Theories

[AhlaamBella]

:sl:

A discussion of theories on the world, humans and how they 'appeared'

:w:

[Keltoi]

As people of faith, I think you and I believe we know the origins of life. My guess is this thread will turn into another theism vs. athiesm thread.

[Yanal]

Deep ocean i think we know who created them all but if you can give a example of what you want it might be more easier so we can get the idea and search for it on islamic websites JazakAllah khar in advance:D

[AhlaamBella]

Deep ocean i think we know who created them all but if you can give a example of what you want it might be more easier so we can get the idea and search for it on islamic websites JazakAllah khar in advance:D

I've just noticed, that in a lot of threads people stray from the topic to discuss the existence of God, the big bang etc. So I created this thread to hold a proper discussion. (dawah opportunities lol :D )

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

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i think its been discussed a lot sis lol,

can i ask tho, is the big bang considered a fact by scientists>? or theory?

[AhlaamBella]

i think its been discussed a lot sis lol,

can i ask tho, is the big bang considered a fact by scientists>? or theory?

As far as I know, it's still called The Big Bang theory. But as Muslims, even if it is proved, we know that it was from the command of Allah SWT

[IbnAbdulHakim]

As far as I know, it's still called The Big Bang theory. But as Muslims, even if it is proved. We know that it was from the command of Allah SWT

yup. thats wat i think too, i think theres a lot of evidence that big bang could very well have happened and due to that it could be what caused the creation of earth.


however sis isnt it true that the UNIVERSE was created in 7 periods (not days) and not just the earth?

correct me if im wrong, but im under the impression that the earth was created in a split second (possible via big bang)

[AhlaamBella]

yup. thats wat i think too, i think theres a lot of evidence that big bang could very well have happened and due to that it could be what caused the creation of earth.


however sis isnt it true that the UNIVERSE was created in 7 periods (not days) and not just the earth?

correct me if im wrong, but im under the impression that the earth was created in a split second (possible via big bang)

True. But maybe the 7 periods includes the formation of the universe aswell as the creation...if that makes sense. You know trees growing, things like that

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ that sounds more like the christian belief lol, but i really dont kno u cud b right..

[AhlaamBella]

^ that sounds more like the christian belief lol, but i really dont kno u cud b right..

lol don't say that! :scared: lol

Well Allah knows best. But I remember my R.E teacher saying that the Big Bang was an explosion. What do you get from an explosion? Order or chaos?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Allah can make order from an explosion if he can make humans from semen...

[AhlaamBella]

^ Allah can make order from an explosion if he can make humans from semen...

Yeah of course. But that proves the existence of Allah if an atheist is looking at things logically.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Yeah of course. But that proves the existence of Allah if an atheist is looking at things logically.

the atheist seems to base everything on the senses, if they cant see/hear/feel/smell or talk to ALlah they wont believe. It doesnt matter if miraculous events are constantly taking place, signs are constantly given and the most perfect of books are sent down.


it doesnt matter to them. They wud rather follow the flawed logic of dawkins

listen to wat dawkins has to say:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

all knowledge is from Allah, if science appears grand now then so did the contraptions of the past to the people of the past.
The most subtle and complex details are detailed in the Quran and only that which is required to benefit us in this life so we can get somewhere great in the hereafter and it will be hard to conceive this without understanding arabic. The Quran commands us to gain knowledge etc and it tells us that which will help us believe firmly so that we can gain a high place in the hereafter.

Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

And so who created these complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain? Is this man telling me that this great "design" and COMPLEX interconnection came about by complete chance?


or is this genius another believer of the darwinism...


seriously, weigh this out with wat islam says and what our prophet Muhammad teaches (sallallahi alaihi wasallaam).

He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

this is surely darwin and dawkins (lol they sound the same "da" and "in" is present)

[Joe98]

It doesnt matter if miraculous events are constantly taking place, signs are constantly given

Please provide 3 from the last month.

-

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Please provide 3 from the last month.

-

my cousin was saved from wat seemed like a complete near death experience (was pretty sure his head snapped off but it didnt Alhamdulillah, Allah watches over all, his appointed a date of death and only suicide can rush that),
^ this is an amazing rare miracle becoz it seemed as tho his head really did come off due to the sheer force of the opposition (which was a log at this point)

2ndly we could say is the fact that the balance in ourselves is always maintained,

3rdly we could say that the balance of nature is always maintained.



Allah is behind every good work, it only takes reflection and contemplation in sincerity to see that

[root]

i think its been discussed a lot sis lol,

can i ask tho, is the big bang considered a fact by scientists>? or theory?

I think this is why nobody really wants to engage in serious discussion. Your religion brings you (for you) a sense of certainty. Albeit an illusion (in my opinion). Then you look for certainty within science, which science does not offer, merely probability.

Theories are never considered 100% factual, only very probable is the closest you can ever get to within science. Perhaps, uncertainty within life is what scares you the most (I really don't know).

So when you say something like what you have said, theory and fact. You really display an ignorance to what a theory actually represents..........

[AhlaamBella]

the atheist seems to base everything on the senses, if they cant see/hear/feel/smell or talk to ALlah they wont believe.

I have one thing to say to that. (based on yusuf estes lecture 'no brainer') :

I haven't seen their brain
I haven't heard their brain
I havn't felt their brain
I havn't smelt their brain

I don't believe that individual person has a brain. :eek:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

the atheist seems to base everything on the senses, if they cant see/hear/feel/smell or talk to ALlah they wont believe.

This would make all atheists empiricists, which is by no means true for all of them. Many atheists would admit to using intuition and inductive and deductive logic as well as sense-data. Many might adhere to completely different theories of knowledge. Remember, if all we know about someone is that they are an atheist, we know they don't believe in god, and that is it.

it doesnt matter to them. They wud rather follow the flawed logic of dawkins

listen to wat dawkins has to say:

Unfortunately, the quote you've included is based on value-judgements, and not even Dawkins would claim it to be a purely 'logical' argument.

all knowledge is from Allah, if science appears grand now then so did the contraptions of the past to the people of the past.

Science 'appears grand' because it gets results.

And so who created these complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain? Is this man telling me that this great "design" and COMPLEX interconnection came about by complete chance?

No, he isn't. Straw man fallacy.

Your post shows a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the atheist position. I suggest you read up on it properly, so that you know what it is you are arguing against. Dawkins' 'God Delusion' is a good contemporary statement of atheism. If you are convinced it is wrong from the outset, you need not fear reading it. It will only strengthen your ability in arguing the case.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

czgibson ur post was englightening, thanks !


from your post i gather that you base most belief on results?

Science 'appears grand' because it gets results.

but the thing is, when it is God behind every atoms movement you attribute it to "science", science is just an "understanding" that humans have achieved right? so how can you allow the explenations of dawkins to delude you about the reality of God? (yes i use the word delude)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I have one thing to say to that. (based on yusuf estes lecture 'no brainer') :

I haven't seen their brain
I haven't heard their brain
I havn't felt their brain
I havn't smelt their brain

I don't believe that individual person has a brain. :eek:

sis all respect to yusuf estes but this argument is weak because the brain is something clearly visible once the head is cut open (which happens regularly in hospitols im sure..), if an atom which is not visible to the eye is used it wud probably be a better example.

check out sheikh hamza yusufs arguments, they are far more solid :)

Media Tags are no longer supported

[czgibson]

Greetings,

czgibson ur post was englightening, thanks !

No problem - I'm glad you found it interesting.

from your post i gather that you base most belief on results?

I base my judgement on the worth of a method of intellectual inquiry on whether it gets results or not.

but the thing is, when it is God behind every atoms movement you attribute it to "science", science is just an "understanding" that humans have achieved right?

Science attempts to understand and explain the universe. It tells us what exists and how it works, but it doesn't tell us why, as religion tries to do.

so how can you allow the explenations of dawkins to delude you about the reality of God? (yes i use the word delude)

Everything I've ever read by Dawkins on atheism and religion has seemed to me to be utterly sensible. I'm very keen to hear from you which parts of his writing you think have deluded me.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ hey gibson, give me some time, im going to try to read his whole book and understand it :D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

afta i read it, i'll point out at least 10 places where i find a huge flaw and i'll try to make my reasoning as logical as possible for you :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

^ hey gibson, give me some time, im going to try to read his whole book and understand it :D

I'm very glad to hear that. It's a very easy read - it shouldn't give you too much difficulty.

Sam Harris (also mentioned in the video you've linked to above) is rather different. His book 'The End Of Faith' is, if anything, even more strident than Dawkins. Harris makes a lot of strong points, but I profoundly disagree with his political views. Worth reading, though.

Peace

[AhlaamBella]

sis all respect to yusuf estes but this argument is weak because the brain is something clearly visible once the head is cut open (which happens regularly in hospitols im sure..), if an atom which is not visible to the eye is used it wud probably be a better example.

check out sheikh hamza yusufs arguments, they are far more solid :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5f8N2zlQ0

JazakAllah Khayr.

Must admit I have had one or two problems with the brain example:embarrass

JazakAllah for the alternative!:thankyou:

[wilberhum]

JazakAllah Khayr.

Must admit I have had one or two problems with the brain example:embarrass

JazakAllah for the alternative!:thankyou:

If you, a believer, have problems with an example, why in the world do you think a non believer would find it acctable? :skeleton:

[AhlaamBella]

If you, a believer, have problems with an example, why in the world do you think a non believer would find it acctable? :skeleton:

^o) is a girl not allowed to make ONE misjudgement?

[Pygoscelis]

When asked Where did it all come from I answer honestly. I don't know.

You don't either.

[root]

check out sheikh hamza yusufs arguments, they are far more solid :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5f8N2zlQ0

I had a look at this "solid" argument. Point number 2 (that comes in at 2 mins 20 secs). Land agriculture. This system of rest he proposes was a little funny. Actually it takes more than a few cattle crapping on the field to sustain the exploding human population (as he implies). Making soil is complex and requires hundreds of years.

Soil has indeed become part of the long list of natural resources that are beginning to run out. Human population (and the need to feed it) provokes science into discovering a way around the problem and this guy proposes that this concept is the down side of science.

And you call that rock solid.....

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I had a look at this "solid" argument. Point number 2 (that comes in at 2 mins 20 secs). Land agriculture. This system of rest he proposes was a little funny. Actually it takes more than a few cattle crapping on the field to sustain the exploding human population (as he implies). Making soil is complex and requires hundreds of years.

Soil has indeed become part of the long list of natural resources that are beginning to run out. Human population (and the need to feed it) provokes science into discovering a way around the problem and this guy proposes that this concept is the down side of science.

And you call that rock solid.....

can i ask what you think of dawkins arguments against creationism? then i'll conclude what i think about your ideology

[Isambard]

Alot of these 'everyday miracles' and 'signs' seem to be ancedotal, not to mention they are dwarfed by bad things happening in the world.

The other variety is seeing patterns where there is none and attribution fallacies.

Anyways, in regard to the OP, I am confident in the Big bang, stellar drift, biological evolution etc.

I believe there is no inherent purpose in the universe or life. I dont not know what caused the Big bang, so I wont assume.

[Trumble]

I believe there is no inherent purpose in the universe or life.

I never could figure out why so many people seem to think it needs one. Even if it had a purpose, you would only get two types of people - those who never figure out what it is, and those who do (the much smaller group) saying "Erm, well.. OK. Is that it then?"

[Pygoscelis]

The purpose of life is to eat as much pudding as you can.

[Trumble]

The purpose of life is to eat as much pudding as you can.

As good as anything... :D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I never could figure out why so many people seem to think it needs one. Even if it had a purpose, you would only get two types of people - those who never figure out what it is, and those who do (the much smaller group) saying "Erm, well.. OK. Is that it then?"

everything has a beginning except the very first creator.
every beginning thereafter has a purpose.
a single dust on the floor could have once been the part of a great structure...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

The purpose of life is to eat as much pudding as you can.

and then we wonder why there are so many fat people in the west :p

[Isambard]

everything has a beginning except the very first creator.
every beginning thereafter has a purpose.
a single dust on the floor could have once been the part of a great structure...

To argue everything needs a creator, but that the creator is w/o a creator is just special pleading.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

To argue everything needs a creator, but that the creator is w/o a creator is just special pleading.

it doesnt make sense for the initial creator to have a creator, if it made sense then there would be no such thing as existence, therefore you should realise the argument itself is illogical.

Also the only reason you find it "pleading" as you say is because you cant comprehend what the very first creator is like, i dont blame you, no one cant comprehend it, he is something no mind can imagine, no brain can summarise,its hopeless to try think about just how the very first creator (ALLAH!!) is.., but logic agrees with it. Its the only way anything can come to be...

[Woodrow]

One big problem is many of us do not comprehend the concept of the word theory.

To cite as an example of what theory is. I have 10 coins. I drop coin one it hits the ground. I drop coin 2 it hits the ground. I drop coin 3 it hits the ground. After dropping 9 coins and they all hit the ground. It is now a theory that coin 10 will hit the ground when I drop it. It will not be a fact until after it is dropped and hits the ground.

What does that have to do with this topic? Simple until we can replicate and do something that already exists it is a theory that is how it happened. All of life is basicaly a theory. We do not know it to be a fact until after it happens.

We know the earth exists. We have beliefs (Beliefs not theories) as to how it came into existence. Until we can replicate the formation of the earth we will each have beliefs as to what happened.

I have a belief that an Eternal Being created the world. I do not know the methodology as to how He created it. Anything I say is speculation. If I could show how it came to the point it came to in the present. I could propose the theory as to what conditions would make it rehappen.

[wilberhum]

Woodrow,
Your simple common sense is wonderful. :thumbs_up
You always come through.

Peace
Wilber

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Agreed ! woodrow, my respect for you dear uncle :)

[Isambard]

it doesnt make sense for the initial creator to have a creator, if it made sense then there would be no such thing as existence, therefore you should realise the argument itself is illogical.

Also the only reason you find it "pleading" as you say is because you cant comprehend what the very first creator is like, i dont blame you, no one cant comprehend it, he is something no mind can imagine, no brain can summarise,its hopeless to try think about just how the very first creator (ALLAH!!) is.., but logic agrees with it. Its the only way anything can come to be...

Why thou? God not having a creator and the universe creating itself and not having a creator is essentially the same ladder but with an extra unverifiable rung to it.

If you want to argue that God is creatorless, it is special pleading because you can provide no evidence to avoid the problem of infinite regression. Essentially, its a "because its what I believe" arguement.

[Woodrow]

Why thou? God not having a creator and the universe creating itself and not having a creator is essentially the same ladder but with an extra unverifiable rung to it.

If you want to argue that God is creatorless, it is special pleading because you can provide no evidence to avoid the problem of infinite regression. Essentially, its a "because its what I believe" arguement.

:w:

It is difficult to find the appropriate words to express what we mean. So when we do sound like we are making it into it a "because its what I believe, argument" that is basicaly because we do not know how to present it any other way. It is our lack of debating skills.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ jazakAllahu khair uncle woodrow!


isambard, SIR ! if you could simply take our understanding of God and implant it into yourself you would see why it is so easy to understand that God couldnt possible have been created. Everything else you can look at and think "YES, this was surely created" but God when you think about him and his asma wa siffaat (names and attributes), you just simply know that he has not been created.....

[- Qatada -]

Something alot of people don't understand is that for something to be Perfect, it can't be dependant upon another. Therefore to say that God is dependant upon another is false, because we know that God is Perfect. Therefore He doesn't need to be created, since He is Perfect.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Something alot of people don't understand is that for something to be Perfect, it can't be dependant upon another. Therefore to say that God is dependant upon another is false, because we know that God is Perfect. Therefore He doesn't need to be created, since He is Perfect.

bro are the angels not perfect? isnt jannah perfect? isnt muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam perfect? :?

[- Qatada -]

bro are the angels not perfect? isnt jannah perfect? isnt muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam perfect? :?

Perfect in the Supreme Divine sense init? :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Perfect in the Supreme Divine sense init? :)

aah i see, so Allah is "THE perfect one" as in flawless and pure in eeeevery way ! but then theres "perfect CREATION" as in for a creation its as good as it gets. JazakAllahu khair :D

[Isambard]

:w:

It is difficult to find the appropriate words to express what we mean. So when we do sound like we are making it into it a "because its what I believe, argument" that is basicaly because we do not know how to present it any other way. It is our lack of debating skills.

Fair enough.

Take your time and present the evidence as you see fit. :)

[Isambard]

^ jazakAllahu khair uncle woodrow!


isambard, SIR ! if you could simply take our understanding of God and implant it into yourself you would see why it is so easy to understand that God couldnt possible have been created. Everything else you can look at and think "YES, this was surely created" but God when you think about him and his asma wa siffaat (names and attributes), you just simply know that he has not been created.....

The existence of an object only proves that it exists. To determine its origins, composition, purpose etc. one needs to investigate further.

-There isnt any apperent purpose to the universe (or life for that matter)
-All the previous transitions/unknown phenomena attributed to God's love/wrath are shown to be random and seem to have little or nothing to do with any sort of outside will or personal repentence
-If God existed before the universe, then he himself would also be without purpose as there is really nothing to do.
-There is nothing to prove God exists and if he does, then there is also no real reason to assume he wasnt greater by a more powerful god, and that god by another etc.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ most ur answers are basically "i dont know", im saying that we have the answers and we're sure about it. Its only a matter of "you dont understand".


I wont dwelve much further :)

[Isambard]

Something alot of people don't understand is that for something to be Perfect, it can't be dependant upon another. Therefore to say that God is dependant upon another is false, because we know that God is Perfect. Therefore He doesn't need to be created, since He is Perfect.

Ah, but my friend, that line of reasoning has been used before by Plato (forms) and refuted by his very student Aristotle!

To make a long-winded philosophy short, perfection, what constitues a virtue, even best political system etc. are all relative.

To stay on topic lets just focus on the first bit.

If I asked you what is, the perfect woman, you would give me the description of what you believe to be a perfect woman.
If you asked me the same question, I would most likely give you a different description of what i believe to be a perfect woman.
If we asked my sister, she would give a very different answer from either of us.

So then, which of the descriptions is the true perfect woman?

You get a similar scenerio when describing a deity. Just ask folks of various monotheistic religions/sects what God is, what he means to them, what he does etc.

Which one of these descriptions/depictions is correct?

You also need to remember that prior to the rise of organized christianity, most of the world religions regarded self-creation irreverent with their ideal perfect deity(ies). :D

[wilberhum]

^ most ur answers are basically "i dont know", im saying that we have the answers and we're sure about it. Its only a matter of "you dont understand".


I wont dwelve much further :)

Having an answer by no means that it is the "Correct Answer".
It is all a matter of belief. You believe you have "Correct Answer".

[Isambard]

^ most ur answers are basically "i dont know", im saying that we have the answers and we're sure about it. Its only a matter of "you dont understand".


I wont dwelve much further :)

I always find using another framework of mind to convince them of your point is most effective.

If you are willing to indulge in mine, then simply create another thread and list some reasons you feel are very strong for the existence of God :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Which one of these descriptions/depictions is correct?
:D

the one which came about from the True God. How can a human describe God when its beyond his comprehension? you must research and find out wether the man who delivered the message of God was indeed a true messenger. This can be found out by simply researching on his character, the facts about him etc. You can then find out if his message is still valid, and find out if its for the whole of mankind. The one which you find to be most Correct has delivered an Account of the True God.


^ i hope that made sense :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

If you are willing to indulge in mine, then simply create another thread and list some reasons you feel are very strong for the existence of God :)

lol

1. he caused the beginning of existence though he has no beginning
2. without him nothing makes sense
3. it is illogical to assume everything just "became" from nothing
4. There is something inside every human which inclines him towards God
5. it is only sin and deception which leads him to believe otherwise in later life
6. everything Allah and his messenger has said is true, and we have seen it to be true.
7. This life without purpose is like making a machine for no reason.
8. to questions Gods purpose for creation is like questioning a male what he should name his son? its illogical ! a man cannot have a son and Gods purpose for creation can never be understood until the day of judgement so questioning it isnt worth it, its a mystery which awaits.
9. THE LIFE OF THE MESSENGER MUHAMMAD SALLALLAHI ALAIHI WASALLAAM!
10. THE BLESSINGS OF THE BREATH, THE SIGHT, THE HEARING, THE SMELL, THE TOUCH...

^ the last two are the main reasons, after reading the true authentic life of Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam, you will either love him completely/regard him as the best of humanity or become a muslim (which also involves the former!)

[Woodrow]

Fair enough.

Take your time and present the evidence as you see fit. :)

To be honest I doubt very much I could present sufficient evidence that you would accept as proof. The reason being we will have a difficult if not impossible time in finding mutualy acceptable sources. My primary source would be the Qur'an. I believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah(swt). My reasons for accepting it as an authentic source is based on evidence I have verified to my personal satisfaction.

1. There are things written in the Qur'an people of that time era had no way of understanding. I won't waste either of our times by repeating any of them as you have most likely already read and disagreed with the various wonders in the Qur'an, such as the roots of mountains, separation of the seas etc.

2. Having spent much of my life as a student of linguistics. I have come to the conclusion that no man is capable of writing one original sentence in Qur'anic Arabic, yet the Qur'an has 114 Surahs written in it. My argument for that would take this way off topic. But, To me that in itself is sufficient evidence that the Qur'an is the truth.

I can see 3 possible scenarios to the concept of an eternal God(swt).

1. God(swt) does not exist.

That is an impossible statement to prove or disprove so the alternative is to examine other possibilities and see if any of them are probable.

2. God(swt) exists, but is not eternal and had a begining.

Logic at first dictates this is a probability. Further inspection raises the question as to what created the creator, so it becomes a very redundant unprovable statement.

3. God(swt) exists and has always existed. That makes the most sense in terms of the nature of what God(swt) is believed to be. The concept of a god would not be a god if it was a finite being created by some means.

So we are back to square one.

one of these statements is most probably the true statement.

A. God(swt) exists

B. God(swt) does not exist

B. is a negative statement and as such can be neither proved nor disproved.

The burden is upon proving A. God(swt) exists.

Evidence:

Throughout recorded history people of all nations have had people declaring that they have recieved a directive from a Supreme being.

Many witnesses have stated they have seen abnormal happenings (Miracles) that were revealed to show the presence of God(swt)

Nearly every if not all cultures have some form of worship of a superior being.

Matter exists, it was either a spontaneous event or it is the product of a creator. If it was the product of a spontaneous event, there should be evidence that the same conditions that caused it have occurred many times. That has not been found. If it was a spontaneous event the factors that caused it should be qualified and quantifiable. That has not been done. There is no evidence to show that matter can or did occur spontaneously.

There is evidence to show matter was created and it is unique in the space time continuum. It can be shown that all matter is of the same age. It can be shown that all matter is spreading outward from a single point of origin, indicating a beginning. There is no evidence that matter has ever originated in any other place or time.

The fact that matter exists, has a definite origin and is unique is in accordance and in agreement with what divine revelation has stated.

Based on that I submit that the preponderance of evidence favors the existence of an eternal creator.