Jump to content
Islamic Forum
parvez mushtaq

Nothing Created Everything .....a Question To Atheists

Recommended Posts

Zamzam
 
I commend your choice of the word 'rigmarole' (meaning "a lengthy and complicated procedure" or "a long, rambling statement or story").  It's obvious that the story about the creation of the universe by some god is much simpler to understand; in fact, it's easily (and, in many cases, eagerly) adopted by children and those with childish minds; it makes for a great nursery tale for mothers to use to coax their children into submission and obedience.  In contrast, trying to understand how the universe created itself (e.g., via a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in a total void) requires trying to understand a lot of modern-physics rigmarole.
 
That thought (that "the god idea" is eagerly adopted by those "whom it hurts to think" about the "rigmarole" of modern physics) reminded me of the great poem by A.E Housman (1859–1936).  Even if you know the poem, perhaps you'd enjoy reading it again, as did I:

 

 LXII
 
 `Terence, this is stupid stuff:
You eat your victuals fast enough;
There's nothing much amiss, 'tis clear,
To see the rate you drink your beer.
But oh, good Lord, the verse you make,
It gives a chap the belly-ache.
The cow, the old cow, she is dead;
It sleeps well, the horned head:
We poor lads, 'tis our turn now
To hear such tunes as killed the cow.
Pretty friendship 'tis to rhyme
Your friends to death before their time
Moping melancholy mad:
Come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad.'
 
Why, if 'tis dancing you would be,
There's brisker pipes than poetry.
Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
 
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not.
And faith, 'tis pleasant till 'tis past:
The mischief is that 'twill not last.
 
Oh I have been to Ludlow fair
And left my necktie God knows where,
And carried half way home, or near,
Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer:
Then the world seemed none so bad,
And I myself a sterling lad;
And down in lovely muck I've lain,
Happy till I woke again.
Then I saw the morning sky:
Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
The world, it was the old world yet,
I was I, my things were wet,
And nothing now remained to do
But begin the game anew.
 
Therefore, since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure
Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,
And train for ill and not for good.
 
'Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale
Is not so brisk a brew as ale:
Out of a stem that scored the hand
I wrung it in a weary land.
But take it: if the smack is sour
The better for the embittered hour;
It will do good to heart and head
When your soul is in my soul's stead;
And I will friend you, if I may,
In the dark and cloudy day.
 
  There was a king reigned in the East:
There, when kings will sit to feast,
They get their fill before they think
With poisoned meat and poisoned drink.
He gathered all that sprang to birth
From the many-venomed earth;
First a little, thence to more,
He sampled all her killing store;
And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
Sate the king when healths went round.
They put arsenic in his meat
And stared aghast to watch him eat;
They poured strychnine in his cup
And shook to see him drink it up:
They shook, they stared as white's their shirt:
Them it was their poison hurt.
-- I tell the tale that I heard told.
Mithridates, he died old.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I have reported that post to the mods, zoro. My report (and this post here, I suppose) will be my only response to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zamzam,

 

Did you perhaps fail to notice that the title of this thread contains the expression:  "A Question for Atheists"?  Somehow or other it would seem consistent and appropriate to permit atheists to respond.  Which of course leads to the obvious questions:  Why are you responding?  Why are you reporting to mods a response by an atheist?  Or is it that you prefer to hide behind moderators rather than discuss the issues? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Discussing the issues"? "Responding"? Is that really what you call what you just did there? Wow.

Edited by IAmZamzam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Zamzam, I didn't "call" it that; you did!  Try to assign ideas appropriately.

 

Look back three or four posts.  There, I did "discuss the issue", and you responded:  "You and I have been through this rigmarole before and I'm not going to do it again."  That's what I'd call a nonresponse.

 

But, so be it.  You want to run and hide; go for it; I'm through with you.  But if it makes you feel better, do go ahead and report me again to your mother (whoops) mod:  we can't have these pesky atheists presenting their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I have not read every post. However, Mushtaq posted a link asking for me to join... 

 

 

It is interesting that Quantum Physics is now pointing to new evidence that something physical can actually start from nothing. Even more interesting is that something (on a quantum level), can actually come in and out of existence and be in several places at the same time. If religious people think they can discredit or refute this - they should remind themselves that they believe God / Allah has these powers. Regardless what you believe - science is trying to research and understand it. Science is the search but not the answer. The search is never complete.

 

 

All we know for certain is that life exists... If science decides Quantum Physics is the truth. Islam will believe Allah created Quantum Physics (sorry fellow Atheists - you will never win this one... they're one step ahead...) 

 

Salams Fish

 

Firstly i must thank you for giving a relevant reply regarding my article

 

I remember my professor who use say while taking class on radio communication "man has complicated the understanding of nature in the name of invention and discovery" .I think he was correct . We have really complicated its understanding .

 

You might have noticed ,In the starting of my article ,I mentioned about "can 's" and "might" .Note my highlighted part in your quote .

Again you have came with "can" .You cannot or as a matter of fact no one can explain precisely about nothing because we have complicated everything and one knows the easier way .

 

You are even correct when you said if quantum science explains this "nothing" then  who is the artisan of that quantum events.

So you have already lost the argument because Nothing  Gives NOTHING .

 

But i don't know why you don't want to know about the artisan who claims that he has made every thing out of nothing

There is a sea of proofs that for that artisan and science can only testify that artisan is telling the truth

and BTW this question was not new to us

 

052.035

YUSUFALI: Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? 

 

tell me who is asking this question to you  ,that  to even before 1400 years

 

You might have learned a simple mathematical induction that if something is true for n terms then it is also true for n+1th term

 

I recently read The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking's, and he made a point of saying something along these lines: 

 

We know the universe is expanding, therefore if we go back in time we know it was more condenced. And if we go back further in time, logic would say the universe had to be similar to a single mass - therefore the theory of the big bang. Most religious and scientific people now accept this as probable - (lets exclude those who think the earth is 6000-7000 years old).

 

 

 

Do you know one thing , Fish , even this article was inspired by such a program on discovery channel

Stephen hawking was talking about "habitable zone" and questioning us about the artisan who has put a perfect measure and designed with sheer elegance .But he goes on explaining other things  discarding the conversation about GOD by saying that it is not necessary .

 

Anyway, about your quote here , sure Stephen hawking might not had dreamed about this when he put forth this logic .He might have go in depth with theories  laws and experiments  before concluding that earth and the universe must be one mass 

 

OR 

has he  stolen this verse from quran

 

21.030

YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 

 

which one is true , Fish

even in my wildest imagination i will not think that Stephen hawking had read quran

Who is confirming whom , Fish

 

Kanyakumari,a beautiful village about 800 kms form here.I happened to visit there regularly with regards to my business .I think this is only second piece of land on the earth which witness the both sunrise as well as sunset .The other one is in Australia ,if i am correct ..

There is a rock as you see in the picture

 

But what made me special about this place is this image here in this rock

sun-rise-timings-kanyakumari-india+1152_

 

 

Can you see the calibration on the rock .they are the timing of sunrise and sunset with its  monthly position w.r.t earth

There i have seen two ends for east and two for west one.

and the verse that reflected in my mind was 

 

55.017

YUSUFALI: (He is) Lord of the two Easts and Lord of the two Wests: 

 

and the science related to this phenomena is still more amazing

 

And Btw how far you agree with this verse

 

 

52.044

YUSUFALI: Were they to see a piece of the sky falling (on them), they would (only) say: "Clouds gathered in heaps!" 

 

Now .can you remember suddenly i talked about Mathematical Induction 

can you apply it here

I can give you lots of proofs 

 

 

Regards

 

Mushtaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What matters is never what's "necessary", it's more what makes the most sense. Necessity does not determine truth, it determines need. If Stephen Hawking ever has read The Qur'an then his very problem was almost certainly that when he did so he was thinking entirely in terms of these misplaced scientific paradigms which Muslims themselves too often introduce into it now. It was a nontheistic scientist, you know, who first proposed NOMA--an idea which has so often been miserably and, I think, semi-intentionally misunderstood.

 

By the way, if the board isn't going to take me right to the full editor immediately then why does it bother with the intermediate screen? Why tease me? Can't the administrator do something about that?

Edited by IAmZamzam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be stated, that the only real reason the big bang is thought of as 'the start of time', is because we can not possibly comprehend how we could explore beyond this point. That does not mean that 'time' did not exist 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000s of billions of years before the big bang - even if there was nothing.

 

 

I would like to add few things which i could not do yesterday

 

I dont know to whom your pointing here , Fish

 

If you are pointing towards quran

Then sorry Fish as far as i know quran does not make such claims

however , there is a mention of time varying with respect to earth

 

 

For example, one the day of judgement , this earth will be changed to other and the heavens will also be changed(ayah :14:48)

Then ,a day will be of 50 thousand years what we reckon

 

70:4. The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years,

 

 

for further study , read the tafsir of this ayah

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding this small proximity that we live in from our star and the fact that we have the perfect conditions for life, if should be noted that there also 60 - 600 million sperm in an ejaculation. There is no denying we are all extremely lucky to exist. But that does not prove God... 

 

 

Put it other way ,living in tiny proximity of the billions and trillions of galaxies and stars which amounts to only four percent of the entire universe can we able to guess its Originator.

What you expect ,Fish

the Sublime ,The Ultimate,The Originator will come to you and introduce himself to you

Can you able to understand the difference in the concept of GOD that we are holding .

 

002.117

YUSUFALI: To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. 

 

In another verse

 

  006.101

YUSUFALI: To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.

 

So science can only acknowledge the presence of GOD and science itself cannot be god

 

Regards

 

 

Mushtaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×