The question: "Who creates The Creator?"

It is an opinion which subjects to err. Bear with me, English is not even my second language...

The question: "Who creates The Creator?"

Premises:
1. A Creator differs than creations and can not be the same.
2. There exist relationships among creations (i.e: sun interacts with planets, human depends on its environments such as air to breath, water to drink etc)
3. There exists a set of natural laws governing these relationships such as Conservative law of energy; Causality law etc.
4.These natural laws are space-time-invariant imply these laws will never change - ever. These natural laws differ than theories which still subjects to fail.
5. All natural laws work indistinguishable in any point of space and any point of time (refute to Einstein if you disagree)

Flip-flopping the brain cells resulting:
* Human lives in this universe (space-time dimension) and depends on its environment. Safely sounds to say that The Creator of Human CAN NOT reside in this universe or else The Creator will face the same dependency to Its environment hence violating the concept of The Creator. In other words, if The Creator eats and drinks (highly depends on Its environment) it violates premise#1.

* When one asks "Who creates The Creator?" this type of question uses the Causality law (Cause and Effect) which works as far as we know only in this universe . Since exist no data about The Creator's Universe, there is no way we could possible know what kind of laws at work in there. It is a guessed work and a waste of time to say that the Causality law may or may not work in The Creator's Universe. So naturally, the question may dissolve by itself or remains unanswered.

* If one still insists on asking "Who creates the Creator?" then the Causality law needs to go beyond our universe.

* So far, only one way that we know of in order to escape our space-time dimension... is through a black hole. Unfortunately, Einstein's General theory of relativity states that in the present of extreme grativational fields all the natural laws including the General theory itself will break down. Again, the question "Who creates The Creator?" will fall apart or remains unanswered.

* Einstein's General theory of relativity still is a theory not has been declared as one of the natural laws yet till this day. But, before you dismiss it, you may need to disprove Einstein's theory first if you are up to it.

Conclusion: the question "Who creates The Creator?" will always remains unanswer not to mention a waste of time... so why bother?

Note: The Creator is by definition characterized by infinite attributes. Naturally, human or other creations are bound to finite characteristics. So, a statement like "The Creator CAN or CAN NOT reside in this universe", or typical question "Can The Creator creates a stone so powerful such that The Creator Can not lifted?" is actually mixing the rule of finite into infinite or vice versa.

In the rule of finite such as arithmetics addition, subsctraction etc can be applied. But human mind does not build to deal with infinity...IF there exists a real number G as the largest number and you add 1 to it then G is no longer the largest number. It's like mixing the rule of a basket ball game and a soccer game. When the player's hand touches the ball does it break the rule? Yes, it does in a soccer match but not in a basket ball game. When one mixes and mismatch human attributes to The Creator's without a clear indicator then what you get just a headache and goes nowhere. So The Creator CAN NOT reside in this universe is just telescoping from our limitation as human and does not really reflect the real attributes of The Creator....Human's logic, mind etc simply too limited, too finite to grasp the attributes of The Creator hence faith or belief system kicks in along with logic.

Why we need belief system or faith? because logic by itself won't be enough....try to answer this question:
"The Conservative Law of Energy stated that energy can not be created nor be destroyed but merely able to transform from one form to the other. Since we can not denied the existence of energy around us then how the heck does it exist in the first place?" Remember this natural law is space-time invariant and will never change.

If you can answer that then you are entitle to be an atheist or else you may try to think the obvious option...

First, we DON'T know for sure that the universe hasn't always been.

Second, if it was created it is possible that it was created by natural forces and not any sentient being.

Third, if it was created by a sentient being or beings from another universe as you propose, we certainly don't know anything else about these beings and we certainly have no reason to call them gods.

So yes, it is possible that our universe is a gradeschool science project of some alien child. Unlikely, but just as likely as where you jump from the same thinking above (ie to a God, and the muslim one no less).

Brother, how deep. I respect your writing, but I'll leave it up to more mathematical people to respond

Pygoscelis said:

First, we DON'T know for sure that the universe hasn't always been.
).

Click to expand...

To explain religion/faith using logical deduction or induction is a bit short in tools since logic is not the only variable that governs human system.

Some of the smartest people in history of mankind mentioned about the anthropic principle. The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common–these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life.

The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, for example:

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, “stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.”

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example.

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons–yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is–roughly twice the mass of an electron–then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it–and to life.

The very nature of water–so vital to life–is something of a mystery. Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon–the vital core of all organic molecules–on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12–allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.

The fact that we are living and can observe the universe, implies that the fundamental constants must be “just right” to produce life. There is an element of circular reasoning here, because if the constants were not “just right”, we would not be here to observe the universe. However, the fact is that the universe does not seem to be a random or chance event.”

It would be hard not to say there’s involvement of SuperBeing at work during creation to get “just right” of the fundamental constants.

The interesting part, when you manage to carry a cup full of hot coffe from downstair without a spill, there is no logic involved. The robotic movement to imprinting simple human task (like bringing hot coffe without a drop) will require complex calculations (the gravity, the adjustment, the angle of cup relative to legs movement etc)…yet, we don’t do any arithmetics….our instincts or feeling are more than suitable to do the task with simple practice…

Logic, instinct, feeling and other variables are accountable for human and God relationship. Will we ever know about the truth of God, religion, and faith?

It’s hard to disagree that science still is in infancy stage relative to the age of universe. But, science has found some of the laws that govern the universe. By definition, the scientific laws, given the right parameters, are invariants…independent with the time frame. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the scientific laws work just the same. The future finding will not affect the current scientific laws…the future scientific finding will only determine the faith of scientific theories. Hence, only few are recognized as Scientific laws among the list of scientific theories that still are characterized by the await of fail or prevail.

Stephen Hawking, together with Brandon Carter and other colleagues, discovered that an extremely delicate balance does exist in nature. For instance, if the strong force that acts on the quarks, neutrons, and protons of the atomic nucleus were just slightly weaker, hydrogen would be the only stable element. No other elements could exist…No carbon, no oxygen etc, hence no human or life as we know it (most of life are RNA or DNA based which is combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, and other elements in the chart).

If the constant of gravity were stronger–only 10^25 times less powerful than the strong nuclear force instead of 10^38 times weaker–our universe would be small and swift. The average star would have only 10^-12 times the mass of the sun and could exist for just about a year, hardly time for complex biological phenomena, such as human, to develop.

The list of this “just right” proportion is on and on… “Infact,” said Hawking,”a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.”

Consider the odds of shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece.

Hawking, as other most scientists, does shy away from the religion side of it though there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.

These empirical data and calculations were postulated by some of the best brains in the history of mankind…and you may challenge them given you have enough data to argue or to disagree against them.

Using the ocamrazor principle, considering the list of ‘coincidence’ or ‘just right’ proportion of nature constants and the odds agaisnt them…. considering other conclusion with almost no empiral data, limited logical deduction capability, gut feeling Q&A

It’s less complicated to choose…

:salamext:

http://www.understand-islam.net/Books/PurposeBehindCreation.pdf

rabarbara2008 said:

Brother, how deep. I respect your writing, but I'll leave it up to more mathematical people to respond

Click to expand...

Me too, sister. I'll leave it to the expert to deal with this issue. I am just oiling my rusty English writing since it's been a while.

Nice postings. Lots of interesting observations. I must, as always, try and critisize wherever I can, not out of malevolent intent of course :-[

You cover a lot of ground in little time, here are some of the things I noted :

1. The anthropic principle. Yes it is true that some of the constants in the universe are so finely tuned that a small deviation from this would spell doom for mankind. This does not mean, however, that the purpose (if any such exists) of the universe is life. Say we changed the gravity-constant (or some other constant) and the universe as we know it was torn utterly asunder to accomodate this change. Who's to say this new universe wouldn't be able to support life? Sure, depending on what was changed carbon-based lifeforms may be out of the question, but nothing says for certain that a new form of life wont evolve under these new circumstances, perhaps using quantum-particles (the very small) or stars, black holes 'n' stuff (the very large) to create a new form of life which we, as humans, would consider alien, artificial or in another way different from us.

2. The coffee-cup. Succesfully carrying a cup of coffee down the stairs without a spill takes training. It is not a conscious decision when mastered, but rather what is known as 'motoric memory' I think it's called. That is, carrying coffe becomes something similar to a reflex which happens automatically under the right conditions because the brain remembers how to 'play claire d'elune on the piano without using the notesheet'. Try getting a 5 year old kid to carry coffee down the stairs, he'll fail miserably because he has to consciously balance the hot cup in his hands, while avoid getting burnt, while getting his feet to move in a complex way. It's a funny experiment, adding heat to a glass of liquid can really mess up a kids coordination with liquids as they're not used to drinking coffe on a habitual basis. *must get kids soon...so many experiments muaha*.

3. And as the others have pointed out, why the need for a creator? The universe could always have been, it could've popped out of nothing, out of nega-space or something else. We humans could have created the universe for ourselves and immersed our existence into it to escape from a restrictive universe (just like we do with computergames today, just better graphics and phys-simulations). There's a multitude of possible explanations at that level of thinking, but to think some dude got it right x centuries ago require a little more belief than what seems plausible. Then again if believers are ready to accept that kind of god I wont have any beef with it, as it doesn't interfere with science; and as long as believers are willing to give up certain parts of their dogma when science finds the proof/disproof of those aspects, then I don't see why we can't get along.

The practical beef, the point where I start to detest religion, is when scientists basically show that 1+1=2 and believers think the veracity of that is a matter of oppinion.

gang4 said:

The question: "Who creates The Creator?"

Premises:
1. A Creator differs than creations and can not be the same.

.......


Flip-flopping the brain cells resulting:
* Human lives in this universe (space-time dimension) and depends on its environment. Safely sounds to say that The Creator of Human CAN NOT reside in this universe or else The Creator will face the same dependency to Its environment hence violating the concept of The Creator. In other words, if The Creator eats and drinks (highly depends on Its environment) it violates premise#1.

Click to expand...

No. The only requirement for premise 1 to be true is that creator and created differ in one respect and one respect only; one created and the other was created.

I'm not sure what you mean by "safely sounds" but there is no logical reason whatsoever why creator and creator cannot reside in the same universe or indeed face the same dependency on environment. The 'concept' being violated has just been plucked out of thin air.

In the end the arguement boils down to something that is self creating.
And...err.. thats it.
Really, until we advance a few millenia we are not going to possibly understand this, and perhaps even not then.
The arguement against God is unprovable.
It's better to try and work out who God was/is and how that interacts with us in the past and today

this is one of those questions that have no answer (that is knowable to us).
i like questions like that!
anyway, the question assumes that you believe the creator was created - otherwise, there is no point in asking "who".

ZarathustraDK said:

Nice postings. Lots of interesting observations. I must, as always, try and critisize wherever I can, not out of malevolent intent of course :-[

You cover a lot of ground in little time, here are some of the things I noted :

1. The anthropic principle. Yes it is true that some of the constants in the universe are so finely tuned that a small deviation from this would spell doom for mankind. This does not mean, however, that the purpose (if any such exists) of the universe is life. Say we changed the gravity-constant (or some other constant) and the universe as we know it was torn utterly asunder to accomodate this change. Who's to say this new universe wouldn't be able to support life? Sure, depending on what was changed carbon-based lifeforms may be out of the question, but nothing says for certain that a new form of life wont evolve under these new circumstances, perhaps using quantum-particles (the very small) or stars, black holes 'n' stuff (the very large) to create a new form of life which we, as humans, would consider alien, artificial or in another way different from us.

Click to expand...

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

Scientific data indicates water is the basis of life. If you say Who's to say this new universe wouldn't be able to support life? I say Where's your data to back it up your claim? If your claim based on if-this-and-that but fail to produce data... no need to discuss this further.

ZarathustraDK said:

3. And as the others have pointed out, why the need for a creator? The universe could always have been, it could've popped out of nothing, out of nega-space or something else. We humans could have created the universe for ourselves and immersed our existence into it to escape from a restrictive universe.

Click to expand...

No, the universe can NOT popped out of nothing. Why not? because E=MC2, energy and matter are interchangeable. All creations sun, moon, rock human etc are matters. The non-matters or the rest of stuff in the universe are in the form of waves which according to this equation E=h.f where is h is a constanta Planck, f is frequency. Hence, all of things in the universe can be interchanged into energy.

Since you can NOT refute the Conservative Law of Energy meaning energy or matters in our universe CAN NOT be created and this law is time-frame invariant (never change) and All natural laws work indistinguishable in any point of space and any point of time, the universe to pop out of nothing VIOLATES the Conservative Law of Energy. Yet we do exist. It would be hard not to say there’s involvement of The Creator at work. The burden to prove otherwise is on you and by answering this question: "how the heck does energy exist in the first place?"

Since you or the whole world CAN NOT answer this question then your other option is to disprove: E=mc2, E=h.f, the Conservative Law of Energy are wrong..... good luck....

I repeat using the ocamrazor principle, considering the above statement and the list of ‘coincidence’ or ‘just right’ proportion of nature constants and the odds against them….


and your argumentation with no theory nor empirical data to back it up just a bunch of questions of if-this-and-that

It’s less complicated to choose…meaning it still is A FREE CHOICE.

mashallah u'r a good writer

i alway thought like this though: one athiest girl asked me that question be4. she's like Who created the Creator? i answered: if someone created Him then He wouldnt be a Creator, He'd be part of the creation.

so is that right? (my answer?)

muslimah421 said:

mashallah u'r a good writer

i alway thought like this though: one athiest girl asked me that question be4. she's like Who created the Creator? i answered: if someone created Him then He wouldnt be a Creator, He'd be part of the creation.

so is that right? (my answer?)

Click to expand...

I am learning, sister...Insha Allah. With my limitations, I'll try to answer your question.

Your answer is partially right given your atheist girl stops there. But, she may well continue:

* if none creates Him then how come He Exists? or
* why we need The Creator to explain creations? or
* if in order to explain creations we need The Creator, who created the Creator? Back to where you are started.

This circular reasoning goes nowhere. It may have a better chance if it can be transferred into mathematical terms and let them approve or disprove it if they are interested. The burden of the proof is theirs not ours. We are believers without any mathematical proof we believe. We stop seeking the truth while they still are searching.

We believe no compulsion in our religion though it is compulsory for us to convey even one ayat/verse. By quoting directly from the scripture may not be too effective since they don't believe in Al-Qur'an. So we try to convey the message using logic they so fond of. And the chances are it goes into a circle, but bear witness we do try with our limited capacity. Only Allah can lead them to the straightest path.

Imagine there is a two-dimensional living creature who can only perceive his world in the terms of length and width. His sensory perception won't be able to perceive height the third-dimension, no matter how hard he tries.

Human lives in fourth dimension (space-time continuum) or lengthxwidthxheight(space) and time. Our sensory perception, our mind,our logic, our heart just too limited to perceive Allah. Remember the story of Nabi Musa (a.s) begging to see/meet Allah on the mount Sinai. Nabi Musa(a.s) passed out and the mount Sinai almost collapsed. But Rasullah Muhammad (saw/pbuh) promised us according to Hadiith Insha
Allah we will see Allah in the afterlife as clear as the sun in the sky. Before we die, what we need to do is

Al-Qur'an, 098.007-008 (Al-Bayyina [The Clear Proof, Evidence])

098.007 إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ
098.007 Inna alla[th]eena [a]manoo waAAamiloo a(l)[ssa]li[ha]ti ol[a]-ika hum khayru albariyya(ti)

098.007 Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures.

098.008 جَزَاؤُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ جَنَّاتُ عَدْنٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ رَبَّهُ
098.008 Jaz[a]ohum AAinda rabbihim jann[a]tu AAadnin tajree min ta[h]tih[a] al-anh[a]ru kh[a]lideena feeh[a] abadan ra[d]iya All[a]hu AAanhum wara[d]oo AAanhu [tha]lika liman khashiya rabbah(u)
098.008 Their reward is with Allah: Gardens of Eternity, beneath which rivers flow; they will dwell therein for ever; Allah well pleased with them, and they with Him: all this for such as fear their Lord and Cherisher.


Only Allah is Perfect, all mistakes are mine.

gang4 said:

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

Scientific data indicates water is the basis of life. If you say Who's to say this new universe wouldn't be able to support life? I say Where's your data to back it up your claim? If your claim based on if-this-and-that but fail to produce data... no need to discuss this further.

Click to expand...

You are talking about carbon-based lifeforms. Yes, carbon-based lifeforms would need water and not be able to exist in a universe where the nuclear weak force is off to a certain degree. I'm talking about other lifeforms which are not necessarily carbon-based. Yes I know it sounds strange and unbelievable but it is most certainly possible. The reason I or any other scientists will not be able to give examples of these is because it would be a strange thing to research into. Who'd want to dedicate their time to finding possible lifeforms (helium-based, quantum-based, stellar-based, or any other kind of -based) in fictional universes where the nature-constants are different from ours?
You see human beings as the purposeful end of grand project. I see them as beings who simply happened to evolve in a universe that supported this specific kind of carbon-based life, though not to say other forms of non-carbon-based life couldn't have evolved given the natural constants where different than they are now.

gang4 said:

No, the universe can NOT popped out of nothing. Why not? because E=MC2, energy and matter are interchangeable. All creations sun, moon, rock human etc are matters. The non-matters or the rest of stuff in the universe are in the form of waves which according to this equation E=h.f where is h is a constanta Planck, f is frequency. Hence, all of things in the universe can be interchanged into energy.

Since you can NOT refute the Conservative Law of Energy meaning energy or matters in our universe CAN NOT be created and this law is time-frame invariant (never change) and All natural laws work indistinguishable in any point of space and any point of time, the universe to pop out of nothing VIOLATES the Conservative Law of Energy. Yet we do exist. It would be hard not to say there’s involvement of The Creator at work. The burden to prove otherwise is on you and by answering this question: "how the heck does energy exist in the first place?"

Since you or the whole world CAN NOT answer this question then your other option is to disprove: E=mc2, E=h.f, the Conservative Law of Energy are wrong..... good luck....

Click to expand...

The scale on which my examples were based were on the same scale you assumed your god to be. Just as an omnipotent god could create the universe out of nothing my examples could happen because they happen in a dimension where I assume such things are allowed. It simply served to show that universes could appear through other means than an omnipotent creator. It all rests on what assumption you make from the beginning, in your case you assume a creator to exist in order to show that he exist, which is probably the shortest chain of reason possible, but doesn't show any other thing than that you assume God to exist.

gang4 said:

I repeat using the ocamrazor principle, considering the above statement and the list of ‘coincidence’ or ‘just right’ proportion of nature constants and the odds against them….

Click to expand...

No because you don't take into considerance the possibility of other forms of life, which are not necessarily carbon-based, in other permutations of our universe in which the natural constants would be different.

gang4 said:

and your argumentation with no theory nor empirical data to back it up just a bunch of questions of if-this-and-that

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have to have any form of theory or empirical evidence, as long as my reasoning is sound, my arguments are valid, and my statements true, then that's all that is needed; I even avoid having to believe in theories which I don't fully understand and thus could be wrong about (not that I question the relativity-theory though). I know it can seem like an awful pessimistic and deconstructive way of thinking, but when you experience figuring out a flaw in something and correcting it using that method, and afterwards seeing how the thing work much better, that's really a wonderful feeling.

Does God have a mass? i mean a mass in the physics sense rather than the catholic dogma?

I disagree with your arguments and find most irrelevant, baseless and/or mistaken. Sorry. As god is a philosophical discussion trying to use a mish mash of science isn't going to do the trick.

Also, logic is only as good as the basic assumptions and can lead to completely non-sensical conclusions, as I believe is the case here. I apologize for being blunt in this post and don't intend it to be insulting.

I will only address one point.

If there is an instance where its possible for the universe to pop out of nothing given the NATURAL laws you quote, then would your argument be completely invalidated?

I'll let you and everyone who cares try to guess what it is.

Thanks for the thread.

World of Warcraft?

For The Horde!

barney said:

Does God have a mass? i mean a mass in the physics sense rather than the catholic dogma?

Click to expand...

Well if He had mass, then he'd be similar to his Creations.
But we muslims believe that he's nothing like His creations.
Mass is just one of those creations.

regards,
Abu 'Ammar

gang4 said:

and your argumentation with no theory nor empirical data to back it up just a bunch of questions of if-this-and-that.

Click to expand...

Good grief... I think you've just managed to sum up two thousand years or so of debate of the existence or non-existence of God in one sentence!

johan said:

Well if He had mass, then he'd be similar to his Creations. But we muslims believe that he's nothing like His creations.
Mass is just one of those creations.

Click to expand...

I just don't understand this.. you seem to be claiming that God must be different from man in every conceivable respect. Why? It makes no sense, there must be some things God and man have in common even if there are a great many things not common. For example, picking one at random, both God and man understand and have used one or more languages. Both are capable of exhibiting 'mercy'. And so on, and so on.