even exist time, just as they feel that without matter, there wouldn't exist (empty) space either. The reason people intuitively think like this, is because we have never observed change without time.

yes we have
the Mount St.Helen erupted, that happened outside of time. when I married my wife, that happened outside of time. When anything happens, there is no "time" for it. The manner in how it is placed in time is through our human intervention of categorization of events. the reason why Mount St. Helen exploded in 1980s is because we placed it in that category. The Mountian itself does not view that the event occured in time. Allah Himself does not categorize the event in a time, But He would only merely relay the event in a time for the sake of our relationship with Him because we put it in the time of the 1980. However, to anything outside of humans, that "time" description is irrelevant. If aliens landed on earth now, they wouldnt define the event as happening in 1984, they would define it in some other format. And that is the point, time, is the conceptual convention of our perception of events.

in reality, the existence is not IN time or does not operate on time. it operates on the Decrees and ordainments of Allah.

But we haven't observed change without space either! I could just as well argue:
Space is a measurement of movement trough time! And likewise I could go extreme and claim that without movement over time, space wouldn't even exist. Of course that is absurd, but it works as an argument ad absurdum. We cannot observe space, without movement over time.

all of this is empirical kalaam. but we are not talking about space. we are talking about "place" which is a locaton in which a thing exist. Hence, place, is a metaphysical reality. it is not an entity or something that exist, rather place is the location of a thing that exists.

Has anyone ever perceived space without some movement in time? when we feel, we rely on movement of electrical charges in our nerves, when we see we rely on photons moving trough time. All of our senses and physical equipment are in one way or the other inevitably linked to movement over time. So without any changes in time, we wouldn't be able to perceive space. However most people will argue, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there! Well the same can be said the other way around to those who say that without movement over space, time would not exist. Just because we wouldn't perceive time, doesn't mean it wouldn't be there. The only fundamental difference between space and time is our freedom in it.

that is a nice argument, however,
1. space is not the subject of discussion
2 when the companions was asked about hadith qudsi "I am ad-Dahr (time), the hadeeth itself adds because "he alternates the night and the day" which is the tafseer of "I am time"
This means, that Allah Himself is saying that time is the mere fact of events that are happening which is why He says "He is Time" meaning He is the owner of it, He controls it.
therefore arguing with the argument "just because we don;t feel it or see it does not mean it is not there" is logically absurd.
3. time and space are fundamentally different and a judgment on one does not imply the same for the other inspite of the fact that they interlink

According to general relativity the dimensions of space, and the dimension of time form a 4D space-time-continuum. So it would follow that what the standardized theory says about space also goes for time, and time would thus be a material construct to.

and this of course remains nothing more than a theory, a theory, that for the most part does not make sense simply because nothing exists in 4D.
:

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum

Most people believe this intuitively, but there is no proof for that view. This is strictly speculative

this is the standard fact, and not speculation inspite of its speculative origins.
2. seocndly, if this is rendered inaccurate on the basis that it is merely speculative, then the same is lkewise attributed to the other view. that is why it is called a "theory" precisely because it is not a "fact". And if we way both theories on the scales of logic, we fnd that the original theory remains simply the best theory out there as it makes more sense ans is more based on proven science than it is on "subjective" science.

The view that I mention on teh other hand is strongly suggested by science

yeah, subjective science that is

Well I look forward to them, but to be honest I doubt you can refute this view, it comes hand in hand with general relativity and the standardized theory.

you are missin two facts
1. the scientific fact that these are nothing more than "theories" and on that basis, is not proven as fact.
2. the Islamic fact is, is that these are theories that are formulated by people who have a distorted view of reality. If we look at einsteins theory of relativity, it a basic claim of atheism which is espoused in the statement "matter is not created or destroyed, rather it gos from one form to another". This is a theory, however we disbelieve in that because we believe matter is created and destroyed, Allah created it, and Allah will destroy it.

How do you know that? This is like saying, if a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it it doesn't make a sound. Of course I can't prove that it does make a sound, but logic tells us that just because we can't perceive it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

this is an inapplicable anaology simply because they are both polar opposites of the other. woods falling on the ground will make a sound just as no existence will mean no time or space. They are both sound and true arguments, however you linked the most observable reality (of our argument) with the idea that no one being in the woods to hear it means there is no sound, when that is a connection that cannot be made.

in simpler terms
argument 1= claiming that woods falling does not make sound because we didn't hear it- is proven by science to be illogical
argument 2= claiming that without the existence of things, time and space do not exist as well= is NOT proven by science to be illogical and is infact a scientific theory, and thus far the only weigthy scientific theory that seems to coincide most with the reality of our existence over all other theories.

so the two are polar opposites and your comparing them to be equal does not make sense.

Well I wasn't discussing whether or not what he tried to prove was right. I was merely saying that his philosophical argument is flawed because it contradicts science.

actually, it does not contradict science, it contradicts modern atheism subjective science, but not actual science.

However it could still be that his beliefs are correct. Just because somebody makes a flawed argument, doesn't mean that this which he argues about is flawed to. However, I still found it important to mention, because we should try not to use flawed arguments, even if they do attempt to defend the correct view.

that is most definately true, however, it has to be proven that what has been established through reason and logic and what does not negate science must be proven to be in opposite to all of the above. Thus far, not a single theory in existence has made our argument flawed, simply because of a number of reasons
1. they are inherently atheistic in nature
2. the arguments of others are not as compelling in its authoritative speech as ours.

Well that is my point, the "space" that is generaly consider to be self-evident, and not some sort of confinement, is by science regarded as a confined place afterall!

inspite of the theoretical basis of this speech, it is irrelevant to the topic.


[quoteI would translate this as: whatever exists, exists either inside of the (created) universe or outside of it. Thus confirming my earlier argument, that the universe, space, time, the dimensions have all been created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.[/QUOTE]

then I ask the following question in order to put these other theories to work.

does space and time operate and take effect beyond the creation.

:

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum brother

asalamu alaikum
this is an illogical deduction. a place is NOT a physical entity. a physical entity is a thing that simply "exists". It's existence by default brings forth its "placement" within the creation. So "place" is a concept by which a thing exist at.

Ya Allah! You claim that my argument, which is build on science and logical deduction is illogical. But you fail to show or mention why it is illogical. Instead you only offer your alternative view, and show absolutely nothing that backs your view up. So basically what you are saying is, that I am illogical for having a different view, even though I can back up my view logically and you cannot? Ya allah, just because you have a different opinion does not give you the right to call me illogical.
Space is a physical entity, space itself is made out of matter. We call the particles that make up space higgsparticles. If space itself were not a physical/material construct, then how could gravity bend space? And it has been scientifically proven that space does indeed bend gravity! That means that space is attracted by other objects mass. How can space be attracted by gravity if it is not a phycical entity, if it is merely a concept?

therefore the following speech that you brought is of no value here

You claim that the following has no value because it is based on the premise that space is a physical entity. However your argument is wrong. That text was not a deduction based on the presmise that space is a physical entity, but rather is was simply an explenation that proves that space is indeed a physical entity. So your argument against me was circular. You start by saying that that which I attempt to show is wrong based on your opinion, and then you continue to say, therefor the proof which I brought to show this must be wrong to.

this is incorrect. time is not the measurement of speed.

Akhi, I did not say that time is a measurement of speed. I said "some see time as...". I for one do not see it as such.

time is merely the perceptional concept of the human mind that defines an event by another point event that happened prior. In other words, the measurement of time is the measurement from one event to another event.

1. You have no proof/evidence for this claim, it is completely speculative.
2. Your views contradict Einsteins relativity, a scientific theory that has been proven by experiment.

yes we have
the Mount St.Helen erupted, that happened outside of time. when I married my wife, that happened outside of time. When anything happens, there is no "time" for it.

All these things you mentioned confirm my statement. All these things happened in a time-frame. They were not instantaneous, it were seconds, minutes, hours, days. For any change to occur, we have to allow time to flow. That being said you seem to have missed my point; I was merely making an argument by showing "where" this intuitive view of time come from.

The manner in how it is placed in time is through our human intervention of categorization of events.

1. That is strictly speculative, you have no proof of that
2. That view contradicts Einsteins relativity
3. That view contradicts neuropsychology. Memories are not stored in the brain in synchronology. It's not like we store them from oldest memories to most recent. There is no such "order" in storage. Our memories are stored in a neural network. This means the storage is not linear, but interwoven. It is thus illogical to claim that our concept of time results from the manner in which memories are stored, sincethat would have brought forth a whole different concept of time.

the reason why Mount St. Helen exploded in 1980s is because we placed it in that category. The Mountian itself does not view that the event occured in time. Allah Himself does not categorize the event in a time, But He would only merely relay the event in a time for the sake of our relationship with Him because we put it in the time of the 1980. However, to anything outside of humans, that "time" description is irrelevant. If aliens landed on earth now, they wouldnt define the event as happening in 1984, they would define it in some other format.

You are confusing physical time with arbitrary time. When I speak of time, I do not mean dates and numbers. I mean "passage" of time. Of course you are right that our clasification of hours/seconds/days is completely arbitrary, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand here. This is merely a matter of "naming" things. If you feel more comfterable with giving time another name, that is fine with me. However, time will still have the same physical atributes. And events will still occur in the same time-frame they will still happen inside time.

And that is the point, time, is the conceptual convention of our perception of events.

That's not a point that is an opinion. You seem very certain of yourself, for somebody who has absolutely no evidence and attempts to refute somebody who does have evidence.

all of this is empirical kalaam.

No, it is not, in fact it isn't even something that I believe. It is an argument ad absurdum to illustrate the flaw in the intuitive point of view.

but we are not talking about space. we are talking about "place" which is a locaton in which a thing exist. Hence, place, is a metaphysical reality. it is not an entity or something that exist, rather place is the location of a thing that exists.

Space=place

that is a nice argument, however,
1. space is not the subject of discussion

Yes it is.

2 when the companions was asked about hadith qudsi "I am ad-Dahr (time), the hadeeth itself adds because "he alternates the night and the day" which is the tafseer of "I am time"

True

This means, that Allah Himself is saying that time is the mere fact of events that are happening which is why He says "He is Time" meaning He is the owner of it, He controls it.

The hadeeth does not specify "time is a mere fact of events". It simply explains in what context Allah subhana wa ta'ala could be considered time. It could be that this was meant metaphorically, I cause time, therefor I am time. We do not know for certain; and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best. You are adding interpretation that is not mentioned there specifically.

therefore arguing with the argument "just because we don;t feel it or see it does not mean it is not there" is logically absurd.

Please don't make claims without backing them up. You claim that my argument is logically absurd, but you show no proof for it.

3. time and space are fundamentally different

1. Strictly speculative, without anything to back up
2. Your view goes in against Einsteins relativity.

and a judgment on one does not imply the same for the other inspite of the fact that they interlink

It is true that a judgement on one does not imply the same for the other merely based on the fact that they interlink. That wasn't my argument either. My argument was, that a judgement on one, based on certain characteristics should also apply on another different thing if it happens to have those same characteristics where you based your previous judgement on. And that is logically apt.

and this of course remains nothing more than a theory,

Well nothing more then a theory, true. But even if it is "merely" a theory, it is a theory based on empirical testing and that by itself is already a lot stronger than intuitive and baseless speculation.

a theory, that for the most part does not make sense simply because nothing exists in 4D.

Everything exists in 4D. It makes perfect sense, it's perfectly logical. It has no inconsistencies and has been tested by experiment and provides predictable and accurate results. Brother, if you don't understand something, there is no shame in that. However you can't say it doesn't make sense simply because you fail to understand it, that is not a correct approach.

this is the standard fact, and not speculation inspite of its speculative origins.

No, not at all, how can this be factual? Can you prove this? Can you show this? Can you illustrate this? Can you even see this? Can you observe this? Just because you take it for granted, does not mean it's a "standard fact".

2. secondly, if this is rendered inaccurate on the basis that it is merely speculative, then the same is lkewise attributed to the other view. that is why it is called a "theory" precisely because it is not a "fact".

It's true that there is a difference between theory and fact, but there's also a difference between speculation and theory. If you would list them from most reliable to least reliable it would go:
fact > theory > hypothesis > speculation > random guess
So just because neither of them is a fact, doesn't mean that both of them are the same in value.

And if we way both theories on the scales of logic, we fnd that the original theory remains simply the best theory out there as it makes more sense ans is more based on proven science than it is on "subjective" science.

1. There exists no "subjective" science. A subjective theory is not scientific.
2. You view is not a theory but a speculation.
3. Your view does not make more sense, it makes less sense as it contradicts scientific theories.

yeah, subjective science that is

Einsteins relativity is not subjective science. subjective science is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Science by defenition can never be subjective. And einsteins relativity is not subjective, and it meets the criteria of a scientific theory.

you are missin two facts
1. the scientific fact that these are nothing more than "theories" and on that basis, is not proven as fact.

Nothing is ever proven as a fact. There is always room for interpretation. By the way what is this double standard? you say "it's a scientific fact" yet any science that I bring to the discussion is ignored as "merely a theory".

2. the Islamic fact is, is that these are theories that are formulated by people who have a distorted view of reality.

1. Each theory should be judged on its own merits, not judged on who brings the theory. You are making the same flaw as people who judge Islam based on the bad actions of (some) muslims.
2. How is this an Islamic fact, do you have daleel for that?
3. Doesn't Islam invite us to study, examine the world/universe/nature? How can you come here and say that we should ignore those who are doing it for us?

If we look at einsteins theory of relativity, it a basic claim of atheism which is espoused in the statement "matter is not created or destroyed, rather it gos from one form to another". This is a theory, however we disbelieve in that because we believe matter is created and destroyed, Allah created it, and Allah will destroy it.

1. There is no such law. There is a law that is similar to it though, saying that energy can never be destroyed/created.
2. This law is called conservation of energy, it is a part of Newtons thermodynamic, not a part of Einstein's relativity.
3. Einstein was not an atheist, neither was his theory a basic claim of it.
4. The correct explenation of conservation of energy is that; within a closed system, (i.e. within the universe), no natural processes can occur in which energy is destroyed/created. In other words, one part of the universe cannot create/destroy another part. And this theory proves the Qur'an is right when it claims that mankind cannot even create an atom. This theory certainly doesn't contradict Islam.

To make an analogy that would be the same as saying, when astronomers calculate time that sun rises/sets, their calculations are unislamic because at one day Allah subhana wa ta'ala will not let the sun rise but turn it back to rise from the west. Yes it is true that one day Allah subhana wa ta'ala will decide not to let the sun rise from the east, but that doesn't mean that the calculations we use to predict sunrise sunset day after day are wrong and unislamic.

this is an inapplicable anaology simply because they are both polar opposites of the other.

No they are not opposites, in both cases you cannot assume that something doesn't exist, just because it isn't "used". Just because soundwaves aren't heared, doens't mean they aren't there. Likewise, just because space isn't occupied by anything, doesn't mean it isn't there.

woods falling on the ground will make a sound just as no existence will mean no time or space. They are both sound and true arguments,

No, yours is not an argument it's a premise.

however you linked the most observable reality (of our argument) with the idea that no one being in the woods to hear it means there is no sound, when that is a connection that cannot be made.

I didn't claim that it doesn't make a sound. Instead I said that your view, is similar to the belief that it wouldn't make a sound.

in simpler terms
argument 1= claiming that woods falling does not make sound because we didn't hear it- is proven by science to be illogical

No, it is proven by philosophy to be illogical, not by science.

argument 2= claiming that without the existence of things, time and space do not exist as well= is NOT proven by science to be illogical and is infact a scientific theory,

It is not a scientific theory, and it has been proven wrong by philosophy.

actually, it does not contradict science, it contradicts modern atheism subjective science, but not actual science.

If you think you can show how einstein's relativity and the standardized theory are unscientific, you are more then welcome to try. If you cannot, I'd strongly advice you not to make such ill-informed claims.

however, it has to be proven that what has been established through reason and logic and what does not negate science must be proven to be in opposite to all of the above. Thus far, not a single theory in existence has made our argument flawed, simply because of a number of reasons

1. Your view has not been established trough reason and logic.
2. It does negate science.
3. There have been plenty of scientific as well as philosophical theories that proved that view of wrong.

1. they are inherently atheistic in nature

Science is not atheistic in nature. Science is neutral, and in fact many revolutionary scientists were/are theists.

in-spite of the theoretical basis of this speech, it is irrelevant to the topic.

Not at all, it is the gist of my reason for replying to this thread. It is the core of all my arguments. If you cannot see that, then you haven't understood a word I'm saying.

then I ask the following question in order to put these other theories to work.
does space and time operate and take effect beyond the creation.

No, not according to scientific views.