Who created God?

[Nerd]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

[vpb]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

First, this question is a typical question that comes from Shaitan . No doubt.

Second, as muslims we shouldn't stop even for a second to think "who created God".

Third, The straight away answer should be "Nobody created God, God has no beggining or end", or say "audhubillahi minashajtani rrajeem".

as for providing a logical answer, i'll try to answer , but i don't want to get into these, cuz it's just a question which comes from shaitan into our brains.
we make these questions based on our imagination. But in fact our imagination is limited, we think that everything that God does or knows, can be precieved by our imagination. who knows, maybe outside our imagination the term 'creation' doesn't even exist. But as humans we have these things such as 'creation'. So the questioner is very naive, he/she thinks that his/her imagination is unlimited.
If Allah swt wants He can dissapear the term creation, destroy all human kind? and then? how can you ask such a question. This question works only within the range of the creation of Allah swt, since it's our imagionation .

similar question was "Can god create a rock that he can't lift?",
We think that our imagionation is unlimited so that the term 'weight' applies to God too.
If God wants he can dissapear the term of gravity, and shape, and color, and material?? now where's the stone? same thing is with the creation, Allah can do things that our beoynd our imagionation, and we think that the term creation applies for God too. it's foolish. God is independent of time, food, drink..... He doesn't need anything, He is also independent of the term 'Creation'. the term creation applies only to the creation, since Allah swt created our imagionation and the ability is needed to understand creation so we could recognize and worship Him as our Creator.

[Nerd]

"He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" surah: Al-Ikhlas, verse:3

Indeed as muslims our belief is firm that Allah has no begining nor an end, it is when it comes to explaining the disbelievers we need to be prepared with logical scientific answers...

[Malaikah]

:sl:

There is no scientific or logical answer. It is totally outside our mentally ability.

God is uncreated, that is all.

The concept of creation can only apply to the creations, not to the Creator.

The Creator is uncreated...

Anyway, maybe you can ask them is return, who created the universe... either they will believe it has always existed (therefore they can't argue against the concept of Allah always existing too), or they believe it was created out of nothing, which is just absurd anyway.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Makky]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

Nerd
2 posts only?
hehe! did you only come here to post this question?
whats your religion

well.. if you are to establish a new company .. you need to create rules for this company.. rules for managers rules for employees rules for salary and payment

for example the rule say :that employees have 21 days annaul vacation ..and any absence more than 21 days means that there will be a discount from the salary

the Question now is... You are the one who created these rules to your new company...is it logic to punish yourself if you are absent for more than 21 days...the logic answer is no .. because its your own company and the rules are made by you..but you don't undergo these rules


In other words : Allah created this world and created all its rules ... therefore All the creations inside this universe undergoes his rules

and one of these rules is : that every creation should be created by a creator

Simply Allah doesn't undergo this rule because Allah is not a creation

Regards :D

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

Many times people say that such a magnificent creation needs to be created by God, then atheists might attack and ask: then who created God?

Insha Allaah this will answer that using logic.

(the arrow [<--] means 'created by')


Creation <-- God

^ That's how the believers see, it.



Let's use the logic of the atheists and see what would happen if 'the Creator was created.'

Creation <-- God <-- Creator [but he needs a creator also] <-- Creator [Again, but he needs a creator] <-- Creator <---- Creator <-------------- - infinity -

From there we can see that if God needed a Creator, then He couldn't have been created since it would be infinite amount of time for Him to be created, which would mean we couldn't be created since it would take forever for our Creator [God] to be created. Which proves that God cannot be created.


http://www.islamicboard.com/campaign...s-ideas-5.html

And Allaah knows best.

[sem]

:salamext:

Many times people say that such a magnificent creation needs to be created by God, then atheists might attack and ask: then who created God?

Insha Allaah this will answer that using logic.

(the arrow [<--] means 'created by')


Creation <-- God

^ That's how the believers see, it.



Let's use the logic of the atheists and see what would happen if 'the Creator was created.'

Creation <-- God <-- Creator [but he needs a creator also] <-- Creator [Again, but he needs a creator] <-- Creator <---- Creator <-------------- - infinity -

From there we can see that if God needed a Creator, then He couldn't have been created since it would be infinite amount of time for Him to be created, which would mean we couldn't be created since it would take forever for our Creator [God] to be created. Which proves that God cannot be created.


http://www.islamicboard.com/campaign...s-ideas-5.html

And Allaah knows best.

youve explained that very well,:thumbs_up

[BanGuLLy]

I dont think this question is from the shaytan...
People are just curious about everything.. so they are askin to gain more knowledge..
and if you always see things in a negative way.. then YOU are being controlled by the shaytan..

[glo]

I think the real problem is that imagining God being infinite and having existed forever, is pretty impossible for the human mind.

Infinity is also a mathematical concept, so from a scientific point of view it should be possible.

Existing without a beginning or a source, I expect, is a scientific impossibility.
I think the explanation of the creator needing a creator, needing a creator etc is not particulalry helpful, because it paints an infinite scenario - which for somebody who comes from a scientific perspective, may make more sense than the statement that 'God has always existed'.

I don't think any of these explanation hold down under scientific scrutiny (although I am not a scientist myself, and I will happily be corrected by others who know better)!
I guess as believers we accept these things because our holy books tell us so. In my mind these are faith issues, not scientific issues.

[Malaikah]

I don't think any of these explanation hold down under scientific scrutiny (although I am not a scientist myself, and I will happily be corrected by others who know better)!

Science can't even be applied to God because He is outside the realm accessible by science!

Science is the study of the creation and stuff we can somehow detect- none of these apply to God.

Therefore applying science to God is stupid. it is like applying the study of human anatomy to understand how a car works.

[rushsjilbab]

:sl:

im sure there's a hadith on this. anyone know. i'll try to find out
:w:

[NoName55]

A Christian said to an atheist at another forum

If God is a being/an entity/a power that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every second of time (past, present and future) as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid one

wa salaam alaikum to believers and seekers

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok this is definitely a hard nut to crack. A lot of key-parts have already been given here but I'd still like to add my two cents.

As said this is indeed a a question from the shaytan. It is true that a person asking might be genuinely interested in the answer, and might have no bad intentions. But that doesn't change the fact that the question is inspired by the shaytan. I remember a hadeeth about this question. But I don't remember it exactly. Maybe someone else can confirm that. And Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

So that being said, we should be extra carefull with this question. Even more then we should be in general with dawah. And we certainly shouldn't indulge in philosophy that easily and watch out that we don't send the person away from Islam by saying something incorrect. The prophet s.a.w. wouldn't have warned us for it if it wasn't important. So if you are uncertain of giving the right dawah just answer with Al-ichlaas, that seems the "safest" answer.

What you can do though, rather then answering the question directly, one could just point out a specific human bias. Glo has already pointed it out, the problem is not believing wheter or not God himself was created. The real problem is the deduction that follows after it. When we believe God is without creator, we humans tend to think that he thus would have to have lived forever. And that view is a bit biased. So if that deduction falls away, the questions itself of whether or not God was created seems less heavy.

Now let me show you why that view is biased. People see time as something ethereal, something abstract. Something ever-existing. But Science gives us a different view on that. Einsteins special relativity shows us that time is a relative construct, a dimension. And contemporary views are that dimensions -the spatial as well as the temporal dimensions- are not abstract at all, they are materialistic (in the sense that they are made of matter, that they consist of a fabric). Time can even be bended by gravity of objects with high mass. Now, this has huge implications for big bang. Because it means that not only the spatial dimension, but also the temporal dimension came into existance during big bang. So "before" big bang there wasn't even time. That's a bit of a paradoxal statement because the word "before" is time-dependent and thus has little meaning in that sentence. But that's where it gets interesting. If you believe in a God who empowered big bang, then you believe he also created time. That means God is not eternal, but instead time-independent. Or to explain that last sentence in other words, rather then having an eternal lifespan stretched over a beginningless dimension of time, God is not enclosed within this dimension of time that by the way does have a beginning. So just as the word "before" was paradoxical in our timeless paradigm, so can we also say that all time-dependant words like: before; after; during; when;beginning and end are meaningless when used in relation to God.

And Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, may he forgive me if I said something wrong.

[Panther]

Man created god. Simple. A true Atheist shouldn't have to ask, for they should know that every theist will say that "god" is eternal. Only time is infinite, and even then it doesn't really 'exist'.

Answering the question of "god" is easy, but time confuses me to no end.
I think I might start a religion in worship of the concept of time. It's much more interesting.

[NoName55]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheists is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wasting their time preaching?


wa salaam alaikum to believers and seekers

[glo]

Great discussion. Keep it coming, people! :D

Steve, your post will take more time than I have right now. My son needs the computer for his homework ... still the Romans! :rollseyes

Perhaps I'll be back later ...

Don't you guys go shouting at each other while I'm away ...! :X

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Only time is infinite, and even then it doesn't really 'exist'.

Sciences disagrees with you on both parts of that statement, please see my previous post.

[Trumble]

Simply Allah doesn't undergo this rule because Allah is not a creation

The trouble with that is that it is a purely faith based position, not a 'logical scientific' one. The only answer to the original question for a theist must be "nobody did"; the problem is arguing a decent case for it. As Malaikah says there is and can be no such 'proof', so Nerd would be wasting his time looking for one. People much smarter than anyone here have been trying for two thousand years or so.

There is actually a very well known philosophical argument (a much better bet than 'scientific' ones) which might stop a few atheists in their tracks for a while, but there is an equally well known counter as well (try a forum search; we've been here before). If you have a serious interest in debating the subject you need to go prepared - there is no point in smugly presenting one side of an argument and then looking silly as your atheist opponent procedes to dismantle it! There are counters to the counter, too.. and counters to the counters to the counters... :D

[Panther]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheist is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wastig their time preaching?

Dawah? :)

[NoName55]

Originally Posted by NoName55

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheist is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wasting their time preaching?

Dawah? :)

Invitation to what? hell?

[Panther]

Invitation to what? hell?

Yeah, we don't believe in hell either. ^^ But we're straying off topic.

[AvarAllahNoor]

God is self-created

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Panther;

time confuses me to no end.

Logically speaking it should be easier to understand if the universe was a vacuum and nothing existed at all.

For a first cause to exist there are only two possibilities, something had no beginning or, something came from nothing. Both of these possibilities defy logic and science.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Abdul Fattah]

God is self-created

How can an entity create itself? it would have to exist in order to create, but it cannot exist before it created itself. A bit paradoxal wouldn't you say?

[AvarAllahNoor]

How can an entity create itself? it would have to exist in order to create, but it cannot exist before it created itself. A bit paradoxal wouldn't you say?

This is the Almighty we refer to, not a human being. He is Omnipotent. He can do as he wills!

God is Karta Purakh, the Creator He created the spatio-temporal universe not from some pre-existing physical element, but from His own Self.

[NoName55]

^^I am still confused as to how He decided to create himself before being/before He was?

[AvarAllahNoor]

^^I am still confused as to how He decided to create himself before being/before He was?

It's God. He answers to none. He is beyond comprehension. - Any issues ask him when you're at the gates. :D

[Woodrow]

Nearly all of our concepts are based at least to some degree upon that which is within the physical realm of the universe. That which can be measured and qualified.

To attempt to even perceive a concept of an infinite God(swt) a simple thought experiment may help.

We can think of the material world and we can understand that "nothing" is the lack of matter.

We can understand that matter had a starting point. We can understand that "nothing" was always there even before matter and we can to some extent think that once matter is removed again there will be "nothing".

we can even think that the material world has a limit and once we pass that limit again we are seeing nothing.

In terms of the space-time continuum of the physical world we can only have matter or nothing. But, if it were possible to step outside our little bubble we can see that there is room for a non-physical being that is not bound by physical concepts and a being that fill this nothing, would physically be unmearsuable.

If we can invision the existance of eternal nothing, we are very close to being able to visualize the existance of an all knowing, all powerfull being and that this being is the cause of creation and in spite of no physical form is present where ever He chooses to be present.

So if nothing can be eternal, why can't Allah(swt) be infinite?

[Makky]

God is self-created

So he started creating himself before his existance ... ??????

HOW COME?!?!?!?

So he intend to create himself before his existance...???????

HOW COME?!?!?!?

if he wasn't there before his existance then who intended and who started ??

My friend You need to repent (to Allah) of what you said... ask him for forgiveniss

[vpb]

:sl:

I think this thread should be closed. Only Shaitan comes up with these questions into people's mind. So we have to avoid it, or it will just cause confusion among us. And remember that shaitan tries all the time to decrease our iman as much as possible and mislead us. so we better avoid such discussions. cuz this thread has turned into a debate.

[Trumble]

The original poster was looking for a "clever, logical and scientific answer" to present to atheists. Somehow I don't think just assigning the question to Shaitan will convince them!

As to debate, it is impossible to 'refute' anything without considering both sides of the question and being equipped to deal with difficult questions. That's what people like Zakir Naik do, and they are very effective 'refuters' as a result.

[Makky]

The trouble with that is that it is a purely faith based position, not a 'logical scientific' one.

the trouble is that some people can't accept the word Allah or God in any scientific conclusion this is due to the atheism preconception..they call themself scientist but actually the are the most stupid and foolish people (Darwin as an example)

People much smarter than anyone here have been trying for two thousand years or so.

How come they are much smarter and didn't come to a conclusion...thier unsuccessful trials to understand are enough evidence to prove that they are not smart at all as they pretend to be.. Do you call a pesron who tries to collect the sea water in a small cup-smart.. do you even doubte ?!

I consider atheists the most foolish breathing creations

If you have a serious interest in debating the subject you need to go prepared - there is no point in smugly presenting one side of an argument and then looking silly as your atheist opponent procedes to dismantle it! There are counters to the counter, too.. and counters to the counters to the counters... :D

Go prepared?! lol for what? for proving God existance?!

Dismantle what?!

My friend if you are an athiest or if you know an atheist just tell him : think properly for a single minute

[AvarAllahNoor]

So he started creating himself before his existance ... ??????

HOW COME?!?!?!?

So he intend to create himself before his existance...???????

HOW COME?!?!?!?

if he wasn't there before his existance then who intended and who started ??

My friend You need to repent (to Allah) of what you said... ask him for forgiveniss

God created himself, hence why he's GOD!! - If he was created by anothr, who would be God??!!

I don't need to repent it is Allah who revealed it to humanity this way!

[Trumble]

the trouble is that some people can't accept the word Allah or God in any scientific conclusion this is due to the atheism preconception..they call themself scientist but actually the are the most stupid and foolish people (Darwin as an example)

Darwin wasn't an atheist. When he wrote 'The Origin of Species' he was actually a theist, although he did not believe the Bible to be a divine revelation.

Anything that involves "the word Allah or God" CANNOT be a 'scientific conclusion' as the truth, or otherwise, of that word cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method.

How come they are much smarter and didn't come to a conclusion...

Because it is not possible to come to a conclusion, either way, for the reasons Malaikah made clear. We just do not have, and cannot have, the intellectual tools for the job. Only the mind of God can understand, or even conceive, the reality of God.

Go prepared?! lol for what? for proving God existance?!

For anything you wish to debate or argue; in this particular instance who (if anyone) created God.

Dismantle what?!

A feeble, unprepared, argument that takes no account of the likely means used to contest it. If you want to see how such arguments can be avoided do a search for some of Ansar's stuff. He is a very skilled debater, but is only so because he takes the trouble to learn and understand both sides of the argument, even if he (obvously) only agrees with one side.

My friend if you are an athiest or if you know an atheist just tell him : think properly for a single minute

And what do you think that will achieve? 'Properly' just means the way you do, no more. My version of 'properly' is rather different, as is that of the atheists here. You think they are wrong, they think you are wrong. To convince them otherwise requires a little more effort than just telling them to think what you do with no reasons as to why.

[snakelegs]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheist is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wastig their time preaching?

(sigh) a question i've asked myself many times. some are really hard working preachers.

[snakelegs]

The trouble with that is that it is a purely faith based position, not a 'logical scientific' one. The only answer to the original question for a theist must be "nobody did"; the problem is arguing a decent case for it. As Malaikah says there is and can be no such 'proof', so Nerd would be wasting his time looking for one. People much smarter than anyone here have been trying for two thousand years or so.

There is actually a very well known philosophical argument (a much better bet than 'scientific' ones) which might stop a few atheists in their tracks for a while, but there is an equally well known counter as well (try a forum search; we've been here before). If you have a serious interest in debating the subject you need to go prepared - there is no point in smugly presenting one side of an argument and then looking silly as your atheist opponent procedes to dismantle it! There are counters to the counter, too.. and counters to the counters to the counters... :D

this is an excellent summary of why i think "debates" are silly and pointless.

[Trumble]

this is an excellent summary of why i think "debates" are silly and pointless.

I hope not, that is certainly not what I intended. If nothing else, they make people think about issues that need thinking about, and can help people make their own minds up even when there can be no 'proof'.

[جوري]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheists is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wasting their time preaching?


wa salaam alaikum to believers and seekers

There can only be two answers to the question of origins..
1- it created itself
2- Some being created it
there really are no more options... so rather than having to explain my point of view to an atheist, when we already don't share any common ground, I expect it to be incumbent upon them to explain to me and fully scientifically with reproducible proof, how everything came to be.
My mind being inquisitive by nature expects an answer to everything then, the A to z of it.. every single biochemical pathway every physiological every anatomical pathway, to every single geological pathway, to every single neurochemical pathway ... each one of those has zillions of tracts enzymes intricacies too numerous to count really, and I expect a glorious cascade of explanation.... So at the end I can go Ah. you got me Atheist, you were so right all along..
Now that being said, I know they can't/won't/ unwilling/unable to do it, then I suggest we part ways amicably. I find most Atheists simply crude, nothing holds them back, they just blather out crap..
I only need to stroll through the posts of this forum to confirm it. Further they so enjoy taking advantage of Islamic mannerism.. I for one refuse to take the passive approach out..
What amuses me is that most any really well educated scientist will never without a reasonable doubt rule something out or in something without a thorough investigation and still never 100% say it was such and such...
In medicine for instance they teach you, even though you believe a person is showing with all the signs and symptoms of appendicitis, you still need 22 differentials... you need to rule out everything from diverticulitis, to ectopic pregnancy to torsion, Cholodocholithiasis, you name it.. so how is that these lay people, whose only approach to science is through some cheesy third rate article come and argue to the world the "non-existence" of G-D with any such conviction.
Ultimately believing or non-believing is a personal choice-- I am not sure why they want the whole world to be lost and purposeless right along with them?
:w:

[snakelegs]

I hope not, that is certainly not what I intended. If nothing else, they make people think about issues that need thinking about, and can help people make their own minds up even when there can be no 'proof'.

trumble,
i wasn't addressing you personally. i like your posts. it's just that sometimes these endless debates seem just silly and pointless. they go round and round and over and over.
i also didn't mean this thread specifically - just in general.

[Nerd]

Zakir Naik uses the "theory of Probability to PROVE TO AN ATHEIST The Existence of Allah"... Check out the link below

http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/provingGodExists.htm


U see the Atheist does not believe God to be the ultimate because he believes Science to be the Ultimate......So if we prove to them that we have something (i.e. the Quran) which is superior to science, Science will cease to be the ultimate.......And Who could have mentioned so many things that science has only been able to verify today??? It has to be our MANUFACTURER, OUR CREATOR, Who has the knowledge of the unseen and unknown......now the existence of God is proved, question remains who created God. Well, first of all since Allah is the creator of the Universe, he cannot be a part of it....He has to be there before the beginning of the Universe...The point to be noted is that CREATED Things have a beginning and an end, like the Universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and it will have an end ( according to Islamic concept Qayamath), Life had a beginning and it will have an end....This concept of beginning and end exists only in the case of CREATED Things and Not in the case of OUR CREATOR....How can Allah be CREATED, when he is UNCREATED??? Its like you telling me that my brother Tom has given birth to a child!!! It would be illogical of me to ask you whether the child is a male or a female, because I being a sensible human being know it very well that a man cannot give birth to a child so the question of the child being a boy or a girl is completely illogical!!! Likewise, the question who created GOD is illogical since GOD IS UNCREATED.....As simple as that!

[Trumble]

Zakir Naik uses the "theory of Probability to PROVE TO AN ATHEIST The Existence of Allah

He puts forward a case for it, no more. It is important to learn to distinguish the difference whichever side of the debate you happen to be on as I made clear earlier. Naik's 'proof' doesn't survive one skim reading from the perspective of an atheist. Most atheists simply do not accept that the Qur'an contains any important scientific (or "unknown at that time") references at all; I personally find that the particular claims made range from "mildly intriguing" to "laughable". Even if they did accept that the Qur'an contained such information in anything like the quantity Naik suggests, the "theory of probability", as he calls it, is unsound - it proves nothing unless you can also quantify the probability of God, which is absurd. It just boils down to the usual "this is unlikely to have happened otherwise, so I'll conjure up God to to fill in the gap". That is not a 'proof'.

All of which is off-topic; your question was not whether there is a God, but who (if anyone) created Him. You are unlikely to convince any atheists just by telling them the question is "illogical", although I'll grant that might work rather better than blaming it's existence on Shaitan! I'll let you research the arguments for yourself, but where the chain usually ends up in following your claim is a 'proof' (note the inverted commas !) that if God was uncreated then he must logically also be totally incapable of interacting with the universe, i.e incapable of actually creating anything!

[ranma1/2]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheists is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wasting their time preaching?


wa salaam alaikum to believers and seekers

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

[Makky]

Anything that involves "the word Allah or God" CANNOT be a 'scientific conclusion'

Why?

[Makky]

God created himself, hence why he's GOD!! - If he was created by anothr, who would be God??!!

I don't need to repent it is Allah who revealed it to humanity this way!

And where did he reveale it to humanity this way?

[Nerd]

Have you guys ever considered the fact... Science and human mind has its limits?

[Philosopher]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

Man.

But from a theist standpoint, consider this:

1.) Anything that is infinite has no origin. (Remember, infinity = boundless)
2.) God is infinite
3.) From (1.) and (2.), God has no origin.

[Trumble]

Why?

Because as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated scientifically, or even theorised in purely scientific terms, His 'word' cannot have any scientific validity. That isn't just a straight theist v. atheist choice; even theist scientists accept that any inclusion of God in a 'scientific' theory must must inevitably result in it being shot down by their peers on the basis of unjustifiable assumptions. There are two.. first that there is a God and, equally important but frequently forgotten, that the 'gap' in the theory the inclusion of God is trying to fill must necessarily be filled by God and not something else. Of course, if somebody did ever manage to prove God exists it would be open season, but science as we know it would end over-night.

The only way to resolve that particular conundrum is to re-define science. We have already seen that tried in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in an attempt to admit 'intelligent design' into science. Unfortunately, those trying to do same were forced to concede that the definition they needed would also accept astrology, not to mention assorted other mumbo-jumbo, as 'science' as well.

[sevgi]

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

hate to burst ur bubble but...ur jst defining the diffrence between monotheists and atheists...thats not exactly a great way to end ur argument...

to say that we are atheists to all Gods but our own implies that there is an absolute certainty of more than one god and we exclude it...then yeah, we are atheists to all other gods..and were proud of it too...it means were 'FOLLOWING A RELIGION'...or simply 'MONOTHEISTS' or more simply 'NOT ATHEISTS'.

since there is no reality of more than one god, nor is there any discussion of "who created the Gods?" it is out of the question. monotheists believe that there is one god and non other...and to believe in other gods, if any, makes us polytheists..

so thanks for the definition...i just thought i'd broaden it out for u to encompass some argumentative discussion.

[Muezzin]

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

True. Though your 'g-d' is logic. You believe in something. Everybody does. It's part of being human.

[Hashim_507]

God is All Mighty, there is only one God in this whole universe and beyond. This not tricky question; human being in dunya can not go beyond its limits such seeing the unseens. God has no association; their many definition for that. When Allah has no association; Allah means his only one God. God bring the concept of creation; the term creation came from Allah. The term creation was to teach slaves of Allah that God is the creator.

[Nerd]

Here is the hadith mentioned by one of the brothers earlier:

The Hadith is Sahih.
Al-Bukhari's Sahih:
Volume: 9,
Book Number: 92,
Hadith Number: 399
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said,
"People will not stop asking questions till they say, 'This is Allah, the Creator of everything, then who created Allah?' "

[asadxyz]

:sl:
Just another aspect;
There is a simple mathematical principle:
x^0 (raised to power "0'')= 1
If you replace "x" by the word "universe" it will become
(universe)^0 (raised to power "0") = 1
It means when universe will be finished (0) ,then only "one" is left and that is Allah Almighty.

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ
﴿28:88﴾
Everything is perishable except Himself:
Best of luck

[Makky]

Because as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated scientifically, or even theorised in purely scientific terms, His 'word' cannot have any scientific validity.

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

can you put a scientific rule for that?^^^

for example :you can say : seen things or whatever you want..

[Philosopher]

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

can you put a scientific rule

for example :you can say : seen things or whatever you want..

1.) First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
2.) Kepler's three laws
3.) Newton's laws of motion

[Trumble]

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

To successfully explain a phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.

[barney]

I'm in favor of a creating force or forces making the universe.

I'm not too sure it was intelligent design. Probably was, cant say for certain.

What created these forces eh?
That is a question beyond our understanding.
Currently, Nobody can answer that. Beleivers can beleive, and this is their truth.
Disbeleivers disbelive and that again is theirs.

I've heard everything from "matter from a different plane came through a rip in reality and gained sentinence", To which i ask. "Ok, on that other plane...who created that?"

What I do beleive is this question has always been asked in some form, and it's a basic human need that appeared after we satisfied our lower needs of food shelter and company.
In the ancient times, a readily acceptable answer was needed. Padum-Tish. God was "created" by man. I mean here in the sense of as he is known by the religions of today.

The basic premise of Christianity, Judism and Islam is that we are directing our thoughts to the "one who made all".
Since we were not in contact with it, we desperatly wanted to be in contact with it. So when prophets, charasmatic, potent speakers, with the cult of personality told people that this entity was in touch with them....It was snapped up like a Doughnut at the Global Police AGM.

None of this negates that something created all.
And we will probably never know.

Lets hope we dont end up wiping each other out thinking we all know best.

[asadxyz]

1.) First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
2.) Kepler's three laws
3.) Newton's laws of motion

peace;
In Newton is Second Law
F = mA
m = contant
But now mass is not considered to be a constant factor.Eistein refuted it.
Best of luck

[Skavau]

'Who created God?' is an excellent question to be asked when it the teleological argument is cited as evidence that a designer (assumed to be God) must logically exist. The response of the question regarding 'Who created God?' usually takes the form of a decree declaring God separate from all logic conveniently applied to the universe. If God can simply be assumed to be infinite then why can the universe not be assumed the same? Why must the universe have been created at a specific point?

Both a Theist and Atheist can agree that existence is infinite. The difference is that the Theist often simply assumes that God is infinite and the Atheist assumes that the universe is infinite.

There can only be two answers to the question of origins..
1- it created itself
2- Some being created it

Why not simply infinite existence?

Now that being said, I know they can't/won't/ unwilling/unable to do it, then I suggest we part ways amicably. I find most Atheists simply crude, nothing holds them back, they just blather out crap..

What is the purpose of engaging in generalising ad hominem attacks with a tint of guilt by association? This is about the question regarding 'What created God?'. I fail to see how your rant about how you feel Atheists should be obliged to explain everything fits in with this.

so how is that these lay people, whose only approach to science is through some cheesy third rate article come and argue to the world the "non-existence" of G-D with any such conviction.

I don't argue the non-existence of God.

Ultimately believing or non-believing is a personal choice-- I am not sure why they want the whole world to be lost and purposeless right along with them?

Who says Atheists do want that? Who says Atheism asserts a lack of purpose?

[جوري]

Who created God?' is an excellent question to be asked when it the teleological argument is cited as evidence that a designer (assumed to be God) must logically exist. The response of the question regarding 'Who created God?' usually takes the form of a decree declaring God separate from all logic conveniently applied to the universe. If God can simply be assumed to be infinite then why can the universe not be assumed the same? Why must the universe have been created at a specific point?

I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!

Both a Theist and Atheist can agree that existence is infinite. The difference is that the Theist often simply assumes that God is infinite and the Atheist assumes that the universe is infinite. Why not simply infinite existence?

If you can find me one thing in this universe of ours that can infinitely exist and has beaten death, then please bring it forth...

What is the purpose of engaging in generalising ad hominem attacks with a tint of guilt by association? This is about the question regarding 'What created God?'. I fail to see how your rant about how you feel Atheists should be obliged to explain everything fits in with this.

I think it fits perfectly well, why would someone who doesn't believe in G-D want to be so preoccupied with something that to s/he obviously doesn't believe in? and thank you for proving my point =)

I don't argue the non-existence of God.

Great then, why do you then participate in this topic? clearly this is addressing those who pre-occupy themselves with proving the non-existence of G-D, you are free to walk away and disengage yourself.. or are you offended by proxy?

Who says Atheists do want that? Who says Atheism asserts a lack of purpose?

an observation I have made from some posts I had read on this forum!

peace!

[Trumble]

I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!

An infinite universe does not require that any phenomenon or phenomena within it have infinite duration. Existence is an infinite sequence of cause and effect; all phenomena are impermanent.

If you can find me one thing in this universe of ours that can infinitely exist and has beaten death, then please bring it forth...

You have already conjured that up yourself, God.

[barney]

Time would be infinate as well.:)

[جوري]

An infinite universe does not require that any phenomenon or phenomena within it have infinite duration. Existence is an infinite sequence of cause and effect; all phenomena are impermanent.

what does that mean exactly?

You have already conjured that up yourself, 'God'

Indeed G-D is infinite, but what does that have to do with the confines our universe?

in closure if I may? Why do you feel the need to pick up where your fellow Atheist left off? I am sure he can speak for himself?

peace!

[جوري]

Time would be infinate as well.:)

indeed.. that is why in Islam we are forbidden from cursing time, (La tasbbo azaman) I need to find a hadith.. but time itself is an attribute of G-D

peace!

[barney]

Diddnt know that.
We live and learn.

[جوري]

Diddnt know that.
We live and learn.

indeed-- I need to have my friend locate this hadith, I am not as handy with my searches.. or perhaps Bros (Fi/Qatada) can find it for us, he seems to be a walking compendium Masha'Allah...

peace!

[Trumble]

what does that mean exactly?

It means exactly what it says, I'm not sure how I can put it any more simply. An infinite universe does not require that any individual thing within it be infinite.

in closure if I may? Why do you feel the need to pick up where your fellow Atheist left off? I am sure he can speak for himself?

I was commenting, with what is very much a Buddhist perspective, on a particular point that had been raised by others during the course of the debate. Just as you do here every day (from a muslim perspective, obviously!) Why do you feel the need to ask such a silly question?

[جوري]

It means exactly what it says, I'm not sure how I can put it any more simply. An infinite universe does not require that any individual thing within it be infinite.

The universe isn't infinite.. just as it started, it shall end-- instead of an explosion and implosion, so it too shall come to and end!

I was commenting, with what is very much a Buddhist perspective, on a particular point that had been raised by others during the course of the debate. Just as you do here every day (from a muslim perspective, obviously!) Why do you feel the need to ask such a silly question?

Indeed and nothing wrong with that, but that particular post wasn't directed at you!--
Have a good evening or good day whatever your time table! :)

peace!

[جوري]

I don't know if this interests you? I am certainly not trying to make a point by it, but thought it was a short good read... it does nothing to affirm or denounce my beliefs, so I have no agenda with it!

Will This Universe Ever End?


WILL this universe ever end? If so, how? There are two basic theories, neither pleasant. One is that the Big Crunch is coming: at some point, the universe, which had been expanding, will begin contracting, rushing inward, so that all matter and energy will eventually squash together into a singularity, where mass has no volume and space and time stop. The other is known as the Heat Death (i.e., heat dies): the universe, with its continued expansion, flies more and more apart, so that all matter and energy will dissipate and all will become the ultimate cold void. But startling new challenges throw it all up for grabs. A key question is the amount of matter in the universe. Are there enough stars, planets, gas, dark matter, and exotic particles of one sort or another for gravity to reverse the current expansion and in the end implode the universe in the Big Crunch? Another key question is whether or not the expansion is accelerating--and if so, how much and why? And if this universe does end, might another take its place? Are other universes already in existence, perhaps an infinite number of them, furiously expanding? There's a lot loaded into our titular question--from the geometry of the universe to the existence of multiple universes. There aren't many people who get paid to ponder the end of all things. Fortunately, we have gathered some of the best.

************************************

PARTICIPANTS

Dr. Wendy Freedman, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories, provides key data to determine the age of the universe. Wendy explains why the amount of matter in the universe is important in determining its ultimate fate.

Dr. Leon Lederman, author of The God Particle, was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1988 for his work on the Standard Model of particle physics. Leon's insight and humor illuminate and leaven these ultimate questions.

Dr. Andrei Linde, a professor of physics at Stanford, invented the concept of chaotic inflation, which has redefined the beginning of the universe. Andrei believes that there may well be myriad universes, each giving birth to new universes, and that this birthing process will go on forever.

Dr. Nancey Murphy is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary; her book Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning won several awards. Nancey wonders that if this universe ends--by freezing or frying--what is God going to do for the rest of eternity?

Dr. Frank Tipler, a physicist and mathematician at Tulane, is the author of The Physics of Immortality, in which he speculates that the dead will be resurrected and live eternally (time being a subjective concept) just before the Big Crunch

Source

it is past my bedtime so I'll be off!

peace!

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

indeed.. that is why in Islam we are forbidden from cursing time, (La tasbbo azaman)

" And they say: "There is nothing but our life in this world: We die and we live and nothing destroys us except time." And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture" (Qur'an 45:24)


It is authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Allah, Most Blessed, Most High, says: "The son of Adam wrongs Me: He curses time, though I am time: In My Hands are all things and I cause the night to follow the day." 2 In another narration, He (peace be upon him) says: "Do not curse time, for verily, time is Allah Most Blessed, Most High."

[Sahih Al Bukhari]


Kitaab Al Tawhid

[- Qatada -]

To the people who state the universe is infinite - how did humans come into existence? Or do they believe in the 'crunch/expand' theory and the theory of evolution? Or do they believe the universe is infinite, therefore not believing in the evolution theory? So what would be the response to how humans came into existence.


hope you get what i mean.



Peace.

[skhalid]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

In Islam us muslims believe God (Allah) was there from the beginning...He was not created..He is the creator...it might not sound logical but not every creator has to be created themselves ..hope that makes sense :thumbs_up

[Skavau]

I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!

This does not necessitate that the universe is not infinite though.

I think it fits perfectly well, why would someone who doesn't believe in G-D want to be so preoccupied with something that to s/he obviously doesn't believe in?

It does not fit in with the topic at all. It is equivalent to me going to an Islamic thread attempt to prove the existence of God and ranting on about my generalisations of Muslims.

You also forget that perhaps some people have an interest in these subjects? It doesn't necessitate that they are preoccupied with it or don't want to discuss it more.

and thank you for proving my point =)

Excuse my ignorance, but what point have I proven?

Great then, why do you then participate in this topic? clearly this is addressing those who pre-occupy themselves with proving the non-existence of G-D, you are free to walk away and disengage yourself.. or are you offended by proxy?

Perhaps I find this discussion interesting?

Indeed G-D is infinite, but what does that have to do with the confines our universe?

The universe is simply everything that exists. Confine the definition of everything that exists as you will to simply exclude what you consider God, but the point remains. We both agree on infinite existence.

[Philosopher]

The universe isn't infinite.. just as it started, it shall end-- instead of an explosion and implosion, so it too shall come to and end!

The only way a universe would die is if it has been sucked up by a equally massive black hole. Other than that, it's reasonable to expect the universe to keep expanding. This idea was introduced by none other than Stephen Hawking.

Also, I think you need to use REAL scientific sources to back your claims. A peer-reviewed scientific journal would be ideal.

[جوري]

The only way a universe would die is if it has been sucked up by a equally massive black hole. Other than that, it's reasonable to expect the universe to keep expanding. This idea was introduced by none other than Stephen Hawking.

Also, I think you need to use REAL scientific sources to back your claims. A peer-reviewed scientific journal would be ideal.

I'll get back to the other guy later.. but to you I say.. The big crunch is a very accepted theory of the world's end and was certainly taught to me in my under-grad physics classes.. I am not a physicist by profession! but I am able to read and process information on a graduate level.
What you are stating really is a conjecture. Hawkings though respectable, and I am not familiar if what you have above stated is in fact his work, but he can theorize as much as the next physicist, all of them are certainly equally acceptable in my eyes.. my bias of course will be toward an ending universe, and a dying sun, many will in fact will confirm that at some point our star will die out! So Everything will die at some point and only the infinite will remain.. the infinite is G-D!

[جوري]

This does not necessitate that the universe is not infinite though.

There is fact-- there is fiction-- then there is a state in between, where the fantastic forward minds come together and "theorize" to which am I to enroll your above said statement?

It does not fit in with the topic at all. It is equivalent to me going to an Islamic thread attempt to prove the existence of God and ranting on about my generalisations of Muslims.

that is your point of view, already, I find your post a great interjection, and am left to conclude various things about the psychology of a man/woman who feels this incessant need to comment without introduction.. it strikes me as odd, and even more odd is your analogy...

You also forget that perhaps some people have an interest in these subjects? It doesn't necessitate that they are preoccupied with it or don't want to discuss it more.

Having an interest in a subject shows, not only from the topic of subject matter but the style of questions and answers.. surely you can distinguish the difference?!

Excuse my ignorance, but what point have I proven?

The angry clangorous atheist' comedic entrance...

Perhaps I find this discussion interesting?

Great!

The universe is simply everything that exists. Confine the definition of everything that exists as you will to simply exclude what you consider God, but the point remains. We both agree on infinite existence

Again, I am not sure what to make of that statement.. it is too general, and I like as little as possible to tread on generalities. In the confines of our universe whether you consider it an open or closed system, I don't know, but all in it are bound by physical laws, and the physical laws of our world mandate that everything dies!... outside of our closed system is something infinite and beyond our comprehension, the essence of time itself and that is G-D, which of course you are free to believe or not believe in.. perhaps if we had some other name for G-D other than G-D you'd fine it more acceptable? is G-D as quantum physics a more acceptable term for you? I don't know and frankly, on the long run I don't care!

good day to you!

[Makky]

Good.. i'm going to stick this post in my follwoing posts insha Allah.. Some great conclusion are going to appear insha Allah

To successfully explain a phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

can you just clarify what do you want to exclude out of the scientific issue is it
* God existance
*or only his intervention

[Nerd]

can anybody scientifically prove the existence of God? or the non-existence of God?

Has science progressed so far as to study the supernatural?

[Philosopher]

can anybody scientifically prove the existence of God? or the non-existence of God?

Has science progressed so far as to study the supernatural?

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

No proof = no reason to believe.

And yes, science has proven that religion is "hard-wired" in the brain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...351726,00.html

[Trumble]

can anybody scientifically prove the existence of God? or the non-existence of God?

Has science progressed so far as to study the supernatural?

It's a contradiction in terms. If science could study it it would no longer be supernatural.

can you just clarify what do you want to exclude out of the scientific issue is it
* God existance
*or only his intervention

I has nothing to do with what I want to exclude - I'm not trying to re-define science.

I don't quite understand your point. There is no reason at all to exclude God from science; provided, of course, you can demonstrate using the scientific method that God's existence is the most plausible theory for whatever it is you are trying to explain. As the very nature of God disqualifies using that method in His regard, that's rather tricky. You can't isolate God's intervention from His existence; if you have demonstrated He exists then the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged. At which point, science as we know it would go out the window as, God being able to do anything, we would no longer be able to predict anything.

[Makky]

It's a contradiction in terms. If science could study it it would no longer be supernatural.

Don't ignore my post :) please

[جوري]

Pascal boyer is scientific evidence?
Further, where do you not see proof of G-D...
if I can decode your sequence of amino acids do you think I can kill you, then put you back together in the form you are in now? actually rather, can chance favor these amino acid to perfectly base pair be functional in sequence and come together on their own accord, forming you out of the billions of others that exist?
science is nothing but a testament to G-D's existence, even if you don't want to dig deeper, certainly nothing scientific has explained in a satisfactory way where everything came from... even if I were to blindly accept the primordial goo from which we all budded off. I'd still want to know where primordial goo came from, what gave it sentience and shape and caused it to be an infinite number of perfect other chances across the ages
I have been starring for two hours at some work I needed to finish and it hasn't finished itself, budded off into other creatures, or developed consciousness or put itself on in a pretty little aesthetically pleasing form.

[Nerd]

lol thanks for pointing the contradiction there trumble... let me try and rephrase my sentence than "Has science progressed so far that the supernatural ain't supernatural anymore?"

Empirical studies and methodologies are limited, and indeed developing day by day... therefore to completely rule out the existence of a God based on current scientific knowledge is stupid

[Nerd]

No proof = no reason to believe.

Heard of Pascal's Wager?

"Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or live as if God does not exist. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing."

Now would you rather not believe in a God, simply cause there is no proof?

[Trumble]

Don't ignore my post :) please

I didn't, although I'm afraid I did miss it at first. I edited my previous post to include an answer.

lol thanks for pointing the contradiction there trumble... let me try and rephrase my sentence than "Has science progressed so far that the supernatural ain't supernatural anymore?"

It's always changing, of course. There are many things science studies today that our ancestors would have considered supernatural, or 'magic'. If I was atheist, though, I would be very concerned if that the boundary might one day move to include God. To understand and describe God in scientific terms we would have to be as or even beyond God.. surely that could never be?

Pascal's Wager, BTW, was shot down long ago. The options Pascal considered, being both a Catholic and a product or his time were a) Catholicism or b) unbeliever. Throw in three principle theist religions, not to mention a large number of denominations all believing each other to be heretical in at least one of them, and "two options" rather falls by the wayside. The principle argument against it, though, is that it is hard to demonstrate you can believe anything just because you decide it is beneficial to do so.

[Makky]

You can't isolate God's intervention from His existence; if you have demonstrated He exists then the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged

I wish you take my words in a friendly way .

Its clear now that you are contadicting yourself

can you answer these questions:

1-Do I exist?

2-can you predict what i'm going to say in the next post?

let me answer

1-yes Makky is a member, and he exists

2-you can not predict... at least if you can you are not able to say that you will have 100% correct prediction

....

Mr/ Trumble...I can isolate God's intervention from His existence

and no... if I have demonstrated He exists , this doesn't mean that the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To successfully explain phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.

now i'm just reminding you of what you posted before because i'm going to extract some other contradictions later insha Allah from this post

[Philosopher]

I'll get back to the other guy later.. but to you I say.. The big crunch is a very accepted theory of the world's end and was certainly taught to me in my under-grad physics classes.. I am not a physicist by profession! but I am able to read and process information on a graduate level.
What you are stating really is a conjecture. Hawkings though respectable, and I am not familiar if what you have above stated is in fact his work, but he can theorize as much as the next physicist, all of them are certainly equally acceptable in my eyes.. my bias of course will be toward an ending universe, and a dying sun, many will in fact will confirm that at some point our star will die out! So Everything will die at some point and only the infinite will remain.. the infinite is G-D!

This post is a combination of a straw man and "god of the gaps" fallacy.

About the big crunch -- do you know that it is merely a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is defined as "an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation. " In other words, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess and is lacking empirical evidence and peer review.

I am astounded by how you blatantly reject Hawking's, who specializes in the study of black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

The Black Hole Theory states that the universe will eventually be completely and permanently swallowed by a supermassive black hole the size of the universe itself. This theoretical black hole would have to be large enough to engulf the entire universe and all matter inside it. The matter inside of the universe would subsequently be spaghettified and lost forever past the event horizon. As of yet, a black hole this size has not been identified, but this theory may in fact take effect in as little as 10 million years. This theory was proposed by the respected British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

If you don't know what a theory is, or if you fail to grasp the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," maybe you need to leave this debate to avoid further embarrassment.

So Everything will die at some point and only the infinite will remain.. the infinite is G-D!

Another unfounded claim. The only thing that is infinite is the multiverse. Maybe if you can prove to me the existence of Allah, as opposed to the tooth fairy, and then I will take this statement seriously.

[Philosopher]

Heard of Pascal's Wager?

"Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or live as if God does not exist. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing."

Now would you rather not believe in a God, simply cause there is no proof?

LMAO! Pascal's wager is indisputably the WEAKEST argument for God. Here are some good websites that demolished Pascal's Wager:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ism/wager.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.o..._Pigliucci.htm

[Trumble]

I wish you take my words in a friendly way .

Always. :) But..

Its clear now that you are contadicting yourself

can you answer these questions:

1-Do I exist?

2-can you predict what i'm going to say in the next post?

let me answer

1-yes Makky is a member, and he exists

2-you can not predict... at least if you can you are not able to say that you will have 100% correct prediction

....

Mr/ Trumble...I can isolate God's intervention from His existence

and no... if I have demonstrated He exists , this doesn't mean that the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged...

Sorry, it might just be me but I don't understand point you are trying to make.

If you managed to prove God exists then the possibility of His intervention in any physical process that you were studying must always exist. If God is omnipotent there is no logical alternative. The fact that you couldn't predict whether such an intervention would occur or not, or what it might be if it did is precisely my point - the scientific method cannot be applied in those circumstances. Hence, from the perspective of science one goes with the other; if God exists then the possibility He may choose to intervene in anything at any time also exists. You can't isolate one from the other.

All that could leave you with is a 'science' that excludes God in a rather different way. The most you could say about any physical phenomenon is that you can predict it unless God should intervene. So force = mass x acceleration unless God decides force should be something different for the day/second/instant/place/etc, which being omnipotent He is perfectly at liberty to do. So either way, if you prove God exists or believe He does not, there is no room for Him in science - unless you redefine science to include Him.

[Woodrow]

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

No proof = no reason to believe.

And yes, science has proven that religion is "hard-wired" in the brain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...351726,00.html

No proof = no reason to believe.?????????

ccam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

[Makky]

Always. :) But..




Sorry, it might just be me but I don't understand point you are trying to make.

If you managed to prove God exists then the possibility of His intervention in any physical process that you were studying must always exist. If God is omnipotent there is no logical alternative. The fact that you couldn't predict whether such an intervention would occur or not, or what it might be if it did is precisely my point - the scientific method cannot be applied in those circumstances. Hence, from the perspective of science one goes with the other; if God exists then the possibility He may choose to intervene in anything at any time also exists. You can't isolate one from the other

.


therefore you don't believe in your existance..because your soul couldn't undergo any physical process and it cann't be measured or even tested in a lab

All that could leave you with is a 'science' that excludes God in a rather different way. The most you could say about any physical phenomenon is that you can predict it unless God should intervene. So force = mass x acceleration unless God decides force should be something different for the day/second/instant/place/etc, which being omnipotent He is perfectly at liberty to do. So either way, if you prove God exists or believe He does not, there is no room for Him in science - unless you redefine science to include Him.

you are still conttradicting yourself... lackage of information about the personality of any of your friends doesn't mean that he doesn't exist... our ignorance of any phenomenon doesn't mean that it doesn't exist .. realizing or recognizing a phenomenon is a completly isolated process from understanding the rules that govern this phenomenon... we all know what are earthquakes but nobody can predict when will it occur or where.

[BanGuLLy]

:enough!: IM GETTIN BRAINWASHED :enough!:

[Makky]

:enough!: IM GETTIN BRAINWASHED :enough!:

WHY?!?!?! :raging: hey you! you are a muslim... tell me what is wrong?!!

[Philosopher]

No proof = no reason to believe.?????????

Yes, according to Occam’s Razor:

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor#Religion

[Sami Zaatari]

I dont think this question is from the shaytan...
People are just curious about everything.. so they are askin to gain more knowledge..
and if you always see things in a negative way.. then YOU are being controlled by the shaytan..

actually this question is from the shaytan as the prophet said in the hadiths, hence dont tell ppl their controlled by shaytan when the prophet taught us this.

[Trumble]

therefore you don't believe in your existance..because your soul couldn't undergo any physical process and it cann't be measured or even tested in a lab

Now you have lost me even more than before, I'm afraid - I just don't see how any of this relates to what I was saying. As an aside, as a Buddhist I don't believe I have a 'soul' - indeed the central point of Buddhist philosophy is that the whole concept is completely illusory. It is not necessary for me to exist, as I clearly do.. even if it is not the same 'me' that was around when I started this sentence. :statisfie

you are still conttradicting yourself... lackage of information about the personality of any of your friends doesn't mean that he doesn't exist... our ignorance of any phenomenon doesn't mean that it doesn't exist .. realizing or recognizing a phenomenon is a completly isolated process from understanding the rules that govern this phenomenon... we all know what are earthquakes but nobody can predict when will it occur or where.

Again, I see no relevance to what I posted, let alone a 'contradiction'. You seem to think that I am arguing God does not exist, because that existence cannot be measured by scientific methods. I was doing nothing of the sort. I was saying that even if He did exist His actions could not be predicted by science. How can man presume to predict God?!

As to earthquakes we can, and do, predict them, although not with any great precision as yet. There is, however, no theoretical reason why our understanding and predictive power cannot increase over time, as it has to date. The difference between an earthquake and God in this context is fundamental; an earthquake is the result of physical processes that science understands and can predict if we have the information necessary to do so (which isn't easy in the case of earthquakes). The same is not and could never be true of God - we could have all the data there is, but could never predict what God would decide to do in any given set of circumstances. That would mean knowing the mind of God.

[Philosopher]

actually this question is from the shaytan as the prophet said in the hadiths, hence dont tell ppl their controlled by shaytan when the prophet taught us this.

Blind faith.

[Woodrow]

Yes, according to Occam’s Razor:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor#Religion

Thank you. I can accept that as a definition. Oddly I have always seen Occam's Razor as simply the statement of "If there is more than one explanation, the simplest is most likely the correct one."

[Trumble]

Blind faith.

No, just a convenient way of avoiding an awkward question. I would have thought that those with faith would attempt to face it head on, not avoid it. There is a perfectly acceptable theist answer for those who take the trouble to research it, although as usual it 'proves' nothing.

[wilberhum]

Thank you. I can accept that as a definition. Oddly I have always seen Occam's Razor as simply the statement of "If there is more than one explanation, the simplest is most likely the correct one."

Hate to jump in, but, and not that I agree, but, "No God" is the simplest explination. :zip:

[BanGuLLy]

WHY?!?!?! :raging: hey you! you are a muslim... tell me what is wrong?!!

I am getting brain washed by these athiests... I'm starting to believe that I'm wasting my time.. Islam just seems to be a law book to keep people civilized... People told me that the Quran.. is the updated version of the Bible.. So are these people sayin.. that Allah makes mistakes??? PLZ PROVE TO ME ISLAM IS THE RIGHT RELIGION... this is pissin me off.. all my boys are havin fun and all I can do is watch them have fun.. All the memories are still in my head.. Life is not as fun as b4 but at the same time it made me a better person.... and I just got into Islam after I got arrested.. PLZ PROVE TO ME ISLAM IS THE RIGHT RELIGION...

[جوري]

This post is a combination of a straw man and "god of the gaps" fallacy.

I have heard that line so many times, it isn't even amusing anymore.. how about "science of the gaps fallacy"? since you are the authority on science and can handle yourself with an amazing dexterity, maybe you can tell me how to distinguish Mesenteric fibromatosis from gastrointestinal stromal tumors? it been on my mind all afternoon and seeing how you are easily able to lay the powers of your miltaonic mind to work using wiki and hawkings, you can just as easily allay some of the more pressing scientific conundrums of the day?!

Philosopher:
About the big crunch -- do you know that it is merely a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is defined as "an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation. " In other words, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess and is lacking empirical evidence and peer review.

thank you for the definitions courtesy of Merriam Webster. I am now convinced of your "evidence"-- please stop wasting my time!

Philosopher:
I am astounded by how you blatantly reject Hawking's, who specializes in the study of black holes.

have a swig of water-- there there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

What am I to do with this? wiki is peer reviewd? I can't even get myself to be amused by your sub-mediocrity ..
Same page you present speaks of equally acceptable theories (including big crunch)..

Philosopher:
If you don't know what a theory is, or if you fail to grasp the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," maybe you need to leave this debate to avoid further embarrassment.

more redundant rhetoric? BTW this is from your wiki, I know how keen you are on presenting it as evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

source!

Philosopher:
Another unfounded claim. The only thing that is infinite is the multiverse. Maybe if you can prove to me the existence of Allah, as opposed to the tooth fairy, and then I will take this statement seriously

what you take or don't take seriously is inconsequential to me, I find your debating style rather juvenile and comically absurd-- in fact I have made it abundantly clear in the beginning of this debate, that if you worship a cow or dawking or hawking or whomever your idol du jour has no impact on me whatsoever .. I rather think incumbent on the atheist who fancies himself a scientist to give the world a reasonable explanation as to its origin, show me primoridial goo budding giving life, sentience and speciation, and then can we come and speak of pastas and tooth fairies..

[Abdul Fattah]

@ Philosopher
I have two points to make.
First your proof of the brain being hardwired for religion is completely biased. Skimming trough that article I found no "proof" once so ever. Just a whole bunch of speculation. There is one test though I read about in Eos the other day where they tested the brain for a religious hot-spot. It is often speculated that that is the cause of religion. However you need to understand exactly what they've done there at what it implies. They tested certain regions of the brain for activity in correlation with certain emotions/thoughts. So they know certain thoughts are correlated wit hcertain regions, but they don't know what the causality is between those two! It could be either the feeling causing the brain activity or vice versa. We know practically nothing about how the brain works, so iot's all jus tspeculation at this point.

Second point about Ockhams Razor:

consider the following two viewpoints:
[Pro creation by anthropic theory:] When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life impossible1,2. It all started with a design of life; then the universe was custom made in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.

[Contra creation by anthropic theory:] This appreciation of the inherited characteristics of nature is a result of ignorance. People being overwhelmed by information that is beyond their comprehension and their imagination looking for a simple explanation. Order is subjective. In reality things are very disordered, but we just categorize them in an orderly manner as that is easier to grasp. If the laws of physics were different, we would have classified and ordered them differently. And life could very well have existed albeit in a completely different way from what it is now. Such hypothetical life would probably be even so different our limited minds aren't able to comprehend. It would simply evolve differently from the way it has evolved now. This based on the fact that different laws of nature would call for different adaptations. Everything started as a result of the laws of the universe. That life has risen out of these natural inherited laws is the result of mere luck.

We notice that the contra argument can can be defended with Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. The term luck is a cover up. It indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use it when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. When we win the lottery we call it luck; we can even calculate the chance of winning mathematically. But in the end, the numbers are not decided by luck. There is no chance; the numbered balls simply follow the laws of physics. Their movement is just too complex for us to calculate the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events, then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument is the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore –to him- such a design seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

[Azhir]

First, this question is a typical question that comes from Shaitan . No doubt.

Second, as muslims we shouldn't stop even for a second to think "who created God".

Third, The straight away answer should be "Nobody created God, God has no beggining or end", or say "audhubillahi minashajtani rrajeem".

as for providing a logical answer, i'll try to answer , but i don't want to get into these, cuz it's just a question which comes from shaitan into our brains.
we make these questions based on our imagination. But in fact our imagination is limited, we think that everything that God does or knows, can be precieved by our imagination. who knows, maybe outside our imagination the term 'creation' doesn't even exist. But as humans we have these things such as 'creation'. So the questioner is very naive, he/she thinks that his/her imagination is unlimited.
If Allah swt wants He can dissapear the term creation, destroy all human kind? and then? how can you ask such a question. This question works only within the range of the creation of Allah swt, since it's our imagionation .

similar question was "Can god create a rock that he can't lift?",
We think that our imagionation is unlimited so that the term 'weight' applies to God too.
If God wants he can dissapear the term of gravity, and shape, and color, and material?? now where's the stone? same thing is with the creation, Allah can do things that our beoynd our imagionation, and we think that the term creation applies for God too. it's foolish. God is independent of time, food, drink..... He doesn't need anything, He is also independent of the term 'Creation'. the term creation applies only to the creation, since Allah swt created our imagionation and the ability is needed to understand creation so we could recognize and worship Him as our Creator.

Alhamdullilah

VERY good explanation, makes sense.

Thanks!

[Woodrow]

this thread as interesting as it is has really run it's course.

there really seems to be no further need for it and the only remining potential it has is to be a play ground so before this becomes just another frivilous thread or a battle ground it is best to let it rest.

:threadclo