Friday, 25 March 2016

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

uantum theory?

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

I've heard some people say that quantum theory explains that matter can come into existence spontaneously.

Can you tell briefly describe the theory, tell me whether its just hypothesis or based on fact, and how you respond to it?

Jazak Allah khayr.
Selam aleykum
I think this is somewhat of a misconception, and I'm not sure what they are refering to. there's three scientific principles that they might be refering to.

1. Einstein's relativity theory.
According to general relativity, E=mc^2 and by that ratio energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Like in an atom bomb, how a part of the matter of an atom is transferred into massive amounts of destructive energy. This isn't creating out of nothing, but merely changing the form of energy. There is always conservation of enrgy, that is the sum total of all energy is always the same. The only thing we can do is manipulate the form that energy has. So for the atom bomb for example, we can change energy in the form of matter, to energy in the form of heat and radiation. So nothing new is created, instead existing energy merely changes forms.

2. Superposition.
Due to the wave-particle duality and due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We cannot know the exact location of particles. We can only detect particles by letting them interact. But by this process of detection, they have changed position. This is a big restriction in quantum-science. And something we have to take into account in any test or experiment. So rather then expressing the location of particles, in quantum physics we express an area of probabilities. An area that contains all the different places where the particle could be. These areas are calculated by complex mathematical equations based on experiments and chance-calculation. When studying these areas we come across a phenomena called superposition. This principle says that if a particle can be in one position or in another position, then there is also a third alternative where the particle temporarily exists in in both positions. However this doesn't mean that a new particle has come into existence that later disappears again. It is the same particle, which just manifests himself in two locations. What causes this phenomenon however, is yet unknown.

3. Matter and antimatter.
Empty space, or a vacuum isn't really empty. Space is made out of a sort of checkers-board, with negative and positive fields (boxes). If all the negative fields are filled with raw particles, and the positive fields are left open, then the end result is just empty space, a vacuum. If however a positive field also gets a particle, then we can detect that particle as it will manifest himself as "matter". If a negative box does not get a raw particle, this box will manifest himself as "anti-matter". So, if a raw particle changes location from a positive box to a negative box, then to us it will appear as if matter collides with antimatter and disappears. Also, if you could force a raw-particle to move from a negative box to an empty positive box, you would create matter and antimatter by doing so. This however isn't "creating out of nothing". In fact you would be merely manipulating raw particles, to make it seem as though new things come in existence. But this is only appearance. In reality nothing new is created, instead compositions of existing things have merely shifted.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalam alykum

JazakAllah akhi, can you now explain them points in relation to the origin of the universe, especially with the most focus on point no.2 superposition?
Superpostiion doesn't really have any direct link to the origin of the universe. Basically, all these rules follow the law of conservation of energy, that is no new energy is created, and no old energy is destroyed. Thus we know that none of these three can account for the creation of the universe, because for such a creation you would have to break the law of conservation of energy. The only alternative, is when you believe in an infinite universe, and you see the big bang merely as a dramatical change in the composition of the universe, and not as it's origin. However that theorie faces a whole bunch of scientific and philosophical challenges which make it implausible.

I've heard that quantum theory (or is it hypothesis?)
Most parts of quantum science is theory, only some small parts are still hypothetic since we're still pending on results of experiments.

explains that the universe never needed a begining because quantum explains that time ie past, present and future are irrelevant. I dont understand it much myself but can you comment on what u know about this?
Yes this is true. From an a-temporal, or better yet, an ex-temporal point of view, the past, present and future could have been created instantanious. So the origin of the universe doesn't need to "precede" the big bang. However this still doesn't acount for the existence of that universe. Logic still predicts that something caused it nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

what is meant when past, present and future are all created together instantaniously? how is that possible scientifically? what do they mean by this? i.e. do they mean that the future of what we're doing today had already been created billions of years ago?
Well consider that time is a dimension, and that this dimension is part of our universe. Things inside the universe traverse trough time, but things outside the universe wouldn't necessaryly do so. That is what I meant by a-temporal or ex-temporal. Outside the dimension of time. It could very plausibly be the case that past present and future were created at once. And that only to us, since we have a subjective point of view, it appears as if past comes "before" future.

also, i know abit about entropy, but can u explain it abit more. does entropy mean that there is only a certain level of useful energy which can be used for the production of new universes, and that this useful energy could soon run out? [how is this possible if u say that energy just changes in state without being destroyed?]
I got this definition for entropy on-line:
A function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
So translation: the amount of entropy is the amount of energy that can no longer be used. that doesn't mean that energy is destroyed, but simply that it has changed into a state where it can no longer be changed back to it's previous state. It appears with our current knowledge impossible for the entropy of a closed system to decrease. In other words, in ever process that happens, every single even in the universe, the entropy increases. Meaning in every process the amount of energy that is no longer useful increases. So yes, if the universe would go on forever, then eventually we'll run out of useful energy. In such a hypothetical future, all energy would be scattered and spread over the vastness of space. All suns/stars burned out, all heat dissipated. Also , I don't know how much energy it would take to form a universe, but I don't think there was ever enough energy in our universe to create a new universe.

how does this rule of entropy apply to the multiverse argument too? And how can that be refuted?
It would apply to the multi-verse in just the same way as the standard universe view. I don't see why it would need further explanation in the multi-verse view. And I don't think the multiverse view should be refuted. It could be true, it could be false, important thing s to keep in mind though is:
1. It doesn't solve the question of existence or negate the anthropic principle
2. It is still a speculative hypothesis.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalaam alaikum

jazak Allah khayr akhi.

What happens to the energy which isn't useful anymore? you explained that stars are destroyed etc. but can't this energy change to something else which will be useful, since it just changes state? Whats the difference between energy which forms the universe, and energy which isn't useful anymore?
Your representation is a bit off. first of all, some energy is no longer useful for certain processes, that doesn't mean it isn't "used" at all. It also doesn't mean that it's no longer part of teh universe or anything like that. Just look at it like this:
Energy can change states trough certain processes, but some of these processes are only one-way-streets. So eventually, given infinite time, all energy will be "stuck" in a certain state. To simplify the matter with an analogy: you can drop a glass and let it scatter, but you cant rewind the process and "unbreak" a broken glass.
(by the way, there's a very nice short story about this phenomena called "the last question".)

also, about the past, present and future, do you mean that outside the dimensions of this universe - the past, present and future can be percieved and seen?
Wheter or not it can actually be "seen" or "percieved" is not the issue. The issue is, that from a non-subjective point of view, one doesn't necesairly precede the other.

How is this known (does science prove this and how)?
It is a logical conclusion of our understanding of the nature of time and space.

And would this argument be plausible for theists who believe in God by saying that the future is already written and known by God?
Are you asking wheter this concept is compatible with the idea of God knowing the future? Yes; possibly.

I understand now, so would this energy probably cause alot of destruction in the universe? Or would it do something else?
Everything else you said makes sense right now, so jazak Allah khayr :) Well it depends on your perspective. Like with the analogy of the glass. Everything is made out of energy, the matter (glass) that is destructed consists out of energy, the force that destroys it is (kinetic) energy, the sound it makes is energy. So it's a bit odd to ask whether or not "this energy" causes allot of destruction. Which energy are you refering to? For example, if the sun would burn up; the biggest problem is not the state of entropy, but rather the lack of light and heat. A universe were all the stars have gone out would be very dark and cold. Another, perhaps even better analogy: you can burn up a piece of wood for warmth, but you can't un-burn the ashes. So in other words the problem of entropy is not that systems with high entropy are destructive, but rather simply that we have no use for them.

As for the relation to the infinite history. Those who claim that the universe has always existed, would have to explain why we aren't already in a state where all entropy is maximised.
here's that short story btw:
The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

By AbdulFattah

Twenty evidence of the fact that atheism is the worst doctrine on earth .. !!

Twenty evidence of the fact that atheism is the worst doctrine on earth .. !!
1 - Atheism violates the first law of Newton.
The first law of Newton says that "an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic)." So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.

2 - Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it's present in the presence of the Creator.

3 - Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamic to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side.

4 - Atheism is contrary to the Code of Ethics.
The original definition of morality: - Morals are those that come against self-interest .. against matter .. against reason
Moral obligation is a restriction of the human being and as Nietzsche said long ago: - The lack of power in human being is because of his ethical commitment.
So morals are not profitable practically .. there must be a value for ethics and this value is not of this world .. a value that is not measured by abstract materialistic standards and not subject to natural laws .. ethical behavior, sacrifice, supreme ideals, asceticism and altruism are the inherent morality either are meaningless or has a meaning in the presence of God...

5 - Atheism does not find an explanation to the law of pairs.
Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his book Almate'a (the story of faith): - “Before that, I did not know the secret of the wisdom of the repeated mentioning of the two sexes, male and female in the Qur'an (And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful) ADH-DHARIYAT-49 .. (And that He created pairs, the male and the female) AN-NAJM 45. Until I read from the contemporary philosopher Henri Bergson and realized that the repeated mentioning of the pairs is not intended for gratitude, but also meant something greater which is to alert that pairing is in plants, animals and even particles and which is a great evidence of the purpose and the denial of the chance, Darwinism, randomness and senseless.

6 - Material atheism is in contradiction with the immaterial self.
If a human being committed a crime and insisted that he did it unconsciously, each lawyer seeks to prove there was no intent, but from the material perspective, the crime took place and ended up on the reality and the offender is also admitting that he’s the perpetrator, but the law interferes to know the purpose, intent and self-condition during the commission of the crime and whether the crime took place unconsciously or not .. Here, we put self in position higher then facts and higher then abstract materialistic reality.. In reality, we do not really judge what happened in the world, but to judge what has occurred within the self .. This reflects the contradiction in principles between man and the world.

7 – Atheism is contrary to the laws of human rights.
Human rights is metaphysical pure issue and your saying that human beings are equal this is possible only if the human is a creature of God, so equality between human beings is exclusively ethical, not a natural, materialistic or mental fact, since people from the materialistic, natural or mental perspective are undoubtedly unequal and based only on religion, the weak can claim equality.
Those who are weak and poor in money, health and mind and excluded from the tables of the celebrations in the world, those who do not have anything to show or to prove about except through religion only, by which they demonstrate that they are equal or even better to God than the healthy, and this is where lies the frequent proof of the value of religion in equality.

8 - Atheism violates the privacy of all, since it does not recognize the sanctity and holiness.
No value to bunch of virtues that have been established by religions in the last tens of thousands of years. As Dr. Missiri says: - the atheist sees the ground as an exploited matter and his purpose is to achieve maximum satisfaction of it or as the thinker John Locke says: - If all hopes of human is limited to this world and if we enjoy life here in this world, it is not surprising nor illogical to look for happiness, even at the expense of parents and children.
So the ideas of impurity, holiness, chastity and purity are ideas derived from another world have nothing to do with the materialistic, Darwinian, imperative, cold world... If we were really the sons of this world, it will not seem to us as it has something dirty or sacred...

9 – Atheism is contrary to the law of cause and effect.
Of nothing comes nothing... there is no effect without a cause .. this common sense is erected in the mind because it is higher than the law and on it stands the modern science and goals’ purpose. Descartes says: “I exist so who made me exist and who created me? I have not created myself. It has to be my Creator." This Creator must exist and does not lack a creator and He should be named with all the attributes of perfection (Or were they created without there being anything, or are they the creators?) Tour 35 .. and it does not occur to us to deny this common sense because of the pretext that the mental delusion of the sequence of reasons to no end and it is mentally false or because of the pretext of our ignorance but it is the cause and the law of causality that is not based on observation as atheists claims since our senses just shows the pictures of the disjointed and sequenced phenomena and does not show us the relationship with the causality, so how can we know this relationship only if the mind has innate organized laws - the talk of Descartes – which with it, the human being can realize the sense of and then make new constructed judgments that does not depend on the senses

10 - Atheism contradicts the law of intent and care.
All assets on the ground fits to the human existence and operates accordingly to him, so it is not surprising to say that everything around us is subjected to our requirements of day and night, four seasons, space, surrounding air molecules and how all that situated to the human nature and his needs, and it is not unrealistic to the fact that we say that this harmony in the universe is designed specifically for the production of the human race and as our brother Majdi says: "By washing your hands, thousands of bacteria die, since Man is the fixed component in the world history , his spirit value and moral values will remain unchanged, so the human being was and will remain as human being from thousand years ago born by the past to thousand years later born by the future, neither his nature nor his intent will change."

11 – Atheism is contrary to teleology.
Science is in constant progress ... all scientists’ researches based on the existence of laws governing the world and controlling the matter .. the purpose of science in every search is to find the law governing this case since the science is teleological and therefore it is in constant progress .. and without the science adoption already of a law that governs all things for this progress, the science would not progress one step .. and here lies the contradiction in principle between messy atheism and teleological science.. and it is not imaginable that everything around us is governed by the law of teleology and the human is the only being responsible in this case.

12 - Atheism contradicts the law of consistency previous to consolidation.
Says Leibniz “the atoms are moving with God's will and work ability that shows how they relate to each other, However, they are not really related, but the power of God to make each atom goes in motion that harmonizes the motion of other atoms, so what seems to us of this harmony is the impact of the law of “consistency previous consolidation” since the matter does not discern the laws applied on it. And there is no rational must to oblige the water to boil at one hundred degrees Celsius or its molecules to diverge with boiling, and as Hume says: - a science that explains that with former interpretations is very immature science since it does not do more than adopting the situation but without giving any reasons. And it’s unavoidable but to admit of the law of “consistency previous consolidation”

13 – Atheism violates the principle of the famous Barclay.
Says Hume: - no evidence obliges us to believe that there is something If our senses missed it and no evidence compels us to believe that the thing we saw today and then we left and we go back to see it in the second day is the same thing we saw on the first day, since we do not know about the outside world except of we what have in our mind from sensory perceptions, and the mind obliges that there must be a holistic mind that absorbs all things and be a witness by it, and as God says (Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? ) FUSSILAT - 53

14 - Atheism is the founder of most criminal doctrines on the Earth.
Se Gore says: - The Darwinism doctrine is one of the despicable doctrines that are not supported except by the worst tendencies and contemptible feelings, since its father is infidelity and its mother is dirtiness.
Nazism was formed only on the discrimination of races and ethnicitie.
Mao Zedong the atheist thug said: - All the lower animals will be executed and all who stood against the revolution is an evolutionary error, and said in a December 9, 1958 «mass graves provide a good fertilizer for the land». As a result, 50 million people was killed in China.
Atheist Guevara said: - "To send men to the firing squad, the juridical validation is not necessary. We must learn how to kill queues of people in a shorter time!!!"
The criminal atheist Lenin said: - No mercy for the enemies of the nation, but kill, hang and confiscate.
Marx said: - "We have no pity for you, and we do not ask for your sympathy, when the day will come, we are in practice: conscientious savages."
and Marx justify this criminal terrible approach, saying: - "When people accuse us of cruelty, we wonder how they forgotten the basics of Marxism?"
As a result, 250 million people was killed in one century by horrible Darwinian atheism and this is probably more dead people, more than all the wars from Adam to this day.

15 - Atheism is against art and life.
The existence of another world along with the natural world is the primary source of every religion and art .. and If there was only one world, the art would be impossible
Atheism will never understand the essence of art and nature .. If there is no spirit of man so why we are keen to have the spirit of art?
When the science deals with the man, it looks at it as what is dead and what is not personal, while when an art deals with man, it looks at what is humane and teleological, since art is on a natural collision with the world and with all its sciences, that the silent rebellion and if there is absolutely no support to man with no room for his spirit and his self, then the art is not an area for him and the poets and tragedy writers deludes us and write nonsense that does not make sense
Art in nature and its recognizing of the existence of another world is carrieing revolutionary meanings of blasphemy of materialistic world... and that was understood by the famous French painter de Buffet when he said: - (the essence of art is uncomfortable and useless, it’s against society and the threat of it). Therefore, the essence of works of art are fully and vaguely obscure, it’s a continuous rebellion on the reality. It is repeated confession of the existence of another world that we do not belong to and we will go to it one day .. confession of human suffering on the ground and its inability to achieve the paradise that lies within his dreams and to search for it .. Art is simply is the fruit of the relationship between the spirit and the truth.
So when you contemplate on deep painting.. When you read a great novel .. the human being feels a strange sense that is mysterious with transcendence and holiness and entering the world of eternity .. Art is exactly as religion, both are recognizing the existence of another world, but art is not a religion but an expression of religion. Art is the illegitimate son of the truth... while religion is the legitimate son of the truth ..

16 - Atheism represents abnormality in the history of civilization.
Atheism is nothing more than an intellectual abnormalities and mental pollution in the history of nations and civilizations, Will Durant says in his book (The Story of Civilization): - There may be cities without walls without armies, without plants but there is no city without a temple
And The author of the book (why we say that God exists) says : - (and there one who said that man is guided to God with revelation or without revelation, but with the revelation, it was better and thorough, and some argued that all the worships are revelation from God, but it might be an old revelation that was stained with myths from magicians and fortune-tellers, so the primitive nations sidetracked in their ignorance and God was sending Messengers to purify these beliefs from sidetracking). And Schmidt and Lang -two of the researchers of the assets of religions- say that the origin of all religions in purpose is the Oneness and the diversity came in the later stages, and it have been discovered that inheritance of Indian American and Indigenous residents of the North America are similar in many decrees to monotheistic religions particularly in terms of punishment and reward and here where lies the argument on people, where they are equal in reason and requesting guidance .. and humans differ in religion, but they agree in what God wants them to do.
Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his masterpiece, the story of Faith, p. 35: - It’s more likely that many philosophy of the ancients in Egypt, China and India are the remnants of forgotten history, so the owners of these philosophies were stacked among the philosophers and they might be prophets or prophets’ subordinates.
That’s why atheism is abnormal approach that appears in temporary image and quickly disappears and if it‘s beneficial to people, it would’ve stayed on the earth.

17 - Big Bang and the fall of the myth of the stable static universe.
In 1989, NASA had lunched the satellite (Cuba) for the detection of cosmic radiation resulted from the Big Bang and compiling information on the radiation and this satellite was able in only 8 minutes just to give a complete picture of the radiation and it is proven that the universe is made and this is what knocked off the atheists in critical embarrassment.
A. S. EDDINGTON says: "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me"
And DENNIS SCIAMA said that he did not defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid. SCIAMA goes on to say that as evidences began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed.. And that he must leave aside the theory of the stable universe
and his colleague GEORGE ABEL said that he has no choice but to accept the Big Bang theory.
This prompted the atheist philosopher of the twenty century ANTHONY FLEW to say his famous aphorism: - "Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus." .. because the science has proven the idea that were defended by religious books.

18 - What is the mystery behind the bias of modern science towards the Qur'an?
Gustave Le Bon says "Islam is religion of the most appropriate for scientific discovery", and that’s the reason of the frequent convert to Islam in the scientific community of doctors, researchers and professors.
The wonderful Alija Izetbegovic Say: - Aristotle has wrote three scientific books (in physics in the heavens .. .. in the earth) These three books do not exist today with one sentence that is scientifically valid .. three books from a scientific perspective is equal to zero to ten, while the Qur'an as Maurice Bucaille says in his famous book (the Qur'an, Bible and the Torah in the perspective of modern science): - The truth is I did not find any verse from the Qur'an that is contrary to one scientific fact but the Qur'an already passed the modern science and corrected many of the scientific theories that were prevalent in his day, for example the idea that groundwater was formed through a deep gorge at the bottom of the continents moved underground water from the oceans to the depths of the earth did the Qur'an ratify this scientific myth which was prevalent in that times or said (Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs - Zumar 21) ... .. The source of groundwater is made up of springs, rain and not from Aristotle gap in the depth of the continent ........ And so on

19 - Atheism does not give an explanation for anything.
Atheism is not a solution but a confession of a failure in finding a solution and this is the beginning of atheism and the end of it ..
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins says in his book delusion: - (Atheists are like bunch of cats, every cat in different direction..) Every atheist is an independent church and as a Sheikh Moqbel Bin Hadi says (If ten people of falsehood meet, they separate in eleven ideas) so you do not find two atheist with the same idea combined and this is the misfortune of atheism and its ravages, it is the undisciplined doctrine that does not have a clear explanation of any issue, does not have a value of just a fun game mentality, as said by Dr. Ahmed Okasha .. Atheism in itself is merely a superficial naive idea that is very lazy on a very deep and serious issue ... Atheism is messy, nihilistic and skeptical. As one of the old brothers says: - (since the science is in continuous progress and since there are laws and fixed facts, the function of science is to look for those laws and facts, therefore, there no existence of Atheism or the messy Agnosticism.)

20 – The return of scientific world to God
The physicist (Frederick Bermham) author of History of Science (Science historian) Says: (at present, the scientific community deems the idea of God's creation of the universe a more respectable idea than ever before for hundreds of years).
Michael Behe says: I am compelled to accept the existence of God since the result of all these cumulative efforts to examine the cell. ie: to examine life at the molecular level is a loud shout to the clear sharp design ...
And I evidenced that by the return of hundreds of scientists and thinkers in the past few years to God and acknowledged that the cause of atheism is psychological rather than mental

The famous astronomer (Fred Hoyle) says in his book (mathematics of evolution) page 130: - (in fact, how the very clear scientific theory says that life is collected by a clever mind, however, the person marvels and wonders, why it’s not accepted widely as an intuitive ... but most likely it’s psychological reasons rather than scientific.)
and as Imam Hussein may Allah be pleased with him when he said (God, an eye has blinded that doesn’t see you)

To sum up, Sheikh Ghazali was right when he said: - We are imagining a mule building the pyramids, but we do not imagine what is assumed by atheists when they deny the divinity .. and as has been said in the Islamic history: - "The ox knows its master, the donkey knows its owner, but this one does not know ..." or, as the Bible in the Psalms of David the Prophet says : ”The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. 14-1 .. or as our Lord said in the Qur'an (And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones) AL-ARAF 179

Who 'created' God?

Who 'created' God?

Who created God?

God is uncreated by definition.

If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.

Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

We cannot see emotions physically, but we see their product; tears, smile etc. The hormones in our body cause us to get these feelings, however the feelings cannot be physically seen except through their product i.e. tears, laugh etc.

Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.

Why doesn't God show Himself then?

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

We know it requires faith to believe in Allah without seeing Him. Yet there are many signs (ayat) that He has given us which help us in accepting and strengthening in this faith. These will be discussed later insha Allah (God willing.)
By Qatada

Who Created God?

One of the attributes of God is that He is Eternal. By definition Eternal is forever with no beginning; therefore the question is absurd. Only temporal/non-eternal beings are created. By logic, everyone agrees with the fact that there was something Eternal which gave life to this universe and its inhabitants. We believe that the Eternal is everlasting and intelligent being and we call Him God.

Why does not God show Himself?

God does not to ungodly things. By definition, He is not like His creation and not within His creation. If we assume that He were to show up, what evidence do you have that you will believe in Him? The classical arguments presented in the Qur'an which tell us that when miracles were revealed to people in the past they said it is magic. So what evidence do you have that you won't say the similar thing? 

By Salman_________________ 

Dialogue with an atheist

Dialogue with an atheist

by sheikh Al-ghazali

This is a dialogue between sheikh Mohammed Al-ghazali and an atheist. the sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, published it in his book “qaza'ef al-haq” (righteousness projections).

The dialogue narrated by al-ghazali 
He can observe the creations of the almighty creator manifested in plants, flowers and fruits. he can see how the dark hard soil cracks to bring out the bright and pale colors flourishing on leaves and branches of trees that are rich with basils and jasmines. he can also see how everything is harvested and turned into clothes, food for people and animals. then, ruins and rubbish become new beautiful plants varied in taste and look, filling the fields and gardens. who created all these?

My companion answered without much reason as if he is drunk: The land created them.
i said:The land ordered the sky to rain, the sun to rise, the leaves to store carbon and produce oxygen, the grains to contain fat, sugar, odor and starch??
he said:i mean nature in the earth and the sky.

i said:The earth, sky and what is between all cooperated to create each grain in the rice dish in your lunch, then what is the role of each component in this creation? who is responsible to make apples sweet and pepper hot, is it the soil of the earth or the rain of the sky?
he said:I don’t know and knowing is worthless.

i said:Does not it need a mind to plan and a will to sort? where is the mind that created and the will that changed the manure piles or the beams?

he said:The world was developed according to evolution and we do not know the source or details.

i said:I will explain to you what you are saying! you are saying that long time ago, there were a number of blind disordered elements scattered in the universe, then with the passage of time and constant meeting, these elements had a unique chance that will never reoccur. a primitive living cell emerged then it reproduced rapidly and developed into the world we see today!! this is the ignorance that you called science, and you are not embarrassed of insisting on facing the world boldly with it!! you are saying that complicated mathematical calculations were solved automatically. you are saying that fine, tiny and great creatures have lives because of a chance they seized and it will never come back!! this is just to escape from believing in the great creator.

he said enraged:If there were a creator as you said, would the world be filled with tragedies and pain like today? would we have seen obscene richness enjoyed by idiots and strangling poverty suffered by smart people? would we have seen sick children who die and disfigured people who live in pain?

i said:Now i know that what i expected is right. your disbelief is due to psychological and social problems more than important intellectual issues!!
there are people who believe or disbelieve according to what confronts them whether hardship or ease. almighty Allah says: “and among mankind is he who worships Allah as it were, upon the very edge (i.e. in doubt); if good befalls him, he is content therewith; but if a trial befalls him, he turns back on his face (i.e. reverts back to disbelief after embracing islam). he loses both this world and the hereafter. that is the evident loss.” (al-hajj: 11)

he said:We are not selfish as you describe us. we do not feel angry or content according to our own circumstances only. we just look into the circumstances of people and then we issue our judgment that you refuse now...

i said:Your problem is that you do not know the nature of the present life or the functions of people in it. it is a temporary transition to the final destination. so, the present life is a passageway, and in order to cross it to one of the two conclusions, the human has to experience tribulations that would polish his metal and discipline his habits. tribulations are various and diverse, and when the believers succeed in overcoming the obstacles filling their passageway, keeping their relation to Allah clear no matter how many difficulties and distresses they face, they will return to almighty Allah who will say to them: “my worshippers! no fear shall be on you this day, nor shall you grieve” (az-zukhruf: 68)
he said:What is the point of this tribulation?

i said:The person may stay awake for nights for knowledge and science acquisition. his body might sweat asking for rest after exerting a lot of efforts, but he keeps struggling to achieve his aim. big posts are usually given to the experienced people who faced difficulties and succeeded in dealing with them. if this is the prevailing law in the present life on earth, why is it strange then if it is the right struggle for the expected immortality?

he answered sarcastically:Is this your philosophy to justify the tragedies that happen in people's lives to make people forbear them?

i said:I will tell you – in detail – about the evils you complain about. these pains are divided into two sections: one is destined by Allah to occur in the present life, it is part of it and the message of the human is not complete without experiencing theses pains and tests. it is as abbas al aqad explained: “a solidarity between the parts of the universe, as there is no meaning of bravery without danger, no generosity without need, no patience without hardships and no virtue without vice that opposes and illustrates it .. “this can be applied on our sensual pleasures, and on our psychological and intellectual needs. we do not know the pleasure of being full unless we endure hunger, we do not feel sodden unless we experience thirst. we would not enjoy a beautiful scene unless it is in our nature to be disturbed by an ugly one”.. this explanation of the nature of the present life also includes the fact that almighty allah tests each person of what concords with his nature and what agrees with his personality and environment. people vary to a great degree; a person might scream complaining of what might not bother another at all. Allah has a divine reason for putting his creations into such adversities. what is important is that the incidents of the private and public life is ruled according to a comprehensive frame of doubtless divine justice. the second section of evils that you complain about is your fault and the fault of devious people like you.

he said with dismay: I and my likes have nothing to do with the chaos in the world? how can you accuse us of being the reason?

i said:No, you are responsible for it. almighty Allah puts a good system for the world; it is as system that guarantees its happiness and balance. it is a system in which the strong is to help the weak, the rich to aid the poor. Allah warns against following desires, committing oppressions and transgressing boundaries and rights. Allah promises the goodness of the present life and the hereafter to the ones who adheres to this system: “whoever works righteousness, whether male or female, while he (or she) is a true believer (of islamic monotheism) verily, to him we will give a good life (in this world with respect, contentment and lawful provision), and we shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do (i.e. paradise in the hereafter).” (an-nahl: 97) so, if people violate the boundaries, cut what Allah ordered them to link, cooperate to do evil instead of goodness, then how come they complain about harvesting what they planted? most of the evils surrounding the world are due to going astray and not following the right path. almighty allah says in the qur’an: “whosoever desires (with his deeds) the reward of the hereafter, we give him increase in his reward, and whosoever desires the reward of this world (with his deeds), we give him thereof (what is written for him), and he has no portion in the hereafter. and whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. and he pardons much.” (ash-shura: 30)

Abu bakr al-siddiq marched an army to fight the tribes that refused to pay zakat after the death of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). his decision was right because this way he asserted the rights of the poor, curbed selfishness and reinforced islam. when other rulers do not follow Abu bakr, then how come critics blame predestinations for causing miseries in life?! 
He said: What do you mean?

I said: I mean that Allah’s laws are enough to relief people, but instead of blaming who suspended them you have the nerve to dare the creator by accusing his religion and orders.
some people are mean by cursing heavens if the earth is corrupt. they should do their duty in forming chaos and asserting righteousness and stop babbling unjust words about religion and almighty Allah. 
You, materialists, are sick and your consciousness and thoughts need extensive treatment.
i asked myself after this long dialogue: diseases are about to become epidemics, do we have people to cure the wounds and treat diseases or the problems we have in muslim preacher will remain suffocating?
source: “qaza'ef al-haq” (righteousness projections)