Tag: creation

  • Random thoughts about creation and manipulation

    I believe that this earth is a closed system. Nothing can be depleted or destroyed to the point where it is not recoverable. Everything alters their state subject to the manipulation that it is subjected to, but that altered state either makes it usable or unusable. If unusable, appropriate manipulation can be brought to bear on it that will recover it into a usable state once again. 

    Therefore, our ability to deplete natural resources is in fact only limited to our inability to recover what we’ve altered. I disagree with the premise that the earth will be incapable of sustaining life in years to come because it will be over populated. It can never be over populated but it can be, and is abused. It’s our abuse of the resources at our disposal that leads to the massive disparity in quality of life between nations and geographical locations. 

    The greater our ability to responsibly balance how we consume, the greater will be our ability to restore and sustain the availability of resources that we have at our disposal. Even the conception and birth of a baby is a result of resources in some form or another being consumed. The mother, through the nourishment that she provides her body, influences the quality of foetal life, as well as the subsequent birth. Just because it is all a result of extremely complex chemical reactions does not imply that something is being created out of nothing. 

    What exists, exists. How we manipulate that will determine how many beautiful or disgusting permutations of the combination of our resources can yield subject to our limited intellectual and physical abilities. The more we grow to understand this world and everything it contains, the greater our ability to influence its form and function. But we must never forget that we are nothing but manipulators of what already exists, and therefore we should not delude ourselves about our capabilities. 

    This realisation, for me, further establishes my views about the atheist philosophies compared to that of the theists, who are now more fashionably called creationists. Man has never, and will never create something out of nothing. Nor are we able to truly grasp what nothing is, because it will always be thought of in the context of the absence of something. And as we know, the absence of one thing creates a condition in which something else is manifested. Think about it. All we do all day is alter the state of things. Things that already exist. 

    The search for the beginning of creation will never end, because every single time we think we arrived at the smallest particle known to man, we fail to conclusively answer a simple question. What causes that particle to assume the characteristics and properties that it does? There is always more, and the only thing that limits how much we understand of how much more there is, is our limited knowledge and our limited abilities to delve deeper than we already have.

  • In trying to maintain my focus in salaah, I often find myself trying to picture myself standing directly in front of Allah. But given my lack of knowledge regarding what image should be conjured in my mind from such a thought, I’m left with a feeling that me, being a minuscule molecule on a dust ball in the middle of a universe that teems with magnificence well beyond our arrogant imaginations, am not able to present myself before Allah, but only to Allah; whilst Allah, in His infinite grandeur and majesty, is greater than what we can grasp of this universe while others debate what His true form is. Since this universe is part of the created, how much greater must the Creator be?

    I consider the scale of creation that allows me to observe the tiniest known particles of creation, and then I consider how much unimaginably greater the scale must be between me and Allah. My nafs will always prevent me from grasping the true meekness of my existence, yet despite this, I have the promise of bliss that even the most elaborate of imaginations will fail to grasp.

    I’m often reminded of the description of just the dust of Jannah the beauty of which will leave us standing and marvelling at it for 40 years. That’s just the dust. I cannot imagine myself beholding a piece of dust with such amazement that I would be entranced by it for 40 earthly years, let alone 40 heavenly ones. How futile must it be then to attempt to contemplate the beauty of Jannah or the magnificence of Allah?

  • Man has never created anything. We’ve only manipulated what we have in order to arrive at new configurations of what already exists, regardless of how complex the manipulation may be, it will always be nothing more than that. A manipulation of what exists.

    Excerpt from a previous post on Destiny

    Serves as a good reminder for me whenever I feel pompous about my achievements in life.

  • Random Thoughts

    I read an interesting post this evening about many interesting things…what struck me the most about it was the references to random events or occurrences, and also the basis of scientific theories as opposed to the use of the word ‘theory’ as a colloquial term. So I started wondering about randomness and if it really does exist…I mean, can something really be random in the true sense of the word, or do we just use the term ‘random’ to describe something that either has no discernible pattern, or just isn’t important enough for us to want to figure out the order that exists within it?

    I think it’s both, and I also think that in its truest form, randomness does not exist. If it did, it would mean that the laws of cause and effect are fluid and not fixed. So I think that everything has a predictable and fixed pattern, but when the variables are either unknown, or too numerous to compute, we refer to it as random. 

    Another random thought I had was about evolution, origins of creation and all that interesting stuff that I seem to get myself caught debating so often recently. Just like evolution is a scientific theory, and if I understood the post correctly, it would appear to be a significantly misunderstood theory as well. I could then also through a similar approach theorise that my view on creationism is in fact as scientifically grounded as evolutionary theory. For me, within the context of creationism, it is entirely logical to believe that all the species in their current form were created that way with the similarities and differences exactly as it is in order to be a model for us to realise how minor differences in parameters of creation can cause such significant differences in existence and being. 

    This makes more sense in my head than it does in words…so I’ll stop before I get a headache…