“By believing passionately in something that still does not exists, we create it. The nonexistent is whatever we have is not sufficiently desired”. – Franz Kafka
[This article has similarity the article, God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.]
Allah is a redundant entity, because it is much simpler to assume that the world is eternal. The hypothesis of a Creator explains nothing to me. It simply pushes the PROBLEM one floor upstairs! It is as futile and superfluous as simply NOTHING…
Can Allah create Himself I ask? Well, frankly speaking He must; because Allah is not just any creator we get to hear about! If we do look for god in the dictionary, god is listed by the definition of an Absolute Creator [the Absolute Creator meaning one who can create!] Hence, Allah/God cannot and did not create Himself, which is a contradiction itself in terms or simply is a complete fallacy….
Nevertheless, that presents at once a thorny and irresolvable dilemma.
Whether God can or cannot create Himself, a believer must land upon one of the two horns of this diabolical impasse: Allah can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Allah? On the other hand, Allah cannot create Himself out of NOTHING? Therefore, HE is not absolute. HE is relatively weak, and completely redundant!
In many respects, the idea of Allah is very similar to the ideas of a little spot or a speck, which is completely black and completely white at the same time? Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory. No thing whose concept is contradictory ever really exists; the concept of God/Allah is contradictory, therefore, Allah does not exist [period]!!!
In short, the idea of Allah is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it is false to do away with it its self-contradiction is quite enough? No further disproof is henceforth required. So why do Muslims claim from time to time that 'Allah' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically? The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please in-mates or co-mates and do get along with each other even on the expanse of reason and logic. The last refuge for these folks of faith is to save their 'Eternal God-Allah' from the ravages of crystal clear logic and reasoning, is to suppose that either He [Allah] is timeless or He is living outside time all by Himself?
Nice try! However, it does not help them at all; to say that Allah is outside of time being logically equivalent to and at the same time as saying that He does not exist. Moreover, getting rid of time is greatly impossible. In addition, even when you deny time in words, you affirm it logically in a big way. The reason for this absolute impossibility is that, the flow of time forms a homogeneous continuum of all rates from the infinitely small to the infinitely large all at once. However, each rate of time flow implies the rest as a necessary consequence.
Believers and the faithful, usually argue that Allah has always existed and, thus, this question "What caused Allah to exist?" is simply meaningless. They say that Allah is beyond time or, in the alternative, Allah is the God of Time. So, Allah has set the universal clock in motion when He created this world. Lets’ take as an example – an ordinary pendulum clock, which has three hands that run at different rates. These three hands of the clock are only a partial snapshot of the actual flow of time. The seconds hand implies on its side an infinite series of hands that run at faster and faster rates until end up with the moment’s hand where the rate of time flow is infinite. The hour’s hand of the clock, also, implies, on its side, an infinite series of hands, which run at slower and slower rates and have as their limit the eternity hand that does not move at all. Thus, there is no escape from time! Moreover, life of God outside time is categorically meaningless. In fact, time is an essential attribute of God. No time no God, but the reverse is not true. That is to say that there is always time whether there is God or not!
Nevertheless, TVs did not always exist. There were no television sets in the 19th Century. Can it, then, be said that TVs 'began to exist' in the 20th or for that matter, they simply got 'existed after 1930's? If you answered yes, you may have a rocky philosophical road ahead of you. So, was the television in the process of 'coming into' existence during the interval in which it was being developed or being invented?
Is 'exists' a dynamic concept? …When we put the word 'television' in this light, we are obviously not alluding to the object, but rather to the concept. We are no longer talking about a shape or an image you can point to, but about the evolution of an idea. Therefore, we have to resolve whether it makes sense to say that concepts can exist? The objective criterion going to used to answer this question is whether we can use the word 'exists' consistently (i.e., scientifically)? To really argue that, we cannot use the word 'exists' consistently when we actually apply it to such concepts? Let us assume, we eliminated the color red from every object in this Universe. According to the ‘Instantiation Principle’, if no object has the color red, the color red itself ceases to exist. Again the question comes back to haunt us: What does the proponent mean when s(he) says that "Red doesn't exists?" Is this a rational statement? Is it the same to say that a concept such as 'red' does not exists as to say that an object such as a crayon does not exists? Do we not have to define 'exists' before we can issue such categorical statements anyway?
At face value, the existence of an object such as a chair seems to be qualitatively different from the existence of a concept such as a color. A standalone 'thing' like THIS chair exists all on its own, a concept such as the color red requires a physical object such as a chair to 'carry' it. To complicate things further, here color is a dynamic concept: a measure of the frequency emanating from the skin of an object. Does it make sense to say that love exists, or loves an activity simply that living entities 'do'? Or is 'red' a noun, an adjective, an adverb, or a verb? Which if any of these is the 'red' that wholly exists? It would appear that, if at all, concepts exist in a different sense that objects do. Perhaps, the distinction is that, a concept ‘exists’ for the purposes of ordinary speeches; whereas only objects may ‘exists’ for the purposes of rigorous scientific communications. Nevertheless, what the foregoing arguments demonstrates is that, whatever conclusions a proponent of a theory reaches will be devoid of meanings until s(he) defines the strategic word 'exists' unambiguously! Unless the theorist can define 'exists' to use this word consistently, the jurors will not be able to follow the theory. If Allah is an object, we may say scientifically that He exists all on His own. And if Allah is a static concept such as beauty or a dynamic one such as Love, like the color red, 'His' existence would in the best of cases be contingent on the existence of a body. That would certainly subordinate the Almighty to a higher 'authority.'
Finally, we should not forget that 'Allah' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'Allah' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, your life style, your thoughts and ways. If you are given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch in this sense, even though Allah has no basis in any reality, an ideal may sound absolutely perfect, useful and you should keep Him as a moral guiding star and blueprint for improving yourself at all levels. But, to me “Man created all concepts” hence, Allah is totally superfluous….. As simply stated, "Get rid of redundant entities"…!