Why "one God"?

[1robin]

That seems like a stretch. Occam's razor doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is a measure of probability attached to an actuality. I think you are using it wrong. Wouldn't someone first have to have an event or an explanation of some event before applying Occam's razor? Now if the question was "Who created the earth?", then one could apply Occam's Razor to suggest the simplest explanation. Just to see how far this goes, let's compare the two obvious choices 1) an intelligent being created the earth or 2) gravity and circumstance created the earth. Which theory has the fewest assumptions? I admit that this line of reasoning has me stumped. To assume that some being (or beings) could create an earth seems like an assumption, but the obverse is also an assumption. It seems that one has to have faith in either case; either faith in coincidence or faith in design. I really don't see either choice having fewer assumptions than the other.
Applied to the question at hand, as to whether it is more likely that the earth was created by one being or multiple beings, doesn't Occam's Razor support the latter? With the latter theory, we don't have to assume the existence of an omnipotent being (in the modern Christian view), we only have to assume something that is already apparent; the resourcefulness of the human species.

I will answer chronologically, I hope.

1. Your right Occam's razor is not a proof. However we are not dealing with proofs or certainties here. We are dealing with best fits and best explanations.
2. I am using it correctly if you understand we are dealing with probabilities in this context. Every claim to knowledge (except for the fact we think) is less than certainties and based on probabilities. Some are far better probabilities than others. It is more probable I am typing right now than probable that there is only one God. But it is more probable there is one God that that there is none or more than one.
3. In this context arguments for God creating the universe and a whole host of God probabilities are better than the argument that God specifically created the earth. The best explanation is that God set up the condition for earth and life to exist but not that he specially created earth from nothing.
4. I agree that gravity and circumstances probably created the earth but the best argument for where gravity originated and those circumstances began is with God.
5. Your right they yare both assumptions but the problem here is you've arbitrary bound the arguments that justify belief in one God to earth's creation instead of the traditional arguments for God. These would include the argument from morality, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc..... When Genesis says that God created the earth and the heavens it may very well not mean the planet earth. It may mean the conditions that resulted in the earth or be a place holder for matter in general. It might be of interests to you that hundreds of years before Darwin or any scientific ideas about the universe being billions of years old the Hebrews, Cabalists, some Catholics and others interpreted Genesis in ways that match up exactly with modern scientific claims. So your only challenging one interpretation by very very narrow standards. IOW your not really challenging God but only one of hundreds of arguments for him and one which I did not use. I do not think I have ever or would ever use earth's origins as evidence for God.
6. Now even looking at just earth I am lost as to why you think many entities might explain the existence of the earth unless by entities you mean materialistic mechanisms. Most things have two types of explanation a mechanism and an agent. For example thermodynamics does not explain the existence of a jet engine. All kinds of processes explain the mechanism but Frank Whittle is the agent. Physics is a mechanism which might or might not explain the earth but God best explains the mechanisms.
7. You mentioned men in the end there as creator (but certainly not of earth) and you do not say what it is we created. I agree we are resourceful but I have no idea why you brought that up.

Hope I got everything.

 

[Esaurus]

There is only "ONE GOD".

why did you accept it? How does this make sense? What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,). What was/is its necessity?

Please post your comments.
Thanking you

Hello Morphesium,

Why one God? Would you prefer more? Would you prefer the impossible task of serving more than one master?

Do ships have more than one captain? Even if several men are ranked as captain on a naval vessel, should more than one be appointed as skipper of the ship? Do you have two bosses in your department? If you are a boss, would you prefer one identically positioned beside you? Would you prefer more than one set of parents? Why not more than one president?

If ones god is self, would he prefer two or three selves?

Why one God? A ship has only one captain. So does the universe that includes the spaceship called earth one God.

Take care,
Earl

 

[rrosskopf]

. I agree that gravity and circumstances probably created the earth but the best argument for where gravity originated and those circumstances began is with God.

Thank you for addressing my comments. I really do believe that God created the earth, although I do not believe he created it alone. I have a theory, completely unprovable, about how the earth was created. I suspect that a mold or form was created from dark matter, and that dark matter has subtle effects on visible matter, particularly over a long period of time. I certainly don't believe in magic, but I do believe that there are physical laws that humanity is yet to discover, and that God has already discovered them. By God, I am referring to whichever being was ultimately in charge of the earth's creation.
The same theory could account for evolution. Things that seem random, may not be random at all, but subtly influenced by things from the unseen world. It bothers me that the mathematics for evolutionary change doesn't add up to the relatively short time period that evolution seems to have taken. I understand complexity well enough to know that the time factor seems to be off by a factor greater than 10. At least I think I do.

 

[JustWondering]

By who? Certainly those that know him require no such proof. One could hardly expect those who don't know him to prove his existence. Did you mean in a general sense? If some being came to earth and claimed to be God, how would one go about proving or disproving his declaration? Doesn't it require that one assume certain attributes? Unless you know precisely what those attributes are, how do you know he can't be proven to exist? The best that you can truthfully say is that no one has proven it to you.

There are different beliefs on what attributes the Omni-max god should have. Your belief on god seems to be that it has physical attributes correct? If so then your version of god could be proven to exist because it physically exists, if it actually exists.

 

[JustWondering]

And some conquer those tendencies to an extent that rational deductions and discussions may be held. However you seem to be responding from the former category not the latter.

Since it seems you have judged me as being incapable of rational discussion, why did you bother responding to my posts?

My God is profoundly different from every single thing you listed in almost every core concern.

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate how your supernatural belief system is more valid than say Hinduism or Scientology.

I have had it with these declarations you keep making instead of arguments.

I do not believe in your God just like you don't believe in every other god that anyone else worships or has worshipped. At least I'm fair and disbelief all supernatural belief systems. You hold up one of many supernatural belief systems that has existed in the world as true that has no more physical or convincing evidence for is validity than any other supernatural belief system. I find that irrational.

I'm am right your wrong, God does not exist, there is no evidence, etc. are not arguments they are ridiculous proclamations that defy mountains of data and scholarship.

What data? Please elaborate.

I submitted a post in another thread that I will copy here. It is the last chance I am going to take that you can produce a good argument so lets see what you got.

If I dig up opinions of four expert lawyers, historians, and so on who are Scientologists lamenting how awesome and true scientology is what would that prove exactly? Giving me the opinions of four Christians who think Christianity is the best thing since sliced bread proves nothing to me? Is this really the best you've got?

Proclamations will no longer do, time to step it up and prove these brilliant scholars are wrong and I have hundreds more to supply in every possible relevant field you can imagine.

I think your getting ahead of yourself. Why don't you pick the best argument or piece of evidence that one of these brilliant scholars of yours has come up with and we'll go from there.

 

[rrosskopf]

Why does God only reveal himself to a select few who all end up dead or delusional? Why is God so obsessed with human sexuality and morality and obedience to his arbitrary code of conduct?

Everyone dies. I don't know how one would even start to discover whether any prophet was ever delusional, let alone all of them. Why does God reveal himself to a select few? Before I address that, I would like to point out that there are recorded events where God has appeared to at least dozens of people at the same time. It isn't always a solitary individual. Even in modern times, we have Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery seeing the Lord together, and Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon seeing the Lord together. I think the question you are really asking is why doesn't God just appear to everyone at the same time? To understand the answer to that question, one must first understand the purpose of life.
"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." - 2nd Nephi 2:25

To have joy, man must also know sorrow.
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad." - 2nd Nephi 2:11

Men must learn to think for themselves, and not rely upon God for all things. To have a clear choice, the pressure to be righteous should not be disproportionate to the pressure to become wicked.
"Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." - 2nd Nephi 2:16

Thus it would foil the plan of God, if he were to show himself unto all men while we are yet learning to think for ourselves.

"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." - 2nd Nephi 2:27

The "arbitrary code of conduct", as you put it, is designed to create civilization from chaos. It teaches us to respect men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor. Sexism, racism and classism are examples iniquity or in-equality.

"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." - 2nd Nephi 26:33

Perhaps you should spend some time and read more of Nephi's words.

As far as science and technology, I doubt that these could exist without first a firm basis for civilization, where equality is protected by law. The Catholic church was wicked to persecute men of science, and they were not acting on behalf of God. God has taught us to love one another, not hate our brethren.

In the Book of Mormon, science and technology always seem to follow righteousness. When society is striving to keep the commandments of God, everyone benefits.

 

[1robin]

Since it seems you have judged me as being incapable of rational discussion, why did you bother responding to my posts?

Because I always treat people in a debate a little better than they deserve (or I attempt to). I will not keep discussing this indefinitely if you do not step up your arguments and I believe I said that was the last shot so the discussion is riding on this post.

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate how your supernatural belief system is more valid than say Hinduism or Scientology.

I sure can. However that discussion has too much info. You may select any category you wish that is relevant and I will show my faith is more rational than any other you choose (please pick one that has enough data to compare).

I do not believe in your God just like you don't believe in every other god that anyone else worships or has worshipped. At least I'm fair and disbelief all supernatural belief systems. You hold up one of many supernatural belief systems that has existed in the world as true that has no more physical or convincing evidence for is validity than any other supernatural belief system. I find that irrational.

I have never understood that point. I believe that 1 + 1 = 2 instead of any of the other infinite numbers I could choose. Did not make 1 + 1 = 2 any less correct. Disbelieving all things even if they only have 1 that is true is not fair it is unjustifiable. I do not care how many religions are false it does not affect the truth of Christianity what so ever.

What data? Please elaborate.

How about these (among thousands I can chose).

The majority of NT scholars agree to several historical facts (among many others) that alone make Christian faith at the least reasonable.

1. Christ appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. Here it does not matter if he had it only that he thought he did. Other argument show he had it but that is not important here.
2. That he was killed by the Romans on a cross.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have postmortem appearances.

I will add.
1. The cosmological argument given the BGT and BBT.
2. Teleological argument.
3. Moral argument.
4. Billions of claims to personal experience.
5. Argument from freewill.
7. Aesthetic arguments.
8. Why is there anything instead of nothing.
9. The presence of information and rationality in nature.
10. Argument from Consciousness.
11. The impeccable accuracy of what can be verified in the bible.

I am getting bored here. Each one of those relies upon verified data and uses sound premise's and valid conclusions. Some even rely upon data which is theoretically infinite and which has no known exception.

If I dig up opinions of four expert lawyers, historians, and so on who are Scientologists lamenting how awesome and true scientology is what would that prove exactly? Giving me the opinions of four Christians who think Christianity is the best thing since sliced bread proves nothing to me? Is this really the best you've got?

The fact I gave you 4 of histories best experts in their fields (and you probably cannot do that for scientology anyway) was not the point. It was their arguments which were given by those most knowledgeable in the fields that was meaningful. Good luck even finding four of histories greatest experts to defend scientology (but if this was a contest of numbers I could outnumber you by hundreds to one anyway) but that is irrelevant it was the quality of the arguments that make the difference. I will bet you did not read Greenleaf's famous paper did you? You just saw an inconvenient claim by an expert and looked for anyway to dismiss it no matter how awful it was.

I think your getting ahead of yourself. Why don't you pick the best argument or piece of evidence that one of these brilliant scholars of yours has come up with and we'll go from there.

I was almost ready to call it quits but this is the first meaningful issue you raised. This is just a few pages long, try it first. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

I bet you did not know the bible is so well attested it is admissible in court under ancient document laws.

 

[Willamena]

This seems contradictory. At the very least, you're assuming enough properties to conclude that God is singular (as opposed to a mass quantity, for instance).

Isn't countability a physical property?

Not if it's "only."

If there's only god, there's nothing to count.

 

[JustWondering]

I sure can. However that discussion has too much info. You may select any category you wish that is relevant and I will show my faith is more rational than any other you choose (please pick one that has enough data to compare).

What reasons do you have for discounting the Hindu belief of reincarnation (in your own words, please). Keep in mind that I do not belief in Christianity. Quoting the bible will not impress me. Using a logical argument based on observation and fact instead of scripture will get my attention. Thanks.

 

[JustWondering]

I was almost ready to call it quits but this is the first meaningful issue you raised. This is just a few pages long, try it first. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf.

Before we get further into this can you also provide me links to Greenleaf's findings and observations when he studied documents and testimonies of other religions while keeping to the same standards he used studying the Evangelists?

 

[mystic64]

Before we get further into this can you also provide me links to Greenleaf's findings and observations when he studied documents and testimonies of other religions while keeping to the same standards he used studying the Evangelists?

Jerk is an interesting state of being . There is, as you know, no way that at this time it can be proven one way or the other. One either accepts it on faith, as you accept you side of the argument on faith (because there is no evidence for your side of the argument either) or one accepts it because of personal experience. If one is of the Jewish faith, Christian faith, or the Muslem faith, then "Thou shall have no other God before thee." Therefore there is only one God. If one is Hindu, then all gods and living things are aspects of one supreme conscious mind. Thus there is also ultimately only one God. One just chooses the aspect of this one God that they wish to worship. So JustWondering, where is your library of evidence? You do not have any. All you have is your unshakable belief because that is how you want to believe. Which is ok.

 

[1robin]

Before we get further into this can you also provide me links to Greenleaf's findings and observations when he studied documents and testimonies of other religions while keeping to the same standards he used studying the Evangelists?

I can't even provide you links to any additional Christian documents he studied but it really makes no difference because his methods exist objectively and any theological text can be evaluated by anyone within those criteria. IOW ancient document laws are set in stone and any work can be evaluated by them. Any of Greenleaf's standards can quickly be applied to any text. I will give you one example to show you how easy this is. Actually, two.

1. Multiple attestation. The bible has it. The Quran does not. The Quran is one man's word, but it gets even worse. That single person's work quickly became corrupted, and a man who was not present at a single event decided he was going to fix this problem because rival Islamic factions were killing each other. So Uthman simply created the Quran he wanted and burned every copy of every other Quran he could find. So we do not really even have Muhammad's Quran but Uthman's Quran that may have been Muhammad's. You don't need Greenleaf to examine a thousands texts to apply his legal standards.

2. Another line of reason is what the message cost those who knew the truth of it. This is very important. I am not talking about what those who believed it lost. I am talking about what it cost to those who KNEW without a doubt the truth of what they claimed. The apostles knew for a fact if Christ had risen or not. They gained nothing by claiming he did if he did not, they in facts suffered for most of their lives and some lost them for what they knew the fact of. Now at best Muhammad knew the facts, but he gained al kinds of crap. He raided Caravans, levied taxes, led armies, confiscated property, invaded other nations, rose to power from obscurity as a result of his claims. he only died because he was poisoned by the wife of a man he had killed not because of his message.

There are dozens and dozens more but these show that there is no need to make Greenleaf write on a thousand religions (whether he wrote on other texts is not known to me). He applied the neutral standards of law to the gospels and we can easily apply it to any other work.

However let me give you another brilliant scholar (this time a textual critic specifically) who does debate in the same setting a muslin on the textual integrity of the Quran and the Gospels. The Muslim I will mention is by far the best Islam has so you get the best of both worlds. Look up on utube or Google video Dr. James White versus Shabir Alli. That might be more fun anyway.

 

[1robin]

What reasons do you have for discounting the Hindu belief of reincarnation (in your own words, please). Keep in mind that I do not belief in Christianity. Quoting the bible will not impress me. Using a logical argument based on observation and fact instead of scripture will get my attention. Thanks.

Your posts have gotten much better. Good job.

1. Re-incarnation is an incoherent concept so it can't be created by a supreme and intelligent being. I have debated this a bit with Hindu's. In re-incarnation virtually no one has any knowledge of their past life, and only a hand full have (theoretically) some vague and fragmentary glimpses of a past life. So the idea that I am to be reborn until I can morally progress enough until I am enlightened is betray by the fact I can learn nothing from my past life. Take me and you, we have no memory of our past lives nor of what we previously did wrong or right so how in the world can we improve on them. And if a chicken or gopher in a past life how much moral reasoning am I capable of especially since they would have no memory of a past life either.

2. This vague idea of enlightenment also has problems. Despite the universal idea that right and wrong are at odds and contradict each other morally Hinduism teaches enlightenment is the result of coming to know they really are not, but are the same thing. How much of this are we to take?

3. Add in also that in 20 years of attempting it I can't find a single enlightened person. Every Hindu I talk with knows one in a cave or the top of a tree somewhere but I can never talk to them. Instead of a million born agains you can consult all you hear are stories of the enlightened.

4. Hinduism has also never produced anything significant that is extraordinary. Where practiced things are backwards, poor, miserable. The great nations are either Christian of had Christian foundations in the past. There was never a Hindu enlightenment in science but Christians have won 80% of the Nobel's. Indian did not create modern science Jews and Christians did. Christians invented entire scientific fields not Hindus. The most Christian nation on earth saved India both from it's self and global tyranny. As soon as they ran out the British the economy collapsed and civil war tore the place up.

5. I will quit with a story. Hinduism has been used to entrench the rigid caste system in India. If your born at the bottom you can't get out. Protégées missionaries went to India and despite their reliance on violence Hindu's in droves literally leaped into their arms because while they may not have practiced it perfectly Christianity offered the idea that all men are equal before God.

There you go, no scripture just reason and a little history.

 

[Sha'irullah]

the more and more I look at it, I find the notion of a single god to be more simple while polytheism to be more beautiful. The big issue is that science has killed polytheism good. Traditional polytheism functioned as a way to grasp the world and reality. Every god was a place hold for ignorance of nature but this is not the case now. The traditional function of gods ruling over phenomena is dead. They are now archetypical in function or something of the like.

There is no need for a god of the skies or a goddess of love. NASA has taught us about the vastness of space and Viagra has replaced Aphrodite's place. What is surprising though is that the harlot refuses to leave!

Polytheism is dead. This is why soft polytheism has become more dominant amongst the god believing. Polytheism has no functional use now the way it did before

 

[Sha'irullah]

Henotheism is a more accurate description of how people think of god. Look at Christians, none of them worship the same god amongst them selves. God is a tormentor to Baptists and to Charismatics he is the god of love. My mother for example worships a god that is not in the most remote sense Biblical yet she claims to be following the true god of the Bible. It is all just New Age fluff which she claims is not.
People tend to pick one god out of a million personal variants and claim it is the "One God" yet that is not the case at all. There is a profound Henotheistic element int he way monotheists function. Monotheism NEVER existed and never will. Muslims have 2 gods, they have Muhammad then Allah and they give praise to Muhammad WAY more than Allah and this does not count for the fact that they differ on how Allah is to be worshiped and this god's decrees. A Sufi Allah is not a Maliki Allah and a Hanbali Allah is not a Twelver Allah; and don't get me started on the Bektashi and the Alevi sub group which is not even Islam.

Everyone is a polytheist because the religion people live under is divided in every facet possible.

 

[JustWondering]

let me give you another brilliant scholar (this time a textual critic specifically) who does debate in the same setting a muslin on the textual integrity of the Quran and the Gospels. The Muslim I will mention is by far the best Islam has so you get the best of both worlds. Look up on utube or Google video Dr. James White versus Shabir Alli. That might be more fun anyway.

I'll check it out when I get the chance.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

the more and more I look at it, I find the notion of a single god to be more simple while polytheism to be more beautiful. The big issue is that science has killed polytheism good. Traditional polytheism functioned as a way to grasp the world and reality. Every god was a place hold for ignorance of nature but this is not the case now. The traditional function of gods ruling over phenomena is dead. They are now archetypical in function or something of the like.

There is no need for a god of the skies or a goddess of love. NASA has taught us about the vastness of space and Viagra has replaced Aphrodite's place. What is surprising though is that the harlot refuses to leave!

Polytheism is dead. This is why soft polytheism has become more dominant amongst the god believing. Polytheism has no functional use now the way it did before

Hard polytheism is alive and strong. Advancements in scientific knowledge doesn't discredit these religions - much like it doesn't discredit monotheism. As a polytheist myself, when I look at the sun, sky, earth, and any other aspect of nature, I view these elements as the domain of these deities or as vehicles to feel more connected with the divine, not their physical embodiment. I'm sure the ancients would have felt this way too despite their scientific knowledge.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hard polytheism is alive and strong. Advancements in scientific knowledge doesn't discredit these religions - much like it doesn't discredit monotheism. As a polytheist myself, when I look at the sun, sky, earth, and any other aspect of nature, I view these elements as the domain of these deities or as vehicles to feel more connected with the divine, not their physical embodiment. I'm sure the ancients would have felt this way too despite their scientific knowledge.

I actually meant to say hard polytheism dude. I am sorry.
I forget which is which because this whole soft and hard polytheism confuses me a bit.
Hard polytheism asserts that deities are distinct and separate which drives my point home about gods in regards to religious sects being distinct.
Also science only makes the functions of particular gods useless. Such as sea gods and storm gods. Their usage to explain the function of oceans is no longer needed nor beneficial. While on the other hand gods of wisdom and embodiments of human potential are highly beneficial. The purpose of gods in polytheism is what has changed.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I worship the One who created all living beings and the universe. The One behind this beautiful creation. Pure Monotheism always attracted me.

The story of Ibrahim aleyhi salaam is indeed powerful one.
41. And mention in the Book (the Qur'an) Ibrahim (Abraham). Verily! He was a man of truth, a Prophet.

42. When he said to his father: "O my father! Why do you worship that which hears not, sees not and cannot avail you in anything?
43. "O my father! Verily! There has come to me of knowledge that which came not unto you. So follow me. I will guide you to a Straight Path.

44. "O my father! Worship not Shaitan (Satan). Verily! Shaitan (Satan) has been a rebel against the Most Beneficent (Allah).

45. "O my father! Verily! I fear lest a torment from the Most Beneficent (Allah) overtake you, so that you become a companion of Satan (in the Hell-fire)." [Tafsir Al-Qurtubi]

46. He (the father) said: "Do you reject my gods, O Ibrahim (Abraham)? If you stop not (this), I will indeed stone you. So get away from me safely before I punish you."

47. Ibrahim (Abraham) said: "Peace be on you! I will ask Forgiveness of my Lord for you. Verily! He is unto me, Ever Most Gracious.

48. "And I shall turn away from you and from those whom you invoke besides Allah. And I shall call on my Lord; and I hope that I shall not be unblest in my invocation to my Lord."

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Henotheism is a more accurate description of how people think of god. Look at Christians, none of them worship the same god amongst them selves. God is a tormentor to Baptists and to Charismatics he is the god of love. My mother for example worships a god that is not in the most remote sense Biblical yet she claims to be following the true god of the Bible. It is all just New Age fluff which she claims is not.
People tend to pick one god out of a million personal variants and claim it is the "One God" yet that is not the case at all. There is a profound Henotheistic element int he way monotheists function. Monotheism NEVER existed and never will. Muslims have 2 gods, they have Muhammad then Allah and they give praise to Muhammad WAY more than Allah and this does not count for the fact that they differ on how Allah is to be worshiped and this god's decrees. A Sufi Allah is not a Maliki Allah and a Hanbali Allah is not a Twelver Allah; and don't get me started on the Bektashi and the Alevi sub group which is not even Islam.

Everyone is a polytheist because the religion people live under is divided in every facet possible.

We dont worship Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him).
Sending blessings upon him is not equal to worship.

56. Allah sends His Salat (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy, etc.) on the Prophet (Muhammad

) and also His angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salat on (ask Allah to bless) him (Muhammad

), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islamic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As-Salamu 'Alaikum).

The prophet peace be upon him was asked: How can we send salat(blessings) on you, O messenger of Allah (salallahu aleyhi wassalam). He peace be upon him said:

Abu Muhammad Ka'b bin Ujrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam came to us and we asked him, “O Messenger of Allah, we already know how to greet you (i.e., say As-salamu alaykum), but how should we supplicate for you?” He said, “Say: `Allahumma salli `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama sallaita `ala aali Ibrahima, innaka Hamidum Majid. Allahumma barik `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama barakta `ala aali Ibrahima, innaka Hamidum Majid [O Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you exalted the family of Ibrahim. You are Praised and Glorious. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed the family of Ibrahim. You are Praised and Glorious.]”' [Bukhari and Muslim]

Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen rahimahullah states,

The best that can be said concerning this is what Abu'l-'Aaliyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The salah (blessing) of Allah upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is His praising him among the “higher group” (the angels). So what is meant by Allahumma salli 'alayhi (O Allah send blessings upon him) is: O Allah, praise him among the higher group, i.e., among the angels who are close to Allah.

Al-Sharh al-Mumti', 3/163, 164


2. (Saying) worship none but Allah. Verily, I (Muhammad

) am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of glad tidings. (Surah Hud, verse 2)