Reasonable Belief v/s Unreasonable SCIENCE: From Nothingness to Creation in 3 easy steps.

PREAMBLE

I believe in Creation, and in an intent, and will, that Created. 

I believe in a Sustainer, a Provider and a Giver above all. 

I do not hold that a proof of my belief necessarily exist in this life. 

Nor that a proof is even desirable. 

But what I do hold is that it is REASONABLE to believe, and unreasonable to not. 

When we come to ideas on the coming into existence of existence itself, we often come down to an argument of a thing becoming from nothing. 

Whilst we would be hard put to to empirically show such an event, the fact that we can conceive of it means that the idea must be entertained. 

The first modern Scientific postulate of an unobservable object, following on from Einstein's general theory, were the aptly named Black Holes. Until that is a clever dick showed that there would even be a radiation emitted from those esoteric cosmological oddities caused by the spontaneous eruption of mirror particles on the Black Hole's event horizon. 

It would seem then that even things that we presume are unobservable, are in fact observable, only you need to know where to look and what for. 

The Qur'an in its first stanza lays a clear foundation:

1-That is the BOOK without doubt.

(A place to look). 

2-A guide to the humble. 

3- Those who believe in the unseen, who establish prayer and spend out if what WE have bestowed upon them (of their wealth to the poor and needy).

The first characteristic for those seeking guidance is humility in the sight of something higher than yourself. 

The second clarifies the first; true and lasting humility comes only to those who believe in an unseen World. 

Thereafter the Quran guides us in the application of those things, but at outset it differentiates the Muslims as being those who believe in an Unseen World. 

ARGUMENT 1-

Then it would be reasonable to say that a man either-

1- believes in an Unseen World, or 

2-believes that the World is all that can be seen, or all that he can see and observe. 

In case 1, the person in question would have no trouble conceiving of something coming from nothing, and the Quran follows this with guidance sure. 

That such people should examine the root of all Books that came before, the original teachers and not their followers. 

For there they will find the purity of monotheism that only today resides within Muslim beliefs. 

ARGUMENT 2

In the case of 2, such a man, being an empiricist, cannot conceive of nothingness since nothingness is by its very definition unobservable. 

And if he did then surely he would not remain true to his principle. 

For it is unobservable, and hence impossible. 

Or he says that there always was a thing; an infinite regression of things. 

But since he is a finite empiricist, not in an infinite number of lifetimes, will he be able to observe a thing without a beginning. 

He will never be able to show with any degree of certainty a thing without a beginning. 

Both of which he would be hard put to observe; something coming from nothing, or an everlasting thing. 

In fact for an empiricist, a true materialist, explaining existence is a conundrum which will only bring them grief. 

Their ideas fail and contradict. 

Their only recourse is to deny their principle on the greatest of questions. 

Now tell me, who off the two is more reasonable?

The one who believes in an unseen World and that a thing can become from Nothing, or the one who says that all that there is, is all that can be seen, and then conjures something coming from nothing, or conjures an unobservable infinite series of beginnings, neither of which he can observe.

ARGUMENT 3

And there you have a contradiction, between his principle and what he'd have to admit. 

Such a man falls in his principle and in his methodology for by attempting to lay claim to the greatest question that mankind has posed of himself; the question if origin; he has admitted his need for those things that he cannot observe. 

Or if he were to hold true to his methodology, and his principle, then he would be forced to discount and ignore the ultimate question of origin. 

Yes he might pander around its limits, but never could he address the essence of the thing. 

And such a man would be incomplete. 

For it is the nature of all men, who would be whole, to question their origin. 

And GOD is the best of Judges, WHO will repay all in full those who lie and fail to be true to themselves. 

Shafeesthoughts. 

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:London