Poetry for Palestine: Dialogues

The question of faith

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:42:28 GMT

The question of faith

Where do you get your faith from? People wonder

This is my brief reply to my friend Joe as we discussed faith and when he asked me:

“I still don't understand where you get your faith from; personally all I would get from your experiences is total anger. I assume then that one of us is totally fucked up and I'm sure it aint you.”

No Joe, it aint you either.

You are a person full of compassion and humanity, you are someone who thirsts for justice, and for the best for mankind. And that is the essence of what makes us human.

Dear Joe, arriving at where we are in our understanding of the world has much to do with our long painstaking quest for answers through our diverse and profound personal experiences, and of course directed and predisposed by our intellectual capabilities, emotional capacities, cultural influences and psychological tendencies.

We all arrive to this world without a choice of our own, and as soon as we open our eyes to the wonders around and within ourselves we are driven to question, and to long for meanings that explain our existence.
Our curiosity is magnified as we grow.

Drawing on my personal experience, this inquisitive curious mind was no different from anyone else, as a little girl I parched and yearned for answers.

I started asking questions and thinking about the world and later on about my very own existence, and about God, at a very young age.

As a toddler I lived in a small village in Palestine, I was fascinated by my surroundings, the trees, birds, flowers, people, but more so the sky, how vast! How beautiful! How perfect! It was always urging me to look at, at first to admire and then to question. I spent endless hours staring at it day and night.

As I grew a little older my fascination grew deeper, I started to look for meanings and explanations, trying to make sense of what’s around me.

“What is all this? … Why is all this? … Who am I? ... Do I really exist? … How and why I can comprehend the fact that I exist? …. Why am I here? … Is there a purpose in my life? If there is, what is that purpose?”

Endless questions burned in my little head.

I thought and contemplated for many years; and while many of my mates were playing I used to be drawn into this inner world of mine searching for meanings and answers.

The only valid explanation for me that echoed incessantly in my little brain was that there must be a perfect designer, a mastermind, an intelligent power behind all, a supreme awareness, a sublime consciousness, a talented artist and compassionate being if any thing is to have any meaning at all.

The only conclusion I’ve ever being able to arrive at was always that there must be a Being who is greater than I, who is more intelligent than I, and who is more loving than I. my perception of that Being is what I call “faith”, “spirituality”.

Later on, and as I went through certain spiritual experiences I came to feel God in the real sense.

As I prayed, an overwhelming, sublime, gentle, subtle, loving, magnificent presence engulfed me.
Words always fail me and fall very short, for I can’t put that feeling in words.

God for me was as real -if not more- than my own reality. So in my own perception God is a certainty; however, that does not give me the right to impose my perception upon others.

(By the spiritual experience I mean the feeling in which you are overwhelmingly moved by joyful, ecstatic and exhilarated sensation of euphoria and total awareness and nearness of a Sublime Most Loving Presence that you are ever so grateful for)

now then, if faith and the concept of God provides a logical explanation to my existence, and if it helps me understand myself and the world around me in a rational manner, if it can give me a sense of fulfilment, contentment and satisfaction, if it enables me to survive adversities of life with minimum trauma and more patience, grace and sanity, if it fills my soul with love, joy, peace and tranquillity, if it makes life more fun, more enjoyable and my experiences more real and intense ; then how and why should I complain or deny?

After all there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. My logic concluded.

Dear Joe, I must emphasise here that I did not find faith through my suffering and pain; but rather through my inner quest and thirst for answers.

Through my fascination with this breathtaking beauty that I see all around.

Through my amazement, astonishment, and wonder at my ability to think and use logic and reason.

Through the heart melting awesome feelings that engulfed me as I felt my baby’s hand wrapped around my finger.

Through the superb fabulous sensation as I caress a soft velvety rose and as I fill my being with its sweet scent that leaves me awe struck and “gob smacked”

Through the marvellous, splendid and magnificent sensation of love that captures my soul and overwhelms me with infinite joy and bliss

Having said that, I also found that my faith helps me through my suffering, it enables me to rise above and overcome hardships and adversities

My faith gives me inner strength; I don’t need rely on anything; people, things, or mind-blocking substances to cope with the adversities of life, pain, worries or sorrow. My faith is my inner strength.

It gives me a sense of purpose, it gives my life a meaning, it gives my mind a sense of direction, it gives my heart endless fulfilment and fills it with boundless love, and it gives my soul everlasting joy and delight

My faith brings to me none but the most pleasant, most amazing feelings of contentment, tranquillity, peace; that life could be raging around me but I am sitting there ever so calm, ever so still, ever so safe, as if forever sitting in the eye of the storm.

My faith enthuse me with hope, happiness and bliss that nothing, absolutely nothing in this life I’ve ever experienced can be weighed against, measured up to, or compared with those intense wonderful experiences.

It is like trying to describe the feeling of your magnificent love to some one who’s never been in love before, who’s only experienced the enjoyment of intellectual muse, but never tasted love.

The feeling of excitement of intellectual stimulation, and the delight and pleasure of being in love and feeling loved are absolutely insignificant compared to the overwhelming enchantment and ecstasy that the soul enjoys in one moment of inspiration

Can I ever give it up for anything? Can I ever swap it with the whole material world with all of what’s in it?

Never

Not even if I were to be chopped and diced into pieces or burnt at the stake.

That moment

If I was to use all the words
Of all languages
Ever used by poets
Since time began
I'd never be able to describe
That moment

If I was to collect all the masterpieces
Of all the works of art
Ever designed
By man's imagination
I could never repaint
That moment

If I was to live
All my past, present
And future
In pain, fear, and sorrow
Absorbing the suffering
Of all humanity
Since life began
It’s a price worth paying
To experience
That moment

Thank you for giving me
A taste of paradise on earth
If only for a moment

Thank you for opening a window
In my confined heart
In the here and now
Into eternity and infinity
If only for moment

Thank you
For blessing me with
That moment
.

Sheltered

Lightning strikes
Thunder rumbles
Wind blows
Gales bluster
Tornados threaten
Hurricanes rage

Aware of it all
Yet

There I am
Sitting…so… still

Tranquil

Content

Serene

Unharmed

I am

Sitting

In the eye

Of the storm

Dialogue with Steady

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:44:52 GMT

Dialogue with Steady

http://whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17168&PN=1

Dialogue-1

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:13:42 GMT

Dialogue with my atheist friend

07. September

Dear Sam

I was uplifted with attending the meeting yesterday especially with seeing some new faces, but with all my respect to you as an activist and free thinker I am still perplexed at your stiff position that insists that the only solution to the Palestinian problem is “a one secular” state. My favoured vision also is to see the one state solution; however I can’t fathom the idea that any one of us can claim that he/ she knows what is best for that society! Or that we have the right to impose our ideas on others.

They know their circumstances better than we do, they have brains to think for themselves, and they are capable of making their own decisions.

It saddens me to see that we as humans -time and time again- fail to have enough insight so we end up not being able to live up to our own principles by giving to others what we want for ourselves: the freedom to choose, the freedom to have their own views on the world, the freedom to create a society that reflects their beliefs, the freedom to live by their own principles.

We always unknowingly fall in the same hole, we think that our ideas are the best, our minds are the greatest, and our principles are the finest. And this is scary because it is “kind of” arrogant.

Why can’t we give people in the Middle East some credit and credibility? Why should we seek to impose our solutions? What different we become from the imperialists whose aim is to impose their vision and control others?

I am perplexed and mystified!!

Nahida

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07- September

Hi Nahida,

A number of points immediately come to mind. Perhaps most important is Article 16 of the Palestine National Charter adopted by the Palestinian National Council in July 1968 which reads”
The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquillity, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, colour, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

This was one of the first things that drew me to the Palestinian cause and over the years I have heard many Palestinian leaders call for a democratic, secular, unitary state based on the above article. Actually the full charter is an amazing document and for me it
demonstrates the intellectual maturity of the Palestinian people.

We have had many discussions on secularity but most important for me is the belief that the Government of a country should be separate from the religious beliefs of its citizens. I will never accept the imposition of a religion by legislation or any other means for that matter.

I argue with all my heart against a Jewish state not because it is Jewish but because I do not believe it is the role to the state to impose a religion on its people.

The Israeli Government could remove all laws that discriminate against non-Jewish people. They could even enact laws protecting the rights of non-Jewish people. But as long as it is a “Jewish State” then by definition anyone who is non-Jewish has secondary status. Otherwise
why bother having a “Jewish State”.

More importantly I will make the same arguments against any religion.

Perhaps we should be arguing for a three-state solution – an Islamic state, a Jewish state and secular state.

I am afraid this is one where we will have to agree to disagree.

Sam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07- September

Dear Sam

But –dear Sam- what kind of secular state do you want?

A state that will ban the hijab and prevent me from wearing what I want -like secular France, Germany, Turkey, Tunisia, Belgium, and now even Bulgaria?

A state that will not allow its children to learn about any faith or religion before they’re 18?

A state that will impose the teaching of evolution -as viewed by Darwin- as the only scientific truth?

A state that will consider the teaching of the theory of intelligent design an illegal unlawful practice?

Can you -dear Sam- give me the guarantee that this secular state unlike many others will allow me the freedom to practice my religion without being persecuted for my beliefs like what happened to people of faith in many communist countries?

Will my right to have faith be protected without having to face the accusation of being backwards, superstitious?

Can you give the guarantee that I will be allowed to believe in a Creator the same way it allows others to believe in blind chance as the cause of our existence -by giving us equal rights and similar platforms to teach our views?

Will people of faith be allowed to teach their views to children?

Dear Sam

Consider this scenario: few years from now and miraculously the Zionists agreed to a one state for all, also miraculously they acknowledged their wrong doings and allowed exiled Palestinians to return. Then the nature and the constitution of the new born state were put to the vote.

Isn’t it the right of the citizens then to decide the nature of their new state? How to introduce laws that will cater for all? As it will be a multi-religious multi-ethnic too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07- September

Hi Nahida,

I meant to say you looked really well on Tuesday night. I do hope it is an indication that things are getting a bit better for you.

Now for your last letter, It seems that once again we may be down to semantics.

You appear to be working from the premise that taking a particular belief and defining it as a “religious belief” gives it special status, and that it should not be subject to any criticism or restrictions.

Your request for the right to have your faith protected without having to face the accusation of being backwards or superstitious is a perfect example of this, for in every other context this would be considered a restriction on freedom of speech. The people who believed the earth
was flat, that slavery was morally just, that women who were designated as witches should be burned at the state, that people who were mentally ill should be kept in chains or that women should not be allowed to vote, would have loved to have their rights protected in this way.

History is loaded with “religious beliefs” and as a secularist I apply the same criteria to all. Childhood sacrifice has been an essential part of many religions throughout history, but it is one belief, which we can all agree, should not have its rights protected. Turning to the
other end of the spectrum, prayer the privacy one’s own home is also an essential part of many religions, but I do not think there are many secularists who would deny people this right. I certainly would not.

So all other “religious beliefs” fall in between and the issue becomes drawing the line. If I guarantee you the right to wear a headscarf in public, do I not have to give the same guarantee to anyone who claims their headdress is part of their religious belief, no matter how
offensive some may find it?

Moving beyond headdress, the list of possible conflicts becomes endless and always the same question: where do you draw the line?

Two religious beliefs come to mind on which I would like to know your views. Jehovah Witness do not believe in blood transfusions and there have been numerous cases where they have been prepared to let their children die, rather than allow them to have a blood transfusion when
it was needed to save the child’s life. Usually the doctors go to court and get a court order allowing them to save the child’s life. Also some naturists consider nudism to be part of their religious beliefs.
Indeed they argue we are born without clothes and there is no practical need for people relaxing in a warm climate to be forced into wearing clothes. Thus the question becomes as long as I am guaranteeing religious rights, should I guarantee Jehovah Witness the right to deny their children blood transfusions and naturists the right to go without clothes. Incidentally can I guarantee the right of two people of same sex to love each other, to share their lives and be free of being considered deviant?

Sam,

Dialogue-2

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:12:56 GMT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08- September

Dear Sam

You said:

You appear to be working from the premise that taking a particular belief and defining it as a “religious belief” gives it special status, and that it should not be subject to any criticism or restrictions.

Not at all dear Sam; and I am sorry if I wasn’t making myself clear enough and gave you the wrong example and/or impression.

This is not my argument. I don’t believe that having a religious belief gives it any special status at all, to criticise or restrict a religious belief is not the issue.

Nothing is more disturbing to me than to find myself thinking or believing that I or my ideologies are above criticism.

I loathe this idea whether coming from me or from anyone else.

The point that I was trying to clarify is that having a secular state is no guarantee for anything, certainly no guarantee of giving human rights to all. You did not respond to any of the examples of bad bad behaviour by secular states except to this one. Talking about accusation against people of faith in that context is only relevant to the point that I was trying to make; not that we deserve special status or treatment but precisely the opposite; i.e. we deserve the same treatment, equality and respect that other members of society have.

A minority living in a secular state should have the right not to be discriminated against just because of their beliefs, as long as they are not imposing their faith and practice upon others, and that those beliefs and practices are not harmful to others.

But in reality living in a secular state is no guarantee that all members of society will be treated fairly and equally. Some will definitely be more equal than others. Some will be persecuted and indeed imprisoned for their beliefs (many are in Turkey and Tunisia). Some will be allowed to dress as they please some won’t. Some will be allowed to teach their views and some won’t.

You are probably aware that in USA it is illegal to teach the “Intelligent design” as a theory despite the compelling scientific evidence.

Some will try to deprive others of their rights because of their contempt of religious people. And you know that holds true amongst some secular fundamentalists; to some, religions are viewed as number one enemy even before capitalism and imperialism, to many, religion is the opium of people, and to many more religions are viewed as irrational.

Despite the fact that both groups (those who believe in a Creator and those who don’t) are standing on equal footing when it comes to logic and rationality into scientifically proving their case.

To clarify my position; there are two main points I argue for:

1) Secularism is not a guarantee of establishing a Utopian society which I argued above and previously.

2) People in different societies must be allowed to choose the way they want to run their lives, the methods of establishing their own government, and their own laws/legislations that reflect their ethics and morality.

I as -a Muslim- have absolutely no problem with having and living in a secular state if it was voted for and as long as my human rights are protected.

I will live by my values and will not try to impose them on others; however, I would expect exactly the same from secularists, if they live in a country with a religious majority.

In a society were the make up of that society is mainly of people of faith were they wish to live by laws that reflects their values, I see that as a basic human right.

That right doesn’t mean that any minority in that society will lose out or become marginalized or oppressed. They have the right to live by their own set of values and morality as long as they don’t impose it on others, and without inflecting harm on the rest of society.

We as a Muslim minority here try to live with our ethics without forcing it upon others; we don’t drink but never expect that other people should follow our moral code. For the sake of argument, suppose that we have a belief that enslaves women or prevents children from getting education; the host society senses the harm done to women or children; they then have the right to restrict our harmful religious practice.

A minority of nudists living in a Muslim majority have no right to impose their ethics on others by going out naked publicly as it will be viewed by the Muslim majority as harmful to some members of the society (the young).

But if nudists live in a country of their own as a majority and are happy to practice their nudity publicly, then it is not the right of a Muslim or what ever minority living in that country to impose their morality on the majority and force them to dress up.

They can have the choice of either keep living in that society and bearing the consequences of the harm done and trying to persuade the majority of its harmfulness, or find another place to live.

But I don’t see that imposing the ethics of the minority on the majority as a fair option.

Giving the right to govern, legislate and create laws for a secular minority against the will of a religious majority in a particular country and trying to impose secular ideologies upon that society is not a fair act.

Simply because it implies one of two things: either that secular morality is superior to others, or that there is only one set of human values namely: that of the secular. None of which is true.

We have seen time and time again that secularism can’t be trusted blindly when in power. So why should I vote for it if I live amongst a Muslim majority?

Therefore I adamantly refuse to give the secularists the free hand and the absolute right to create the world’s laws and legislations based only upon their own perceptions, views, ethics, and morality.

The other point that I want to discuss with you is about morality.

Morality -as I understand it- is not absolute, what is moral to you might be immoral to some one else, and visa versa.

A secular might see in the refusal of blood transfusion by religious parents as a great wrong and immoral act yet at the very same time have no problem but indeed defend the right of a mother to kill her baby (abortion) in the name of women’s right, yet both involve the killing of a child.

To me these two acts are as vile and as immoral; but I see it not my right to impose what I think on people; however I can always put my vote where my morality leads me.

If I live in a society where the majority voted for the woman’s absolute right to have abortion or to refuse blood transfusion (or indeed any thing that contradicts my morality); I will try within my available means of campaigns and dialogue to defend the weak and vulnerable (the baby) but I will not try to forcibly impose my morality on the whole of society by saying -for example- it’s a great sin in Islam to kill your child.

however if I lived in a society with a Muslim majority, who voted and accepted to live by Islamic morality then I think it is the right of that society to produce legislations that says abortion is illegal without taking away the right of the minority to protest and try to campaign against that law.

If I lived in a prominently Muslim majority- why should I accept that my government adopt the secular’s definition of what is right and ethical to adhere to and to derive its laws from?

In a Muslim society (and like any other society) we might have issues that we think are wrong and unethical yet they might not be seen likewise by others; for example consuming alcohol, usury, or free sexual relationships that lacks any form of commitment, why do we have to adhere to the views and perceptions of the secular. They are perfectly ethical to him/her, why should we as a majority produce our laws to reflect his morality?

I am sorry for the long wended essay, but all I am trying to do is to make myself clear, basically and simply I am trying to defend the right of any group of people to live by their own laws that reflects their morality, and that does not necessitate that these laws should be secular, or should reflect the secular’s understanding and perception of the world. For what the secular think and perceive as right and ethical could be seen otherwise by others and visa versa.

Morality is not universal; neither the morality of one group is superior to that of another.

My freedom ends where the freedom of the other starts.

With all my love and respect

nahida

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08- September

Dear oh Dear Nahida,

You have such a wonderful way with words. I would dearly love to be able to write like you.

The arguments in your email and the way you present them are complex and I need time to read them carefully. Thus for example, when talking about nudity, you make reference to the “consequences of the harm done”. It is as you say a view of the Muslim majority that going
without clothes causes harm yet you seem to treat it almost as if it is a statement of fact. However it will all have to wait for another time.

The one thing I cannot let go is your statement about there being compelling scientific evidence for "Intelligent design".

I simply do not understand how you can make such a statement. There is not one shred of evidence to support the idea of intelligent design other than the fact that there are certain phenomena for which we do not at this time have explanations in the physical world. Whether this be contradictions or gaps in existing theories or phenomena about which we do not have a clue, the absence of knowledge does not mean you can assume intelligent design.

It also helps to explain why the vast majority of the scientific community does not accept intelligent design and I do mean the vast majority for the numbers who support intelligent design are almost insignificant. Furthermore you will know a scientist’s standing is
based on their contribution to their specific field. Next time you see a so-called scientist who supports intelligent design, go on the web and check out his/her background. What contributions has he/she made?
How much has he/she added to our knowledge in their particular area of study? How many articles does he/she have in reputable journals? What positions does he/she hold in the scientific community? Nearly all will be non-entities in the scientific world.

The other day I was in the library and I happened to stumble across the section on molecular genetics, a discipline, which is primarily based on evolutionary principles. Actually much of modern science is based on those principles but that is another story. The library had shelves
and shelves of books and journals with articles and research papers adding to our knowledge of molecular genetics. I guess one of the advantages of intelligent design is that we could throw out all those books and journals and simply put up a sign saying, “no need to do any
more research because everything we wish to know can be explained by intelligent design.

Actually if I had to chose between defending the idea of intelligent design or the idea that the world is flat, I would chose the latter. I could structure my arguments around what I can see rather than what Imust assume is there because I cannot see anything.

I am afraid this is definitely one, which we will have to agree to disagree.

Sam,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08- September

Dear Sam

Indeed I mentioned that as a consequence nudeness might cause harm to children in a society of a Muslim majority and I base my statement on my limited understanding of the psychological nature and psychodynamics of a Muslim society.

Modesty and sexual intimacy are integral part of that society.

Nudity and sexual exposé are also -to a certain degree- interlinked, at least in Islamic societies if not in most societies.

Children generally are protected from early exposure to sex and psychologists and psychiatrists confirm that that sheltering is a major contributing factor to the child/ potential adult’s psychological health.

Those children who were introduced prematurely to sex and sexual experiences suffer a great deal of psychological problems in their adult life, their agony might take a life time to heal if ever.

In Muslim societies we take that on board, and we take it very seriously, we also think that in exposing children to nudity might have similar psychological effect on the child that lives in a society that values modesty.

May be future studies will reveal something about this; it is just hard to do experiments on children and human beings.

So the harm that I am talking about is conceived in relation to children living in an Islamic society, therefore it is relative (i.e. in primitive societies where nudeness is the norm and being dressed up is the exception; children might develop a normal healthy psychological profile, I simply don’t know).

Yet that harm is also real and to those living in a Muslim society it is a matter of fact.

Now the other point about intelligent design must and have to wait for the next chapter I’m afraid.

Nahida

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08-September

Hi Nahida,

I certainly would not challenge what you are saying in the context of a Muslim society.

Before starting that chapter on intelligent design, please have a look at the following site:

http://www.econemisis.com/Ind-to-Jdm/intelligent_design.php

Do take care.

Sam,

My atheist friend-0

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:10:48 GMT

10- September

The case for Intelligent Design

Why God?

But… why not God?

Dear Sam

My intention in writing this is NOT to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists; rather I want to refute the atheistic claim that they dearly hold with a 100% certainty that God doesn’t exists, further I will try to put a logically valid and a scientifically sound case for the former.

We -as believers- never claim that we hold “The Scientific Proof” of God’s existence; we say: “we only have faith”, “we believe”, we simply say: we have noticeable, accumulative, and logical verifications that support our faith.

But it might come to your as a shock and a surprise that I can confidently claim that we have logic, rationality, maths, commonsense, and scientific evidence leaning heavier towards our hypothesis than they are towards yours!!!

Now, I will try to tackle the above issues and questions by breaking the topic into small (hopefully manageable) sections.

From a philosophical viewpoint:

The very intriguing thought here is that if there was no Creator why are we as conscious species obsessed with this concept; either by adamantly denying it or passionately believing in it!

Why should this concept exist at all in our minds? Why should the question arise in the first place?

If there was no elephant in your living room would you ever question the possibility of the existence of one? Would you ever bother to try to prove that it exists? Would you bother –ever- denying its existence? Would such a question ever come to mind?

If there is no hot tea pot revolving around our planet would philosophers (apparently they are humans with the highest IQ) throughout the ages spend their lives debating the existence of a tea pot; some trying to prove and others refuting its existence?

Dear San, unless there is a reasonable possibility that God exists such question would have never occurred.

In purely mathematical/ logical sense:

There are only two possibilities in relation to the question: does God exist?

Either that God exists or God doesn’t exist, the probability of either case is ½.

Logically speaking, can you affirm without a shadow of doubt that the probability of the existence of a Creator, a Designer is zero?

Dear Sam, no one with the least amount of rationality, the minimum reasoning ability, or the tiniest logical capacity would do this.

Dear Sam, in terms of common sense alone; you can never produce any Absolute Final Proof of the non-existence of a Creator (proving a negative is almost impossible), nor can you ever refute the possibility of the existence of God.

So if a secular says that: I can affirm with 100% conviction that there is no God, what he/she is saying is no science, it is mere wishful thinking.

It is nothing but blind faith, a belief, a mathematically invalid statement and an unscientific declaration!

Here, and at this very point I can say that we both stand at almost equal footing to each other; it’s like sitting at two opposite ends of a seesaw in a state of equilibrium.

What we both have in hand is nothing but FAITH.

However the seesaw leans downwards -ever so slightly- towards my side as a believer, because right from the beginning I never claimed having The Absolute Truth.

At least we are honest about our ideology, all we claim is that we believe, we have faith; yet on the other hand you start at a disadvantaged position by claiming that your ideology is more scientifically based, you claim that it has nothing to do with faith. It is all about facts and knowledge.

Yet I showed earlier that so far all you have is nothing but faith, and all what you’ll ever have is nothing but faith; you can call it a non-faith if you like; nevertheless it is NOT science. It can never be verified.

From a scientific point of view:

Starting with physics;

One of the first questions that hits us in the face us as we embark on the journey of studying our physical universe is:

How did our universe came to be?

There are three possibilities that could answer the question:

1) It is eternal; it could’ve existed from -∞ and it will continue to exist forever, it has neither beginning nor end.

2) It has a beginning, a starting point before which it was nothing.

3) It doesn’t exist at all; all is an illusion, all is in the mind of the observer –man who is an illusion too.

If we start with the third possibility as the true explanation we might as well stop here, we need to go no further; as this whole dialogue is nonsense. It’s all part of the illusion. If you lean towards this possibility you might as well stop reading.

The first possibility doesn’t hold for long in the light of our present knowledge of astronomy and physics, the theory most accepted by theoretical physicists today is that of the big bang, we are told by experts that the universe did not exist from -∞ but in fact it has a starting point, scientists even have calculated the age of our universe.

They also confirm that with available data today we know that our universe is expanding; the unanswered question today still is; will our universe continue to expand forever or will it reach a critical point where the gravity will eventually slow it down to a point where it will cause to collapse upon itself in a big crunch?

The answer depends very much on us finding out the accurate mass of the universe; whether it is big enough to pull it back under its own gravity.

In other words if data evidence showed us that the universe will expand forever (smaller mass); what we get is a universe with a beginning and no end, but if the evidence showed that it is heavy enough and it will eventually stop expanding what we get is a universe with a beginning and an end.

Now back to our three possibilities; and with process of logical elimination we are left with the second explanation as the one most likely to coincide with our common sense; yet within that explanation there are three new possibilities; to explain further:

1) The universe has a beginning but no end and it will continue to expand forever.

2) The universe has a beginning and an end (if it stops expanding)

3) Another plausible thought is the universe exists in an infinite number of cycles of big bangs and big crunches, a never ending dance fluctuating between existence and annihilation in a span of infinite time period.

But from the above possibilities we know that -at least- at one point in time (may be infinite number of times) the universe did not exist, i.e. it was nothing.

Trying to make sense of the above information, which is that the universe did not exist; and then it came into being; we could consider two possibilities:

1) That the physical (matter/energy) universe has spontaneously sprung itself from nothingness into being; i.e. it is the Creator and destroyer of its self.

2) Or that it has being created by a separate entity (a Creator) that Itself is infinite in time (unlike the universe It has neither beginning nor end).

With my limited ability to think and comprehend I can’t see any other possibilities.

I stop here just to say it’s up to you to go with what ever makes more sense to you, as for me I go with the latter, as my common sense and my conscious defies the notion that I have anything to do with the creation of the universe; yet I know that I am one of its “aware” components! Its true that I exist, I am also aware of my existence and that of the universe, but “I didn’t do it”!

to be continued...