₦airaland Forum

Mcslize:
And they will still end up being kidnàpped and even kpai-ing them even after paying ransoms.
Hope you know they no longer kidnàp only on the high way. They now burst into people's homes.

Hehehe. Let's not deceive ourselves. Nigeria is a zoó.

Kídnappers are now having a filled days in Nigeria. All thanks to your córrupt leaders that are playing ludo with the masses lives.

This is like saying people in US are worried about being killed in mass shootings. Though you read about it all the tine, that's the last thing on the average American's mind. Likewise, the last thing the average Nigerian in Lagos is worried about is bein kidnapped.

Mcslize:
Sufféring and smiling péople in Nigeria will justify why living in Nigeria is heaven on earth.

Córrupt politicians have róasted them to ashes still, they don't want to get wisé.

Don't forget, not everybody is suffering in Nigeria.
If you have a bit of money best place to be is Nigeria because money can buy you things money can't buy in US/UK

EDGEof2MORO:
In the US/UK, a dead lion receives better treatment than some living human beings in Nigeria.

A dead lion in US/UK receives better treatment than some human beings in US/UK

marlow1962:
If you have the means to leave this country legally, pls move out. FYI if you think you can make it plain, clean, legit and direct , then move out. There is no hope for you when you beat them, so to have a little hope, join them.

And btw, why do you want to regret moving to Copenhagen or Oslo or Norway or Denmark or Netherlands? Places there's value for human life .

Ok, value for human life. How come they all have higher suicide rates than Naija?

LegacyB:
Global Times
https://www.globaltimes.cn
India rejects Trump's claim of leveraging trade to broker India-Pakistan ceasefire
May 14, 2025 — India pushed back against US President's offer to mediate India-Pakistan conflict and his claim that he used trade to prevent a "nuclear war ...

Arab News
www.arabnews.com
India rejects Trump's claim his trade concessions de-escalated tensions with ...
May 13, 2025 — NEW DELHI: The Indian government on Tuesday rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that he helped broker a ceasefire between India and ...

CityNews Halifax
halifax.citynews.ca
India disputes Trump's claim that trade incentives led to the India-Pakistan ...
OriOko88 no mind am

All your posts are from mid May, this below is from June

Basic:
Space bar! .

How?

(This part of the post is just to complete the
40-character requirement)

Kc3000:
I don't know if you're Igbo or not. I am Igbo and I'll caution you to be careful with your utterances. Even if you believe this is retribution or whatever, you don't need to gloat in the face of this tragedy.
This is not how Igbo reason. Show some humanity.

He's probably NOT Igbo at all. Same thing with some people commenting as Yoruba.
There are people on this forum whose whole aim here is to incite hatred any way they can. That's their mission in life. They even do it with multiple monikers and people fall for it!

This is embarrassing

(This part of the post is just to complete the
40-character requirement)

TempleHouse:
Bribe dey for Nairaland OO 🤗😆😆😆😆😆
4040404040

Na wa o

(This part of the post is just to complete the
40-character requirement)

geoworldedu:
I'm Seun

Wait a minute...
This is very unfair! Not funny at all!!

HeatSeeker:
Please don't be fooled o! Tinubu will do third term or at least find a way to prolong his tenure. It is already a possibility. Just wait for the second half of his second term to kick-start. You will be amazed how they will stand logic on its head to give him more power than he already has.

If not by himself then by proxy through another person. But one thing is certain, TINUBU WILL DO THIRD TERM! Only coup, illness, or death can prevent it

geoworldedu:
Ah ah

Seun this is NOT 40 characters. How come it posted?

He thinks he's in Nigeria. They carry this their horndog behavior to other countries

LegacyB:
Liar. Same deal India and Pakistan denied.
This guy lives in virtual reality.

Denied how? Didn't they thank Trump?
It was escalating till Trump stepped in

Heroclitus:
The bolded is a bitter truth
Most men are lions and champions everywhere, but with that particular woman they're married to/in relationship with, they are very much her simp


They may not be like that to all women,but to that particular one,they very much are.

In every male/female relationship dynamics. The women have a edge by default.

Exactly. And you see the effect everywhere. You'd see a maid constantly almost killed by madam and you'd be wondering why her husband doesn’t rescue the poor girl. Or you'd see a man's children being extremely maltreated by their stepmother (his wife) and you'd be wondering why he couldn't do anything. Answer : once they have power over you or you fear them, it's almost irreversible. Hence you see Macron being slapped by his wife or Obiano being scolded like a child by his wife and they couldn't say kpim!

He's desperately trying to make them forget the thousands of tapes and posts he made, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6COWi65hU?si=OX2cLBUObGo9M2Wt

Tenisam:
Buhari backed Osinbajo if not he won't put in to contest primary. But Tinubu influence is over the bar, I'm sure you could recollect how many people stepped down for him.

Are you drunk? It was all about money and clout, and you think if Buhari had thrown his clout and FG money behind Osonbajo, Tinubu would have come close?? Plus Osinbajo was actually more popular

KennethOkonkwo:
He never begged Buhari not to back osinbajo.

Luck is a basic thing life.
Even you yourself,you are just lucky to be posting on nairaland.com today.you could have been dead .

Well, what I mean is, a better politician would not have put himself in that position, and would not have also lost Lagos and Abuja

richiemcgold:
I can still recollect how Tinubu was really sidelined during Buhari's era. Man was totally schemed out and he almost lost political relevance. Some people even predicted he was on his way out of APC to SDP. But here he is today, he is the president of the federal republic of Nigeria. This is a big lesson for those who care to learn from others.

What is there to learn? The only thing to learn is, be lucky. He was lucky Buhari didn't want to back Osinbajo. That's all

Does OP know what "manifest" means?
Illiteracy

JimRohn:
Your sarcastic reply, while emotionally charged and full of giggles, is intellectually hollow. You’ve resorted to cheap mockery because you clearly lack the philosophical depth to engage with metaphysical concepts beyond Reddit-level materialism. Since you chose to abandon reason for emojis, allow me to drag your arguments out of clown world and back into rational discourse — point by point.

1. “Why can God be eternal but the simulators can’t?”

Because eternal in theology refers to necessary, uncaused, absolute being — not “advanced aliens in a basement” playing Minecraft with the cosmos.

Your simulators, by definition, are contingent beings: limited, imperfect, and existing within some higher system of laws, time, and causality. If they can make mistakes, then they are not absolute. If they began to exist, they had a cause. If they depend on any framework to exist or operate, then they are not necessary beings.

> You confuse high technology with divinity — an error of both logic and theology. Just because something can manipulate a simulation doesn’t mean it explains why existence exists at all.

2. “Necessary being — Why?”

Because the alternative is philosophical absurdity. Either:

There is an infinite regress of causes — which is impossible since actual infinites cannot be traversed in real time (cosmological argument).

Or there is a first, uncaused cause — a necessary being that grounds existence itself.

That’s not “Islamic assertion” — that’s Aristotelian metaphysics, affirmed by Muslim, Christian, and even some secular philosophers. If you can’t understand the distinction between contingent and necessary existence, you have no business discussing cosmology or theology.

3. “Why can’t the simulators have those qualities?”

Because you just admitted they’re flawed and capable of making mistakes. That alone disqualifies them from being necessary, eternal, self-sufficient, and perfect.

> You want to pretend imperfection is divine just so you can keep worshipping your fictional simulators. That’s not reasoning — that’s desperation.

4. “No before or after? That’s ridiculous.”

You’re projecting your linear temporal bias onto a being outside of time. It’s not “nonsense,” it’s standard in philosophy of time and accepted even in modern physics. Time is a created dimension — it began with the universe. Asking “what was God doing before creation” is like asking “what’s north of the North Pole.”

> If you’re confused by a God who exists timelessly, your problem is with basic metaphysics, not Islam.

5. “God’s will vs. the existence of the universe”

God’s eternal will doesn’t mean the universe is eternal. It means God always willed to create at a specific point in temporal creation. The execution of the will is temporal; the intention is eternal. This has been answered for over a thousand years. Try reading more than Reddit atheist forums.

6. “Why allow evil?”

Because evil is part of a larger framework of trial, free will, and ultimate justice. It’s not that evil had to happen — it’s that God allowed it as part of a test with an eternal outcome.

> You demand a utopia in dunya — but God has decreed al-Akhirah as the place of eternal reward and justice.

Your model offers no justice, no purpose, no accountability, and no answer to evil except “oops, simulator glitch.” That’s not a solution — that’s moral nihilism.

7–8. “Why is man imperfect? Is it his fault?”

God created man with free will, and that entails the ability to choose imperfection. That’s not a flaw — that’s the condition of moral agency. You want a perfect robot, not a moral being.

> If you can’t understand the difference between deterministic programming and responsible moral freedom, you’re in no position to critique divine justice.

9. “72 virgins and prayer rituals”

This is a tired, tabloid-level mockery that shows you’re not engaging with Islamic theology — just parroting YouTube propaganda.

Islam teaches:

Salvation is by faith, sincerity, good deeds, and divine mercy.

Rituals like prayer are for spiritual purification, discipline, and connecting to Allah — not “brownie points.”

And the “72 virgins” line is not even core theology — it’s a gross misrepresentation of hadith misunderstood by both Islamophobes and their cheerleaders.

> You reduce profound spiritual discipline to a meme because you cannot fathom transcendent worship — only physical utility.

10. “Where is your evidence? Philosophy isn’t evidence!”

You are drowning in epistemic confusion. Evidence isn’t just lab results — it includes rational necessity, logical coherence, moral insight, and experiential knowledge. Islam offers all four.

Your “simulation” model:

Offers no ontological grounding,

No metaphysical explanation,

No moral framework,

No hope of justice,

No first cause,

And no final purpose.

It’s not even a worldview. It’s a science fiction story you mistake for theology.

Final Slap of Reality:

Mockery doesn’t make arguments disappear.

Sarcasm is not a substitute for logic.

And sci-fi speculation does not dethrone the timeless truth of Tawḥīd.

> “Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor was He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.”
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

You can keep laughing. But the fact that your only weapon is emoji-tier sarcasm proves one thing: you’ve already lost the argument.

Now, bring your “next question” — if it’s as weak as the last, I’ll dismantle that one too.

Thanks for still responding despite my laughing at you. But put yourself in my position: when juxtaposed with real life who wouldn't find your words hilarious? But let's get one thing clear: my reasonings here are from ME, NOT YouTube or Reddit or Aristotie or anybody. And speaking of Aristotle (that you keep citing), all those philosophers, starting with Socrates the father of them all, came to the conclusion they knew nothing. Einstein rightly also came to the same conclusion. But you, with all due respect, our discussion here reminds me of the saying "... stupid people already have all the answers"

But your "evidence" is in what Aristotle said. Well, that's not evidence. The type of evidence I'm talking about is the type we have in Christianity - for thousands of years prophets said God was comming to stay with us. A great prophet came to announce his imminent comming and said he was there to prepare his way. When he finally came he said he was indeed the expexted God, did things God would do, and said his words would never pass away. Thousands of years later, he is proven right!

Remember I started this discussion by defining who "you" is - this "you" that has all the answers. Just by size, "you" is infinitestimally too small to know anything. " You" only hears , sees, and perceives a microscopic amount of what's in his own dimension, talkless of possibly multiple other dimensions. "You" doesn't know where he is, why he's there, or even if he is really there at all!.

Now to dismantle your points one by one. (BTW let me say unequivocally, I am a Christian. My discussion of the simulation theory here is to show that it is actually more based in real-life observation than Islam).

1) How do you know you have free will? Where do your thoughts come from? How do you know you're not designed to THINK you have free will.

2) Why can’t the simulators br exactly like God, however you define him? In other words why couldn't God have created the universe by simulation? (My speculation about possible qualities of the simulators were just that - speculation)

3) You still haven't told us how and why "first cause" would suddenly start causing for no reason

4) Time did not start with the universe. Time started the moment there was any iota of change or movement. You can't have movement or change without time

5) "God's will" or no "God's will" the point is, creation started at a certain point by an intelligent being. Intelligent beings don't suddenly start creating for no reason and without some change

6) Your “Why allow evil?” thesis is nonsense. We've also shown it is likely you don't have free will

7) Your "Why is man imperfect? Is it his fault?” , we've already shown it is quite likely you don't have free will

8} In Islam you are rewarded by Allah (by going to heaven) for certain behaviours. Yet Allah doesn't care if you do those behaviors. Please make sense

9) No, philosophy isn’t evidence. Even philosophers rightly tell you they know nothing. Only ignorant people have all the answers. Evidence is what happened with Christ!

dibunotion:
Nairaland wants to turn us all to writers by force. Which one be 40 words before you go fit express yourself. I'm a man of few words
I tire for nairaland oo

40 like this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your engagement, though I must respectfully note that your response, while informal and sarcastic in tone, still falls short of providing a philosophically rigorous alternative to the Islamic conception of God. Allow me to address the key points you raised in a structured manner:

1. False Equivalence: “Who Created God vs. Who Created the Simulators”

You claimed that asking “who created the simulators” is equivalent to asking “who created God.” This is a category error.

In classical Islamic theology (and in classical theism more broadly), God is defined as a necessary being (wājib al-wujūd)—a being that exists by necessity and cannot not exist. He is not contingent, not limited by space, time, or cause. He is uncaused, eternal, and self-sufficient. Therefore, the question "Who created God?" is philosophically incoherent—it misunderstands the very definition of what God is.

On the other hand, the “simulators” you propose are, by your own admission, not perfect, not eternal, not immutable, and capable of making mistakes. This means they are contingent beings, subject to causality, time, and limitations—thus the question “Who created them?” is entirely appropriate and necessary. If they began to exist, they require a cause.

So your comparison collapses under scrutiny: you are equating a contingent, imperfect entity with a necessary, self-existent being. This is not a valid equivalence.

2. The Misunderstanding of Immutability and Creation

You assert that it’s difficult to imagine how a changeless God could “suddenly” create without being prompted or undergoing change. This difficulty, however, stems from imposing temporal constraints on a timeless being—a fallacy known in philosophy as anthropomorphic projection.

In Islamic theology, God’s act of creation is not a change in His essence. Time itself is a creation—God does not “wait” to create, nor does He “suddenly” act within a temporal framework. Rather, from our perspective, there is a “before” and “after,” but from God's perspective—outside of time—His will is eternal, and His action is not sequential like ours.

As Muslim theologians like Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi have explained, God’s will to create is eternal, but its effects unfold within time as He wills. This is not irrational; it simply transcends our limited experience of temporality.

3. The Problem of Evil: A Theological Misstep

You suggest that because the simulators don’t claim to be all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-good, their flawed creation is understandable—but you claim that if God had these attributes, then evil, suffering, and injustice should not exist.

This is the classic problem of evil, and it has been answered comprehensively within Islamic thought:

Islam teaches that evil exists within a larger framework of divine wisdom. What appears as suffering or injustice to us may serve greater purposes beyond our perception—moral testing, spiritual growth, the exercise of free will, and the manifestation of divine attributes like justice, mercy, and patience.

The existence of evil does not negate God’s goodness; rather, it affirms that this world is not the final stage of reality. The Qur’an explicitly teaches that ultimate justice will be realized in the Hereafter.

By contrast, in your simulation model, evil exists simply because the creators are flawed or indifferent—offering no hope of justice, no moral grounding, and no transcendent meaning. That is not a theological improvement—it is a moral nihilism dressed in science fiction.

4. Mocking Divine Praise (e.g., “Allahu Akbar”)

You remarked sarcastically that if the simulators desired constant praise from their creation, they would appear insecure or suspect.

Again, this misunderstands Islamic theology. God does not need our praise, nor does He benefit from it in any way:

> “If you disbelieve—indeed, Allah is free from need of you. Yet He does not approve for His servants disbelief.”
(Qur’an 39:7)

When Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” or engage in worship, it is for our own benefit, not God's. Worship aligns the human soul with truth, humbles the ego, instills discipline, and connects us to our Creator. God is not insecure; He is infinitely worthy of reverence, and our worship is an acknowledgment of that reality—not a divine need for affirmation.

5. Materialist Reductionism vs. Metaphysical Depth

Your simulation model is ultimately a materialist framework that imagines super-beings running our universe like a video game. But these beings are still limited by a physical substrate, logic, causality, and time—they are not metaphysical absolutes. Thus, they cannot account for why there is existence at all, nor can they ground morality, purpose, or consciousness.

In contrast, Islamic theology presents a conception of God that is:

Necessary (not contingent),

Eternal (not bound by time),

Perfect (not subject to ignorance or mistakes),

Transcendent yet near (Qur’an 50:16),

The source of all moral and rational order.

This is not “assertion without evidence,” as you allege—it is a well-established metaphysical framework supported by centuries of rigorous theological and philosophical discourse across cultures.

Conclusion

Your simulation hypothesis remains an imaginative idea—but it cannot serve as a serious theological foundation. It fails to account for the origin of being, the grounding of moral values, the necessity of a first cause, and the human yearning for transcendence, justice, and truth.

Islam, on the other hand, offers a rational, consistent, and spiritually profound vision of God:

> “Say, He is Allah, the One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

If you are genuinely interested in exploring a worldview that satisfies both the intellect and the soul, I invite you to revisit this vision with an open mind.

Let me know if you’d like to discuss any point further—I’m happy to continue the dialogue with mutual respect and clarity.

Thanks for your thoughtful but once again inadvertently comical response. It's as if you assume you're talking to slowpokes and once you assert something and throw in Islam it becomes so!😅

Here are some absurdities in your post:
1) God can be eternal but the simulators can't be.
Why exactly? (You: No reason. Just take my word for it!😅)

2) Being that exists by necessity and cannot not exist. Why exactly (You: No reason. Because that's Islam theology!😅)

3) A being not limited by space, time, or cause. uncaused, eternal, and self-sufficient.
Why can't the simulators have same exact qualities? (You: you ask too many questions!😅)

4) The universe was created and wasn't always there but at same time it was always there (just so we can say there was no change) because there was no before and after
(With due respect, this is ridiculous nonsense)

5) What does "God's will to create" have to do with FACT that the universe was not always there?

6) If something evil or tragic happens it is because it serves a greater good. Why couldn't it have been arranged so it didn't have to happen at all? (You: No way. How then can we say God has all those attributes yet evil and tragic things still exist?😅)

7) How can a being that never makes imperfect things make an imperfect world? (You: I dunno. You ask too many questions!😅)

8} Whose fault is it that man is so full of imperfection (You: I know he didn't create himself but believe me it is his own fault that he's not perfect😅)

9) The only way you make it to heaven and 72 virgins is by praying 5 times and hitting your head on the ground and doing things. But none of these matter to the person who decides if you go to heaven or not!😅

10) You: I know simulation model is at least based on reality, but believe me, Islamic model is NOT “assertion without evidence,” because it is a well-established metaphysical framework supported by centuries of rigorous theological and philosophical discourse across cultures. (Me: erm, so where is the evidence? You: you ask too many questions!🤣)

You: conclusion, Islam offers a rational, consistent, and spiritually profound vision of God, never mind that it is responsible for 99% of religious terrorism in the world today, and that I wouldn't be a Muslim at all but for accident of birth!😅

Easy - laser surgery
It looks really ugly too

JimRohn:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to explore complex questions, though I must respectfully note that your reply replaces theology with speculative science fiction rather than offering a coherent metaphysical alternative to the Islamic conception of God.

Let us examine your line of reasoning carefully.

1. Is the Simulation Theory a Viable Basis for Theology?

The idea that our universe is a simulation, while intriguing as a thought experiment, remains unproven speculation. Philosophers like Nick Bostrom and public figures like Elon Musk have popularized it, but even the scientists who explore this hypothesis do not treat it as established fact—it is a metaphysical possibility, not a demonstrable reality. Using such a speculative premise to redefine the nature of God is methodologically flawed.

Simulation theory is fundamentally a materialist model: it posits that our universe is a computer program run by advanced beings. However, this immediately disqualifies those beings from being God in the classical sense. Why?

These “designers” are contingent—they exist within time and depend on a higher set of physical laws to run their simulations.

They are neither absolute, infinite, nor necessary beings.

They are, at best, advanced creatures—not the Creator.

In Islam (and in classical theism broadly), God is not merely a powerful being within a larger system—He is the necessary, self-existent foundation of all being, including time, space, matter, and causality. By contrast, simulation theory replaces God with a “super-engineer” inside another created order, which only defers the question: Who created the creators of the simulation? If your “God” has a creator, then He is not God.

2. Does God's Perfection Still Matter in a Simulated World?

Even if we hypothetically accept the simulation model, the question of ultimate metaphysical reality remains. The "simulation" itself would still require:

A cause (it cannot come from nothing),

A rational order, and

A set of moral and metaphysical values (since you’re discussing divine interaction, meaning, and ethics).

These requirements point us again to a necessary, uncaused, and eternal being beyond all simulations—i.e., the God described in Islam.

Your proposal that “God” does not need to be perfect or unchanging collapses the concept of God into something less than divine. If “God” can change, evolve, or be surprised, then “God” is subject to time and ignorance—and therefore not worthy of ultimate worship. As a Muslim, I must respectfully reject the notion of trading a timeless, all-knowing, perfect Creator for a speculative, finite programmer.

3. Can God Enter His Creation Like a Programmer Enters a Simulation?

Your analogy of God “entering” the simulation misunderstands the distinction between transcendence and immanence. In Islam, God is not absent from His creation—He is closer to us than our jugular vein (Qur’an 50:16), yet He remains distinct from creation, not bound by it.

Saying “God entered creation” implies that God becomes subject to time, space, pain, ignorance, and mortality. This is precisely what Islam rejects as illogical and theologically incoherent. A being who suffers, bleeds, or dies is not God by definition—he is a created, limited being. The Qur’an says clearly:

> "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing." (Qur’an 42:11)

To reduce God to a character in the simulation—even a “special” one—is to strip Him of transcendence and reduce Him to creaturely status. Islam avoids this confusion by affirming that God communicates with creation (through revelation and prophets) without ever becoming part of creation.

4. Time and Reality in Islamic Theology

You mentioned that “time did not exist before the simulation.” In Islamic theology, this is well established. God is eternal and uncreated, and time itself is His creation. But unlike your analogy, God is not “outside the simulation” like a creature watching a screen—He is outside of time and space altogether and thus is not dependent on any medium or created platform to act or will.

This again affirms God’s absolute independence (al-Samad) and self-sufficiency.

Conclusion

Your reply, while creative, ultimately exchanges a necessary, eternal, perfect God for a finite and speculative construct born of materialist imagination. The simulation model may entertain the mind, but it lacks the philosophical depth and explanatory power of the Islamic conception of God.

Islam affirms that God is:

Absolutely one and unique (Ahad),

Eternal and self-sufficient (al-Samad),

Not begotten and does not beget (Lam yalid wa lam yūlad),

And that nothing is comparable to Him (Wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad).
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

If you’re genuinely interested in what is both rationally coherent and spiritually fulfilling, then I invite you to consider this vision of God—a vision that transcends simulations, science fiction, and the limits of materialist thought.

Let me know if you’d like to explore any of these points further.

Thanks for your erudite (but again funny) response.
It is funny how you make assertions all over the place without a shred of demonstrable evidence😆, yet flippantly dismiss a theory based on real-world observation - the relatively low speed of light is our speed limit for absolutely no reason.
You also ask who created the simulators without realizing same can also be asked about God.😅 The simulators can also have always existed but in not claiming immutability they can actually create. On the other hand it is very hard to imagine a never-changing anything to suddenly start creating something as complex as the universe without prompting, without an iota of change, and for absolutely no reason. Also, the simulators don't claim perfection and never making mistakes, hence their creation is imperfect. They also don't claim to be all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good, so naturally evil exists, so do pain, suffering, injustice, atrocities, etc. If they claimed to be all that, then we would expect non of those to exist. Both cannot be simultaneously true. Also if they're interested in their simulation constantly telling them they're great and Allahu Akbar, we'd be very suspicious of them. So on the whole they're the ones you should NOT flippantly dismiss!

JimRohn:
You’ve raised some interesting questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with them respectfully and thoughtfully.

1) "How do you know God is absolutely perfect?"
The claim that God is absolutely perfect is not a human invention—it is a necessary conclusion based on the very definition of God as the Ultimate Being. Perfection, in theological discourse, refers to the absence of deficiency. If God lacked anything—power, knowledge, justice, mercy, or independence—He would not be God in the first place. This is not a contradiction of God's incomprehensibility; rather, it affirms that while we cannot grasp God's essence fully, we can know certain truths about Him through revelation and rational reflection. Islam, like classical theism, affirms God’s perfection as essential to His divinity.

Now, turning to your questions:

1) "Can an absolutely perfect God create an absolutely imperfect being?"
Yes, and there is no contradiction here. God's perfection does not mean He can only create what is perfect in itself—it means He acts with wisdom and purpose. Creating limited, contingent beings is not a flaw, but a demonstration of His will, power, and mercy. Imperfection in creation does not imply imperfection in the Creator, any more than a potter is flawed because his clay pots are not made of gold. In Islamic theology, God's creation of the imperfect is part of the divine plan to manifest His attributes—such as mercy, justice, and forgiveness—within a moral universe.

2) "Why would a perfect God care about worship from insignificant creatures?"
This question stems from projecting human psychology onto God. In Islam, God does not need worship—it adds nothing to Him and takes nothing away if withheld. Worship is for our benefit, not His. The Qur’an states: “If you disbelieve—indeed, Allah is free of need of you…” (Qur’an 39:7). Worship is how we align ourselves with the truth, purify the soul, and fulfill our purpose. A God who creates out of wisdom would naturally give creation a purpose—and worship is how human beings fulfill theirs, not because God is insecure, but because He is just and merciful.

3) "How can something that never changes be alive or act?"
This question confuses ontological immutability with inactivity. When we say God never changes, we mean His essence and attributes are not subject to evolution, decay, or alteration. This does not negate His will, knowledge, or power to act. In Islamic theology, God acts in time without being changed by time. His will is eternal, and His actions manifest within creation according to His wisdom. Change implies moving from one state to another, which is a deficiency in created beings—but not applicable to the Creator, who is timeless and beyond the physical constraints of space-time.

In conclusion, your questions are important, but they highlight a central issue: the tendency to define God by human limitations, rather than by revealed attributes and rational coherence. Islam affirms that God is absolutely perfect, eternally self-sufficient, and beyond change—not because we limit Him, but precisely because He is not limited like His creation. This is why we reject the idea that God would become a man, be tempted, suffer, or die—because such attributes are logically and theologically incompatible with absolute perfection.

Let me know if you'd like me to expand further on any point.

Thanks for your erudite (though fanciful) response
I'd try to get us out of fancy and theoretical God given attributes by totally ignorant man, and bring us to to an actually possible God that relates to actual reality.

Now, we don't know the true nature of the universe but some of our smartest minds, including Elon Musk, have concluded it is very likely some sort of simulation. They point to things like why nothing in the universe can go faster than the speed of light - because that's the maximum speed of the processor. Now, assuming this is so, what we would perceive as God would be the people who designed and launched the simulation, specifically the person in charge of it all (the Father). This is now something practical, not God inside a book. In that scenario what do you think would be the qualities of God? Do they necessarily have to include being perfect and never changing, etc? And is it possible for us to comprehend there is a whole real world outside our simulated computer world, a whole real world of people going to work and living their lives. And why can't it be possible for "God" to enter the simulation, quite different from special charaters sent within the simulation (prophets). And of course before the simulation was launched time did not exist from our perspective, but of course time was quite in existence in the real world outside the computer

Samueltemi337:
Nah this one nor enter mr governor
Kenneth Okonkwo had a decent career as an actor


BTW people can't even book space anymore because of the 40 character nonsense 😂

What is the 40-character nonsense?
Oh ok, I tried to post the question and it won't let me. This must be brand new. Na wa