Who created god

Asallam Walykum
LOL when ever i hear this, well becuase it is one of an atheists stong arguments " who created God" am i not correct? they love using this question. First off lets define the word created; if you are created you have a beggining and/or possibly and end right?. Now we knoow that the universe had a begging----the big bang----so it must be created? right? now if you were not created you would be .........ETERNAL...........-with no beggining or and ending, meaning you did not have a beggining. Now you can not be "created" and be eternal as you would have a creation date or time right?. Now i think the answer is comeing, we KNOW that Allah/God is ETERNAL---which means no begging so how can Allah/God be created?---he cant then he would not be Eternal. and we know as Allah mentions that he is ETERNAL-------this must be a no brainer, i mean come on. So no one created Allah/God as he can not be created, he is ETERNAL. that is a silly question you know? think about it.....

I think Shayk Yusuf Estes gives a better answer than me but thats your opinoin:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rRT_qNN7Pvw please watch the whole thing as he covers some other good topics aswell. if you cant see link type Yusuf estes answering a question from listeners on youtube,
PEACE! from brother Ali,

lol what do you guys think of my answer?
Peace

Nobody created him, he was always here and always from the beginning.

Thanks, Also i was telling some people that in order for life there must be billions of conditons in order for life to be maintained, and they said that there are billions are planets so there is a good chance that a planet with nesassary condtions will arrive at some point.

What do you think about this?

Salaam
Well that doesnt matter as Allah the creator has told us in the Quran that he has made life and scatterd it around the universe mashallah. that doesnt matter, if there are more life forms in the universe or not, that just strenghts the truthness of the Quran-e-shariffe as it would just mean that the Quran is right again ( about thier being other life forms in the univesre)
Peace brother faisal

format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_Cena

Salaam
Well that doesnt matter as Allah the creator has told us in the Quran that he has made life and scatterd it around the universe mashallah. that doesnt matter, if there are more life forms in the universe or not, that just strenghts the truthness of the Quran-e-shariffe as it would just mean that the Quran is right again ( about thier being other life forms in the univesre)
Peace brother faisal

yes but Athiests are saying as if the universe didnt need a god, all of what happend , bing bang, Evolution etc happend on its own, by chance.

help please anyone

they belive that the big bang and evolution happend by chane and they belive that this could have happend on at least one planet (earth)

What do you think of this?

Salaam, ok brother well lets put it this way. i find atheist well the say science explains everything right?, well that is thier only option i mean they cant say ohh the universe was created by God, but we evolved and didnt need a God, get what i am saying. they have to base thier thesis on science. now if you want to beat them at thier own game. lets look at the two major atheistic theorys BIG bang and evolution. firstly let me put it this way both of the theorys do not in any way hold account to how the universe started, or how life began, they just explain how the universe grew up, or how life evovoled. so for starters, they are going for something which is not even 50% done, so they are living on something which is not even explaining to them why the univesr of life begin or how it began. they say science solves everything well can scieince say how life began from non-life into life? can they say how the universe started?, they try i mean look at the recent theory M-theory they say branes are being banged which caues another brane to form? i think thats right, yea so they cant answer it properly they have to make some thing up, ok then if branes are being formed by other branes baing together how did the first brane come???? 1+0=/= 2 1 plus nothing doesnt equal 2 lol. anways, look at brother Abdul Fattahs website all about evolution and big bang:

http://www.seemyparadigm.webs.com/
check this out on how evolution doesnt explain how life began: from Abdul Fattah website:
Theory or hypothesis?

First one on the list is abiogenesis. Most evolutionists will avoid this theory claiming it is not a part of evolution. That is why I started of by pointing out the importance of correct terminology. Abiogenesis is not a part of "the evolution of the different species"; however the theory of abiogenesis it is a part of "biological evolution".

Well actually since there are a lot of gaps here -as stated before- abiogenesis is closer to hypothesis rather than a theory. Some scientists speculate that it happened, but they failed to explain in detail exactly how it happened. Since, it's strictly speculation at this point, no proof, no falsifiability and no testability; in all common sense, we should even label this as science. The confusion though, is that this hypothesis is backed up with some scientific speculation, which makes the hypothesis appear scientific in nature. But that however doesn't change the lack of falsifiability, testability and proofs. That being said, lets look at some of the challenges of this theory.


Criteria for the first life

At first one might suggest that the first life form was a virus, since that would have been the easiest to create, since it requires the least number of parts. However a virus is parasitic in nature, and needs a host to reproduce. Another problem with the idea of the first life form being a virus is, that even if there would find a way that this virus would reproduce, it would never be able to evolve into a one-celled-organism. As soon as it would do so, the new evolved organism would immediately be invaded by it's brethren viruses, and wouldn't stand a fighting chance to survival. For this and many more problems, most abiogenesists suggest that the first living organism was a single-cell organism. But even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal included was created from a tornado passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. Even if the explanation brings you the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to make those parts into a working plant with living operators. I said "even if", because neither abiogeneses nor evolution can even account for all the necessary parts, let alone explain how they were used together to build a cell. So let us consider what criteria the first biological entity should have had in order to evolve into the different species we know today.

1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.
2. A way to harvest energy.
3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.
4. A way to reproduce.


1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.

For the first part, the container, that sounds very plausible at first. From a chemical point of view, it's not that hard to create a membrane. And some promising work has been done in this field. However, that doesn't cut the mustard. A simple membrane enclosing all the parts would make it a closed system, we need our organism to have some basic interactions with its environment for the second criteria. If our organism should be able to harvest energy from it's environment, it needs "floodgates" in it's membrane that keeps harmful substances out but allows useful ones to enter. There can of course be many substances speculated on which this alleged first organism survived on. So depending on which form of energy it lived on, we need to adjust our membrane to allow that specific substance to pass.

2. A way to harvest energy.

We also need some organelles to harvest and convert this energy which again depends on which form of energy this system lives on. The energy will among other things be required to counter entropy at some point and guarantee the survival of the organism. Evolutionists propose that the first organism was a prokaryote; an organisms without any organelles in its cell that have a membrane-boundary. Most such organisms harvest energy by converting Dihydrogen (4H2) and Carbondioxide (CO2) into (CH4) and (2H2O). This is a process that requires very specific catalysts. Not only to convert the Carbondioxide and Dihydrogen to produce the methane; but also to fix a small remaining percentage of the CO2 into the cell structure.


3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg? Common sense suggests that they were both created independently; which is even harder to phantom.

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances that are harmful to life also were created trough the process. Next to that the experiment didn't account by far for all types of amino acids required to make the needed proteins. Furthermore the experiment also failed to explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as well as right handed isomers in a 50% to 50% ratio, whereas only one type is used in our DNA.

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning. Next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of other criticism exists as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. This oxidation is quite destructive. Some scientists reply to this that the atmosphere didn't contain oxygen at that time. Be that as it may, no oxygen means that there also was no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
4. A way to reproduce. Reproduction is obviously also a vital part.

If the organism just dies out without reproducing itself, the process of abiogenesis would just have to start all over again. As I said before we would have to have the right nucleic acids and the right proteins as well. The process of DNA reproduction, which is vital to cell division and reproduction is a very complex process which relies on different organelles.
Conclusion.

So I think you would see by now that the process of abiogenesis is most unlikely. And by unlikely I do not mean there are a number of different possible outcomes of which abiogenesis is just one. I do not mean it as a statistical implausibility. It is unlikely much rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process at all.


Peace brothers and sisters from brother ALi

Sallam
let me know what you think brother faisal

Peace wasallam

Salaam i replied to this brother check it out, please dont make lots of threads when you have a topic coverd already, sorry brother. here it is again:
Salaam, ok brother well lets put it this way. i find atheist well the say science explains everything right?, well that is thier only option i mean they cant say ohh the universe was created by God, but we evolved and didnt need a God, get what i am saying. they have to base thier thesis on science. now if you want to beat them at thier own game. lets look at the two major atheistic theorys BIG bang and evolution. firstly let me put it this way both of the theorys do not in any way hold account to how the universe started, or how life began, they just explain how the universe grew up, or how life evovoled. so for starters, they are going for something which is not even 50% done, so they are living on something which is not even explaining to them why the univesr of life begin or how it began. they say science solves everything well can scieince say how life began from non-life into life? can they say how the universe started?, they try i mean look at the recent theory M-theory they say branes are being banged which caues another brane to form? i think thats right, yea so they cant answer it properly they have to make some thing up, ok then if branes are being formed by other branes baing together how did the first brane come???? 1+0=/= 2 1 plus nothing doesnt equal 2 lol. anways, look at brother Abdul Fattahs website all about evolution and big bang:

http://www.seemyparadigm.webs.com/
check this out on how evolution doesnt explain how life began: from Abdul Fattah website:
Theory or hypothesis?

First one on the list is abiogenesis. Most evolutionists will avoid this theory claiming it is not a part of evolution. That is why I started of by pointing out the importance of correct terminology. Abiogenesis is not a part of "the evolution of the different species"; however the theory of abiogenesis it is a part of "biological evolution".

Well actually since there are a lot of gaps here -as stated before- abiogenesis is closer to hypothesis rather than a theory. Some scientists speculate that it happened, but they failed to explain in detail exactly how it happened. Since, it's strictly speculation at this point, no proof, no falsifiability and no testability; in all common sense, we should even label this as science. The confusion though, is that this hypothesis is backed up with some scientific speculation, which makes the hypothesis appear scientific in nature. But that however doesn't change the lack of falsifiability, testability and proofs. That being said, lets look at some of the challenges of this theory.


Criteria for the first life

At first one might suggest that the first life form was a virus, since that would have been the easiest to create, since it requires the least number of parts. However a virus is parasitic in nature, and needs a host to reproduce. Another problem with the idea of the first life form being a virus is, that even if there would find a way that this virus would reproduce, it would never be able to evolve into a one-celled-organism. As soon as it would do so, the new evolved organism would immediately be invaded by it's brethren viruses, and wouldn't stand a fighting chance to survival. For this and many more problems, most abiogenesists suggest that the first living organism was a single-cell organism. But even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal included was created from a tornado passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. Even if the explanation brings you the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to make those parts into a working plant with living operators. I said "even if", because neither abiogeneses nor evolution can even account for all the necessary parts, let alone explain how they were used together to build a cell. So let us consider what criteria the first biological entity should have had in order to evolve into the different species we know today.

1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.
2. A way to harvest energy.
3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.
4. A way to reproduce.


1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.

For the first part, the container, that sounds very plausible at first. From a chemical point of view, it's not that hard to create a membrane. And some promising work has been done in this field. However, that doesn't cut the mustard. A simple membrane enclosing all the parts would make it a closed system, we need our organism to have some basic interactions with its environment for the second criteria. If our organism should be able to harvest energy from it's environment, it needs "floodgates" in it's membrane that keeps harmful substances out but allows useful ones to enter. There can of course be many substances speculated on which this alleged first organism survived on. So depending on which form of energy it lived on, we need to adjust our membrane to allow that specific substance to pass.

2. A way to harvest energy.

We also need some organelles to harvest and convert this energy which again depends on which form of energy this system lives on. The energy will among other things be required to counter entropy at some point and guarantee the survival of the organism. Evolutionists propose that the first organism was a prokaryote; an organisms without any organelles in its cell that have a membrane-boundary. Most such organisms harvest energy by converting Dihydrogen (4H2) and Carbondioxide (CO2) into (CH4) and (2H2O). This is a process that requires very specific catalysts. Not only to convert the Carbondioxide and Dihydrogen to produce the methane; but also to fix a small remaining percentage of the CO2 into the cell structure.


3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg? Common sense suggests that they were both created independently; which is even harder to phantom.

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances that are harmful to life also were created trough the process. Next to that the experiment didn't account by far for all types of amino acids required to make the needed proteins. Furthermore the experiment also failed to explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as well as right handed isomers in a 50% to 50% ratio, whereas only one type is used in our DNA.

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning. Next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of other criticism exists as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. This oxidation is quite destructive. Some scientists reply to this that the atmosphere didn't contain oxygen at that time. Be that as it may, no oxygen means that there also was no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
4. A way to reproduce. Reproduction is obviously also a vital part.

If the organism just dies out without reproducing itself, the process of abiogenesis would just have to start all over again. As I said before we would have to have the right nucleic acids and the right proteins as well. The process of DNA reproduction, which is vital to cell division and reproduction is a very complex process which relies on different organelles.
Conclusion.

So I think you would see by now that the process of abiogenesis is most unlikely. And by unlikely I do not mean there are a number of different possible outcomes of which abiogenesis is just one. I do not mean it as a statistical implausibility. It is unlikely much rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process at all.


Peace brothers and sisters from brother ALi

My questions to the knowledgeable among us;

1) Is evolution really a scientific theory, or is it pseudo-science, a belief system?

2) Even if evolution is a scientific theory, does it in any way "disprove" the existence of a Creator? Why do atheists use this theory to disprove something that can never be disproven?

format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon

My questions to the knowledgeable among us;

Salaam brother, well i dont know if i am on that level but i will give it a go with a bit of help from Abdul Fattah webiste lol
What's at stake?

As you undoubtedly know already; evolution has been a hot topic for decades, and it's still being widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?

The theistic agenda.

Let us say for the sake of argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution turns out to be true! How would that influence the theist his paradigm? Well it wouldn't change a lot. Even in the worst case scenario that all turns out to be true, intelligent design (ID) still 'rescues' religion. Like I explain here, our current scientific knowledge on causality still leaves more then enough room for divine powers to be at the source of it. So from that viewpoint of science, a God that creates species in a metaphysical was is just as miraculous as a God creating them trough his habitual enforcement of physical law. So this means nothing really changes, at least not for Muslims. So the reason that I reject some parts of evolution is not because of my religion, because I started to doubt some of those parts even before I became Muslim. I simply question some parts because they don't seem to be making any sense. Christians on the other hand would have some problems, since their scripture includes specific details that would be rendered false if every last part of evolution turns out to be true. However the late Catholic pope John Paul did publish an open letter stating that these specific details from the book of genesis were added by the Catholic church when the Bible was being compiled, for the purpose of answering questions that weren't answerable at that time. The letter was being published at the time that Christians in the US were lobbying to introduce the theory of creation in science classes. To that subject I would like to state that although I myself am a creationists, I recognize that this theory has no place in science class. However at the same time as a scientist I must add that some parts of biological evolution don't belong in science class either!

The atheistic agenda.

Now, again for the sake of argument, let us assume the opposite extreme. Say that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false. How would that alter the atheists paradigm? Well the atheist would have some major unsolved mysteries in his paradigm. Although some might be fine with that, others may find their paradigm to crumble. As it is today, the wrongful usage of randomness as a counter against the anthropic argument is already a bit of a stretch, as explained here. But if on top of that, the whole lot of theories under biological evolution fall away; this counter simply can't be stretched that far. The atheistic paradigm would have a huge gap there. I argue atheists would automatically start to formulate their personal beliefs of what did happen. Now these beliefs may vary from alien conspiracy theories, to philosophical abstract visions or classical religious views. Nevertheless each self aware atheist will start to inevitably wonder about this and consider alternative explanations. I would say such qualifies as a major change of paradigm. And major paradigm changes is something that people tend to fear and dislike. Changing paradigms is scary due to the uncertainty of what the change will lead to. The human psyche has a natural inclination to fear everything that is unknown. So changing paradigms means that during the transition you would need to consider your whole world as unknown. Not an easy thing to look forward to.

Likely suspect?

Although both creationists and evolutionists have a tendency to be biased by their religious views, or their lack thereof. The bias is much more crucial for the atheists as opposed to the theists! Since accepting evolution is allot less crucial for a theist as opposed to rejecting evolution is for an atheist. So when an atheist accuses his opponent of being reluctant to accept his view because of his religious views, it is most likely a case of projection where the atheist is actually the one reluctant to consider the opposite viewpoint. In conclusion the atheist is the likely suspect of hidden agendas.

the theory of evolution in no way denies the existance of a creator, it is just becuase most religions dont accept it in a way of coming to existance, even if it was true it doesnt matter.

Peace

May be this simple example would help.You know the system of trains.There are lots of wagons linked to each other.None of them has a power to move them on themselves.Every wagon moves thnks to the previous one.And the first one which has a power source, lokomotive, has nothing in front of it.It is not a wagon.It is a different kind of carriage.No one can ask "Who pulls the lokomotive?"
Salaam alaikoum