It's messing up your mind. You see here is your contradiction. You believe there is the one and only Allah who need not be created. And Allah authored the NY Times Bestseller, the Koran. Or is it Korea? Maybe its Tuna? Anyways, you believe everything in this wonderful book is the storied truth and now you seek out to teach us this truth through the covanent of science and religion.
Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, it was only a small bubble anyways and you can get a new one easily enough, science doesn't allow the holy books to be used as a reference. When Einstein was theorizing relativity, he didn't put down comments on e = m^2c^4 + p^4c^4, see Psalms 34:5. He reasoned it through logic and math. You are trying to influence your science knowledge with religion. That is not allowed. Religion is outside the boundaries of science. Whether the religion is true or not, it must be decided independantly through science with no reference to the scriptures. Now of course, your scriptures say you can do this. That you ARE allowed the input your religion in science, but trust me, if you are going to prove the existance of god, the holy book is out because in a court of law your one holy book would be drowned out by the holy books of Allah's other two religions and then the holy books of any other religion in the world. Nobodies right when everyone's wrong.
Now to say that there is no written battle of Allah with another god is not to say one could never of happened. The holy books speak not of the dinosaurs that ruled this earth much longer than we have. The holy books speak not of the dinosaurs destruction by the doomsday comet, a rather large event to occur on earth I'd say.
The holy books are not like the exclusion clause of the US constitution which states any power not delegated to the federal government is given to the states. Paralleled, the events in the holy books are not the entire history of all existance wherever they may be, no matter what the holy book said because it isn't the only holy book to exist.

My question was about the oneness of god. The fact that if one being could exist with out creation, that another may exist without creation. If it happened before then it can happen again.

• Re: Ahhhhh, Atri, stop smoking that weed - jisbond - November 6, 2000 - 22:20 UTC
• hit a nerve? - jisbond - November 6, 2000 - 22:27 UTC
  • Nerve? Nah, maybe just a neuron. - richard - November 7, 2000 - 02:47 UTC
    • The singularity - tchzarmok - November 7, 2000 - 18:03 UTC
      • Re: The singularity - mahasattva - November 8, 2000 - 12:07 UTC
      • Re: The singularity - wildernessvoice - November 8, 2000 - 18:00 UTC
    • grasping at the wrong end - jisbond - November 9, 2000 - 09:09 UTC
      • Re: grasping at the wrong end - richard - November 9, 2000 - 17:23 UTC
        • Re: Re: grasping at the wrong end - wildernessvoice - November 10, 2000 - 04:07 UTC
          • illogical of Spok - jisbond - November 10, 2000 - 06:59 UTC
            • Re: illogical of Spok - wildernessvoice - November 10, 2000 - 17:04 UTC
        • the right end - jisbond - November 10, 2000 - 06:42 UTC
    • One God & The Power Of Love - jisbond - November 9, 2000 - 09:18 UTC
      • Thats an irrelevant statement - richard - November 9, 2000 - 17:18 UTC
        • Re: Thats an irrelevant statement - jisbond - November 10, 2000 - 07:13 UTC
          • How do we know what was the first made thing - richard - November 10, 2000 - 13:51 UTC
            • Re: How do we know what was the first made thing - wildernessvoice - November 10, 2000 - 16:04 UTC
              • I'm not saying they are companions. - richard - November 10, 2000 - 17:20 UTC
            • Re: How do we know what was the first made thing - wildernessvoice - November 10, 2000 - 16:54 UTC
              • Re: Re: How do we know what was the first made thing - jisbond - November 11, 2000 - 05:27 UTC
            • Re: How do we know what was the first made thing - jisbond - November 11, 2000 - 06:03 UTC
    • cool! - gwynj - November 18, 2000 - 05:08 UTC