Discussions on TIME-3 (Critics)

While our body remains where it is now, we can extend our imagination of space further and further into galaxies after galaxies, and then into galaxy clusters. Is it possible for us to imagine the end of the universe? Nowadays, even children know that there is no way for us to reach the end of the universe because we all know that space is curved and that we can simply make our imaginary journey in such a curved space. (1) At the end, we may come back to the same place where we started the journey, but this time from behind.

While our body remains where it is now...
do we know this for certain? i mean at the surface, microscopically speaking, our atoms are in dynamic relation with that which immediately surrounds us and thus our body may, in fact, be exchanging atoms with say a tree if we are standing up against a tree, or a river if we are swimming, or the air, whatever immediately surrounds and contacts our body. so ultimately, when i see the words "our body remains" i think it is only what we can see with our eyes of or about our body that remains where it is now.

we all know that space is curved
really? i didn't know space was curved, i think either i've missed out on something very huge in science, or you are so brilliant that in your genuis mind you do not realize what i of "common intelligence" knows (i mean this in an endearing, even funny way). i was never taught space is curved. however, i must ask a few questions, and as a scientist myself, i would like to learn the answers to the questions i ask.
1. if we can't know the end of the universe, then how is it possible to know for sure space is curved beyond what we've already reached? in other words, how do we know that space beyond where we can see isn't something other than curved?
2. is there an "end" to the universe? does it necessarily have to be curved for it to be infinite? perhaps space is curved everywhere even beyond what we know, but maybe space does not curve back onto itself as a circle does, maybe it's a spiral which is infinitely curving onward.
3. is it safe to "assume" that what we define so far about space as we know it is true in ALL the universe? a universe which is too big for us to define? how do we know that the universe isn't infinite?

i would like to caution that we do not know ALL the universe, only Allah does, and to assume that we can truthfully or accurately apply what scientists know currently to the rest of the universe which we don't know is fallacious. all we can say for certainty is the space which scientists can see and define is curved. an example of proof of what i'm saying is: what is space like inside a black hole? is there even "space" inside one, if not then just what exactly is inside a black hole?

all too often scientists make huge claims that withstand and hold up to decades of testing only for scientists to later discover that what they thought they knew is no longer true. science itself is limited by its own definition and thus logically it cannot go beyond its own boundaries to explain the universe which may itself be beyond limition..it may have no boundaries, and if the "edge" of the universe as has been determined to be seen, is in fact the end, then what lies beyond the edge, and how can this "whatever lies beyond the edge" not be a part of the universe itself but just in a different form?

i'm not a space fanatic, my knowledge is very limited, perhaps everything i've just said comes from my own ignorance...i can't know since i don't know that particular field of science.

This is a journey into outer space; can we try the same journey into the micro world, into an atom, for instance? What do you think; can we get(come)to an end inside this atom? I have never attempted this, and neither can anybody else. However, imagination is free. We can make an imaginary journey into an atom, yet there is always another smaller piece that needs to be gone through. Isn’t that interesting?

Neither the macro universe nor the micro universe has a conceivable end even for our imagination, let alone can the mind envision penetrating them physically.

Are we aware that when we travel, our body moves through space only by changing its location? It can only be in one location at a time, not in two locations at once. However fast we move, we are always in one location only. That means that our body occupies only the place where it is, no matter how fast we move in space. As we move in space, we think we are invading the whole field of space from the point we started to the point we ended. That is just our imagination. We all know that as we move we vacate the previous place and enter into a new place.

hmmm, well i've heard how Bediuzzaman can be in two places at once. isn't there a story about when Nursi was in prison? the story goes something like this: Nursi wanted to go to Juma prayer. the guard refused his request and wouldn't let him out, instead he stationed extra guards at Nursi's cell to ensure he wouldn't get out. then the main guard went to Juma prayer and saw Bediuzzaman in the masjid. when the guard finished praying, he went back to the prison angry and upset at the other guards demanding to know why they let him out to pray when he specifically told them not to. the other guards were puzzled by this and told the main guard, "what are you talking about? we didn't let him out, we've been watching him and he's been here in his cell the entire time!"

there's a turkish word for certain saints, i think the word is spelled veli or is it yevli?..these are highly enlightened saints that are "friends of God" such as Bediuzzaman, and apparently they can be in two (maybe more) places at one time. this is how much wisdom and knowledge of Allah's truth they are familiar with, i would give anything to be this close to Allah, i would sacrifice my life if i could find a veli even for a day and learn from them. my muslim friends here tell me, "julie, first you have to learn the basics like you are in kindergarten or first grade"...and my reply to all of them has been, "but those first graders still have a teacher, so i want my teacher to be a yevli regardless of what level i'm at"

Can we simply conclude that in terms of space, we, like everything else, exist only in one location at a time? It is our imagination that extends the space we occupy.

i'm not sure we can simply conclude that, doesn't that depend on how or what you define as "we"? i mean, what about in dreams, can our souls or spirits or consciousness travel to other places, leaving our physical body where it sleeps? i don't know, but i'm inclined to think we can which means we are essentially in two places at one time.

Time:

How about making an imaginary journey into time, since we cannot make one physically? Will it be the same as we did in space, coming back to the same point where we started? That is a serious question.

If the imaginary journey is in time, then, we have two options: Traveling in the past and traveling in the future.

could there be a third, fourth, etc. option? are we CERTAIN there are only two? what about traveling to a different level in the present? what if it's not about direction at all, but rather depth? can we as humans on earth or even in our minds ever escape the linear dimensionality of time to know the answers to these questions? i know this: Allah knows what we do not know! so if there are things we do not know, how can we know what those things are? and of those things we don't know, could one, some, many or most be what is being addressed here in my questions above?

Past:

Let’s embark on a time ship and travel into the past. We are going backward, yesterday, last year, last century, a million years ago, billions and billions of years ago, it does not matter, as this is an imaginary journey. However far back that we think the beginning of the existence of the universe is, to this point we can travel through the time tunnel. Where are we going to end up? Can we imagine the time before the existence of the universe? I am trying to, but it does not make sense to me. I have nothing to base my imagination on. If nothing existed, how can we imagine that which does not exist? In order to extend the time tunnel we need to think of the existence of something. If we cannot think of a thing which exists then we cannot think of the time in which it existed. As far as human capacity allows us, we cannot think of a thing which is beyond time and space. (2)

Can we imagine the time before the existence of the universe? I am trying to, but it does not make sense to me.
i think we have imagined "something" or we would not be asking the question, but exactly what that something is i can't identify...maybe w are only imagining the idea of "time before existence of universe" instead of the actual time itself. needless to say, it doesn't make sense to me either. to be more specific..before the universe's time, what existed in place of the universe...a void occupying no space?..a spaceless potential with the capability of expansion in the dimension of space pending creation of the universe? we are so limited by our human condition, there is no way to comprehend that which we cannot comprehend. can we ever be objective enough to speculate..are we not inherently bound to our own subjective minds?

If nothing existed
the word "nothing" can't be used. why? because Allah has always existed, so there's never been a time when "nothing" existed. and since we can't define Allah, we can't know what else may have existed before the universe...or even may still exist despite the universe. so a more accurate way of asking the question is: Can we imagine the time before the existence of "all that we know and are familiar with" of the universe?

how can we imagine that which does not exist?
we can base our imagination on creative thinking (not creation per se) much like a poet thinks of a poem that does not yet exist, or a painter envisions a picture not yet painted, or an author thinks of a new book not yet written...though these things come through the minds and hands of the artists, Allah is the source for their talent and gifts.

Can we then conclude that if there is nothing in existence in the time before the existence of the universe which our human capacity allows us to comprehend then there is no way for us to conceptualize time?

In our imaginary journey into the past where did we arrive? Again the same place as we started off! which is what place? the starting point being where or what exactly? from above, it looks like we can arrive only to the point we can imagine when the universe began.


Future:

How about traveling into the future? What? I think this is not possible. I cannot imagine tomorrow. I have no experience of it. It does not exist. I can only imagine something that has existed before and, only then, I may continue to imagine its existence by projecting my ideas and understanding of the past into it. The future means “does not yet exist.” We only HOPE that the things we have become accustomed to through our previous experiences MAY carry on existing.

Is it not important to notice the difference between imagining the past and the future. Our imagination of the future is not real, it is merely HOPE!

is that all it is, just HOPE? could it also be FAITH? could we not also use our faith to imagine the future? i say that with FAITH we can safely say this: "the Mississippi River will continue to exist in our lifetime GOD WILLING!"

also i disagree and state that the future does in fact exist! how do i know? the same way we ALL know! let's consider these three points:
1) Allah's words involve future happenings to us in our human life and also in the hereafter, things that will happen to us if we do or don't do this or that. this means there is a future.
2) we also know Allah is eternal, so we know He will exist tomorrow, next century, forever! so based on our faith, once again we already know that a future does exists.
3) we also know the future exists because we know Allah knows what the future will be. but Allah is the only one who knows the future.

if we know there's a future, then it ISN'T the future that does not exist.

so what exactly is it then that doesn't exist???

what doesn't exist is human knowledge of what the future will be and what will happen unless Allah shares it with someone. He has shared some things of the future with the Prophets as evidenced in their predictions(peace be upon them all).

if Allah were to tell us such and such will happen at such and such time, we would then have that knowledge..so as humans we have the ability to know, but Allah does not tell us the future. so we cannot conceptualize the future regarding time or what will happen in that future time..much the same way we cannot conceptualize time regarding what the past is before the existence of the universe. BUT...just because we can't humanly conceptualize past before the existence of the universe nor future, it doesn't mean they don't exist!

NOTE: all we can consciously experience is where we are in the moment, with each moment relentlessly yielding to and bringing in the next from the future as it constantly disappears into the past...the present is not a static moment, it is a dynamic movement or interchange between past and future, constantly...in essence then, there is no such thing as the present, no such thing as "now" since the moment we acknowledge "now" the moment is over. i explained this in my reply email to you too.

We can elaborate on this matter further. Let’s board an airplane in New Orleans and fly over the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River originates at Lake Itasca and flows into the Gulf of Mexico. New Orleans is a place somewhere in the middle of(between) these two points. What we see is a continuum of flow from where it originates to where it ends. It looks like a line, a continuously moving line.

Let’s apply this view to time. Is time a continuum line like a flowing river?

yes, it is a dynamic flow, as i've just described above..interesting how i wrote that and now i'm reading you say it here immediately afterwards. what i am not certain of is time in the human capacity of understanding compared to time in Allah's truth. to put it in question form: is time linear? or...is time linear only in the dimension of this physical world/universe while in the hereafter time is something much different? or...does time even exist outside our human existence? is time dependent on human existence without which it has no meaning and thus no existence?

all things seem to follow an apparent calendar or sense of time as evidenced by planetary rotations around an axis or orbit around the sun, seasonal migration, hibernation, flowering of trees, time of birth of offspring. growth and development of anything necessarily involves time...BUT, does time truly exist for them or is it just a human construct which we recognize, utilize and project onto the rest of existence? i'm curious how we would perceive "time" if we were born and never taught the concept of "time". what would time be then?

As far as imagining the “past” is concerned, we can imagine the Mississippi River as coming from Lake Itasca; this imagination is valid because it really existed. But how about as far as imagining the “future” is concerned? Making an analogy of the “future” to the Mississippi River as flowing into the Gulf of Mexico is not valid. Why? Yes, in reality the Mississippi River runs through New Orleans and flows into the Gulf of Mexico. But in our analogy, the Mississippi River stops at New Orleans because the “future” does not exist since we haven’t seen what is past New Orleans. We cannot imagine that which does no exist. We can just HOPE that it may continue to come into existence, or it may not. We do not know. We have to wait and see.

wait and see? the minute we wait for anything is the same minute we acknowledge that a future exists. all we are saying is that we cannot know what the future is, but it still exists. we just cannot humanly conceptualize future with respect to linear time.

NOTE: this is the point where i will simply finish reading the remainder of this article as opposed to critiquing each paragraph as i've been doing above. i will then come back to whatever my mind catches to reflect more about.

This river example will be a correct analogy if we imagine that we are watching over a river originating from a source and continuing to flow to the place where we watch it paving its way into its riverbed. We always watch over the first runners of the water molecules which constitute the frontline of the river in the riverbed, (3) and no more than that!

Hence, our understanding of time as a flowing river is not altogether correct! It is only correct for the past and the present, but not for the future.

Present:

Let’s try to understand time with another metaphor: What we experience is only the present – the moment we exist in right now. If we accept that the present as a point, then the past will be to the left of this point and the future to the right of it. We can imagine the points which have existed in the past and put them together horizontally next to each other. What we find here is an imaginary line starting from the very beginning of the existence that we imagine ending at the point which represents the present time which we experience right now. We can extend this imaginary line as long as the things have existed in the past. Although this line does not represent any existence, it represents the points that we recall either through our experience or transferred knowledge of the universe which has previously existed. That is why we said it is an imaginary line.

How about the right side of this imaginary line? Can we put more points to the right of this line? There is no point in existence yet. We cannot imagine any points representing the future. Thus, we cannot stretch the line to the right of the point which represents the present existence? It is not possible!

But what we can do is this: We can stretch this line not horizontally but vertically. If we want this line to represent all the existing things as wide as the present universe, it becomes vertically as thick as the whole universe existed in our imagination. We need to bear in mind that this wide line represents only our imagination of the things which have existed in the past. At the very end of this imaginary wide line, the last points constitute the very edge of the right side of this line. There is no real line which represents the existence that we experience. There is a very thin, not constant at all, fluid like line – in fact points - vertically drawn. All the rest of the line which represents the past points of existence exists only in our imagination. They no longer exist in the present.

At this point we converge time and space. How?

Right now, we are experiencing existence, aren’t we? This is the present time. Although it is ever fleeting, we are experiencing its existence. Now, let’s talk about space. Space is an aspect of existence we are experiencing right now, not the things we have experienced a moment ago – they have gone. Neither is space the things which will come into existence a moment later. These “future” things have not yet come into existence.

we do not know with certainty that future things don't exist. in addition to what i said in my email about this: it could be that we simply haven't the knowledge of how they exist, what they exist as or in what way they exist.

Let’s examine time. The universe which we experienced a moment ago no longer exists; it has past. The universe which we will HOPEFULLY experience a moment later also does not exist yet. We are only experiencing the current moment in which we are living. Isn’t that correct?

Let’s assume that we are watching a film. What are we really seeing? Only the frame of the shot that we are watching, aren’t we? At this point, we can imagine the scenes we have seen in the previous frames. This is just an imagination and we can call it the “past.” How about the rest of the film that we have not seen? Can we experience them? Can we imagine them at all? We can call it the “future.” The real thing that we experience is simply one frame and as it appears it passes. We cannot experience two frames at once!

Time and space converge:

So, we can conclude that time and space converge at a point, not on a line. Time is not linear. Every moment the universe is given existence, and we are experiencing only the momentarily existing universe.

Can we say, then, if there is no existence there will be, for us, no way to talk about time? Time means existence. Space means a transiently existing universe. So, time means space; space means time. There are no two different existences, such as time and space. They are but two different aspects of the same entity: Existence.

it isn't logical to say "time means space; space means time" but then later say, "time and space....are but two different aspects of the same entity...". that which is different cannot then also be the same. if you set up the contingency that A = B; B = A..then A is not and never different from B. maybe a more correct usage of words would be to say, "time and space involve or require or depend on each other", meaning, one aspect cannot maintain its existence without the other aspect. why? because they are two aspects of a whole, a whole which is dependent upon their existence since the whole cannot exist without these two necessary parts. i liken it to the human body with time and space being the heart and lungs, respectively, which are two aspects of the whole human body. however, in this human body example (which existence and creation go far far beyond as we know), human body existence may continue without certain aspects/parts, such as our limbs or some of our organs (e.g. one lung or kidney, gall bladder etc). so that begs the question: how many aspects of Existence are there? and could it be that Existence would still be Existence without a particular aspect?

Is the universe “GIVEN” existence?

The reason to use “given” is because there is no other way of explaining existence of the existent universe. “Past” means, “that which no longer exists,” and “future” means “that which does not yet exist.” That which does not exist cannot be the source of existence. Yet, the present does exist. There are only two possibilities for any human reason to explain this: Either the “present” gives existence to itself or it is being given existence by something which exists. Before the “present” itself exists it does not exist. How can that which does not exist give existence to itself? ("to itself"? that which does not exist {the past} cannot give existence to itself {the past}. the past cannot give existence to the past is what your words are saying. did you mean to say, "How can that which does not exist give existence to the present..or..anything in the present" ?) No human mind can accept this idea. “Present time and space” exists and it is coming into existence anew. “Past existence” cannot be the Giver of existence to the “present” because the “present” is different from the “past existence;” it has different qualities. The “past” cannot know the "future” simply because the “future” does not exist for it, and that which does not exist cannot be known. Every moment exists independently from the previous existence. Therefore, we can conclude that the “present” is being brought into existence out of nonexistence by something which exists right now. We call this existent as the Giver of Existence, God.

that which does not exist cannot be known
EXACTLY!!...with "known" being the KEY WORD. what i mean is, our knowledge of the future's existentence is what doesn't exist. it very well could be that the future does not exist, but it could also be that the future does exist and we just cannot conceptualize it. the same thing applies to what you said about the present, our disability to conceptualize the future (or the past before the existence of the universe) doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Every moment exists independently from the previous existence
i'm not sure about this statement. we do not know the connections or relations between all moments or things, so we can't possibly know if this statement is true or not. what we do know is that there is order in the universe and that all things connect to other things or aspects other than themselves...the existence of some things or aspects of a thing may in fact be very dependent from/upon the previous moment(s). for example: any given moment during development of life is very dependent on the moment prior to it. without the prior moment, the present moment could not be, could not "exist". this means the present moment ISN'T independent of the previous one(s) existence. the definition of present is dependent upon that which it is not, it is not past and not future.

i'm confusing myself because what i've just said would then mean, that at least for some things, "present" existence depends upon "past" existence. but if the past doesn't exist, then there's no such thing as the past, and how can the present of any moment depend on something that doesn't exist? that the past does not exist is true only IN THE PRESENT, because IN OUR PRESENT we know from evidence of the past that the past DID exist at one time. this is seemingly ever convoluted...

By using the film strip metaphor, we may say: A frame cannot be the creator of the frame adjacent to it. Every frame needs to be made independently. The adjacent frames may be very similar to each other, but they are not exactly the same. Therefore, the preceding frame cannot be the Giver of existence to the following frame because for the preceding frame there is no way that it will know what the following frame is going to be like. For the preceding frame the following frame does not exist. That which does not exist cannot be known. Although it seems to be “transforming” into the following frame, everybody knows that this is an illusion to the eye, nothing more, nothing less.

but i think there's a flaw somewhere in this reasoning, so help me out where i'm incorrectly interpreting the above reasoning. "time" is a point. time consists of only the present which can further be defined as a fleeting point. now, in this "fleeting" is an inherent continuum of time. why? something that fleets is fleeting somewhere and it's doing its fleeting in a moment of time. so the present, which is constantly being replaced with a new moment which itself is brought into existence from non-existence, fleets into the past.

thus in the physical realm of existence we have a continual movement or transitioning of future (which i claim to be not non-existent, rather an existing mystery we can't humanly conceptualize) coming in and leaving into the past, the present being an ever fleeting moment we experience between two aspects of time we can't conceptualize. this transitioning is not an illusion, it is the "nature" of the reality of time itself, is it not? this continuum then, is a constancy of change, it is eternal, infinite...without direction (e.g linear).

Aging:

This perception of time and space helps us grasp, along with many other matters, the nature of aging and death, which are the two major concerns of human beings, after becoming familiar with the meaning of existence.

Do you think you are getting older? I do not. I realize that I am just given a new existence every moment differently, albeit slightly, from the previous one. (4) As long as we are given existence, everybody is as “youthful in existence” as a newly born baby! Everybody and everything is being brought into existence anew every moment. We should not, then, talk about aging, nor should we say that “time is wearing us out.” (5) Rather, we should be talking about our awareness of freshness of every moment. Just watch it (what "it" are you referring to, what is the "it"?) how miraculously things are being brought into existence out of nonexistence! Enjoy your existence and be thankful to the One Who gives it to you.

i agree, but then how do we explain the appearances of aging??? clearly aging happens in living things. we see the progression or changes over "time". also, if what you say is entirely true, then these visible signs of aging would never happen at all. aging itself is a process implicitly connected to time. we do not see the signs of aging ever becoming less, we see them more as time passes. and why isn't the incoming moment constituting the present ever less age from the previous if the present moment is totally independent from the previous moment? if the existence of a moment depends on it's previous moment, that does not minimize in any way the miraculousness of things being brought into existence out of the mystery of future.

Nonexistence:

Does nonexistence exist? I do not think it does. Nonexistence is nonexistence; it does not exist. How can we talk about something which does not exist? Are we even able to imagine nonexistence? I do not think we are. There is nothing that we can imagine about it. Yet, we talk about nonexistence. Yes, we do; we talk about tomorrow or next year which does not exist and we have no experience of them. We carry our past experiences of existence into the future, hoping that it will be given existence “similar,” not exactly the same, to the one we have experienced earlier. Our talking about future is nothing but a HOPE (refer back to FAITH above). As it has been said previously, “future” means “does not exist yet.” That which does not exist cannot even be imagined.

then what are the products of artists, authors, musicians, builders, discoverers if they are not imagined and hence brought into the physical from their minds? even if their ideas are modified from only what they know from the past, the product they make was not there before and becomes manifest due to their thoughts/ideas and subsequent actions upon their own thoughts/ideas.

So, can we say future does not exist? Yes, we can. However, we need to bear in mind that we are talking now from the perspective of our experience, not from the perspective of the Giver of Existence.

i think this needs to be stated very clearly at the very beginning of the article! the phrase "from the perspective of our experience" is not the truth of existence, it's the truth only regarding the capacity of our human experience.

The Giver of Existence:

The Giver of existence cannot be within our experience. We can only experience existence of a thing after it has been given existence. If a One is the Giver of existence, (that same)One cannot be the receiver of existence. I wish to emphasize this point: He is the Giver of existence, not the receiver of existence. Therefore, the Giver of existence must be Self-Existent and Self-Sustaining.

The constantly renewed existence of the universe is the evidence of the Giver’s existence. The qualities of existing things in the universe are the signs pointing to the Attributes of the Giver of their existence. (6)

Death:

What about death? Since every moment is a new existence, are we not constantly experiencing being brought into existence and being taken away from existence? Yes, we are. If death is a problem for us, then the reason lies in our conception of our own existence.

As we observe it in the universe, there is perfect order, harmony, balance etc. in the way things are being given existence. In the order of the existence in time and space we also witness that nothing is preserved exactly the same but very similar. For example, when we look closely at especially the animate beings, they are given existence very similar but different from their previous existence. It is this similarity that makes us get familiar with the things around us.

Whenever this similar but different way of coming into existence is subjected to a radical change in the order with which we are accustomed, then, we become surprised as if it should not be as such. We can take “earthquake” and “death” as examples of such radical changes.

The earth rotates and we are so accustomed with it that we cannot imagine even for a moment that it is not going to rotate, or start rotating in a way that shakes us or disturbs us, as if it has to rotate in a perfect balance. Yet, it the earth is being granted existence in a way that it appears to be rotating by itself. However, when we think about its existence in time, every moment it is being brought into existence with an appearance of rotating, but within a perfect order. We took this ever-new existence for granted and that it has to be in the way as we have been experiencing. The earth cannot rotate itself because it cannot give itself another existence in any slice of time in the future. It The earth itself needs to be brought into existence, and before the “future” becomes the “present”, the previous form of existence becomes the “past.” In every moment every being is subject to another existence. (7)

When an earthquake happens we feel a shock. In fact, we should get shocked at the sight of the earth that comes into existence as if it is rotating at every moment. Rotation of the earth is as new an existence as is an earthquake. It is being given existence in a way that we call earthquake. An earthquake is also receiving existence within an order because everything is given existence within an order. Why? Do not ask me; it is not I who is giving them existence. Ask the One Who is giving existence to the universe. He will tell you why He is doing as He is doing it; just closely follow the way He is giving existence to the universe as well as to us. Furthermore, the ability to even ask this question is also given to us by Him.

Why do you think He is giving existence to the ability to ask how the things are coming into existence as they do?

Death is the same. It is nothing but a new existence. (8) We have grown accustomed to the way we are given existence. All of a sudden we are given a new existence with which we are not accustomed; we call it death. We mistakenly say that “a person has died.” Why shouldn’t we say instead that a person had been given existence in a form of fetus, then, a baby, a child, a young person, a middle-aged person, an old person, and a dead person? Every stage in our experience is a new existence. Why can’t we consider “a dead person,” as we call it, to be a new existence? Does “a dead person” not exist within time? This, in itself, means it is nothing but a new existence.

What happens when we are given existence in the form of “a dead person?” Again, I do not know the answer; ask the One Who gives existence in the form of “a dead person.” He will may tell you when you look at your own present existence; and ask how and why I am you are given this existence as a young guy or as an old person. If you get the answer, the same answer is applicable to this question as well.

The purpose of existence:

Have we ever considered how we are given existence? Where are we coming from every moment? What is our origin? So, why do we continue asking questions about “death” as though we have even found the answer to our existence as a “living” being? We can find that the answer is the same answer to our current existence. We have to be straight to the point; first, we need to question our existence in the current moment. We need to stop taking for granted our existence at every moment, only then will it become much easier to find the answer to the question of “death.”

Death itself is an answer from the Giver of the ability to ask this question: “We do not exist on our own. We are constantly given existence by the One Who gives us existence in order to help us realize that: ONLY HE EXISTS ON HIS OWN. ALL THE REST DEPENDS ON HIS ACT OF GIVING EXISTENCE (WHICH IS CALLED “CREATING”) TO EXIST.

The purpose of the manner that things are given existence seems to help us realize that we are continuously given existence by the One Who creates whatever exists at all times. He is called God, the Absolute Creator. Through the act of creating, He reveals Himself to us and lets us know that He is always with us; He never leaves us alone, and asks us to trust Him. He is all Powerful, all Knowledgeable, all Merciful, etc. We know this just by observing His way of creating the universe.

Are we so insignificant in existence?

Do we feel in suspension, very fragile in existence; we exist but we do not secure our existence, we are totally depend on something else. Yes, I do so. you omitted a word or words...you "do so" what? you do think, believe or feel so? Is that even a problem at all? The answer is both yes and no. Why?

If we want to claim to own our existence, the answer is, yes, it is a problem because there is no way for us to claim any ownership over our existence; it is not true, it is not possible. We cannot cheat ourselves and convince ourselves that we are controlling our lives.

If we want to submit to our reality, then the answer is, no, it's not at all a problem. Our existence is under the control of the One Who sustains the whole existence continually. If we are not to trust this Creator, who else, including ourselves, can secure our existence even for an instant? He is the Creator, we are not. Why should we pretend to be Gods? That claim is not true!

In conclusion:

We cannot think of space without time, neither can we think of time without space. They coexist, i.e. there is no time or space which exists independently. That is why we cannot examine any thing only in space or only in time independently at one moment.

The significance of this is to realize that our existence is a matter of continuum. We can only imagine the past and the future, no one or nothing can sustain its existence even for a moment. Even the present time is not fixed, it is continuously flowing. We only can talk about our existence in terms of “being brought into existence, and at the same moment, being taking away from existence.”

The only existence is the Present. We can experience it albeit in a flowing way. As we try to touch it, it slips away through our fingers; if we want to see it, the moment we look at it, it disappears. It exists, but it cannot sustain its existence even for a moment. Isn’t it obvious that we are continuously in need of receiving existence? How come, then, do we claim to sustain our own existence? (9)

The Past does no longer exists, therefore, we cannot experience it; we only can experience it in the form of imagination.

The Future does not exist; we can neither experience it, nor can we imagine it. We may think we are imagining future. This is just an illusion. We can only recall our past experience of existence. We exist in the present with this remembrance of the past, and this does not have anything to do with the future. Our imagination of the future is then nothing but a HOPE (see FAITH above and also i add here PRAYER) that it may exist.

We are using our free choices at every present moment for an expectation that our choices are to be given existence. We cannot create anything, but HOPE (and FAITH). The Creator of the present, the past and, when it is created, the future, is the One Who answers our hopes. Shouldn’t we all realize that our practice of free will is nothing but a form of prayer to God? Shouldn’t we all admit that the actions we claim to perform are nothing but answers to our prayers? (10)

first, i am confused on something. what do you mean by "our practice of free will"? do you mean our actions based on choice? if yes, that's what you mean: our actions based on choice is nothing but a form of prayer to God ......then you can't say in the very next sentence that actions are answers to our prayers. basically the first sentence says: A = our actions based on choice/practice of our free will, B = form of prayer to God, and A = B. However, in the second sentence you say B which = A also = C where C = answers to our prayers. this means A = B = C, but B (prayers) does not = C (answers to prayers), they are opposites..prayers are given, answers are received.

aside from the above confusion of meaning, i will say no, i think we can't say this for each practice or choice of free will, and this is why: atheists and agnostics are two types of unbelievers who also practice or utilize free will, but they are not conscious of a Creator and so they do not pray. can their actions based on choice even be considered prayers if they are not conscious of the Creator? i don't know. what about polythesists or christians, or jews...are their actions prayers if they are not aware of Creator as they are acting? i think "prayer" is a conscious act necessitating being aware of the Creator.

when it comes to "actions we claim to perform" as being nothing other or more than "answers to our prayers"...i am not understanding what you mean here. what do you mean actions as answers? and to what prayers? can you give me a clear example of what you're saying?

We are totally dependent on the One Who brings us along with the whole universe into existence continuously; it is called God.

We have no right to claim anything, but be grateful to God, the Giver of existence.

ali mermer

***********************************************************************

my conclusions are this:

1. time/space are mysteries, and additionally they are aspects of a greater mystery called existence. time/space are aspects which we cannot humanly conceptualize and therefore may not exist other than as an illusion of possibly a human construct (as opposed to a God given truth of an aspect of the physical realm) of which:

A) we have become so highly indoctrinated that we are unable to objectively separate ourselves from it..and that this indoctrination is itself a very powerful illusion.

B) we also project/apply to our experience in the physical realm of the universe. in other words, we cannot say or know if time/space exists in the hereafter or in any other realm, or even if they would or could exist the same in those realms as they do in our physical realm. we can only know time/space in the physical realm, based on our definition (which comes from past, present and future) of them.

on the other hand, time/space may be an Absolute truth which is Creator-given precisely for the physical realm of existence. i do not know in this particular case if we can be objective enough to determine the difference between if time/space is God-given or human-constructed to explain existence.

if we look more closely at our time/space defintion's origin, it means we define time/space from a past "that doesn't exist" and a future "that doesn't exist" and a present moment that is too fleeting to measure...so in essence our definition is, at a minimum, based on that which we cannot humanly conceptualize...and maximally, it isn't real since past and future originate only from our imagination. the only thing that is real is what we experience as "present" which is a continuum of transition of that which is passing into that which is incoming...both passing into and coming out of a mystery beyond our comprehension.

2. what is existence? we can only discuss and define it as far as our human capacity allows, but this "definition" is not Absolute truth...only the Creator is Absolute truth. we can witness or experience the presence of it, but we cannot fully grasp or explain the truth of existence. ontology is a phenomenal topic, but it remains ever elusive. why? because the truth of existence in its entirety is beyond human comprehension. not only that, but our limited capacity may indeed skew the truth ranging from hardly at all to such an extent that it renders what we do understand utterly meaningless and we just have no way of knowing.

3. NOTHING which exists is separate from its Creator it...it isn't possible. any separation is a self induced illusion, and only that, nothing else. i'm not sure why i wanted to add this, i will try to remember...i took a break and forgot the purpose of why i wanted to say this.

4. some open ended questions remain regarding the entity of Existence, the study of which we know as Ontology. time/space are only two aspects of it. how many other aspects are there? what are they? how and where do they interact or fit in with time/space? how many dimensions to "reality" are there. what exactly is reality? i think always as humans we must set parameters by which to define things, but once defined, our limitation is exposed by that very definition...and thus the truth remains an elusive mystery.

Julie

…………………………………………………………………….

Footnotes:

(1) “…If you can pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, pass beyond them! But you cannot pass beyond them…” The Qur’an, 55: 33.

(2) Here rises a theological problem. If we say that time and space are constantly given existence. We can logically conclude that there must be something which gives them existence and this “Giver of Existence” must of necessity be beyond time and space of which He is the Creator. That is why we cannot imagine the One Who gives existence to time and space, but we can logically be sure of His existence.

(3) The river analogy is valid only for water and not for the riverbed. In this analogy, we need to bear in mind that there is no riverbed which exists independently.

(4) “On Him depend all creatures in the heavens and on earth [for their existence as well as for sustaining their existence]; every day He manifests Himself in yet another [wondrous] way.” The Qur’an, 55: 29.

(5) “And they say: ‘There is nothing but our life of the world. We die and we live, nothing but time destroys us.’ But of this they have no knowledge whatever: they do nothing but guess.” The Qur’an: 45: 24.

(6) “He is God, the Creator, the Maker who shapes all forms and appearances! His [alone] are the attributes of perfection. All that is in the heavens and on earth declares His limitless glory: for He alone is almighty, truly wise!” The Qur’an, 59: 24.

(7) “Will they then ascribe divinity [ability to give existence], side by side with Him [the Giver of Existence, God], unto beings that cannot create any thing, since they themselves are being created.” The Qur’an, 7: 191.

(8) “He who has created death as well as life…” The Qur’an, 67: 2.

(9) “Verily, man becomes grossly arrogant whenever he believes himself to be self-sufficient: for, behold, unto your Sustainer all must return.” The Qur’an, 96: 6-8.

(10) “But your Sustainer says: ‘Call unto Me, I shall respond to you’…” The Qur’an, 40: 60.