100 replies to this topic

[.InshAllah.]

No it wouldnt be doing the 'impossible'.  Impossible is by denfition what cannot be done.  God cannot make a contradiction true, but as the author of the laws of nature theres no reason why He couldnt amend them.  This would not involve defying mathematics.

[iSilurian]

.InshAllah., on 12 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

No it wouldnt be doing the 'impossible'.  Impossible is by denfition what cannot be done.  God cannot make a contradiction true, but as the author of the laws of nature theres no reason why He couldnt amend them.  This would not involve defying mathematics.

Mathematics as we know them couldnt exist if god were to perform these actions.  A steel object couldnt physically exist while also floating on water. If it could float on water, it wouldnt even be a steel object anymore.  By the laws we know, it would be impossible, if you believe that math can be used to define what is possible and impossible.

Edited by iSilurian, 12 November 2011 - 07:58 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

Why couldnt maths exist as we know it.  All we are doing is amending laws of nature eg gravitation and nuclear forces.  We're not doing anything to mathematics

[iSilurian]

.InshAllah., on 12 November 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

Why couldnt maths exist as we know it.  All we are doing is amending laws of nature eg gravitation and nuclear forces.  We're not doing anything to mathematics

You aren't amending the laws, you're negating their existence and describing something else or youre simply adding something else that defies them. You cant simply change fundamental forces and expect everything that depends on those forces to stay of the same form.  You would have to believe in something more about what exists of that math.

Edited by iSilurian, 12 November 2011 - 08:03 PM.

[.InshAllah.]

The extent that the world will change will depend on how much we amend the laws of nature and the constants of those laws.

[iSilurian]

.InshAllah., on 12 November 2011 - 08:04 PM, said:

The extent that the world will change will depend on how much we amend the laws of nature and the constants of those laws.

By changing a piece of wood into a snake, you arent simply amending laws. Its not that simple.  Youre saying, in this particular case, they dont exist.

Its like saying. For example if i drop a ball and it goes up in the air.  Im not simply amending the force of gravity.  Gravity itself exists everywhere else during the event, so you would have to be adding something to the system that defies what gravity is.  In which case, i wouldnt even call it gravity anymore. And i wouldnt call its addition gravity either, it too would be something else.

I guess you could alter gravity, just around the ball, and nothing more. And you could transform all of the physical properties of the ball.  In which case it wouldnt even be a ball anymore. It would be some hypothetical object that wouldnt be a ball.  hmm.  Or maybe only the gravitational force around the ball could be changed and nowhere else. Which would defy the mathematics and physics behind how gravitational fields exist.

This is a sketchy topic.

Edited by iSilurian, 12 November 2011 - 08:14 PM.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

By changing a piece of wood into a snake, you arent simply amending laws. Its not that simple. Youre saying, in this particular case, they dont exist.

What if there is hidden law that we do not observe it yet and that make this possible (piece of wood turning to snake)....and when we know how it works we would call it natural law?

Quote

No it wouldnt be doing the 'impossible'. Impossible is by denfition what cannot be done. God cannot make a contradiction true, but as the author of the laws of nature theres no reason why He couldnt amend them.

I don't believe in amend of laws. I believe that every creation has it essence and know by God... and it cannot change it essence. What i believe is that in this reality there are different vails that contain laws that we do not observe it yet. Miracles is exatly like this, it is a law that exist (it is not contridiction with other laws) but cannot been understand yet.

Edited by Zufa, 12 November 2011 - 08:58 PM.

[MajiC]

Incognito, on 11 November 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

So my question is, can God do what is logically impossible?

We can say that there are some things which God "cannot do", if you like.  But this is not because of some privation in God's capability. Rather, it's the subject which is incapable of receiving the power of God. The subject in this case (e.g. the square-circle) is the product of faulty (human) logic and hence does not really exist within the realm of possibilities for it to be receptive of God's power.

[Abdullah88]

What differentiates a thing from another thing is its essential attribute. You can only define it within those predefined essential parameters. A thing cannot be something else, because that would negate its identity. A drinking cup, by  essential limitation of identity, cannot hold an ocean, it cannot contain it. God can make the cup bigger to contain the ocean, but it not longer is a drinking cup. The limitation is in the cup, and not God.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

Zufa, on 12 November 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

Is matter not a form of energy? And is it not possible that God can change stick form of energy to different form of energy?

Yes matter is a type of energy. To be more specific, it is a concentrated from of energy but what we must understand is that it is not as if a sparrow is X type of concentrated energy while a monkey is Y type of concentrated energy. The outward forms of matter (the concntrated energy) maybe the same but, in essence, they are still the same type of energy so when a staff is changed into a snake, there is no change between the different types of energy but, rather, there is a change in the outward form of the concentrated energy (mass).

Atleast, this is WHAT I THINK. If there are physicists out there, I would be more than glad if you corrected me.

Now, coming what is being discussed: can God defy the laws of nature?

I have something on my computer, written by an AMATEUR, which, although not exactly concentrating on this issues. may provide some useful insight to the questions posed above.

He is basically talking about the Omnipresence of God and is trying to prove that Allah (SWT) is external to time and, yet, Omnipresent. Here is the extract:

"Another thing which confuses many on this topic is the argument that anything in the Universe has to obey certain laws of nature (physics) and has to exist in the four dimensions (the fourth being time) and since God does is external to time, as we have discussed above, then He must also be external to the Universe. Their argument is that our beliefs are inconsistent and incongruous since if God is external to time then He must also be external to the Universe – and therefore, not Omnipresent – since anything in the Universe has to be in time.

This argument, although logical, fails to wholly look at existence, the laws of nature, their origin and maintenance. Let’s take the example of laws in the world: the supreme authority in the nation – Presidents today and kings in the past – create the laws and then, using their power, maintain and preserve these laws, enforcing them upon people. Suppose I was a king and I had a law that everyone must pay 10% of their income to the public treasury. In this system, I am the lawmaker and also the one who preserves these laws and makes sure that they are followed by people. If I did not enforce these laws through my power, many would not follow these laws. What this shows is that for these laws to be in effect they are dependent on my power so the absence of this power would lead to incompliance with the laws. But what about me? Since I am the most powerful in the country, there is no power or force telling me to pay the 10% and therefore I would not do so.

This shows that for the people in a system to follow the laws, you need to have an authority enforcing these laws or else they will just be laws for namesake. An interesting thing to note is when we look at contemporary systems of governance. Here, the ruler (President) is in authority but he does not have absolute authority, as was the case with kings, and therefore, he is answerable to, for example, the Judiciary. In this case, there is still a power above him, due to which, he also has to follow the laws of the country. A very important point is highlighted here: if the power of the ruler is absolute, he does not need to follow laws but if it is not and there is a power above him, even though he is the most powerful, he will follow the laws, to a greater or lesser extent.

Keeping this example in mind, I would like to discuss this argument. First of all, we must realise that the laws of nature did not exist eternally since nature, itself, is a creation of God. He is The King who made these laws and preserves and enforces them. Without Him creating these laws and then exerting His Power to maintain these laws, they would not exist! Taking the last part of the example above, we can see that as The King – who has absolute Power - He does not need to be following these laws. Thus, for Him to exist in this Universe He does not need to comply with the laws of this Universe since He is the source of these laws and it is through His Power that these laws are maintained.

Another way of looking at this, although very inaccurate, is to think about a person who makes laws. He created all the laws and knows them fully, therefore, enabling him to find loopholes in the laws that ordinary people cannot. He can find ways of avoiding these laws that may not be possible for the normal people. Similarly, God is The Creator of these laws and knows them all, so He can also avoid them. As mentioned above, this is a rather inaccurate explanation since it entails that He does need to comply with the laws but can find ways of avoiding this which is also not true since He did not, from the beginning, need to comply with these laws. I have just used it to explain a fact that for one to exist in a system, He does not need to comply with the laws of that system."

Bringing this into the context of this discussion, what it implies is that since Allah (SWT) is The Creator, Preser and Maintainer of these laws, then since, as the extract argues, He can 'break' these laws, then the laws of density, for example a matter being discussed here, would not matter.

INSHALLAH, I have been helpful, clear, logical and objective in my reasoning and have not hurt anyone.

May Allah (SWT) bless all the believers, their families and loved ones, may He guide us all to The Straight Path with His Perfect Guidance and may He forgive all our sins for there is neither any refuge nor any respite for the sinners except in Allah سبحانه وتعالى, The Most Compassionate, The Forgiver of Sins.

In The Name of The Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

MajiC, on 12 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

We can say that there are some things which God "cannot do", if you like. But this is not because of some privation in God's capability. Rather, it's the subject which is incapable of receiving the power of God. The subject in this case (e.g. the square-circle) is the product of faulty (human) logic and hence does not really exist within the realm of possibilities for it to be receptive of God's power.

and

MrPhilosophy, on 12 November 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

What differentiates a thing from another thing is its essential attribute. You can only define it within those predefined essential parameters. A thing cannot be something else, because that would negate its identity. A drinking cup, by essential limitation of identity, cannot hold an ocean, it cannot contain it. God can make the cup bigger to contain the ocean, but it not longer is a drinking cup. The limitation is in the cup, and not God.

are the most comprehensive answers I found to the problem in question. Although I greatly respect the philosophical value of both these answers (which are, in essence, the same), it could be argeud: "All right, we agree the limitation is in the object and not God. But can God, being The Unlimited and Unbound, get rid of these limitations on the cup, or whatever we are talking about, as well. If He cannot, then He will again be limited. So, extending the answer one step further will again lead to further problems. I, personally, favour the answer in the extract I provided above.

INSHALLAH, I have been helpful and clear, logical and objective in my reasoning.

May Allah (SWT) bless all the believers, their families and loved ones, may He guide us all to The Straight Path with His Perfect Guidance and may He forgive all our sins for there is neither any refuge nor any respite for the sinners except in Allah سبحانه وتعالى, The Most Compassionate, The Forgiver of Sins.

[satyaban]

Incognito, on 11 November 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

'Can God create a rock so heavy that He himself cannot lift?'

Is a well known (perhaps a variation) of the atheist question towards the God believer.

C.S Lewis responded to thing dilemma by saying that the question, in its raw logical form is nonsense.

Like asking about a square circle.

If that is the case, then, it must surely limit our view of what God is able to do.

Consider this, can God create a metal rod which can float on water? (without, of course, changing any elements of the water, or rod, or adding any extra things) It seems as though, He cannot. But this then, to me at least, limits God in some way. Contrast to the square circle (which is something that cannot even be perceived in the mind) a rod floating on water seems plausible, even though when it comes down to it, it is not.

So my question is, can God do what is logically impossible?

I see a couple problems. First God being a spiritual being the question about lifting is nonsense.

"If that is the case, then, it must surely limit our view of what God is able to do."
Considering that God is beyond conception I cannot begin to understand that.

I don't know off the top of my head how metal is defined but I don't think weight or density has anything to do with it. So I would not be surprised if there is a metal that floats in water there are some that float in Mercury and molten lead. Therefore I don't think it is impossible for it to exist so if it does exist it is God's creation. We don't know what elements may exist on other worlds or what alloys may be made.

Perhaps you can convince me that it is impossible, there's a challenge for you.

We should exercise caution when applying logic to God, isn't it illogical to believe in the unseen?

Lastly, what God does God does adjectives and attributes don't apply. God simply is and what God does simply is from rainbows to earthquakes and tsunamis.

wundermonk, on 11 November 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

If God can do the logically impossible, we may as well shut down this subforum where we discuss philosophy. Philosophy is based on logic and and once logic gets thrown under the bus, we may as well shut shop and go home.

Do you believe our logic is relative to Lord Shiva? Logically impossible or logically possible has no relationship to the absolute. Take a look around creation and you will see what is logically impossible. A quick example is the flight of a bumble bee, it is logically impossible but no one told them about it.

[wundermonk]

satyaban, on 14 November 2011 - 01:54 AM, said:

Do you believe our logic is relative to Lord Shiva? Logically impossible or logically possible has no relationship to the absolute. Take a look around creation and you will see what is logically impossible. A quick example is the flight of a bumble bee, it is logically impossible but no one told them about it.

Hi Satyaban:

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "...our logic is relative to Lord Shiva?". Could you elaborate before I respond directly to your post?

As far as I am concerned, the key difference between Hinduism [across all six Astika Darshanas] and Abrahamic religions boils down to one singular issue: creatio ex-nihilo. [I am putting aside for now issues about whether God is personal/impersonal, whether he keeps sending messengers/incarnates as Avataras, etc. To me they are minor.] Hinduism has verses going back to the Rig Veda [Nasadiya Sukta] where it is specified that the sun and moon were created *as before* thus laying the philosophical foundations for eternality of our universe.

Logic seems to favour ex nihilo nihil fit - from nothing comes nothing. So, if we have something around us now, it should have existed eternally. Hinduism also talks about a creation [Purusha Sukta]. If you combine creation + eternality of our universe, the only logical inference is that of cycles of creation-preservation-dissolution.

[By eternality here, I mean what we understand by the normal definition of the word. If Big Bang which occurred 13.7 B years ago is to be considered "creation", then eternality would mean that prior points in time - such as 14 B years ago or even trillion years ago are valid instances of time.]

Another benefit of belief in cycles is that it absolves Brahman of the charge of creating evil. Karmic effects have also been eternally existing.

Yet another benefit of belief in cycles is that it provides a reasonable purpose for Brahman to initiate the cycles of creation without diminishing its bliss - that of providing another chance for unliberated Jivas [souls] to attain Moksha [deliverance].

I am aware that Abrahamic religions believe in a singular creation and YHWH/Allah can simply will things into existence. Such an idea was considered by our Acharyas but rejected ultimately. The thought was that if something logically contradictory as "something coming out of nothing" were true, then *everything* is true. Logic may as well be discarded whether in mathematics or in theology. For instance, why couldnt God incarnate as Krishna or Jesus? Why couldnt the Christian God send believers in Jesus to hell and pagan polytheists to heaven?

A constant question that comes up when confronted with such a perception of the divine is that Brahman is not really a creator. I have come across Muslims on other forums disparage this conception by saying that Brahman cannot even create a lowly mosquito. What is the point of worshipping such a Brahman? The counter to that essentially is, out of *what* should Brahman create a mosquito? What would be the material cause? Believing in an entity that can will things into existence is a case of special pleading unless creatio ex-nihilo can be empirically or logically established.

If that means that Brahman is not as omnipotent as Allah, so be it. Logic dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. I prefer sticking to logic.

Edited by wundermonk, 14 November 2011 - 05:03 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

Quote

If that means that Brahman is not as omnipotent as Allah, so be it. Logic dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. I prefer sticking to logic.

There is no logical contradiction in creation ex nihilo (try proving there is).  Secondly, Abrahamic religions do not claim that the Universe came from nothing by itself.  I agree that that would be problematic.  Rather they say that God is the efficient cause of the Universe.  What you have a hard time accepting is that anything can come to exist without a material cause, but that is neither illogical nor do I see any reason accept it

[satyaban]

Wundermonk

"If that means that Brahman is not as omnipotent as Allah, so be it. Logic dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. I prefer sticking to logic."

I thought you understood that Brahman, Allah, Big Daddy God or whatever name you choose for The Absolute or The Creator are one in the same being. And true to the Vedas this universe is not eternal, there may have been countless numbers of them, what is eternal is Shiva, God, Brahman, Yahweh, The Great Spirit, and another 1008 names  and the atman.

I don't know how you can apply our logic which is limited to this temporal world to a being that is without this plane of time and space while at the same time being The Creater and The Creation. The difference is you reject this and I do not.

Where Did This Universe Come from?
Supreme God Siva created the world and all things in it. He creates and sustains from moment to moment every atom of the seen physical and unseen spiritual universe. Everything is within Him. He is within everything. Aum.
Bhashya
God Siva created us. He created the earth and all things upon it, animate and inanimate. He created time and gravity, the vast spaces and the uncounted stars. He created night and day, joy and sorrow, love and hate, birth and death. He created the gross and the subtle, this world and the other worlds. There are three worlds of existence: the physical, subtle and causal, termed Bhuloka, Antarloka and Sivaloka. The Creator of all, Siva Himself is uncreated. As supreme Mahadeva, Siva wills into manifestation all souls and all form, issuing them from Himself like light from a fire or waves from an ocean. Rishis describe this perpetual process as the unfoldment of thirty-six tattvas, stages of manifestation, from the Siva tattva--Parashakti and nada--to the five elements. Creation is not the making of a separate thing, but an emanation of Himself. Lord Siva creates, constantly sustains the form of His creations and absorbs them back into Himself. The Vedas elucidate, "As a spider spins and withdraws its web, as herbs grow on the earth, as hair grows on the head and body of a person, so also from the Imperishable arises this universe." Aum Namah Sivaya.

my Satguru Siviasubramuniyaswami

When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrowshave an end, and birth and death are no more. When in inner union he is beyond the world of the body, then the third world, the world of the Spirit, is found, where the power of the All is, and man has all- for he is one with the One.   Yajur Veda
May God-who, in the mystery of His vision and power, transforms His white radience into His many -colored creation, from whom all things come and into whom they all return-grant us the grace of pure vision.   Yajur Veda

[wundermonk]

@.InshAllah.:

Before I attempt to refute creatio ex nihilo [or something coming out of nothing] could you provide your definition of "nothing"? Since we both like analogies/examples, it would further help if this definition is supported by an example from day-to-day life where we do experience something coming out of nothing.

[eThErEaL]

To Inshallah and to Wundermonk:

Both claims are correct:  That God created out of nothing and that God created from Himself.  There really isnt a contradiction.  The symbolism used in Islamic and Indian metaphsycis for that-through-which-God-created-the-world is "water".  From the water all forms were created (like the waves in an ocean).  the question is, what is this water?  It is God's eternal knowledge.  Everything comes into existence from God's knowledge.  Now relatively speaking, from the human point of view, the eternal knowlegde is is nonexistence (it is nothingness).  So both views are correct.  If we say God created out of nothing, this just means that God created from His eternal knowlegde, whcih is nonexistence if we define our temporal world as existence.  And God created from Himself..because He created from His eternal knowledge.

Edited by eThErEaL, 15 November 2011 - 01:31 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

Wundermonk: by nothing I mean absence of things/stuff (apart from God)

[thecontentedself]

this thread has slightly drifted, but I'd like to mix it up a little with a theosophical proof, through a narration and a verse in the Quran, to prove that, at least, in islamic theosophy, we know that God has knowledge of the impossible, and how the impossible would be, if He would want to bring it to existence.

Imam Ali ibn Musa Al Ridha , was asked about God's knowledge, and amongst various answers the Imam gave, one was especially interesting, he said: Allah (swt) would know how the impossible would be, if He would create it. And then he gave this verse of the Quran: وَلَوْ رُدُّوا لَعَادُوا لِمَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ (And if they were sent back they would return unto that which they are forbidden. Lo! they are liars)[6:28]'

It's proventhat returning back to your original life is an impossibility, and this verse shows knowledge of what an impossible thing would look like, if it where to come to exist.

[satyaban]

Forgive me for being shallow but is anyone really saying "All things are not possible with God." I cannot accept that.
BTW who edited my previous post? This is the  Philosophy, Atheism/Theism & Other Interfaith Dialogue so my other quotation from the Yajur Veda should not have been out of bounds should it? If I made some error in my post let me apologize right now.

[eThErEaL]

Edited by eThErEaL, 16 November 2011 - 02:34 AM.

[sadiqwaljee]

eThErEaL, on 15 November 2011 - 01:30 AM, said:

To Inshallah and to Wundermonk:

Both claims are correct:  That God created out of nothing and that God created from Himself.  There really isnt a contradiction.  The symbolism used in Islamic and Indian metaphsycis for that-through-which-God-created-the-world is "water".  From the water all forms were created (like the waves in an ocean).  the question is, what is this water?  It is God's eternal knowledge.  Everything comes into existence from God's knowledge.  Now relatively speaking, from the human point of view, the eternal knowlegde is is nonexistence (it is nothingness).  So both views are correct.  If we say God created out of nothing, this just means that God created from His eternal knowlegde, whcih is nonexistence if we define our temporal world as existence.  And God created from Himself..because He created from His eternal knowledge.

can you please advice how does water is equated with God's knowledge

[wundermonk]

.InshAllah., on 14 November 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

What you have a hard time accepting is that anything can come to exist without a material cause, but that is neither illogical nor do I see any reason accept it

You are right. I *do* have a hard time accepting this. Could you give me an example of some instance in real life when this occurs - i.e. something material coming into existance without an appropriate material cause? As regards the logical disproof of creatio ex-nihilo I would have to say that unless you are able to provide me with an appropriate instance of creatio ex nihilo, except God's creation of the universe which we dispute, I would have to state that it is special pleading.

Didnt Ibn Rushd provide a logical proof in favour of creatio ex nihilo? I am not aware how his proof works. Could you direct me someplace that you know where I can read his proof?

On a different note, why couldnt God himself be both the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe? Why the insistence on the complete absence of a material cause involved in the universe's creation?

[Incognito]

If we accept our limitations of knowledge (and logic?)  then why are to so definitely be able to say that "God cannot"?

The concept of 'square circle' is jibberish from our perspective, but is that the only perspective?

On what basis can one claim that the laws of contradiction (and logic) are universal and apply to all things, including God.

[.InshAllah.]

wundermonk, on 16 November 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

You are right. I *do* have a hard time accepting this. Could you give me an example of some instance in real life when this occurs - i.e. something material coming into existance without an appropriate material cause? As regards the logical disproof of creatio ex-nihilo I would have to say that unless you are able to provide me with an appropriate instance of creatio ex nihilo, except God's creation of the universe which we dispute, I would have to state that it is special pleading.

Essentially your objection seems to amount to this - I dont know of any creation without a material cause therefore its impossible.  I dont find this at all persuasive.  It doesnt amount to a proof that creation of this type is impossible.

Quote

Didnt Ibn Rushd provide a logical proof in favour of creatio ex nihilo? I am not aware how his proof works. Could you direct me someplace that you know where I can read his proof?

I dont know much about ibn rushd, sorry.  Didnt he believe that creation was eternal?  Here's an attempted proof anyway:  If creation is eternal than an infinity has been transversed.  An infinity has not been transversed, therefore creation is not eternal.  If its not eternal, it began.  Therefore it began.

Here's a thought experiment to support the impossibility of transversing an infinity.  Suppose you hear someone counting down: ''..3, 2, 1, finished'.  You ask them what they are doing and they tell you that theyve just finished counting down from infinity!  Even apart from the fact that they have a limited lifespan, the notion of counting down from infinity just strikes you as absurd.

Quote

On a different note, why couldnt God himself be both the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe? Why the insistence on the complete absence of a material cause involved in the universe's creation?

I dont completely reject this possibility.  One of my concerns is that its unIslamic but Im not sure.

Edited by .InshAllah., 16 November 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[wundermonk]

.InshAllah., on 16 November 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

Essentially your objection seems to amount to this - I dont know of any creation without a material cause therefore its impossible.  I dont find this at all persuasive.  It doesnt amount to a proof that creation of this type is impossible.

You are right on this. It doesnt amount to a proof.

Quote

I dont know much about ibn rushd, sorry.  Didnt he believe that creation was eternal?  Here's an attempted proof anyway:  If creation is eternal than an infinity has been transversed.  An infinity has not been transversed, therefore creation is not eternal.  If its not eternal, it began.  Therefore it began.


Here's a thought experiment to support the impossibility of transversing an infinity.  Suppose you hear someone counting down: ''..3, 2, 1, finished'.  You ask them what they are doing and they tell you that theyve just finished counting down from infinity!  Even apart from the fact that they have a limited lifespan, the notion of counting down from infinity just strikes you as absurd.

I have come across such an argument. One counter argument I can think of against this proof is the following. When running a 100 metre race, I do actually traverse over an infinite of *real* number distances from 0. These would be 0.1, 0.11, 0.111, 0.1111, etc. There are an infinity of such distance that I actually cover in a finite period of time. Me being a slow runner, can run the 100 metre and traverse this infinity in 20 seconds.

Quote

I dont completely reject this possibility.  One of my concerns is that its unIslamic but Im not sure.

Dont know if you are interested but I will state two Hindu views on this. The Advaitic view is that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of the world. The Dvaitic view is that Brahman is only the efficient cause of the world. Something other than Brahman, Prakriti, is the material cause.