Who created God?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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!

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

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!

Diddnt know that.
We live and learn.

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

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!

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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!

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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!

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!

format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher

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!

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

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!

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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

format_quote Originally Posted by 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?

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Makky

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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

Don't ignore my post please