> Does Allah (God) Exist?

[salman]

:

Islamic-Life presents almost irrefutable arguments for proving the existence of Allah (God) to atheists (who deny there is no God), agnostics (who believe that there is no evidence which proves or disapproves the existence of God), polytheists (who believe that there are multiple gods) and theists/creationists (who believe that some intelligent Being created this universe and they call this intelligent Being God). There are other categories of people but our arguments will be limited to these groups for now.

Most of the arguments for proving the existence of God have been excerpted from the book "From Microbits to everything: Universe of the Imaginator)" by Nadeem Haque and M. Muslims and further analyzed in the light of correct understanding of Islamic beliefs and logic. The topic will be divided in different sub topics to cover most of the arguments. The sequence of topics will be following

1- Where did we come from? Is there an Eternal and Everlasting?

2- Who is this Eternal and Everlasting? Why matter cannot be the Eternal?

3- Why is this Eternal called Allah (God), why not something else?

4- Solving the problem of evil and paradox of free-will!

5- What is the purpose of our life?

6- Why Islam is the true message of Allah?

The thread will be locked for time being and the users can discuss this topic in length once I finish presenting my points.

Some basic typical arguments by theists regarding our existence

There must be a purpose of our existence, we were not born for nothing or to enjoy our life and do whatever we want. We did not come out of nothing or evolved from monkeys.

Islamic-Life will present an expanded irrefutable version of these basic ideas in much simpler form to prove the existence of God. The topic evolution will be discussed later in much details due to lack of my knowledge.

Allahu a'lam (Allah knows best)

[salman]

Part 1 - Where did we come from? Is there an Eternal and Everlasting?

With The Name Of Allah, Ar-Rahman (The Bestower Of Mercy), Ar-Raheem (The Most Merciful), I start writing; Seeking His Help and His Blessings. Praise to be Allah (God), the Lord of the worlds, Who rose above the heavens over His throne in a manner that suits His Glory and Majesty. I testify there is none worthy of worship except Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Peace and blessings be upon him), the best of mankind, is His last and final messenger.

First Question: Do we exist?

No can rationally prove that we do not exist and anyone who argues that we do not exist disproves himself by his own argument. Non-existed things do not make arguments!

2nd Question: Did we create ourselves?

The traditional and classical Islamic response come from the Qur'an:

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief. [52:35-36-interpretation of the meaning]

The discussion pretty much ends right here but for everyone's benefit, I'll develop detailed argument based on this response presented in the Qur'an. Logically, we can say in order to create ourselves we first must be uncreated; in other words, we first must have been nothing. However, nothing comes out of nothing.

3rd Question: So where did we come from?

Only two possibilities: (1) We always have been around (2) Someone which always has been around created us (The Eternal)

The first part does not work because we were born and will die; in other words we are limited and never has always been. Anything that changes is temporal. No one can rationally disapprove it. In conclusion, we exist, and we came out of something which has always existed; in other words the Eternal.

The Eternal must be limitless

As I have mentioned above that no thing could arise from nothing or create itself, all things which exist must arise from something which has always been-- the Eternal. Hence, since the Eternal cannot produce anything from nothing (because nothing produces nothing), whatever the Eternal produces must be something which the Eternal could have always produced and therefore all the temporal things must have always been the possibilities of the Eternal. Now, whatever the nature of things may be, reality can be no more than the Eternal and its possibilities. Reality is the combination of things which has born or yet to born. Given that there is nothing apart from the Eternal and it is possibilities, it must logically follow that there is nothing to limit the Eternal and its possibilities. Something which is neither Eternal nor a possibility of the Eternal is nothing and hence nothing cannot limit something. Therefore, the Eternal and its possibilities must form a limitless reality. Since we came to the conclusion that all temporal (non-eternal) things strictly arise from the Eternal, it is to state in effect that the Eternal is the limitless reality. Where there is nothing apart from the Eternal, there is nothing to limit the eternal. In conclusion, without anything limiting the Eternal, the Eternal must be limitless.

The Eternal must be unchangeable and hence Everlasting

Can the Eternal be the sum or the combination of the limited things? The answer is no because, first, the multiplicity is only possible because there are limited things. Think about this way, two things or more, for that matter, combined together can never make something which they came out of. It also contradicts our basic premise. There are things more than one because one does not occupy the whole room and they change i.e. humans age; hence they are limited. So we can say that limited things are movable, changeable or divisible and hence they cannot be the Eternal or form an eternal because by definition in terms of positions in the space the changing or movable things cannot be Eternal. To be Eternal is what you have been forever. Therefore, the Eternal is unchangeable.

Anything which is limited or changeable, must have a moment or place where it first begun to change or came into being; for example, humans. The subsequent or continuous changes cannot occur without a prior beginning. So in order to have a beginning there must be a pre-beginning or non-beginning position. Since something which does not begin does not come from anywhere, it must follow that the Eternal which gave rise to everything must be Everlasting.

Conclusion

This concludes the first part and answer to question is that we are limited and were created by an Eternal and Everlasting Being. The next part will cover the question: who is this Eternal and Everlasting Being and why matter cannot be Eternal?

Allahu a'lam (Allah knows best)

[salman]

Part 2 - Who is this Eternal and Everlasting? Why matter cannot be the Eternal?

With The Name Of Allah, Ar-Rahman (The Bestower Of Mercy), Ar-Raheem (The Most Merciful), I start writing; Seeking His Help and His Blessings. Praise to be Allah (God), the Lord of the worlds, Who rose above the heavens over His throne in a manner that suits His Glory and Majesty. I testify there is none worthy of worship except Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Peace and blessings be upon him), the best of mankind, is His last and final messenger.

Summary of part 1: It was established that we are something, created of something which is eternal and the Eternal must be Limitless, Everlasting and unchangeable.

Part 2: Now the question is who is this Eternal, ultimate origin of everything. If we ask this question to people, we normally get following possible answers:

1) Chance, Process or Evolution
2) Matter
3) God

Let's analyze these answers to find out who is the Eternal:

1) Chance, Process or Evolution

Chance: The term chance has two possible meanings: (1) disorder (2) reasonless

(1) disorder: It was concluded earlier that the Eternal is limitless; thus if we say the Eternal is disorder, we are implying that at the beginning there was limitless disorder. Therefore, this answer is incorrect since we know as fact that there is order every where i.e. life and disorder cannot give rise to order because disorder * disorder = disorder. The authors of the book, "The Universes of the Imaginator", argue that: "Indeed if disorder were the eternal reality, none of us would have been able to say so as a fact, since knowledge arises only from order" (page 19)

(2) reasonless: To say that chance is Eternal and imply the reasonless meaning, we are simply saying that everything is just here without any reason. For example, you and me are just here; however, this does not the answer the question: where did we come from? Because we know that we are here but where did we come from since this is fundamental question we are asking. Thus, chance is not eternal.

Natural Selection or Evolution: Natural Selection or Evolution is merely dependent process, how can it be eternal? Natural Selection needs things to work with, in other words something which have been already originated.
a) things to select; b) different between things to select; c) criteria for selection and d) time or space to allow for the selection.

Now, the process of evolution or natural selection only describes how things work, not what is the limitless eternal or where did things come from. If the things which act or react are not eternal, their action and reactions cannot be eternal either.

Process: Now, this book refutes an interesting theory of process presented by Stephen Hawking. The theory is titled, "Wave Function of the Universe", and states that this universe could have arisen on spontaneously on its own. Let me quote this directly from the book:

"How exactly does the wave-function law work? Smith Quentin explains it this way: He supposes that there is timeless space, a four dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe ... Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god for theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding ... Fundamentally though, the theory itself fails as the correct for the following reason. The theory simply jumps into the expansion of the universe from a particular point and then proceeds to discuss "mathematical" sphere and so forth. The question is not how the universe came to expand from a particular point; nor is the question about how things have been working since the beginning; we're not interested in things which begin, but in things which didn't begin. If this so called nucleus of an atom were the thing that had been always, we would never have been born. This is because since from nothing, nothing comes, the nucleus could never have given birth to more than itself. Reality would have forever remained 'a timeless space, a four dimensional hypersphere smaller than the nucleus of an atom.' Have you seen an elephant lately?" (page 21-24)

2) Matter

Matter is not completely independent or one single thing. It is result of number of limited things which move or are movable. By move or movable I mean changing state from one to another. Therefore, it is limited; however, we have already seen that the Eternal is limitless. Hence, matter is not eternal.

One another way to look at this is by asking yourself a question: If matter is eternal, then everything must have been its possibility but why did everything happen recently? Why were we born only recently; why not forever in past? There are only two possible answers:

1) The matter didn't always had the ability to produce the universe only until recently. However, there is big problem with this answer. If there was nothing beside the matter, where did it get the new ability from?

2) Matter did always had the ability to produce the universe but the change is simply an actualization of the potential of the eternal matter. Since, potential is something which you are not but could become given another condition, event, things etc but again there is nothing apart from the eternal matter, so where do the other come from? Also, remember that by definition the Eternal cannot change or give up something to get another!

For example, if the eternal reality is a limitless carpet with endless green spots, then this is the world which have always been nothing else. Now, if universe is a red spot. How would the reality obtain this red spot from the endless green spots? It cannot since the green spots are everlasting. By definition, everlasting green spots are forever, they do not go anywhere or come from anywhere. The authors of the book called this the problem of eternal. Now, for the eternal to get a red spot, it must give up what it is since there is opportunity cost in every action. Someone may argue that one of the green spot may become a red spot but where would the green spot go to make a room for red spot because there is no room for it since there is nothing beside the eternal?

Therefore, if matter was eternal, it couldn't change or give up something, which it always have been, to become something. If matter was eternal, it could never give rise to change and give births. We would have never been born, but we were born; therefore, ...

The other topics related to matter e.g. could matter have caused its own beginning, has matter been changing forever, has the universe always existed will be discussed in the next post, insha'Allah, as the part 2 will continue.

Allahu a'lam (Allah knows best)

[salman]

Part 2 Continues - Why matter cannot be Eternal?

Summary of previous part; matter not being eternal:

It was logically presented that if we assume that a non-living being such as matter is eternal then we face number of problems:

a) it must change to bring new changes or to give births; however, the eternal cannot change or give up something to become something else

b) if matter is eternal, then it always had the possibility/ability to create us. If so, why did we come only recently? Why not in forever past?

c) if matter is eternal and it didn't had the possibility/ability to create us, then where did it get that ability from, because there was nothing beside eternal matter?

The above points are key to refute philosophers and their followers.

Now, let's continue with our arguments!

Relatiological Proof of existence of Allah

So I ask our opponents, how do things are born or come into being? By that I mean what caused us to be here. For simplicity, let's say my parents caused me to be here. Now taking this concept in generality, we can say it has always been like this: one or more things uniting to cause another thing to come into being. The logical evidence for this is opponents' own concept: everything was caused and originated from changes in matter and as I showed before matter consists of limited things. Moving on, when we take this concept to origin of all things, there are only two possibilities:

1) matter has been changing forever
2) changes have not been forever but it was Allah Ta'ala who made the first change and makes all changes possible.

It is important to note that philosophers have yet to prove that the change is eternal. However, what they do say is that it is possible that matter is eternal and has been changing forever. If we agree upon philosophers' conclusion, then obviously, there is no need for Allah Ta'ala (the Creator and Master of everything).

Has matter been changing forever?

Regarding reality, something that we can all agree upon is change. The question which has been asked before and I put forward again is that where did we all and everything come from. From philosophers' perspective, this is all result of changes in matter. In other words, according to them, everything that is happening is simply matter changing from one state to another. But is that really true? In nutshell, they're saying that changes in matters had no beginning. This conclusion is not only hasty, but also contradicts the very definition of change. By definition, the changes are successive; they don't all come at once or spring out from blue. To get to a subsequent step, you require a prior step; without a first change, there can never be a subsequent change. If we agree with philosophers, how can they explain the successions (in changes) which is all over the place.

Let's look at it another way; suppose we agree with philosophers that matter has been here forever. Then matter can only be in one of two states: 1) rest and 2) moving (changing). It doesn't matter whether matter is here forever, it is either resting or has been moving (changing). If it was forever resting or moving at constant rate, then it would have remained just that, no matter how many trillions of years has passed away, because changes only occur when you accelerate or de-accelerate. However, we're here it means... If matter was moving (changing), to change is to move from one position to another; hence, bringing about changes and as a result giving birth to things. When matter is at a constant rate of rest, the manner in which it changes is to accelerate from that position. On other hand, when matter is at constant rate of motion the manner in which it changes is to de-accelerate from that position. There is no other way to bring changes except to constantly continue to switch between acceleration and de-acceleration. Hence, a change happens when matter moves/switches between "from" and "to". If there is no "from", there can never be "to". It is pretty obvious that "from" is where thing was before it moved and "to" is what we call the change. Now, here is the crux of the matter:

Unless someone were to state the impossibility, matter never had any position in space, it follows that matter could have changed only by shifting from its eternal "from" to another position. And since matter cannot be said to change before it changes its "from", it follows that this "from" position must be its "rest" position. It doesn't matter whether position of "rest" is with or without motion. What matters is that acceleration or de-acceleration is always subsequent to the "from" position. As it has been logically showed before that matter cannot change unless it accelerates or de-accelerates, it follows that the original point which matter rests from its motion or moves from its rest is the beginning of its change.

Therefore, however long matter has been around is redundant when it has been showed that it had a beginning. Hence, this shows without a doubt that this universe had a beginning, and anything which had a beginning cannot be eternal and must come from a sole Creator. This is contrary to what the philosophers have concluded.

One other way to refute this point is by saying let's send matter back and see. If we assume the position of philosophers that changes in general or changes in matter had no beginning, then no one can point in space and say "here is when it started". By following their argument, we know that matter is here in the present but it was not always like this and it has come from far. So would you think if matter started returning to where it came from it would ever reach or arrive the end? The answer to this is ABSOLUTELY NO because not matter how far and how long it goes, it will never reach or arrive at an end point. This is because, according to philosophers, its changes didn't start anywhere. However, the reality and fact is that if you don't start anywhere you don't end up anywhere! The main problem worthy of note is that the distance between "now" and where matter came from is the same for matter, whether it is going or coming. Therefore, if it is impossible for matter to reach home or any to beginning point of its changes, it must follow that matter could never have arrived at present "now" from there. Hence, since matter is here, it follows that matter has not been changing forever.

There is one more problem in this argument, which has been presented before: "the problem with eternal". If matter has been changing forever and it had the ability to give birth to this universe, then why did universe come about only recently?

The Oscillating Universe debunked

The oscillating universe model or theory was developed by Richard Tolman in 1934 and it says that no beginning existed. Suppose we agree with this theory, even though it has been proved to be false by science - big bang, saying that no beginning existed is same as saying infinite regression existed in regard to beginning. Hence, it would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to get here. An infinite time to get here is another way of saying that the universe would never get here. However, we are all here, it means...And if it didn't take infinite time to get here, then it means it started somewhere.

Could matter on its own have "caused" its beginning changes?

First, I'll go over the previous arguments, it may seem a repetition, and then I'll present my main argument based on those arguments. Again, let us assume the position of philosophers: matter is eternal, have been here forever. Since matter was the only reality present, it follows there was nothing else beside matter to add to, or to help, matter change. Whatever changes we see in matter today must always have been the possibility of matter; this follows logically and from the definition of eternal. In other words, matter should always have had all that it needed to make humans, for example. The question then arises, if all that was needed to make humans already existed in matter, why did we arrive only recently? Why weren't we born before? What's up with the delay? For example, let us that a quantity or quality "x" is what is needed to make humans. If this "x" were not part of eternal matter and its possibilities, matter could never subsequently acquire it because there was nothing else beside matter. In other words, if matter didn't have this "x", then "x" didn't exist because there is no other place to get "x" from. On other hand, if this "x" existed in matter eternally, then changes should have occurred long before they did.

Having repeated all that, let's say that a thing "M" is at position "1" and let's label it "M1". When M moves to position "2", it becomes "M2". It has changed from M1 to M2. Logically, before M moved to position "2", position "2" already existed. The only relevant observation is that prior to M's movement from M1 to M2 there was a gap between two positions. Clearly, when M is complete at position "1", position "2" is not M rather M+ or M- depending on situation. Suppose presence of "x" enables movement of M from position "1" to "2". As presented before, if "x" was part of "M", then M could not have rested at position "x" since "x" is the factor of M's movement from position "1" to "2". Hence, if "x" or "2" is the facilitator of change from M1 to M2, it must be external to M, and if M stands for matter this clearly shows that "x" was not eternally present in matter. Logically, this is the only explanation for delay in actualization of matter's possibility.

One other way to look at this is that possibilities that make changes or things happen must exist before; thus, they are independent of thing which act upon those possibilities or actualizes them. For example, before children are born, children must be possibilities, outside and independent of a particular parent. It is only when the parents fulfil the conditions of this "childrenability" that a child is born; however, clearly, this "childrenability" is independent of parents. Let me give another example, a car moves not because car makes the motion possible, but because of the fact that motion, in general, exists as possibility in space, independent of, and external to, car. The car only moves when it fulfils certain conditions for motion. This applies to all created things and it shows that no individual thing makes any of the relationships or positions that define, limit and shape and its presence. As matter is no more than these individual things in relationships, it follows that neither matter as individual pieces nor matter collectively as a whole has anything to do very principles in space that enable matter to move/change. Hence, matter cannot be "cause" of its changes because the principles which makes matter change/move are independent of matter, and must be present prior to existence or changes in matter.

So what causes changes in matter and who is this eternal, who created everything? The answer is coming up in next post...

Allahu A'lam (Allah knows best)

[salman]

Part 3 - Why is this Eternal called Allah (God), why not something else?

I've showed that everything that had a beginning (temporal) in this world or other worlds is the creation of the Creator, Who is the Eternal Being and gave birth to everything. I showed that for matter is to change and since changes in matter had a beginning, it must follow that matter is not eternal. Hence, it is a creation of the Creator just like everything else in this world.

I earlier introduced the problem in Eternal: delay in our creation and changes in eternal. However, this problem is solved when the Eternal is an Intelligent Being, and has an Attribute of Will. Hence, due to His Attribute of Will and Ability to create, He can create whatever He wants and whenever He wants without bringing any changes in Himself. We call this Powerful, Intelligent Being, Eternal and Creator, Allah (God). For more you may refer to Introducing who is Allah and Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorn? One may also refer to:

• Belief in Allah (God)
• The Oneness of Allah
• Meaning of Belief in Allah
• Why was mankind created?
• What is Tawheed (Divine Unity)?
• Few other articles on Tawheed

Few very important notes:

The authors of the book, from which I took my notes, can roughly be described as having pseudo-Ash'ari (Jahmi) aqeedah (creed). And it is not Islamic aqeedah or more well known as Sunni/Athari/Salafi aqeedah.

Where is Allah?

Allah Ta'ala is above the heavens over His throne (outisde and separate from His creation in His Essence). The evidence for this are many ayaat in the Qur'an, numerous sahih ahadith and understanding of the Salaf. This is not the topic to dicuss this subject in length more than what I already have.

The concept of Eternal being limitless

We don't say that Allah Ta'ala is limitless in His Essence, because that would mean He is everywhere: inside and outside of His creation. In other words, the creation would be inside of Him, and this is belief of kufr. However, what is meant by Eternal being limitless is that nothing can limit His Attributes and Attributes of Actions. Whatever He Willed to do, or does and will do is not limited or bounded by anything. He does whatever He pleases and whenever He wants.

I didn't explain this earlier for two reasons: 1) to develope my argument and 2) to explain the correct understanding of Islamic creed to refute heretical beliefs.

Allahu A'lam (Allah knows best)