On the Issue of Miracles

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

How have we reconciled our faith in the miracles of the Prophets (a) with reasoning and rationality? And how does that play out with the miraculous claims from other religions - such as the existence of a tripartite God or a five-headed God or a God who can manifest into a monkey-human and fly across a country? Why are those 'unreasonable' but ours are totally reasonable?

[SoRoUsH]

7 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

How have we reconciled our faith in the miracles of the Prophets (a) with reasoning and rationality? And how does that play out with the miraculous claims from other religions - such as the existence of a tripartite God or a five-headed God or a God who can manifest into a monkey-human and fly across a country? Why are those 'unreasonable' but ours are totally reasonable?

To reconcile, follow these three principles:

1. Don't limit rationality to visibility and physicality. Include metaphysics in your rational examinations. 

2. Use logic to seek inconsistencies and contradictions in claims and arguments. 

3. Do not confuse rationality with logic. The former encompasses induction, whereas the latter mostly roams around deduction. 

Using these three principles you can include miracles into a rational thought process and you can exclude and reject many claims about miracles and gods as illogical. 

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

9 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

To reconcile, follow these three principles:

1. Don't limit rationality to visibility and physicality. Include metaphysics in your rational examinations. 

2. Use logic to seek inconsistencies and contradictions in claims and arguments. 

3. Do not confuse rationality with logic. The former encompasses induction, whereas the latter mostly roams around deduction. 

Using these three principles you can include miracles into a rational thought process and you can exclude and reject many claims about miracles and gods as illogical. 

Rationality corresponds mainly with deductive reasoning, you start with an assumption or a premise and validate/invalidate it based on observation. 

Now with that, how can you honestly include miracles into a rational thought process? If it is perfectly illogical and unreasonable for a God to manifest as a monkey or for a boy to survive with an elephant's head, then how is it really possible, for instance, for a virgin birth to have occurred?

[SoRoUsH]

45 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Rationality corresponds mainly with deductive reasoning, you start with an assumption or a premise and validate/invalidate it based on observation. 

Rationality includes both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, not just the latter. When you're working with statistics and probabilities, you are using inductive reasoning. 

Validity/invalidity relates only to deductive reasoning. It would not make sense to claim an inductive argument is valid or invalid; rather we'd say it is weak or strong. 

Observation and evidence certainly play a big role, but so do logical connectivity among the given premises. In addition, evidence and observation are loaded concepts. Often, but incorrectly, they're limited to what is quantifiable and measurable. In turn, qualities and what is not measurable are dismissed as non-evidence, or worse as non-existent.

45 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If it is perfectly illogical and unreasonable for a God to manifest as a monkey or for a boy to survive with an elephant's head, then how is it really possible, for instance, for a virgin birth to have occurred?

If one holds the premise that God cannot be bounded or be limited in any way, then they cannot, simultaneously, hold the belief that God can be limited to specific physical manifestations. Any physical manifestation has boundaries, precisely so the object could be visible and seen. 

If someone holds both views, simultaneously, then they believe two contradictory claims, simultaneously. And if they do so, they've broken one of the most basic law of logic, namely, the law of non-contradiction. They're being illogical. 

 

Virgin births, on the other hand, do not contradict any logical possibilities or boundaries. They've already been observed in some species on Earth.

There's a distinction between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. Think about what may be possible in other possible worlds, and what cannot ever be possible in any world. A square can never, simultaneously, be a circle, in any world. However, in a different possible world, all swans can be blue. It is not logically impossible.

Edited July 27, 2022 by SoRoUsH

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

9 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Rationality include both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, not just the latter. When you're working with statistics and probabilities, you are using inductive reasoning. 

Validity/invalidity relates only to deductive reasoning. It would not make sense to claim an inductive argument is valid or invalid; rather we'd say it is weak or strong. 

Observation and evidence certainly play a big role, but so do logical connectivity among the given premises. In addition, evidence and observation are loaded concepts. Often, but incorrectly, they're limited to what is quantifiable and measurable. In turn, qualities and what is not measurable is dismissed as non-evidence, or worse as non-existent.

Sure, but qualities that are not manifested in reality are indistinguishable from qualities that are non-existent.

9 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

If one holds the premise that God cannot be bounded or be limited in any way, then they cannot, simultaneously, hold the belief that God can be limited to specific physical manifestation. Any physical manifestation has boundaries, precisely so the object could be visible. 

If someone holds both views, simultaneously, then they believe two contradictory claims, simultaneously. And if they do so, they've broken one of the most basic law of logic, namely, the law of non-contradiction. They're being illogical. 

Virgin births, on the other hand, do not contradict any logical possibilities or boundaries. They've already been observed in some species on Earth.

There's a distinction between physical possibilities and logical possibilities. Think about what may be possible in other worlds, and what cannot ever be possible in any world. A square can never, simultaneously, be a circle, in any world. However, in a different possible world, all swans can be blue. It is not logically impossible.

Or I can just reframe it this way: God has set some rules, and always works within the rules He has set. This is not limiting towards God or contradictory, because I am arguing that God chooses not to break the laws he has created, not that He can't.

As for virgin births, I would almost agree, but then anything goes. 

If Allah is able to snap a Y-chromosome into existence out of nowhere and implant a zygote into a virgin human female, then what exactly is the point of the argument in 6:101?

“How could He have a son when He does not have a companion?..”

If a virgin woman can become pregnant, then does that not render Allah’s own argument incoherent? Because I can just turn around and say, “no actually, God can have a son although He has have no female consort, because remember how Maryam had a son without a male companion?”

[SoRoUsH]

8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

qualities that are not manifested in reality are indistinguishable from qualities that are non-existent.

I think there's a distinction between not being manifested and not existing. The former has the potentiality to exist, and potentiality can affect calculations and formulations. To assume something doesn't and can't exist entails that we won't consider it at all. That's a fundamental basis of materialism and/or physicalism. 

8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Or I can just reframe it this way: God has set some rules, and always works within the rules He has set. This is not limiting towards God or contradictory, because I am arguing that God chooses not to break the laws he has created, not that He can't.

Sure. You can set your own premises. However, you need to stick with them. If you say God always works within His rules, and His rules are X, Y, and Z, then you can't, simultaneously, believe that God does not-X, or not-Y, or not-Z. Because that would be holding two contradictory beliefs. That would be illogical.

So, in your arguments or debates with others about their gods, start with laying out the criteria and definitions about what God is and isn't, what God can and can't do, what God does and doesn't. Make everyone paint a clear picture of their vision of their gods, then proceed. 

8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

but then anything goes. 

Not really. Logical impossibilities can't go. A square can never be a circle. 

8 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If a virgin woman can become pregnant, then does that not render Allah’s own argument incoherent? Because I can just turn around and say, “no actually, God can have a son although He has have no female consort, because remember how Maryam had a son without a male companion?”

I am not sure I understand your argument. Maryam neither created nor originated Isa (عليه السلام). Allah did. 

A virgin woman did not become pregnant due to her own power or ability. She did so through God's Spirit. 

God doesn't need a companion to create anything, including a son. He says "Be" and there it is. 

Allah not having a son isn't because He didn't have a companion. It's because, as the context of the verse makes it clear, He neither needs a son nor a companion. 

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I think there's a distinction between not being manifested and not existing. The former has the potentiality to exist, and potentiality can affect calculations and formulations. To assume something doesn't and can't exist entails that we won't consider it at all. That's a fundamental basis of materialism and/or physicalism. 

I have a golden question in mind with this particular discussion. For now though, I am just going to move on from this point and get on to the actual question at hand. Don't want to go off on tangents.

 

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Sure. You can set your own premises. However, you need to stick with them. If you say God always works within His rules, and His rules are X, Y, and Z, then you can't, simultaneously, believe that God does not-X, or not-Y, or not-Z. Because that would be holding two contradictory beliefs. That would be illogical.

So, in your arguments or debates with others about their gods, start with laying out the criteria and definitions about what God is and isn't, what God can and can't do, what God does and doesn't. Make everyone paint a clear picture of their vision of their gods, then proceed.

I am still not sure where you see any contradiction in my premise. 

My premise: God has created and set out laws, and he always chooses to act within those laws. 

Point out where the contradiction is. 

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Not really. Logical impossibilities can't go. A square can never be a circle.

Okay. Logical impossibilities can't go. So in light of that, how do you then approach the story of Musa turning his staff into a snake? Does that go?

I really want to see some of these well-accepted miracle stories stand the test of reason.

 

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I am not sure I understand your argument. Maryam neither created nor originated Isa (عليه السلام). Allah did. 

A virgin woman did not become pregnant due to her own power or ability. She did so through God's Spirit. 

God doesn't need a companion to create anything, including a son. He says "Be" and there it is. 

Allah not having a son isn't because He didn't have a companion. It's because, as the context of the verse makes it clear, He neither needs a son nor a companion. 

In that case, I'll expand on my argument. The complete verse (6:101) is as follows:

"[He is] the originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a child, when for Him there is no consort? He created all things and He has full knowledge of all things."

I am not sure where you're getting the context from, but this verse is most definitely not talking about God's need, or lack thereof, to have a son or a companion. Sure, there are other places in the Quran where that is explored, but not here. Since this verse is revealed to us, it is speaking to a phenomenon that we, humans, have observed for a long time now - that we simply cannot reproduce without the coming together of the female and male chromosomes. This is Allah's argument. Now unless you believe that Allah will go against the very argument that he uses to describe himself, the whole Jesus virgin-birth story becomes incoherent. It comes crashing right down. Because then what do you really believe regarding Jesus? Did he have Y chromosomes? If he did, and if Allah could just disregard his own argument and somehow create a Y chromosome of some person and join it with Maryam's X chromsome and create a fetus in Maryam's womb, then what is the purpose of Allah using this particular argument in 6:101 at all? By the way, to whom might that Y chromosome have even belonged to? Where did it originate from? If it was her husband's, then how did Allah manage to intervene and place it in her?

It leads to more questions than it answers. Things are really not adding up in this story.

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

. Now unless you believe that Allah will go against the very argument that he uses to describe himself, the whole Jesus virgin-birth story becomes incoherent. It comes crashing right down. Because then what do you really believe regarding Jesus? Did he have Y chromosomes? If he did, and if Allah could just disregard his own argument and somehow create a Y chromosome of some person and join it with Maryam's X chromsome and create a fetus in Maryam's womb, then what is the purpose of Allah using this particular argument in 6:101 at all? By the way, to whom might that Y chromosome have even belonged to? Where did it originate from? If it was her husband's, then how did Allah manage to intervene and place it in her?

Salam it has been clearly said in holy Quran that creation of prophet Isa(عليه السلام) has been similar to creation of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) which creation of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) has been done without womb & mother so therefore creation of prophet Isa (عليه السلام) has been easier for Allah than creation of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) .

Quote

Indeed the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was. (59) This is the truth from your Lord, so do not be among the skeptics. (60)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/3:59

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

36 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Okay. Logical impossibilities can't go. So in light of that, how do you then approach the story of Musa turning his staff into a snake? Does that go?

Salam maybe it ha been changing in combination of Atoms  for turing a solid object into living creature whitout having a tool or mediator through will of Allah in opposition of creating illusions by magicians through some means in order to fool people which they can change nature of anything which when they have seen it so then they understood that is not an illusion which this trnsformation happened really which it has been their everlasting wish in their life to this level of changing nature of everything which because prophet Musa (عليه السلام) has not been a magician so therefore they understood that it has been done by real creator of everything who can change nature of anything as his wish.

[SoRoUsH]

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

My premise: God has created and set out laws, and he always chooses to act within those laws. 

Point out where the contradiction is. 

I don't see a contradiction. I mentioned that if this is your premise, then you need to stick to it. 

This premise alone isn't sufficient to permit for all types of claims about God or miracles. Many more premises would be needed to justify one's "framing" of God one way or another. In other words, you can't go from your premise to "God is tripartite" or "God can manifest into a monkey."

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Okay. Logical impossibilities can't go. So in light of that, how do you then approach the story of Musa turning his staff into a snake? Does that go?

What is logically impossible about this? A square can't be a circle, because by definition, squares have four sides. In other possible worlds, you can imagine all sorts of transformations for all sorts of reasons we can't fathom in this world. 

Musa's staff transformed into a snake, in the same way that Jesus blew into a clay bird and turned it into a real bird. Through God's Spirit, and by God's will, transformations can happen. Spirits bring life into the object, and the rest is just re-arrangement and assemblage of particles and components. The miracle is the turning of a non-living thing into a living thing, which can only happen through God's Spirits and by His will.  There's nothing logically impossible here. God is the source of life and He bestows life, whenever He desires. 

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Since this verse is revealed to us, it is speaking to a phenomenon that we, humans, have observed for a long time now - that we simply cannot reproduce without the coming together of the female and male chromosomes.

Yes. We can't. But God can. At the beginning of the verse, He refers to Himself as بدیع, the originator, bringing something from nothing. He brought a Y-chromosome to Mary, and He brought life to Mary, through His Spirit. He creates all things, and He has full knowledge of all things. Jesus's birth is a miracle. Mary being a virgin and giving birth is miracle. But neither are logical impossibilities. 

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Now unless you believe that Allah will go against the very argument that he uses to describe himself, the whole Jesus virgin-birth story becomes incoherent.

"How can He have a child, when for Him there is no consort?"

I think you're reading this to mean, He can't have a son, because He doesn't have a consort. In other words, you're reading this to mean, God would need a consort to have a child. And if God needs a consort, then how can Mary have a son without a companion. 

In this verse, God doesn't use an argument to describe Himself. He very explicitly describes Himself as The Originator, The Creator, and The Omniscient. He needs neither a son nor a consort. God isn't asking to be vindicated in this verse. He's not presenting an alibi. 

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Because then what do you really believe regarding Jesus? Did he have Y chromosomes? If he did, and if Allah could just disregard his own argument and somehow create a Y chromosome of some person and join it with Maryam's X chromsome and create a fetus in Maryam's womb, then what is the purpose of Allah using this particular argument in 6:101 at all?

What argument did Allah disregard? What exactly do you think is the argument in 6:101? 

As you're stating what you think is His argument, think, does it fit with everything else you know about Allah. If not, then you're probably misreading and misunderstanding the verse. 

God creates things from nothing. He is البدیع. He gives life. He is الحی. And He knows everything. He is العلیم.

You say, "and somehow create a Y-chromosome", as if it's impossible for Allah to do so. It is not. 

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

By the way, to whom might that Y chromosome have even belonged to? Where did it originate from? If it was her husband's, then how did Allah manage to intervene and place it in her?

It originated from Allah. Why is this unacceptable? The very first word of this verse is بدیع, originator. He can originate things from nothing. That is not a logical impossibility. He is the originator of all things, when there was nothing. 

I think in your attempt to be rational, you're being irrational about the nature of God. The evidence is in that very verse. God is the originator of heavens and earth. He is the creator of all things. What is physically impossible in this world, for humans, isn't impossible for God. And at no point, there's any type of logical impossibilities or contradictions involved in what God is saying.

5 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It leads to more questions than it answers. Things are really not adding up in this story.

I think things are not adding up for you, because you're putting human boundaries on God. You're assuming God's limited in the same ways that we are. You're looking at what's impossible for humans, and you're applying that same impossibility to God. 

This is how your argument appears to me. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by SoRoUsH

[layman]

On 7/28/2022 at 2:31 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

How have we reconciled our faith in the miracles of the Prophets (a) with reasoning and rationality? And how does that play out with the miraculous claims from other religions - such as the existence of a tripartite God or a five-headed God or a God who can manifest into a monkey-human and fly across a country? Why are those 'unreasonable' but ours are totally reasonable?

Interesting issue!

If people in the time before the Prophet see supersonic jet flying and bombing Abraha Elephant Army , they may say "what a great miracle".  

What do we say about supersonic jet?  Not a miracle.  When we can't explain a phenomenon logically based on the current knowledge, we call it a miracle.

If a person during Abraha time can peek into a future, he will understand that supersonic jet is a human made technology.

I believe Aqal need evidences to rationalize or provide reasoning.  There are two ways to get evidences for the Aqal:

1.  By using our mind to gather intelligence through our physical senses.  We are bounded by space and time.  Example:  we see a train passing through a hole behind a wall.  We will see the engine first and as time passes by we see the passenger coaches and finally the rear part of the train.  We can only comment on the train as it passes by, part by part.

2. To use our heart to witness intelligence beyond physical realm.  We are not bounded by space and time.  Example.  We stand above the wall to see the train.  We can see where it comes from and where it is heading.  We can even see the future of the train just looking at where the rail track is heading to.  We can see the whole train or any section simultaneously.

It impossible for the aqal of the people who belong to group #1 to understand the logic and reasoning of people from group #2.  

We need to remove the veil of physical limitations when to understand true miracles.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is capable doing things beyond mind and physical logics and not bound space and time.

If we want to comprehend Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) miracles,  we need to be in both groups #1 and #2.  Then our aqal will comprehend and can reconcile our faith.

Wallahualam. 

Maybe in the future there is a method that a virgin woman can bear a child without a consort. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by layman

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

13 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I don't see a contradiction. I mentioned that if this is your premise, then you need to stick to it. 

This premise alone isn't sufficient to permit for all types of claims about God or miracles. Many more premises would be needed to justify one's "framing" of God one way or another. In other words, you can't go from your premise to "God is tripartite" or "God can manifest into a monkey."

Oh, I'll stick to it. You have my word.

And just for the record, I do believe that the events in the Qur'an actually occurred, but I lean towards a more plausible approach, one in which I exhaust the natural phenomena that would explain how these events might have unfolded.

13 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

What is logically impossible about this? A square can't be a circle, because by definition, squares have four sides. In other possible worlds, you can imagine all sorts of transformations for all sorts of reasons we can't fathom in this world. 

It's not so much about about the logical impossibility about miracles as it is we have no good reason to believe that they occur. Logic itself could not care less about whether the facts are true or not, it only cares about the relationships between the statements we make. So if I say a horse has 8 legs and that half a horse would have 4 legs, or that there is a giant teapot floating among the clouds somewhere, all of that is logically consistent. But, my premises are completely wrong. Similarly with miracles, if your base hypothesis is that God exists and intervenes in human affairs to physical levels, then logic will lead you to believe that miracles are a logical consequence. No one is denying the soundness of the logic here. But something not being a logical contradiction does not mean it is any more reasonable to believe in. 

14 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Musa's staff transformed into a snake, in the same way that Jesus blew into a clay bird and turned it into a real bird. Through God's Spirit, and by God's will, transformations can happen. Spirits bring life into the object, and the rest is just re-arrangement and assemblage of particles and components. The miracle is the turning of a non-living thing into a living thing, which can only happen through God's Spirits and by His will.  There's nothing logically impossible here. God is the source of life and He bestows life, whenever He desires.

The same way Shiva beheaded his avatar son and brought him back to life with an elephant's head and the same way a divinely-inspired monkey-human flew across a country at 660km carrying a mountain with him. It all happened through God's spirit and will. Why is this any less believable than the miracles of Musa or 'Isa? What sets the miracles of Musa and 'Isa apart, other than your confession of faith in them?

14 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I think you're reading this to mean, He can't have a son, because He doesn't have a consort. In other words, you're reading this to mean, God would need a consort to have a child. And if God needs a consort, then how can Mary have a son without a companion. 

In this verse, God doesn't use an argument to describe Himself. He very explicitly describes Himself as The Originator, The Creator, and The Omniscient. He needs neither a son nor a consort. God isn't asking to be vindicated in this verse. He's not presenting an alibi. 

No, but where are you getting that context from? From some other place in the Quran? You keep saying that Allah needs neither a son nor a consort (and I am on board with that), but where in this specific verse does Allah use or imply the word "need"? Allah argues, "how can he have a child when he has no consort?", not "why would he need to have a child when when he is the originator of all things?" 

16 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

What argument did Allah disregard? What exactly do you think is the argument in 6:101? 

As you're stating what you think is His argument, think, does it fit with everything else you know about Allah. If not, then you're probably misreading and misunderstanding the verse. 

God creates things from nothing. He is البدیع. He gives life. He is الحی. And He knows everything. He is العلیم.

 

 

I am reading the verse quite literally and it certainly fits with everything else that I know about Allah.

 

If Allah is saying "how can I have a baby when I have no female partner?" (because that is exactly what corresponds to humans in the natural world), but then goes ahead and makes it happen anyway in the case of Maryam and 'Isa, then that whole argument just becomes incoherent and useless. Why would Allah bring an argument or ask a question that he himself would defy? 

 

16 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

You say, "and somehow create a Y-chromosome", as if it's impossible for Allah to do so. It is not. 

Not impossible, but very improbable and not very reasonable either. Just like it's not reasonable to believe in alien abductions or ghosts or monsters who show up on history channels.

17 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

It originated from Allah. Why is this unacceptable? The very first word of this verse is بدیع, originator. He can originate things from nothing. That is not a logical impossibility. He is the originator of all things, when there was nothing. 

I think in your attempt to be rational, you're being irrational about the nature of God. The evidence is in that very verse. God is the originator of heavens and earth. He is the creator of all things. What is physically impossible in this world, for humans, isn't impossible for God. And at no point, there's any type of logical impossibilities or contradictions involved in what God is saying.

Every single thing originates from Allah. We both agree on that, we don't need to keep repeating it.

The question I put forth was whose information did that Y-chromosome hold? Who was it passed down from? If it was her husband's, how did his tangible genetic material reach Allah? If it was not her husband's, then did Maryam give birth to a child of a man other than her husband? I am not asking these questions to drag something out of you or because the answers to these questions would affect my religion in any way, but sometimes asking zoomed-in questions forces us to think over the zoomed-out ones.

If this was such a remarkable and fantastic miracle, I would love to see how the details add up and how I can reason with them.

17 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

What is physically impossible in this world, for humans, isn't impossible for God.

Except Maryam and 'Isa were of this world. It had to be in the capacity of natural law for Maryam to have conceived and delivered 'Isa.

17 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I think things are not adding up for you, because you're putting human boundaries on God. You're assuming God's limited in the same ways that we are. You're looking at what's impossible for humans, and you're applying that same impossibility to God. 

You make it sound like I am forcing God's rules onto him and thereby incapacitating him. I am looking at it very differently. I am saying that Allah has created laws and chooses not to break those laws. Now that stands the test of logic and reason.

If God could just change his mind/will and violate what he has set out into motion, then what assures you he won't declare Christianity as the single, truthful religion in the next fifty years? This argument naturally follows. The formula is that we are promised heaven by the grace of God, and by our deeds, and by our belief in the Prophets, but what makes you so sure God hasn't or won't suspend that formula and prescribe something else?

[SoRoUsH]

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

And just for the record, I do believe that the events in the Qur'an actually occurred,

 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It's not so much about about the logical impossibility about miracles as it is we have no good reason to believe that they occur.

If you believe that the events in the Quran actually occurred, then you have very good reasons to believe that Musa's miracle with his staff actually occurred, since it is mentioned in the Quran and supported by narrations. 

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Logic itself could not care less about whether the facts are true or not, it only cares about the relationships between the statements we make.

This is a very good point. However, here's a question: Don't facts need to be logical? And by logical, I mean, not breaking any rules/laws of logic. Do you know of any illogical facts?

If a fact is illogical, then it probably isn't a fact.

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

all of that is logically consistent. But, my premises are completely wrong.

They are logically consistent but physically false in our world. What this means is that it may be possible that in another possible world there's a horse with 8 legs and a floating teapot. 

A statement can be false in our world, but true in some other possible worlds. However, logical impossibilities are false in all worlds. 

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

No one is denying the soundness of the logic here. But something not being a logical contradiction does not mean it is any more reasonable to believe in. 

There is no reason to believe that I can commit what is physically impossible in my/our world. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that God can't do what is impossible for me. 

You're going back and forth, between logical and physical, with your usage of possibilities. 

what is reasonable to believe about me and my world is not the same as what is reasonable to believe about God and all possible worlds. 

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The same way Shiva beheaded his avatar son and brought him back to life with an elephant's head and the same way a divinely-inspired monkey-human flew across a country at 660km carrying a mountain with him. It all happened through God's spirit and will. Why is this any less believable than the miracles of Musa or 'Isa? What sets the miracles of Musa and 'Isa apart, other than your confession of faith in them?

You've made a huge leap here. To believe in Shiva's miracles, first and foremost, we have to believe in the very existence of a god like Shiva. 

If we believe that Shiva can't exist, then it follows that neither can any of Shiva's so-called miracles. 

Shiva's miracles are untrue, because the very existence of god Shiva is untrue, and not because there's something different or specifically untrue about the so-called miracles. 

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

where in this specific verse does Allah use or imply the word "need"?

بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍۢ

وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌۭ

These statements highlight God's omniscience and omnipotence; implying that He doesn't need a son or a consort.

14 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If Allah is saying "how can I have a baby when I have no female partner?" (because that is exactly what corresponds to humans in the natural world), but then goes ahead and makes it happen anyway in the case of Maryam and 'Isa, then that whole argument just becomes incoherent and useless. Why would Allah bring an argument or ask a question that he himself would defy? 

قَالَتْ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى غُلَـٰمٌۭ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِى بَشَرٌۭ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّۭا

قَالَ كَذَٰلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَىَّ هَيِّنٌۭ ۖ وَلِنَجْعَلَهُۥٓ ءَايَةًۭ لِّلنَّاسِ وَرَحْمَةًۭ مِّنَّا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرًۭا

(19:20-21)

 

قَالَ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ غُلٰمٌ وَّقَدۡ بَلَغَنِىَ الۡكِبَرُ وَامۡرَاَتِىۡ عَاقِرٌ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكَ اللّٰهُ يَفۡعَلُ مَا يَشَآءُ

(3:40)

 

قَالَتۡ رَبِّ اَنّٰى يَكُوۡنُ لِىۡ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِىۡ بَشَرٌ ‌ؕ قَالَ كَذٰلِكِ اللّٰهُ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ‌ ؕ اِذَا قَضٰٓى اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا يَقُوۡلُ لَهٗ كُنۡ فَيَكُوۡنُ

(3:47)

The above verses, and others like it, show that God can do whatever that He desires. It is easy for Him. What is impossible for us is easy for Him to do. This is the first point. 

The second point below is, perhaps, more technical; but it may address your concerns better. 

 

مَا الۡمَسِيۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ‌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِهِ الرُّسُلُؕ وَاُمُّهٗ صِدِّيۡقَةٌ‌  ؕ كَانَا يَاۡكُلٰنِ الطَّعَامَ‌ؕ اُنْظُرۡ كَيۡفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الۡاٰيٰتِ ثُمَّ انْظُرۡ انّٰى يُؤۡفَكُوۡنَ

(5:75)

The words "کیف" and "أنی", both, translate to "How". But, as you can see I'm the verse above, the latter form is used rhetorically. The word کیف is related to the mechanism of a process, whereas the word أنی is used to bring attention to a point. In 6:95, 9:30, 10:32, 10:34, 23:89, 36:66, and some other verses we can readily see the same rhetorical use of أنی again and again. 

On the same note, neither Mary nor Zakaria actually asked about the mechanism of child-birth without a partner or at an old barren age. They knew, as pious people, that God can do whatever He wants. 

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Not impossible, but very improbable and not very reasonable either. Just like it's not reasonable to believe in alien abductions or ghosts or monsters who show up on history channels.

Your analogy is inaccurate. You're comparing what may be unreasonable from our perspective to what is reasonable and very possible from God's perspective. 

You're either asking: 

"Why would God do this?" Or "How would God do this?" 

The answer to both may, very correctly, be, we don't know now and may never know. God doesn't need to justify His actions or decisions for us. He does what He desires and what is the best.

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If this was such a remarkable and fantastic miracle, I would love to see how the details add up and how I can reason with them.

Miracles, by definition, are incomprehensible. You are trying to comprehend what is, by its nature, incomprehensible. 

Can you think of a miracle that people couldn't comprehend in the past, but now, we, due to our advanced science, can? 

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Except Maryam and 'Isa were of this world. It had to be in the capacity of natural law for Maryam to have conceived and delivered 'Isa

Wasn't it though? 

A Spirit brought the gift of life to Mary, gave it in her, and began the process. 

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I am saying that Allah has created laws and chooses not to break those laws.

You're making a huge assumption here, and it is that we know all of the laws that Allah has created. Not only that but also that we know them well and accurately. In other words, you're saying, not only we only of all of the laws God has created it, we know them perfectly. No exceptions. No overarching or overruling circumstances. They must work according to how we think they work. So, in this sense, you have indeed limited God's actions to your own (or to human) understanding of the laws governing our world. 

What you may think as "breaking of the law," may just be another layer of the law, followed under specific circumstances. Have you ever read our fiqh books? 

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If God could just change his mind/will and violate what he has set out into motion...

Big "if". Not true. To assume that God would violate His laws, is to assume you know all of God's laws, inside and outside, and perfectly. 

15 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

but what makes you so sure God hasn't or won't suspend that formula and prescribe something else?

Because God is perfect. Would a perfect God do that?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/29/2022 at 8:14 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

If God could just change his mind/will and violate what he has set out into motion, then what assures you he won't declare Christianity as the single, truthful religion in the next fifty years? This argument naturally follows. The formula is that we are promised heaven by the grace of God, and by our deeds, and by our belief in the Prophets, but what makes you so sure God hasn't or won't suspend that formula and prescribe something else?

Salam it has mentioned in holy Quran which It will be done by promise of Allah which if you believe that he will break his promise then tricks us so therefore it means you believe that he is a defected god that even can't keep his promise so therefore everything even him will be false because he has shortcomings likewise dual personality & evil deception in his attributes .

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

If you believe that the events in the Quran actually occurred, then you have very good reasons to believe that Musa's miracle with his staff actually occurred, since it is mentioned in the Quran and supported by narrations. 

I don’t have any single good reason to believe that these events were supernatural or miraculous for these events to be noteworthy. I think natural explanations are just as magnificent and praiseworthy as miraculous ones. I think what aligns with my line of reasoning is to deplete the natural explanations for all events that occur.

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

This is a very good point. However, here's a question: Don't facts need to be logical? And by logical, I mean, not breaking any rules/laws of logic. Do you know of any illogical facts?

If a fact is illogical, then it probably isn't a fact.

Facts are logical. But consistencies between, say, three or four ideas/statements don't need to be rooted on a factual premise for there to be a logically healthy outcome. 

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

There is no reason to believe that I can commit what is physically impossible in my/our world. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that God can't do what is impossible for me. 

You're going back and forth, between logical and physical, with your usage of possibilities. 

what is reasonable to believe about me and my world is not the same as what is reasonable to believe about God and all possible worlds. 

But this whole time, I thought we were speaking about our world. Maryam and 'Isa belonged to Earth, not Planet X. They did not belong to other possible worlds. 

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

You've made a huge leap here. To believe in Shiva's miracles, first and foremost, we have to believe in the very existence of a god like Shiva. 

If we believe that Shiva can't exist, then it follows that neither can any of Shiva's so-called miracles. 

Shiva's miracles are untrue, because the very existence of god Shiva is untrue, and not because there's something different or specifically untrue about the so-called miracles. 

So let me get this right. The reason you believe in miracles to be true is because you have established that your God is the one that exists and that your religion is the correct one? So it's really just a matter of confession? No actual thought process behind it other than "my God did it, your God didn't?" How is that rational?

Besides, Shiva was just an example. You do believe in the Abrahamic God, correct? So if you were a Christian and you held belief in Jesus' resurrection and that his companions saw him and that he was up in the sky at some point, you would only believe in all of that due to the fact that you are Christian and the Bible tells you so? Is that actually sufficient for you, intellectually speaking?

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَىْءٍۢ

وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌۭ

These statements highlight God's omniscience and omnipotence; implying that He doesn't need a son or a consort.

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

The words "کیف" and "أنی", both, translate to "How". But, as you can see I'm the verse above, the latter form is used rhetorically. The word کیف is related to the mechanism of a process, whereas the word أنی is used to bring attention to a point. In 6:95, 9:30, 10:32, 10:34, 23:89, 36:66, and some other verses we can readily see the same rhetorical use of أنی again and again. 

Fair enough and very insightful. However, the problem that I see here is that you are reading it like this: “God is the originator and the creator of all things. How can he [have the need] for an offspring?” That much rhetoric would have sufficed, really. Why take it a step further to say, “How can he [have the need] for an offspring, when for him exists no mate?” It sounds like something more significant. Am I misplacing something here? The way I am reading it is that God is conveying it like this because that synchronizes with what humans do (i.e. coitus) to have children and it’s sort of God’s way of enforcing and reminding people of the rule that he created. Are we reading this too differently?

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

On the same note, neither Mary nor Zakaria actually asked about the mechanism of child-birth without a partner or at an old barren age. They knew, as pious people, that God can do whatever He wants. 

And on the same note, Jesus is never outright described as having no dad, Maryam is never referred to as a virgin (tahira, yes, but never as batool), and Zakaria and Maryam never asked about the mechanism because they knew how it would be done. Naturally.

It’s interesting to note how the early Christians had absolutely no belief in Maryam being a virgin or Jesus being of a virgin birth. This was mainly just discussed in Luke and Matthew, I believe. It wasn’t until the later centuries that this finally became hard Christian/Catholic doctrine and then - lo and behold - Muslim understanding as well.

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Your analogy is inaccurate. You're comparing what may be unreasonable from our perspective to what is reasonable and very possible from God's perspective. 

You're either asking: 

"Why would God do this?" Or "How would God do this?" 

The answer to both may, very correctly, be, we don't know now and may never know. God doesn't need to justify His actions or decisions for us. He does what He desires and what is the best.

We don't know now and may never know, but then an honest question follows: what exactly is the problem if I believe that there are natural explanations for these events? Does it somehow shake my iman or make God less of a God if I went with that understanding?

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Can you think of a miracle that people couldn't comprehend in the past, but now, we, due to our advanced science, can? 

I won’t go into the deets of it, but the story of Musa with the magicians is a good one. It's not that people could not comprehend it in the past, but it was Musa who used it to foster tawhid. Musa learned of their inner secrets through the knowledge of Allah, in that they would shift the shapes of their sticks into snake-like shapes by natural means, such as using certain chemicals that would react with the sun. And it is interesting to note that the Qur’an specifically mentions that they would perform at a very specific time of the day when they could come into contact with heat. Even Musa did the same (hence the light upon his hand, and his attempt to bring warmth to his hand by placing it under his armpit-area). When Musa learned of this deception, he decided to use it against them in order to expose their trickery. Did Musa perform magic? No. He was ultimately inspired by Allah to give them a taste of their own medicine, hence the verse “and his snake swallowed all the falsehoods that they [the magicians] had shown.” It didn’t go and open its mouth and literally swallow them (contrary to popular reading), it is a metaphor for how Musa’s truth consumed their falsehood. The magicians could no more sell their false idea of “we perform magic because our little gods are true”. Musa exposed them once and for all, that they were just tricking their gullible audience to worship the pharaoh by these quirky performances.

23 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Wasn't it though? 

A Spirit brought the gift of life to Mary, gave it in her, and began the process. 

Was it? How many other natural virgin births do you know of?

On 7/29/2022 at 2:43 PM, SoRoUsH said:

You're making a huge assumption here, and it is that we know all of the laws that Allah has created. Not only that but also that we know them well and accurately. In other words, you're saying, not only we only of all of the laws God has created it, we know them perfectly. No exceptions. No overarching or overruling circumstances. They must work according to how we think they work. So, in this sense, you have indeed limited God's actions to your own (or to human) understanding of the laws governing our world. 

Well, for the ones that we do know, we have come to know them accurately enough. When every single pregnancy in the entire history of humankind has been reported due to the coitus of a man and woman, but then there is one exception of ‘Isa, that does sound very much like a suspension of the constantly observed and thoroughly tested natural order of things (i.e. law), yes. I don't need to assume that I know all the laws of God to come to that conclusion.

On 7/29/2022 at 2:43 PM, SoRoUsH said:

What you may think as "breaking of the law," may just be another layer of the law, followed under specific circumstances. Have you ever read our fiqh books? 

Ha. But does it have to be? 

On 7/29/2022 at 2:43 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Because God is perfect. Would a perfect God do that?

That is completely off the mark. What does God changing his will regarding which religion is right somehow render him imperfect? He is fully capable of changing his will and, according to you, probably owes no explanation for it either. It could be part of his justice. Or his master plan. How can you be so sure?

[SoRoUsH]

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I think natural explanations are just as magnificent and praiseworthy as miraculous ones.

Why do you think this? How do you define natural? Naturalism views our world (universe and all included) as a closed system, where the established laws cannot be affected from a realm beyond what is enclosed. If you agree or align with this view, do you place God within our natural world, too? Or is God beyond and outside of our natural world and laws?

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Facts are logical. But consistencies between, say, three or four ideas/statements don't need to be rooted on a factual premise for there to be a logically healthy outcome.

If facts are logical, then they are consistent. 

I don't know what "logically healthy" means. 

If four facts are not consistent with one another, then it's likely that one or some of them are not logical. Averroes would say, "Truth cannot contradict Truth." 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

But this whole time, I thought we were speaking about our world. Maryam and 'Isa belonged to Earth, not Planet X. They did not belong to other possible worlds. 

Maryam and Isa (Peace be upon them both) belong to our world. They did not and could not have done such miracles with their own powers, following natural laws. God, who does not belong to our world, willed and allowed for such supernatural miracles to occur. God is not limited by our world or our natural laws. 

Miracles do happen in our world, but they are not of our world. The source and origin of miracles is not our world. The source and origin is God, and He is not limited by our world or its laws. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

No actual thought process behind it other than "my God did it, your God didn't?" How is that rational?

The thought process behind it is reaching and understanding the essence of Tawheed: There's no other God than Allah. 

There's only Allah. There is no Shiva. There is no other gods. So, anything and everything about other gods is false. Anything and everything attributed to other gods is false. Why? Because there are no other gods. 

The pagans used to claim that their gods did this and that, too. 

Arriving at Tawheed, and properly understanding it, is the thought process behind rejecting all so-called miracles that are attributed to other gods. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

So if you were a Christian and you held belief in Jesus' resurrection and that his companions saw him and that he was up in the sky at some point, you would only believe in all of that due to the fact that you are Christian and the Bible tells you so? Is that actually sufficient for you, intellectually speaking?

I think you may have the process understood in reverse. 

One doesn't believe in a religion or a god, through miracles. One believes the miracles through their religion. 

I believe only in the miracles that have been conveyed to us through our book and our Imams, because I only believe in the truth of our book and our Imams. Believing in a religion or a god precedes (and must precede) believing in the miracles of that religion or god. First you have to learn what can be done, then you can study what has been done. 

Ultimately, it comes down to sincerely and thoroughly believing in your book and religion. If you do, and if your religion says that a god like Shiva can't exist, and no other miracles other than the ones by Allah can happen, then you can dismiss any and all other gods and miracles. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The way I am reading it is that God is conveying it like this because that synchronizes with what humans do (i.e. coitus) to have children and it’s sort of God’s way of enforcing and reminding people of the rule that he created. Are we reading this too differently?

This reading works, too, if you accept that God is not limited to natural laws for that are established for humans. He's reminding them of the rule that He created for them. And this is precisely what makes Isa's birth a miracle. Why? Because it is beyond the natural laws that humans are bound to and limited by. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Maryam is never referred to as a virgin

This is false. Maryam was never touched by or had coitus with a man. This is very clear in our book and narrations. Why would she and others be shocked about her pregnancy? 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Zakaria and Maryam never asked about the mechanism because they knew how it would be done. Naturally.

They didn't. That's why they were surprised at God's claim about giving them children. 

They didn't know and couldn't understand how it would be done naturally. However, they knew God is not limited to natural means. They didn't doubt God or His promise to them. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

what exactly is the problem if I believe that there are natural explanations for these events? Does it somehow shake my iman or make God less of a God if I went with that understanding?

You would be limiting God's means and actions to be within what is possible in our world. You're taking away God's supernatural means from Him and putting Him in a natural box. This view would be more in line with pantheism or panentheism and not monotheism. In our view, God is neither "in" our world nor "of" our world. He is beyond (or outside of) our world. 

If you accept that God is outside of our natural world, then you implicitly accept the existence of the supernatural (beyond/above natural). 

If you accept the existence of the supernatural, but claim that God must act within the limitation of what is natural, then what you're saying is that God is outside of box but is limited to act within our box. 

Not only that but our box as we understand it. In other words, God has to act naturally, as we understand what "naturally"  and "natural" mean. 

20 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Did Musa perform magic? No. He was ultimately inspired by Allah to give them a taste of their own medicine, hence the verse “and his snake swallowed all the falsehoods that they [the magicians] had shown.” It didn’t go and open its mouth and literally swallow them (contrary to popular reading), it is a metaphor for how Musa’s truth consumed their falsehood. The magicians could no more sell their false idea of “we perform magic because our little gods are true”. Musa exposed them once and for all, that they were just tricking their gullible audience to worship the pharaoh by these quirky performances.

So, I think, this is where you've allowed your currently beliefs to interfere with the interpretation of the story. In other words, because the literal interpretation won't fit your opinion and approach, you've decided that the literal interpretation can't be true and it must be understood metaphorically. 

Has this view been sanctioned by our Imams (عليه السلام)? As far as I know, both our book and our narrations point to a literal interpretation. Musa's staff did in fact turn into a living creature, and that is the miracle. Whereas the magicians performed a convincing illusion, Musa performed a miracle through God's will and might. He transformed a non-living object into a living creature. This is the miracle: the clear distinction between non-living objects and a living creature. This is what frightened the illusionists and pushed them to believe. They knew of the physical impossibility of what Musa did. They could not comprehend it. Miracles are by definition incomprehensible. 

21 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

How many other natural virgin births do you know of?

As far as I know, it's been observed in some species; rare but possible.

21 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

When every single pregnancy in the entire history of humankind has been reported due to the coitus of a man and woman, but then there is one exception of ‘Isa, that does sound very much like a suspension of the constantly observed and thoroughly tested natural order of things (i.e. law), yes.

Hence, a miracle, a supernatural event, willed by Allah. 

21 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

What does God changing his will regarding which religion is right somehow render him imperfect? He is fully capable of changing his will and, according to you, probably owes no explanation for it either. It could be part of his justice. Or his master plan. How can you be so sure?

Because that would be a logical impossibility. You cannot believe God is Truthful and not-Truthful, simultaneously. 

إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمُ ۗ

(3:19)

 

[Cool]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:04 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

then how is it really possible, for instance, for a virgin birth to have occurred?

Salam!!

I think we need to acknowledge the fact that our knowledge is very limited. We know less than 5% of the Universe. For us, miracle could be anything which expresses on us the hidden knowledge.

Virgin birth, when it happened approximately 6000 years ago, remain a mystery for us for so long. In the 20th century, scientists studied the female komodo dragon and found that she can reproduce sexually & a-sexually as well. In her a-sexual reproduction phase, she give birth to male offspring. 

https://www.livescience.com/9460-female-komodo-dragon-virgin-births.html#:~:text=No sperm needed&text=The type of asexual reproduction,kept separate from other dragons.

So we have a scientific law existed where some animals are capable of reproducing in both ways (sexually & a-sexually). 

While a-sexual reproduction might seems impossible in humans at the moment, but scientists are working on it and have got some success as mentioned in the following article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.infobae.com/en/2022/03/27/how-close-are-we-to-asexual-reproduction-in-humans/%3foutputType=amp-type

 

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Why do you think this?

Because nature, just like every single creation of God, is beyond magnificent in and of itself. It is enough to fill us with awe. This is why God constantly asks us to look at nature, to study it, and to discover his wisdom from it. 

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

How do you define natural?

Natural law is how the the universe operates. The daily phenomena around us, from the most mundane to the most brilliant. The physical world. The study of nature is science, the laws of science are human attempts of formulating the laws of nature that have been observed and tested to be true time and time again, at large, without exception. Nature, in Islam, has not been given a second place. It holds the utmost importance in the Qur'an. Islam does not contemplate boxing up itself in unnatural mysteries or authorizing irrational or ultra-rational dogmas. In Islam, reason pervades every thing.

If you understand that God has created the (observable) universe the way it is (i.e. space-time), with certain laws, with electrons weighing what they do, Planck's constant being what it is, the speed of light being what it is, it is very difficult and almost absurd (scientifically speaking) to claim that abnormalities in the universe (such as reviving a dead person, which is completely prevented by the second law of thermodynamics) would not have cataclysmic consequences for a good chunk of the fabric of space-time itself.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Naturalism views our world (universe and all included) as a closed system, where the established laws cannot be affected from a realm beyond what is enclosed. If you agree or align with this view, do you place God within our natural world, too? Or is God beyond and outside of our natural world and laws?

No, I do not place God within our natural world. God is not held down by any of the forces nor subject to the passing of time. God has created all of it, he is not bound to follow it. But he does choose to work with it. He chooses, in all his might, to remain in harmony with every single thing in the universe. Why must God break that synchronization, why must he deviate from a uniformity or a regularity that he has created in order to bring about natural disasters or to save a community of believers - when he himself has created everything?

And if you’re going to argue, again, that “well, we don’t know that he has broken a law because we do not know the laws of God to their fullest extent”, then we can stop calling any of these events miracles at all and throw this whole discussion away. Because, by that argument, miracles do not exist as miracles eternally, they are only miracles relative to the people who saw them who had limited knowledge, and it’s only a matter of time before the human civilization discovers something that will explain how these events might have occurred. It won't be so much of a miracle anymore, would it? And if, with time, we could comprehend the 'incomprehensible', that would be a logical contradiction.  

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Maryam and Isa (Peace be upon them both) belong to our world. They did not and could not have done such miracles with their own powers, following natural laws. God, who does not belong to our world, willed and allowed for such supernatural miracles to occur. God is not limited by our world or our natural laws. 

Miracles do happen in our world, but they are not of our world. The source and origin of miracles is not our world. The source and origin is God, and He is not limited by our world or its laws. 

You're saying all miracles are supernatural events, because of the very fact that they are caused by a supernatural agent, who does not observe natural laws since he is outside of them. My question and contention with that is: if everything is caused by this supernatural agent who does not observe natural law - does this not include our universe and every law within our universe too? That makes our universe miraculous too, does it not? And it also turns the laws of nature into miracles, no? This is where you run into a serious contradiction. A miracle is outside the capacity of natural law. If the natural laws are themselves miraculous, then you'd be saying that a natural law is outside the capacity of nature. That it violates nature. That's a serious logical contradiction.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

The thought process behind it is reaching and understanding the essence of Tawheed: There's no other God than Allah. 

There's only Allah. There is no Shiva. There is no other gods. So, anything and everything about other gods is false. Anything and everything attributed to other gods is false. Why? Because there are no other gods. 

The pagans used to claim that their gods did this and that, too. 

Arriving at Tawheed, and properly understanding it, is the thought process behind rejecting all so-called miracles that are attributed to other gods. 

Yeah, so as I said, it is your way of saying that "because my thought process is that I have established that my God is the one that exists and I have rejected your god, therefore I will be giving a green light to the miracles of my God. Tawheed is my reason to believe in miracles." I mean, sure, if that floats your boat.

P.S. Allah will still be 'One' regardless of whether he performs miracles or not.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

I think you may have the process understood in reverse. 

One doesn't believe in a religion or a god, through miracles. One believes the miracles through their religion. 

I believe only in the miracles that have been conveyed to us through our book and our Imams, because I only believe in the truth of our book and our Imams. Believing in a religion or a god precedes (and must precede) believing in the miracles of that religion or god. First you have to learn what can be done, then you can study what has been done. 

Ultimately, it comes down to sincerely and thoroughly believing in your book and religion. If you do, and if your religion says that a god like Shiva can't exist, and no other miracles other than the ones by Allah can happen, then you can dismiss any and all other gods and miracles. 

Huh.

Why would God show miracles to non-believing people in all those stories in the Qur'an, if, according to you, belief in religion and the God of that religion must precede the belief in the miracle? Don't tell me this was another exception.

Your argument holds absolutely no ground in front of Hinduism or any religion for that matter, I promise you that. Believing in your God, in your Prophet, in your Qur'an, and in your Imams, is not a rational warrant to believe in miracles - especially when the Qur'an does not necessarily establish them to have been miracles in the first place.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

This reading works, too, if you accept that God is not limited to natural laws for that are established for humans. He's reminding them of the rule that He created for them. And this is precisely what makes Isa's birth a miracle. Why? Because it is beyond the natural laws that humans are bound to and limited by. 

I have already made it clear that God is not limited to natural laws that are established for humans. This was never an argument about God's limitations. It is an argument about God's choice of action.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

This is false. Maryam was never touched by or had coitus with a man. This is very clear in our book and narrations. Why would she and others be shocked about her pregnancy? 

Never touched by a man? And that is very clear? Man oh man, where are you getting this from? Such a thing is not established in the Qur’an, it is only extremely vaguely discussed in a handful of verses and the rest is left up to interpretation. Maryam is never referred to as al-batool in Islam. The Old Testament has a prophecy related to her, but it calls her ‘aa-lma’, which means a young girl, not necessarily a virgin. The earliest claims you’re going to get of her being a virgin or non-menstruating woman is from the church in the second or third centuries because they felt the need to deify and exaggerate Jesus and his birth as much as they could. Shi’a Imams don’t refer to her as Maryam al-Batool either. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab shared the same opinion as well, I think. The Gospels mention that Jesus had many brothers and sisters - and no, not milk siblings or community siblings, he had blood siblings, again showing us that “Virgin Mary” is a Catholic tenet, not an early Christian one, and certainly not an Islamic one. If there is any narration that establishes Maryam’s virginity for the duration of her life, please bring it forward.

As for the actual story, well here's a little story time:

She was shocked because her husband, Joseph the Carpenter, would abstain from engaging in intimacy with her. Why he did so, I will not discuss that here just now. As for why the people were shocked, there may have been two reasons: (1) her marriage to Joseph was confidential or (2) there is a story in the Bible (I think it actually might be the only story about Jesus’ childhood) that narrates Jesus being a young boy and arguing with the high Jewish priests of the temple when he was on a visit to Jerusalem. The people being “shocked” in 19:27 is not about 'Isa's birth, it was their shock and disgust towards Maryam for having raised a boy that would challenge the priests and hence break the rules of the shrine. Because Jesus dared to challenge these priests, the Jews were pointing fingers at 'Isa, saying that he was unwittingly bringing shame onto his mother for breaking the rules. This is why right after they mock 'Isa, he says, “And [He has made me] kind to my mother and not arrogant, wretched." (19:32) Not sure why Jesus, as a literal infant, would speak about being kind to his mother if she is the one people are accusing adultery of. What is the connection between him being kind towards his mother and her being accused of adultery? Jesus couldn’t possibly be saying things on a personal whim, could he?

Besides, let's face it, if they were truly shocked about Jesus' birth and were accusing Maryam of adultery, this would have undoubtedly resulted in her death. Jewish law seldom spared people, they’d have stoned her to death before she could make her way back to Nazareth. And the fact that Muslims believe she wasn't stoned because her infant miraculously spoke up for her from his cradle, I hope they are aware that the Jews always saw 'Isa as an ordinary baby, as an ordinary boy, and as an ordinary thirty-year old preacher. He never stood out to them as anything particularly special. If he had literally spoken out from a cradle and raised people from the dead, it does not make sense why they would regard him as such a nobody.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

They didn't. That's why they were surprised at God's claim about giving them children. 

They didn't know and couldn't understand how it would be done naturally. However, they knew God is not limited to natural means. They didn't doubt God or His promise to them. 

They did not doubt God or His promise to them, and nor did they make up a fantastical idea of how they would achieve their goals. They knew that they were humans, of this world, bound by its laws, and therefore would undergo the same natural processes of their fathers and forefathers. By the will of God.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

You would be limiting God's means and actions to be within what is possible in our world. You're taking away God's supernatural means from Him and putting Him in a natural box. This view would be more in line with pantheism or panentheism and not monotheism. In our view, God is neither "in" our world nor "of" our world. He is beyond (or outside of) our world. 

If you accept that God is outside of our natural world, then you implicitly accept the existence of the supernatural (beyond/above natural). 

If you accept the existence of the supernatural, but claim that God must act within the limitation of what is natural, then what you're saying is that God is outside of box but is limited to act within our box. 

Not only that but our box as we understand it. In other words, God has to act naturally, as we understand what "naturally"  and "natural" mean. 

I am not putting him in any sort of box. I am saying it is optimal for us to use natural explanations to describe the events that have occurred in the Qur'an. I am not taking away anything from God; God is not bound to follow the universe's rules, since he is their creator, but he does choose to stick with them, as he wants to guide and maintain his creation. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this point of view.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Has this view been sanctioned by our Imams (عليه السلام)? As far as I know, both our book and our narrations point to a literal interpretation. Musa's staff did in fact turn into a living creature, and that is the miracle. Whereas the magicians performed a convincing illusion, Musa performed a miracle through God's will and might. He transformed a non-living object into a living creature. This is the miracle: the clear distinction between non-living objects and a living creature. This is what frightened the illusionists and pushed them to believe.

Has it been prohibited by the Imams? Many a Shi'a has come and passed that took several verses in the Qur'an to be metaphorical or symbolic, if not all of them. Allah describing himself as noor is symbolic. Jannah is symbolism for many different conditions of pleasures. Reading the story of Musa metaphorically does not take anything away from Musa's character, nor the ultimate message of God. In fact, I would argue it represents it more convincingly.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

They could not comprehend it. Miracles are by definition incomprehensible. 

Okay, let's put a brake on here for a second. You're saying miracles are incomprehensible by definition, so God was showing something incomprehensible to humans, correct? This means that God was arguing for his existence and inviting people to believe in him via an event that those people could not even comprehend - therefore provide no rational justification for. Be honest, does it befit God to invite us to himself through our ignorance or incomprehensibility of his act instead of our ability to reason with it? Ignorance is not the basis for knowledge of God. Not in Islam. It is haram by consensus of the 'ulema of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a alike, to believe in Allah arbitrarily. Your definition of a miracle is not a very good portrayal of God.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

As far as I know, it's been observed in some species; rare but possible.

I was not talking about prokaryotic binary fission or anything along those lines. I am asking you specifically which humans, besides 'Isa, can you tell me about that were delivered by a virgin lady? If you can't name me a single one, chances are virgin human females cannot conceive. Not until they undergo the natural processes.

On 7/31/2022 at 12:26 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Because that would be a logical impossibility. You cannot believe God is Truthful and not-Truthful, simultaneously. 

إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمُ ۗ

(3:19)

And similarly:

وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ ٱللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًۭا

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Never touched by a man? And that is very clear? Man oh man, where are you getting this from? Such a thing is not established in the Qur’an, it is only extremely vaguely discussed in a handful of verses and the rest is left up to interpretation. Maryam is never referred to as al-batool in Islam. The Old Testament has a prophecy related to her, but it calls her ‘aa-lma’, which means a young girl, not necessarily a virgin. The earliest claims you’re going to get of her being a virgin or non-menstruating woman is from the church in the second or third centuries because they felt the need to deify and exaggerate Jesus and his birth as much as they could. Shi’a Imams don’t refer to her as Maryam al-Batool either. ‘Umar b. al-Khattab shared the same opinion as well,

Salam title of Batul according to shia sources & hadiths  has been used fro both of lady Maryam 7 lady Fatima (sa) which we don't take anything from ‘Umar b. al-Khattab as authentic because he has no knowledge about it so therfore you story about relation of Joseph the carpenter & lady Maryam is void.

 

Quote

Meaning

The word "Batul" is derived from the root "B-t-l" meaning "to become separate". The infinitive word "Tabtil" means "isolation from others, living alone and not marrying."

"Batul" and "Batil" refer to "a woman who has cut her attachment and need to men and does not have any liking in marriage."^[1] Lady Maryam (a) was called Batul because she was detached from men^[2] or because she did not have menstruation. "Tabattul" refers to the situation when a person is attracted toward God whole-heartedly and becomes separate from anything other than Him.^[3]

[2] Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, vol. 11, p. 43; Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Mufradāt alfāẓ al-Qurʾān, vol. 1, p. 240. 

Quote

Cause of Naming

Lady Fatima (a) also had the title of Batul. There are different opinions regarding the cause of calling her al-Batul; such as the following ones:

• She was distinguished from and superior to the women of her time by her actions, manner and knowledge and was separate [from others] towards God.^[4]
• According to many reports, Lady Fatima (a) was called Batul because she did not have menstruation.^[5]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Batul

[Ashvazdanghe]

"Batul"  

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Maryam is never referred to as al-batool in Islam.

 

Al-Batul "al-batoo"

Quote

A- A woman who has no desire for men [1].
B- A woman who has fundamental differences with other women. It is stated in some sources: Maryam and Fatimah were called Batul because they were different from the women of their time in terms of grace, religion and custom.

C- Someone who is away from material interests. Hazrat Maryam and Fatimah have been called Batul because they cut off their interest in the world and focused on AllahAlmighty [2].
D- A woman who does not see menstrual blood, and the reason why Hazrat Zahra (SA) was given the title of Batul is that she never menstruated. The Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was asked: What does Batul mean? He said: A woman who does not menstruate. [3]. In a narration from Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).) it is said that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) the daughter of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) was called Tahira; Because that her majesty is clean from any kind of impurity and has never seen menstrual or postpartum blood [4]. Hazrat Maryam also never saw menstrual blood. [5] It is mentioned in traditions that the daughters of the prophets were like this; The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: Menstruation is inappropriate for the daughters of prophets.[6]

Sources

Quote

[1] العین ج8،ص124،  انتشارات هجرت ، قم .
[2]  بحار الأنوار ، ج 43، ص: 15 .
[3] علل الشرائع ج : 1 ص : 181، ح 144.
[4]  بحارالأنوار ج : 43 ص : 19، ح 20
[5]  روح المعانى ج 2، ص: 32،  بحارالأنوار، ج 14، ص 193؛ المیزان، ترجمه موسوى همدانى، ج 3، ص 295 .
[6]علل الشرائع، ج 1، ص 181، ح 144.

 

Quote

• Al Ain , v8 , p 124
• Bihar al-anwar, v 43 . p :15
• Ilal al-sharayi v:1 p;181
• Bihar al-anwar  v 43 . p :19 , Hadith: 20
• Ruh al Ma'ani v2, p: 32 , Bihar al-anwar , v 14 , p 193  Al Mizan: v3 , p 295 
•  Ilal al-sharayi v:1 p;181 , Hadith : 144

https://www.porseman.com/article/معني-بتول/26708

[Cool]

2 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

and it’s only a matter of time before the human civilization discovers something that will explain how these events might have occurred. It won't be so much of a miracle anymore, would it?

Miracle will continue to popup as we don't have the capacity to know everything.

In the end of human civilization, would it not be a miracle when someone witnessing the corps or perhaps the particles of a 1000billion old dead person, combining together, enabling to form his perfect body shape (as it was before 1000billion years) which became dust. 

What is known to us is that this expanding universe might contract some day. There are different theories mentioning the fate of universe, among them is big bounce & big crunch. The rolling back of heavens & earth like the rolling back of sheet of paper is mentioned in Quran. But all this happen, according to the laws created by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

How many of these laws are known to us? Very little. Perhaps very little from whatever we have observed. 

What we have not observed and what we cannot observe comprise of huge percentage. For instance, a life formed from fire or from heat (for instance, Jinns), we have no idea whatsoever how this could happen. Only a detailed observation and examination of such form of life would allow us to get a glimpse of how such life form might have evolved. 

So the things we have observed might not be miracles for us. But the unobservable laws and things are still become a miracle for us once they appears. 

"Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements, Then he was a clot of blood, so He created (him) then made (him) perfect. Then He made of him two kinds, the male and the female. Is not He able to give life to the dead?"

75:37-40

Even these "words" are miracle for us at this very point of time. It took us 1400 years to completely understand the human biology and anatomy and someone already knew them. The nutfah, the tharrah (ذرة) are like universe within themselves. What is  protein for us, became a source of information for DNA. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cool

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:31 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

How have we reconciled our faith in the miracles of the Prophets (a) with reasoning and rationality? And how does that play out with the miraculous claims from other religions - such as the existence of a tripartite God or a five-headed God or a God who can manifest into a monkey-human and fly across a country? Why are those 'unreasonable' but ours are totally reasonable?

We believe in a God that is absolutely perfect and we negate every kind of weakness in Him that makes us reasonable that God should be perfect.

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

8 hours ago, Cool said:

Miracle will continue to popup as we don't have the capacity to know everything.

That's an ad ignorantiam. It's like saying, "you do not know that god does not exist, therefore god must exist" or "you do not know everything, therefore miracles will continue to pop up." I'm not a fan of these sort of arguments.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

How many of these laws are known to us? Very little. Perhaps very little from whatever we have observed. 

Then it's a matter of us knowing these laws, not these laws being of a miraculous nature themselves. I mean, we can call them marvels, wonderful phenomena, but not miracles. If we can come to know Allah's laws, comprehend them, then they're not so much of a 'miracle' in that sense anymore. They're simply revelations of his power and glory.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

What we have not observed and what we cannot observe comprise of huge percentage. For instance, a life formed from fire or from heat (for instance, Jinns), we have no idea whatsoever how this could happen. Only a detailed observation and examination of such form of life would allow us to get a glimpse of how such life form might have evolved. 

No, I don't take the creation from fire and creation from clay as literal descriptions. The creation from fire denotes fiery emotions (less mental faculties, similar to early humans) and the creation from clay denotes coolness. With the jinn, Allah has not developed their cortex as much as ours, thus explaining why they are not the best of his creation. We do have the tendencies of the jinn (fiery emotions -> haughtiness, arrogance, ego), but Allah has bestowed on us certain special cognitive abilities as well, with introspection, with the capability to think and solve complex problems. This has set us on a different trajectory than other creation.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

Even these "words" are miracle for us at this very point of time. It took us 1400 years to completely understand the human biology and anatomy and someone already knew them. The nutfah, the tharrah (ذرة) are like universe within themselves. What is  protein for us, became a source of information for DNA.

The words may be 'miracles' since they are the word of God revealed to the Prophet which is fascinating enough itself, but the actual biology is not a supernatural miracle, it is well explained by science. It may have appeared miraculous to a group of people. But it is common knowledge to us now.

[Cool]

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It's like saying, "you do not know that god does not exist, therefore god must exist" or "you do not know everything

I consider existence of God a self evident truth.

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Then it's a matter of us knowing these laws, not these laws being of a miraculous nature themselves

Actually there exist such laws which are miraculous indeed. Those laws are related to what I call عالم امر where things get done within the blink of an eye, by saying "Be" and it is. We can only view things happen like what Bani Isra'il observed when Musa (عليه السلام) threw his staff & by splitting the river. Like people observed what was done by Asif bin Barqiyyah étc. And yes, this sort of knowledge and powers are what you said revelation of Allah's power & glory.

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The creation from fire denotes fiery emotions (less mental faculties

You missed my point here. 

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

but the actual biology is not a supernatural miracle, it is well explained by science.

The biology we have today or till the day of judgement, is incomplete in itself & it remain incomplete. And until it remains incomplete, someone's making the dead alive will appear as miracle to us unless we reach to the stage where we observe "kaifa tuhye almowta (كَيْفَ تُحْيِـي الْمَوْتَى)". 

1 hour ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It may have appeared miraculous to a group of people. But it is common knowledge to us now.

What would be the reaction of a person who died 2000 years ago and we somehow make him alive today? He would gone crazy after watching planes flying lol. This whole world would become a miracle for him. 

[SoRoUsH]

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Because nature, just like every single creation of God, is beyond magnificent in and of itself. It is enough to fill us with awe. This is why God constantly asks us to look at nature, to study it, and to discover his wisdom from it. 

Nature, as you said, is a creation of God. God is in no way bound and limited by His creations. Yes, all of God's creations are magnificent. However, Naturalism goes beyond that simple claim. 

Even an ant is enough to fill us with awe. That's not the issue here. Is it? We're not talking about how magnificent nature is, because we agree that it is. 

What we're taking about is whether God's will and actions are limited to be performed within and according to laws of nature. I say, we have no reason to think that and, in fact, that is incorrect to think or say so. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Natural law is how the the universe operates. The daily phenomena around us, from the most mundane to the most brilliant. The physical world. The study of nature is science, the laws of science are human attempts of formulating the laws of nature that have been observed and tested to be true time and time again, at large, without exception. Nature, in Islam, has not been given a second place. It holds the utmost importance in the Qur'an. Islam does not contemplate boxing up itself in unnatural mysteries or authorizing irrational or ultra-rational dogmas. In Islam, reason pervades every thing.

Do you include the presence and activities of angels and spirits in your natural laws? If not, you should. In Islam, spirits and angels have functions and are active in our world with various tasks. 

If you do include them, then your natural laws, aren't so natural anymore. They're supernatural, unless you claim that angels and spirits are natural entities bound and limited by our natural laws, too. 

Are spirits and angels physical beings, in your view? Where do you fit them in your Naturalism?

The study of science, and our formulations of laws, is, as you said, human attempt. This implies that they are limited due to human limitations. Our artefacts, our technologies, they were created by us, based on our current knowledge of reality. They are limited in their scope, too. So, we, limited beings, are using limited tools to study the world. And some of us are confident (or arrogant) enough to say that God must be bound to what we think are our natural laws, and God must act according to what our human sciences have shown to be true. Some of us don't agree, as it is very clear, how our being and our tools are so limited at every point in time, and yet God is not limited in any way, at any time.

I don't know what you mean when you say, "nature holds the utmost importance in the Qur'an." What does this mean? Where did you get this idea from? Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? 

Where do angels and spirits fall in this picture? Where does God ability to bring something out of nothing fit in this picture? 

I think you're misusing the term "box" here. "Boxing" is to limit something. Naturalism "boxes" God within nature and natural law. To claim that God isn't limited in such a way isn't "boxing" God in "unnatural mysteries." It is to say that God can act according to unnatural and supernatural laws, how ever He wants to. 

I think the only conveyed dogma, so far, has been the notion of Naturalism, that God is somehow limited to act within and according to our natural laws. I say nay, that is not the case. It is irrational to think so. 

Naturalism is unreasonable and irrational. It is also illogical. It implicitly claims God is limited, while explicitly pretends God is unlimited. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

But he does choose to work with it. He chooses, in all his might, to remain in harmony with every single thing in the universe.

Why do you think this? Is this a teaching of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? 

Can He choose not to? And if He can, then why do think He chooses to? Where does this idea or teaching come from? As far as I can tell, it has no basis in the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). 

As I said above, you're implicitly boxing God by saying He chooses to be boxed, but explicitly claiming He's doesn't have to be boxed. Do you see the inconsistency in your view?

If God can choose to not act according to natural laws, as you claim He can, then how would you even know whether He is acting according to natural laws or not? If He was not, would you know? If there's anything beyond natural laws, then we have no means of knowing them through sciences or empirical physical tests. So, He may be doing all sorts of activities beyond natural laws that you/we don't even have the means to know or understand or even perceive. 

Yet, in your naturalistic dogma, you have to believe that He can but He won't. You have no way of knowing whether He will or won't; whether He has or hasn't. 

Beyond Naturalism, we can readily claim that miracles fall outside of natural laws, and God can do whatever He wants. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Why must God break that synchronization, why must he deviate from a uniformity or a regularity that he has created in order to bring about natural disasters or to save a community of believers - when he himself has created everything?

Again, you keep boxing God within your/human understanding of "uniformity" or "synchronization" or "order." 

It is perfectly in order and harmony for God to act within the natural or the supernatural. For God, supernatural miracles are not beyond order. His order is not the same as our order. What may seem like chaos or chaotic to us, wouldn't be so to Him, since He is beyond time and space, and we are within time and space. He knows everything about everything and wills and acts according to such knowledge, yet we are here for only a speck of time, occupying a speck of space. 

Under His supervision everything is and has always been in order. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Because, by that argument, miracles do not exist as miracles eternally, they are only miracles relative to the people who saw them who had limited knowledge, and it’s only a matter of time before the human civilization discovers something that will explain how these events might have occurred. It won't be so much of a miracle anymore, would it? And if, with time, we could comprehend the 'incomprehensible', that would be a logical contradiction.

Miracles have always been miracles relative to people. I don't understand your argument here. Miracles aren't miracles to angels or spirits, since they are part of making miracles happen for/to humans. Miracles are incomprehensible to humans, now and until the end of our time, our human time in this world. 

I don't understand when you and others claim, "it's only a matter of time." Where does this idea come from? Why do you think this? How can we through natural means and laws understand supernatural events and miracles, beyond natural laws. Miracles are incomprehensible because we do not have and will not the means to comprehend them. 

You're doing some weak reasoning here: You're assuming that miracles must be natural events, according to natural laws. (This premise is a naturalistic dogma.) Based on this (weak or false) premise, you then continue to believe that since we are learning more and more about our natural world and laws, one day, we will know how God brought forth His miracles. 

Your initial premise has neither been shown or proven to be correct. In fact, it appears quite false. Nonetheless, based on that false premise you proceed to reach a conclusion.

You're saying, 

1. If A, then B

2. A

3. Therefore, B.

And I'm saying Not-A. Your second premise is false. 

We can't comprehend miracles, because miracles are supernatural events.

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Why would God show miracles to non-believing people in all those stories in the Qur'an, if, according to you, belief in religion and the God of that religion must precede the belief in the miracle? Don't tell me this was another exception.

What I am saying is that miracles aren't sufficient to prove one's divinity or prophethood. Think about all of the examples of miracles in the Quran. Is there ever any example of people believing the message, once they witnessed a miracle? 

The pagans kept making excuses to explain away the miracle of the Quran. Did the Egyptians believe in Moses after seeing the plagues or the miracles? Did the Romans believe in Jesus after seeing his miracles? Did Noah's son and wife believe him, even when the rain was pouring? We see examples of miracles, only to show that disbelievers weren't going to believe anyways, even after witnessing miracles they didn't believe. 

Do you know of any example, in the Quran, where/when disbelievers suddenly believed after seeing a miracle? 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I have already made it clear that God is not limited to natural laws that are established for humans. This was never an argument about God's limitations. It is an argument about God's choice of action.

Not really though, as demonstrated above. You say God is not limited but chooses to be limited. This doesn't make sense. So, practically, God is limited because He wants to be so. This doesn't make sense. 

You are indeed limiting God to natural laws. God can but won't. How would you even know this? This is such a huge claim. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Never touched by a man? And that is very clear? Man oh man, where are you getting this from? Such a thing is not established in the Qur’an, it is only extremely vaguely discussed in a handful of verses and the rest is left up to interpretation.

This is very clear in Islam. Mary's own reaction, people's reaction to Mary's pregnancy. Mary's action to leave town while pregnant. And of course, authentic narrations confirming Mary's virginity. 

There's zero doubt or question in Islam regarding Mary's virginity. You're only doubting it because your naturalistic dogma is contradicting explicit and clear teachings of the Quran and Islam, and you have given priority to your dogma over Islam. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

She was shocked because her husband, Joseph the Carpenter, would abstain from engaging in intimacy with her.

Where do you even learn about Joseph in Islamic/Shia texts? I haven't read even one authentic narration that mentions Joseph. I strongly doubt the Christian story regarding Joseph and his involvement with Mary. 

There's no mention of Joseph in the Quran. There's no mention of Joseph in authentic narrations. If you have seen or encountered any authentic narration about Joseph the Carpenter, please post them here. 

There's no doubt that Mary was a virgin when she was gifted Jesus through God's Spirit. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Besides, let's face it, if they were truly shocked about Jesus' birth and were accusing Maryam of adultery, this would have undoubtedly resulted in her death.

They were shocked, and they did accuse Mary. That's precisely when another miracle occurred and Jesus spoke to them as an infant. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

And the fact that Muslims believe she wasn't stoned because her infant miraculously spoke up for her from his cradle, I hope they are aware that the Jews always saw 'Isa as an ordinary baby, as an ordinary boy

Right, another evidence that miracles do not convince the disbelievers. They crossed the sea, and on the other side worshipped a golden statue. They saw Jesus speak, as an infant, and didn't accept his extraordinary status. 

It appears that you rely heavily on non-Islamic texts to support your naturalistic ideology at the cost of dismissing or rejecting what is very clear and undoubtable in Islam. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

They knew that they were humans, of this world, bound by its laws, and therefore would undergo the same natural processes of their fathers and forefathers. By the will of God.

It appears that you know what God does and would will. How do you know so? 

Humans laws are for humans, and miracles are supernatural events, outside of human or natural laws, that intervene or interfere in our natural affairs. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Reading the story of Musa metaphorically does not take anything away from Musa's character, nor the ultimate message of God. In fact, I would argue it represents it more convincingly.

Musa's staff miracle has always been interpreted literally. And yes it does take away from the ultimate message. How? It leads exactly to what you have been doing, cherry-picking between the literal and the metaphorical in order to support a specific ideology, Naturalism. 

We take everything in the Quran literally, unless, we have been given direction by our Imams (عليه السلام) to view them metaphorically. It is not up to us to determine what should be interpreted literally and what shouldn't. Only God, His messengers, and His imams are aware of the Ta'wil of each verse. We are only faced with its Tanzil. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

You're saying miracles are incomprehensible by definition, so God was showing something incomprehensible to humans, correct?

No. The "how" of the miracles is incomprehensible. God was showing an event that humans couldn't attribute to natural laws and events. They could see it and be amazed by it, but they couldn't comprehend how it was done or how it was possible. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Your definition of a miracle is not a very good portrayal of God.

You probably misunderstood. Look above. 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I am asking you specifically which humans, besides 'Isa, can you tell me about that were delivered by a virgin lady? If you can't name me a single one, chances are virgin human females cannot conceive. Not until they undergo the natural processes.

I can't name you a single one but Isa (عليه السلام), precisely because what happened to Isa (عليه السلام) was a supernatural miraculous event. That's the whole point. 

How would it be a miracle, if it was one of many? 

By the same argument, do you not believe that Moses split the sea? That Abraham didn't burn in fire? 

13 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ ٱللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًۭا

I don't see the relevance.

Edited August 2, 2022 by SoRoUsH

[SoRoUsH]

@Ibn-e-Muhammad

This discussion can go on for ever. How do you suggest we wrap this up? 

 

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Nature, as you said, is a creation of God. God is in no way bound and limited by His creations. Yes, all of God's creations are magnificent. However, Naturalism goes beyond that simple claim. 

Even an ant is enough to fill us with awe. That's not the issue here. Is it? We're not talking about how magnificent nature is, because we agree that it is. 

What we're taking about is whether God's will and actions are limited to be performed within and according to laws of nature. I say, we have no reason to think that and, in fact, that is incorrect to think or say so. 

Come on, man. Alright. Let me just get one thing out of the way here. I think you have assumed that I chalk up my beliefs to naturalism. I do not. And to be quite frank, it does no good to make such concrete assumptions about a person with whom you are engaging in a discussion with, it really ruins the fun of it. And now the rest of your response will be an offshoot of this assumption. Anyhow, just to be clear, naturalism assumes that the universe is causally closed, that nature is all there is, and that no agent outside (if it even exists) can bring an effect inside of it. In some other looser definitions, naturalism doesn’t seem to believe that a supernatural being is even necessary. Hand on heart, can you actually say that I belong to this line of thinking?

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Do you include the presence and activities of angels and spirits in your natural laws? If not, you should. In Islam, spirits and angels have functions and are active in our world with various tasks. 

If you do include them, then your natural laws, aren't so natural anymore. They're supernatural, unless you claim that angels and spirits are natural entities bound and limited by our natural laws, too. 

Are spirits and angels physical beings, in your view? Where do you fit them in your Naturalism?

This is just arguing in bad faith at this point. Saying that I have to ‘fit’ things inside of something I do not even believe in.

Do I believe that angels are natural, as in part of nature? Yes, I do. I believe that angels are the forces in nature, they are what constitute to nature itself and make it work the way it does. That they are the background nexuses in the operations of nature. I have no supernatural imaginations about angels as having transparent man-like bodies with big white wings used to fly around in the universe. It was fair enough to have those ideas as a child, it just doesn’t suit me anymore.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

I don't know what you mean when you say, "nature holds the utmost importance in the Qur'an." What does this mean? Where did you get this idea from? Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? 

From the Qur’an itself. There is a reason why the Qur’an keeps saying, “do you not see such-and-such?” and “if you want to know how creation began, go look in the earth [for answers]”. This is one of the major styles of Allah conveying something to us. The existence of Allah is so ingrained in nature and so incredibly self-evident that human reason immediately recognizes it - if unhindered by irrationality.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

I think you're misusing the term "box" here. "Boxing" is to limit something. Naturalism "boxes" God within nature and natural law. To claim that God isn't limited in such a way isn't "boxing" God in "unnatural mysteries." It is to say that God can act according to unnatural and supernatural laws, how ever He wants to. 

I think the only conveyed dogma, so far, has been the notion of Naturalism, that God is somehow limited to act within and according to our natural laws. I say nay, that is not the case. It is irrational to think so. 

Naturalism is unreasonable and irrational. It is also illogical. It implicitly claims God is limited, while explicitly pretends God is unlimited. 

Sigh. Is there a supernatural red-headed demon in this thread conveying this “Naturalism dogma” to you from my end? Because I sure am not.

The reason you’re having such a huge problem in grasping this is because what you seem to have in mind, based off of your tone, is that God is in a battle with his laws. This discussion is not God vs. Nature.

His will and choice to follow his sunnah does not change the unlimited-ness of his dhāt. If his irada is to reward me with a total of $250k from the moment I am born till the moment I die, his [essential] ability to distribute wealth does not become limited.

Let me try and simplify this to you. Allah himself has created the universe. The observable and the non-observable. He has created the laws within them. They did not go and create themselves. This whole thing we’ve got here, this IS God’s system. God is not working around your system or my system. It is not limiting God if he, for any reason, chooses to hold the reigns over his system (sunnah). There is absolutely no problem if he does this. Once you begin to understand this crux, everything else that follows is ridiculously simple to get the gist of.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Why do you think this? Is this a teaching of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? 

Can He choose not to? And if He can, then why do think He chooses to? Where does this idea or teaching come from? As far as I can tell, it has no basis in the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). 

Because reason points that way. Everything around me points to that direction.

Can he choose to not work with the system that he himself laid down in the first place? Sure. It sounds quite un-wise, though, to be real with you. As far as I am concerned, the Ahl al-Bayt gave great importance to nature and discovering truth from it. They didn’t tell us, “guys, on occasion, maybe once every leap year, nature will bend and be suspended so much so that you’ll start doubting it, but don’t worry, this is just how it is.”

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

If God can choose to not act according to natural laws, as you claim He can, then how would you even know whether He is acting according to natural laws or not? If He was not, would you know? If there's anything beyond natural laws, then we have no means of knowing them through sciences or empirical physical tests. So, He may be doing all sorts of activities beyond natural laws that you/we don't even have the means to know or understand or even perceive. 

Yet, in your naturalistic dogma, you have to believe that He can but He won't. You have no way of knowing whether He will or won't; whether He has or hasn't. 

Beyond Naturalism, we can readily claim that miracles fall outside of natural laws, and God can do whatever He wants. 

Another sigh. Okay, check this out.

When I say “supernatural”, I am using this word very relatively to me (the observer). I observe the world and I see that there is a scientifically grounded explanation for why dead things don’t come to life again. And they never do. It defies the second law of thermodynamics. So now if I hear about a dead person coming back to life, I’d say “oh, that must be supernatural”, because I, the observer, know the natural world does not work that way. It never has. But in another world, it might, who knows? It’s just that, here and now, we only have this system. God chooses not to apply some hypothetical system’s rules onto us. When I say God can “choose” to not act within [our] natural law and create supernatural events on Earth (note: I am again using the word supernatural just relative to me and other humans), what I mean is that God could have chosen to create our system very differently. With different mechanisms. With different explanations and emergences. That would be “supernatural” to me, the observer on Earth right now, but it would not have been supernatural to me if I just knew things to work that way.

Bottom line: The point of difference between us two is that for you things do not need to make total sense, they can be done away with just simply by attributing it to Allah and the Qur’an. I need explanations.  I am coming at this from a whole different galaxy. I want the part that says “blood clot, sperm, womb, clay, spirit, all came together and developed man in stages” in addition to the “we told man to be, and it was”. For some people, just the latter explanation suffices. And that is fine. It just doesn’t for me.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Again, you keep boxing God within your/human understanding of "uniformity" or "synchronization" or "order." 

It is perfectly in order and harmony for God to act within the natural or the supernatural. For God, supernatural miracles are not beyond order. His order is not the same as our order. What may seem like chaos or chaotic to us, wouldn't be so to Him, since He is beyond time and space, and we are within time and space. He knows everything about everything and wills and acts according to such knowledge, yet we are here for only a speck of time, occupying a speck of space. 

Under His supervision everything is and has always been in order. 

We underestimate human understanding. We are limited in so many ways, but we're not as mentally feeble you are presenting it as. My ‘human understanding’ of order has been shown to me by God himself. He has created it for me and you for us to see. Again, we’re too incompatible for you to get a grip of where I’m coming from.

I promise you though, it’s not naturalism or pantheism or whatever else you have attributed to me.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Miracles have always been miracles relative to people. I don't understand your argument here. Miracles aren't miracles to angels or spirits, since they are part of making miracles happen for/to humans. Miracles are incomprehensible to humans, now and until the end of our time, our human time in this world. 

Complete my sentence. I said miracles could have been relative to the people who saw them and had limited knowledge. That should be extremely straightforward to understand.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

I don't understand when you and others claim, "it's only a matter of time." Where does this idea come from? Why do you think this? How can we through natural means and laws understand supernatural events and miracles, beyond natural laws. Miracles are incomprehensible because we do not have and will not the means to comprehend them. 

You're doing some weak reasoning here: You're assuming that miracles must be natural events, according to natural laws. (This premise is a naturalistic dogma.) Based on this (weak or false) premise, you then continue to believe that since we are learning more and more about our natural world and laws, one day, we will know how God brought forth His miracles. 

You can say that because you have miracl-ized these events. Your entire premise states that these events were supernatural miracles, therefore no human knowledge can explain them, because humans are natural beings. I don’t agree with your premise. I have not established that these events were miraculous. 

This is becoming a fruitless discussion.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

What I am saying is that miracles aren't sufficient to prove one's divinity or prophethood. Think about all of the examples of miracles in the Quran. Is there ever any example of people believing the message, once they witnessed a miracle? 

The pagans kept making excuses to explain away the miracle of the Quran. Did the Egyptians believe in Moses after seeing the plagues or the miracles? Did the Romans believe in Jesus after seeing his miracles? Did Noah's son and wife believe him, even when the rain was pouring? We see examples of miracles, only to show that disbelievers weren't going to believe anyways, even after witnessing miracles they didn't believe. 

Do you know of any example, in the Quran, where/when disbelievers suddenly believed after seeing a miracle? 

"Suddenly" believed? Yes, the ones who saw Musa destroying falsehood in the palace of pharoah. Granted they did not understand with clarity and went on to disbelieve again, but they did prostrate very suddenly upon witnessing Musa's truth. It certainly had convinced them at that point for a while.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

This is very clear in Islam. Mary's own reaction, people's reaction to Mary's pregnancy. Mary's action to leave town while pregnant. And of course, authentic narrations confirming Mary's virginity. 

There's zero doubt or question in Islam regarding Mary's virginity. You're only doubting it because your naturalistic dogma is contradicting explicit and clear teachings of the Quran and Islam, and you have given priority to your dogma over Islam. 

So much use of the word “dogma” here. Phew. I didn’t even know I could appear so dogmatic to others.

But no comrade, no it is not very clear. The entire story is wrapped up in a few verses in Surah Maryam which themselves seem to fast-forward the entire event. And even within the contents of those verses, you will see that there is no distinction of Maryam being virgin or 'Isa being of a miraculous birth. At best, there is some implication, but no outright assertion.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Where do you even learn about Joseph in Islamic/Shia texts? I haven't read even one authentic narration that mentions Joseph. I strongly doubt the Christian story regarding Joseph and his involvement with Mary. 

There's no mention of Joseph in the Quran. There's no mention of Joseph in authentic narrations. If you have seen or encountered any authentic narration about Joseph the Carpenter, please post them here. 

There's no doubt that Mary was a virgin when she was gifted Jesus through God's Spirit. 

It is not documented in Shi'a hadith. Shi'a hadith barely talk about the sexual lives of the Prophets, let alone non-Prophets. At best, they call her ‘pure’ and ‘honest’, not virgin. Virgin Mary is not an Islamic doctrine.

But it is funny to me that you are so sure that Joseph was not her husband, even though this was not doubted by the earliest of the early Christians, but you do believe in an extremely fabricated Catholic-Christian doctrine of virginity. 

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

They were shocked, and they did accuse Mary. That's precisely when another miracle occurred and Jesus spoke to them as an infant. 

Okay.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

It appears that you rely heavily on non-Islamic texts to support your naturalistic ideology at the cost of dismissing or rejecting what is very clear and undoubtable in Islam. 

Man, I'm not quoting some Mahayana book here. This is the Bible. Biblical accounts are relevant. They talk about the same people that Muslims are familiar with. I'm not taking creed from their books. I’m taking a historical story. There are historical events, in the Abrahamic scriptures, that overlap. So at that level, and at the very least, these accounts can be used to look at the corresponding events in the Qur'an. There's nothing wrong with that.

Tell you what, I’d much rather utilize early accounts that do happen to correspond with the Qur'an and with the way nature works, than to take information from latter fabricated Christian doctrines that seeped into Muslim mainstream despite being divorced from the cosmos and geological systems and the way nature works.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

It appears that you know what God does and would will. How do you know so? 

I can ask you the same. How do you know that the events mentioned in the Qur'an were miracles if you do not believe that God had first willed them to be miracles? Seems to me that you know the will of God as well, no?

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Humans laws are for humans, and miracles are supernatural events, outside of human or natural laws, that intervene or interfere in our natural affairs.

Congratulations to Averroes, al Farabi, and Ibn Sina and the others who would stay up all night trying to wrap their heads around this. Our friend here has solved the entire equation in one go.

On a serious note though, I do appreciate your input. I grew up thinking about it like this as well. Wish I could go back to simpler times.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Musa's staff miracle has always been interpreted literally. And yes it does take away from the ultimate message. How? It leads exactly to what you have been doing, cherry-picking between the literal and the metaphorical in order to support a specific ideology, Naturalism. 

It has always been interpreted by the vast majority of the Muslim Ummah that the Qur'an calls for a shura and that 'Ali b. Abi Talib was not in fact the successor of the Prophet. So this "always been interpreted that way" is a really short-sighted black belt level gullible argument, especially coming from a Shi'a.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

We take everything in the Quran literally, unless, we have been given direction by our Imams (عليه السلام) to view them metaphorically. It is not up to us to determine what should be interpreted literally and what shouldn't. Only God, His messengers, and His imams are aware of the Ta'wil of each verse. We are only faced with its Tanzil. 

Determine is maybe too strong a word on Shiachat, but we are asked to strive to understand the Qur’an. Again, I guess we are different in this regard.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

No. The "how" of the miracles is incomprehensible. God was showing an event that humans couldn't attribute to natural laws and events. They could see it and be amazed by it, but they couldn't comprehend how it was done or how it was possible. 

Right, because they were ‘incomprehensible'. Such is our God, he gives us the gift of comprehension, constantly asks to look at nature and arrive at him with reason, and then shows us miracle signs that are incomprehensible. By definition!

On 8/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

By the same argument, do you not believe that Moses split the sea? That Abraham didn't burn in fire? 

Look, there's two approaches to digesting these stories. One is, that they don't have to make total sense, and for the mere fact that they imply miraculous events, then it must have happened that way. Nature must have complied somehow. Even if they appear nonsensical to us, it's okay, because God says "Be" and, boom, there stuff is. You know deep down that the moment you step outside of Islam (as in, for the sake of discussion), you stand no ground. Your warrant is gone. You know this, but these beliefs are still justified to you. This is one camp of people.

And the other camp, well, that would be me and maybe a few others like me. And we would heavily disagree with the first camp.

I don’t really want to get into the technicalities of Musa and Ibrahim’s stories. I have written extensively on them in my notes and elsewhere. I’d be happy to share those with you if ever join the dark side or just want look into it for research purposes. ;)

 

 

Anyway, that was my last word, feel free to have yours if you’d like to. I appreciate the time and effort, akhi. God bless.

[SoRoUsH]

4 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Anyway, that was my last word, feel free to have yours if you’d like to. I appreciate the time and effort, akhi. God bless.

Let's leave it there.

Good discussion brother. 

God bless.

 

[Northwest]

On 8/2/2022 at 8:12 PM, SoRoUsH said:

If you do include them, then your natural laws aren't so natural anymore. They're supernatural, unless you claim that angels and spirits are natural entities bound and limited by our natural laws, too. 

Are spirits and angels physical beings, in your view? Where do you fit them in your Naturalism?

The study of science, and our formulations of laws, is, as you said, human attempt. This implies that they are limited due to human limitations. Our artefacts, our technologies, they were created by us, based on our current knowledge of reality. They are limited in their scope, too. So, we, limited beings, are using limited tools to study the world. And some of us are confident (or arrogant) enough to say that God must be bound to what we think are our natural laws, and God must act according to what our human sciences have shown to be true. Some of us don't agree, as it is very clear, how our being and our tools are so limited at every point in time, and yet God is not limited in any way, at any time. ...

Where do angels and spirits fall in this picture? Where does God ability to bring something out of nothing fit in this picture? 

I think you're misusing the term "box" here. "Boxing" is to limit something. Naturalism "boxes" God within nature and natural law. To claim that God isn't limited in such a way isn't "boxing" God in "unnatural mysteries." It is to say that God can act according to unnatural and supernatural laws, how ever He wants to. 

I think the only conveyed dogma, so far, has been the notion of Naturalism, that God is somehow limited to act within and according to our natural laws. I say nay, that is not the case. It is irrational to think so. 

Naturalism is unreasonable and irrational. It is also illogical. It implicitly claims God is limited, while explicitly pretends God is unlimited. ...

If God can choose to not act according to natural laws, as you claim He can, then how would you even know whether He is acting according to natural laws or not? If He was not, would you know? If there's anything beyond natural laws, then we have no means of knowing them through sciences or empirical physical tests. So, He may be doing all sorts of activities beyond natural laws that you/we don't even have the means to know or understand or even perceive. 

Yet, in your naturalistic dogma, you have to believe that He can but He won't. You have no way of knowing whether He will or won't; whether He has or hasn't. 

Beyond Naturalism, we can readily claim that miracles fall outside of natural laws, and God can do whatever He wants. 

Again, you keep boxing God within your/human understanding of "uniformity" or "synchronization" or "order." 

It is perfectly in order and harmony for God to act within the natural or the supernatural. For God, supernatural miracles are not beyond order. His order is not the same as our order. What may seem like chaos or chaotic to us, wouldn't be so to Him, since He is beyond time and space, and we are within time and space. He knows everything about everything and wills and acts according to such knowledge, yet we are here for only a speck of time, occupying a speck of space. 

Under His supervision everything is and has always been in order. 

Miracles have always been miracles relative to people. I don't understand your argument here. Miracles aren't miracles to angels or spirits, since they are part of making miracles happen for/to humans. Miracles are incomprehensible to humans, now and until the end of our time, our human time in this world. 

I don't understand when you and others claim, "it's only a matter of time." Where does this idea come from? Why do you think this? How can we through natural means and laws understand supernatural events and miracles, beyond natural laws. Miracles are incomprehensible because we do not have and will not the means to comprehend them.

You're doing some weak reasoning here: You're assuming that miracles must be natural events, according to natural laws. (This premise is a naturalistic dogma.) Based on this (weak or false) premise, you then continue to believe that since we are learning more and more about our natural world and laws, one day, we will know how God brought forth His miracles. ...

We can't comprehend miracles, because miracles are supernatural events.

What I am saying is that miracles aren't sufficient to prove one's divinity or prophethood. Think about all of the examples of miracles in the Quran. Is there ever any example of people believing the message, once they witnessed a miracle? 

The pagans kept making excuses to explain away the miracle of the Quran. Did the Egyptians believe in Moses after seeing the plagues or the miracles? Did the Romans believe in Jesus after seeing his miracles? Did Noah's son and wife believe him, even when the rain was pouring? We see examples of miracles, only to show that disbelievers weren't going to believe anyways, even after witnessing miracles they didn't believe. 

Do you know of any example, in the Quran, where/when disbelievers suddenly believed after seeing a miracle? 

Not really though, as demonstrated above. You say God is not limited but chooses to be limited. This doesn't make sense. So, practically, God is limited because He wants to be so. This doesn't make sense. 

You are indeed limiting God to natural laws. God can but won't. How would you even know this? This is such a huge claim. ...

It appears that you know what God does and would will. How do you know so? 

Human laws are for humans, and miracles are supernatural events, outside of human or natural laws, that intervene or interfere in our natural affairs. ...

No. The "how" of the miracles is incomprehensible. God was showing an event that humans couldn't attribute to natural laws and events. They could see it and be amazed by it, but they couldn't comprehend how it was done or how it was possible.

@SoRoUsH

Due to the “Scientific” Revolution people have come to perceive reality as mechanistic and quantifiable. Previously natural laws were not believed to be in existence. Instead “natural” phenomena were regarded as the visible manifestations of supernatural sentiences and their activities. For example, the Biblical Israelites believed that angels and spirits were responsible for such phenomena as the weather, volcanism, and so on. All physical phenomena were ultimately traced to spiritual activity, so there were no “natural laws” to be suspended. Unlike “natural laws,” the spiritual beings have free will, like humans, and, being subject to the Creator, can in theory be compelled to change or suspend their activities, hence miracles. Perhaps this also explains why a mere (dis-)belief in miracles in itself is insufficient for faith. Faith has to do with the inner meaning of our actions and the actions of the (other) spiritual beings in relation to the Creator.

Much, if not all, of modern “science” is based on complex theoretical “knowledge” (speculation) and modelling, based on fragmentary pieces of data such as isolated observations. Much of it has little or doubtful practical value, even in relation to its stated and unstated objective(s), and more often than not, even in its attempt to redress issues such as healthcare, only targets symptoms rather than causes, thereby subsidising behaviours that contribute to the very problems that it claims to address. An example is the use of “gene therapy” to treat illnesses. The expansion of commerce and industry has contributed to a reductive worldview in which everything is reduced to calculation, weight, measure, and atomisation. This inherently comes into conflict with the spiritual and intuitive understanding of reality. Supply and demand, based on mathematics, overrule factors such as the spiritual hierarchy of value(s), office(s), and estate(s).

Also, much of what we think we know about “naturalistic” phenomena may be attributable to the elites’ use of “trade secrets.” For example, modern “science” offers certain explanations to account for phenomena such as the inner workings of television. However, these explanations may serve to conceal the invocation of spiritual entities to serve as media and record/transmit images, voices, and so on. On another note, the periodic table of the elements may work to obfuscate the truth about this world’s composition. Traditionally the elements were divided into five: earth, air, water, fire, and aether. Humans were believed to be literally made of clayey soil. Spirits such as angels, demons, and jinn, as well as the human spirit, were likened to the “smokeless fire” that the Qur’ān mentions. If one accepts the spiritual view of reality, then there may not be 102 elements, but only five basic ones, of which all created entities are composed.

It is possible that pre-modern, “medieval” humans may have had better, truer “scientific” knowledge than their descendants. If we try to understand, say, Islam’s worldview in light of modern “science,” the Qur’ān and ahadith become virtually incomprehensible, as do the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition. In such a situation Ockham’s razor may be of use in helping orient oneself toward a truer understanding of physical reality. For example, while the Earth may be spherical and may rotate around the Sun, one should first exhaust simpler possibilities that may better account for one’s daily observation and spiritual intuition. We cannot simply assume that the religious texts’ reference to the movement of the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and to the progress of day and night can be automatically accounted for in light of our “modern” heliocentric worldview, in which the Earth is a rotating, circling spheroid. Similarly, creation cannot be viewed evolutionarily.

All this is probably why it is good to live a balanced life and not become unduly involved in activities such as business that, if indulged in to excess, lead to a mechanistic, reductive, empiricist worldview, in which the material, apparent, and superficial becomes “all that is.” Large-scale industry, finance, and commerce inherently foster this underlying worldview, as opposed to small-scale trading, banking, and local production of handicrafts. The material, external world is limited, but the spiritual, internal world is comparatively expansive, especially at the level of Eternity.