Comment on The ''Grooming Gangs'' of UK, Islam & Pakistani Muslims by abdullah

Parent Post: The "Grooming Gangs" of UK, Islam & Pakistani Muslims · In Reply To

abdullah · 3/8/2025, 12:12:50 AM · permalink

1\. Proof of Allah's existence is easy to prove. Here's a summarized argument:  
The world exists and the universe exists, and we know the universe did not always exist. We know that it began to exist at some point in the very distant past. Its natural to ask "How did the universe come to exist? What created it?". From this there are four logical possibilities:  
i) The universe created itself  
ii) The universe was created by something which itself was created  
ii) The universe was created by something is uncreated  
iv) The universe was created from nothing (absolute nothingness)  
  
(i) is a logical impossibility because creating something requires the "creator" to have the potential to create, but if "creator" does not exist then its impossible for it to create anything  
  
(ii) also a logical impossibility. If something is created by something created, then we can also ask about that thing "What created it?" and if one says "something created created it" then we can ask the same question again, etc etc. If one always answers with "something created was what created it" then you would end up with a chain of created things infinitely waiting to be created by something else waiting to be created, i.e. **an infinite regress**. Athiests try to use the idea of the multi-verse to say it is possible for this to happen, but we can ask the same question about each universe in the multiverse, and the end result would be the same: an infinite regress.  
  
(iv) another logical impossibility due the same reason given for (i). If there is nothing, then it means there is no potential, no energy, no will. Absolutely nothing. To claim that something can be created out of nothing is the height of absurdity and only possible in science fiction. An atheist might refer to Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing" to argue it is possible with quantum mechanics to have a "quantum nothing" from which something can emerge, but Krauss has only changed to goal post by changing the definition of "nothing." His book is totally fails to prove the original point. [David Albert totally knocks out his argument in this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html).  
  
(iii) eliminating all of the other possibilities. This is the only remaining possibility. The universe was created by an uncreated being. This uncreated being must have a will, must be all-powerful to have created the universe, must be all-knowing to know how to precisely create such a vast and complicated world. This being is God or Allah.  
  
Let me know if this answers your question.  
  
2\. The Prophet PBUH was infallible in terms of the affairs of the religion, i.e. in matters of worship, morality, and knowledge the unseen (unseen are things like the Hereafter, Heaven, Hell, angels, Allah, etc). Since Islam covers all sorts of domains from family affairs, to governance, to warfare, it means he was infallible in those things.  
  
However, his infallibility does not cover his human nature or worldly affairs. For example, he did desire intimacy with his wives, he did get hungry and thirsty, and all other things that every human experiences, this is what makes him relatable and a model for us to follow. The only knowledge he had was what was revealed to him by Allah. These are all things which are affirmed in the Quran and the Hadith, and all Muslims must believe this as well.

7 bumps

braven · 3/8/2025, 4:08:45 PM · permalink

Thank you for that response.  I appreciate the time it took to write out...well written, too.   
However, if giving proof was/were easy, someone would do it.  Yet no one has.  No one.   
  
For anyone else reading this as well - If someone asks for "proof", and then someone gives a "theory"...how in any way does that pass?  It is possible that language itself is the problem.  If someone speaks English as a first language, and someone else speaks English as a second language, then communicating in English will be limited to level of the 2nd language learner.  Fair enough...all good.  This is just one example of how communication can go astray honestly.  For example, if someone asks for "proof", there is a non-subtle difference between - "proof", and "a proof".  Proof meaning exactly what it does, and "a proof" meaning a theory.  So if I ask for proof and someone gives me a theory...then I assume we are not talking about the same thing.   
  
As to the argumentation for God in that theory.  Complete nonsense.  I figure it was copy and pasted for the most part from the source listed.  No offense to the poster...it saves time and gets that point across.  All good.  
  
However, the person that wrote that theory had no intention of honest discussion.  Right from first principals they play fast and loose with vocabulary and semantics.  They use words such as, fact, logics, logical impossibility...etc....Using scientific terms to discuss metaphysical entities is absurd.  Yet, that author uses that language as a tool to "defer to authority" to give his words more power than they deserve.   
  
The theory they put forward is lacking honesty, logics, and semantic integrity.   The author has a dog in that fight...complete huckster tactics.    
  
Again, thank you for your reply.  Your take on Muhammed seems legit.  He was not infallible or perfect.  Was he even a good role model?  Even that is debatable.  And that would be a good thing...to be able to debate without someone taking offense.  
  
Peace.

5 bumps

abdullah · 3/8/2025, 5:11:29 PM · permalink

4 bumps

braven · 3/8/2025, 5:19:01 PM · permalink

3 bumps

abdullah · 3/8/2025, 6:25:09 PM · permalink

2 bumps

braven · 3/8/2025, 6:55:12 PM · permalink

1 bump

Signature