Who created god

[ZarathustraDK]

Just to clarify an equivocation I saw in this thread.

Theory can mean 2 things depending on the reader. Theory can be as in "I think that these things behave such and such" which laymen often use in everyday language. Theory can also mean "scientific theory" which is great step beyond a mere gist'm'guess about the reality of things.

Still, believers have a tendency to equate the latter with the former (which is no foul unless it's on purpose of course, hell, even non-believers do it sometimes), when the correct term for "laymans theory" applied to science would be "scientific hypothesis".

Relativity-theory, for instance, we don't really take as an "opinion" about how matter could be thought to behave because we know it works (ask any inhabitant of Hiroshima and Nagasaki about that one). Sadly (in relation to this argument), not all scientific theories have such awe-inspiring examples of their validity as the effects are more subtle and unseen by the layman than a nuclear explosion ending a war.

 

[tetsujin]

... not all scientific theories have such awe-inspiring examples of their validity as the effects are more subtle and unseen by the layman than a nuclear explosion ending a war.

Appreciate you point it out.

Although I must say that most scientfic theories do have effects on day to day life if we simply understand them and they're applications.

Anyone who has bought an a pair of polarized sunglasses has seen the difference that scientific "theories" can make.


Sincerely,

Faysal

 

[Whatsthepoint]

about that philosophy you mentioned Whatsthepoint:
[30:11] God is the One who initiates the creation and repeats it. Ultimately, you will be returned to Him. (qur'aan)

Interesting indeed, though I doubt it refers to new universes forming in old ones. You never know though.
I'm gonna check out some tafsirs on this one.

 

[Vito]

There are no Allahs. There is only Allah.

Rasulullah said "Syaithan are always questioning this, they make people ask "Who created everything?" the answer is "Allahu Ta'ala." until finally they ask "Who created Allah?." When someone has this question then say "I have faith on Allahu Ta'ala and Rasulullah," that will erase the doubt.(Silsilah Hadits Ash Shahihah 1 by syaikh Nashir Al Albaani).

I like this answer :thankyou:

 

[جوري]

Sure



Normally I wouldn't cut you off here, but the rest of your paragraph really depends on an explanation to your/our? audience that a cell need not have, as an example, mitochondria or even a nucleus. Are you demanding the chance reproduction of Archaea, Eubacteria, Eukaryotic cells?

It doesn't matter which type.. you are going off on non-issues really.. chance production on anything I am merely using a small unit, because even though it is small in size the functions are phenomenal ..
How about working with what we have even? denature DNA of a flower for instance, re-anneal it so it can maintan original form, and then give it life, form and functionality.. .. I am willing to forgo the total human manipulation if you can reproduce just that much! --
I am rather at a loss though with what you mean by this? ' audience that a cell need not have, as an example,

Life does not necessarly start of with all the wonderful things you've listed below. Although perhaps RNA may be necessary, I don't know, there could be some other form of life based on someother self replicating molecule.

Can you explain what you mean by that? what does life start with? even hilarious examples of symbiosis, you'll still need a host for the process to actually be well--symbiotic!..

I don't see how any of that relates to original question. Why create a vacuum and then render it useless by throwing stuff in? Creationists usually want me/us/non-theists to make everything from scratch...

why gauge a topic at all if all the routes are unacceptable to you?.. what it is your explanation of how it all came to be? Where is the kick off?
I'd really like something scientific and palpable.. seems sort of unfair to put those sort of demands on 'Theists' and forgo them yourself?

Well, I'll even give you a hand. For anyone interested in Mixotricha Paradoxa

what does symbiosis or a protozoan have to do with anything? perhaps you'll unravel this mystery to us?

can't live without it, and the Mixotricha depends on other bacterial symbionts for simply even moving around... I digress...

I don't see how any of that relates to original question.

You do digress, and I am not sure how your own Mixotricha Paradoxa has to do with the original topic either? perhaps you can tie it together for us nicely?

You have a strange way of flirting with the english language. If everything is extraordinary I'd hate to be ordinary.

I am not flirting with anything at all.. It is my personal belief that abundance of splendor deadens the hearts of some.. as if they are owed it somehow.. take away someone's ability to 'anything natural' and you'd see how much they'd pay to have it by artificial means!

Feel free to define it correctly for me, I don't disgree wth anything you've said. And yes, if we were all "X-men" then that would be "natural". Let's get to the what if's before we get through what is.

What if what? I think the what is, is the here and now, seems more pressing than hypothetical to work with what we actually see?

No problem, it'll sit around another year I guess.


Sincerely,

Faysal

There is always the homeless shelters.. just because they are down and out doesn't mean they don't like a cup of Jamaican Joe every now and then!

cheers

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Discussion has been done about it before, read this thread it is only 2 pages: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/17500-seven-skies.html

I did some research into the this and I found out Quran uses two types phrase to refer to heavens, one was related to earth and other was universe. So I believe depending on the context it refers to two different things and one verse seems to be mentioning both:

But only Arabic speaker can clear this up whether above verse means seven earths or it means seven layers on earth.

Yes, I believe Mr Yahya compares the heaven verses to the layers of atmosphere (which has pretty much been disproved in the thread you provided, especially with fishman's post, and in several other threads) and the earth verses to the layers of Earth (I think there's a thread about that).
I also came across the 7 Earth thing you speak of, however I didn't know it arose in the same verses.

 

[tetsujin]

why gauge a topic at all if all the routes are unacceptable to you?...

I didn't even know this was a route. It was your tangent to begin with.


I shall assume, if I may, that you believe Newton's laws of motion would not hold true were it not the (and hoping I'll be forgiven for using the word) will of god to constantly upold them. As if once they were dicovered, god was all the more awe inspiring.

If my assumption is correct, then we have nothing further to discuss, as you've simply ignored my first post.


Most shelters will not accept opened packages of food, and so I'm stuck. I appreciate the thought behind the gift, but a gift card to the local coffee shop would have been just as good.


Sincerely,

Faysal

`````````````````````````

Edit:
http://www.answers.com/extraordinary

Extraordinary
adj.
1) Beyond what is ordinary or usual: extraordinary authority.
2) Highly exceptional; remarkable: an extraordinary achievement.
3) Employed or used for a special service, function, or occasion: a minister extraordinary; an extraordinary professor.


http://www.answers.com/ordinary

Ordinary
adj.
1) Commonly encountered; usual. See synonyms at common.
2)
a) Of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality; average.
b) Of inferior quality; second-rate.

 

[ZarathustraDK]

Can you explain what you mean by that? what does life start with? even hilarious examples of symbiosis, you'll still need a host for the process to actually be well--symbiotic!..

It's feasible for amino-acids to form from inorganic compunds C, H, O, N, P, S given the right conditions like PH-value and temperature. Sure, it may be improbable in a test-tube, but when the test-tube is the size of the worlds oceans then it's another story. From there to RNA it's pretty simple.

Some (most if I'm not mistaken) of the organelles/structures in the cell are symbiotes which some primordial cell (not unlike an amoeba) engulfed via endocytosis. The mitochondria, for instance, retains its own DNA, which is funny because this DNA is unaltered (it does not get split and mixed via meiosis), so you can use the mDNA to track the genetic heritage of humans back to Africa.

 

[tetsujin]

It's feasible for amino-acids to form from inorganic compunds C, H, O, N, P, S given the right conditions like PH-value and temperature. Sure, it may be improbable in a test-tube, but when the test-tube is the size of the worlds oceans then it's another story. From there to RNA it's pretty simple.

Some (most if I'm not mistaken) of the organelles/structures in the cell are symbiotes which some primordial cell (not unlike an amoeba) engulfed via endocytosis. The mitochondria, for instance, retains its own DNA, which is funny because this DNA is unaltered (it does not get split and mixed via meiosis), so you can use the mDNA to track the genetic heritage of humans back to Africa.

All well and dandy, but this is her round-about way of asking to prove a negative.

Science could utterly fall apart this minute, and that would not constitute a solitary step, logically, towards confirming the existence of a god.

Sincerely,

Faysal

 

[جوري]

I didn't even know this was a route. It was your tangent to begin with.

When posing rhetorical Q's an unleashing of possibilities will ensue.. I'd assume it monotonous otherwise and not really conducive to growth to any party involved!

I shall assume, if I may, that you believe Newton's laws of motion would not hold true were it not the (and hoping I'll be forgiven for using the word) will of god to constantly upold them. As if once they were dicovered, god was all the more awe inspiring.

What am I to make of this exactly?
Man discovering endogenous intellect?
Man sharing observed and/or theoretical phenomenon?
Man ostentatiously presenting physics 101 to an unsuspecting public?
It is indeed my own personal belief though I haven't imposed it on anyone, that knowledge of any subject leads to Allah swt.. hence

"The erudite among His bondmen fear Allah alone. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Forgiving."
(Qur'an: Fatir: 53: 28)
except in the Quran of course the term 'Al'olama' 'scientists' is used, which I am not quite sure denotes erudite!

If my assumption is correct, then we have nothing further to discuss, as you've simply ignored my first post.

which first post are you talking about? you've quite a few, the one I read is the one I immediately replied to.. but you are right otherwise, we have not much to discuss-- we come from two completely different schools of thoughts.. and I have a 'natural' dislike to atheists that would be somewhat against my 'nature' to go against for the sake of diplomacy. so we should indeed on this note part ways!

Most shelters will not accept opened packages of food, and so I'm stuck. I appreciate the thought behind the gift, but a gift card to the local coffee shop would have been just as good.


Sincerely,

Faysal

You can always throw it out.. I am sure no great injustice will come your way for parting with something you find distasteful...

cheers

 

[جوري]

It's feasible for amino-acids to form from inorganic compunds C, H, O, N, P, S given the right conditions like PH-value and temperature. Sure, it may be improbable in a test-tube, but when the test-tube is the size of the worlds oceans then it's another story. From there to RNA it's pretty simple.

I am game with that..I am willing to go along-- I'd very much like that demonstrated, well beyond the get together of inorganic compounds, to amino acids to actual form and functionality.. as I am sure a man of your intellect has heard of introns and exons, nonfunctional units ejected from the process for no apparent reason. Perhaps you can discuss the 'few' missing details (you know that is where God actually is).. I'd like an evolution of everything from those pesky Noble metals to the sodium potassium pump to sentience from the few inorganic compounds.. You can't honestly expect me to take something at face value, simply because one of you retorted (it's pretty simple)

Some (most if I'm not mistaken) of the organelles/structures in the cell are symbiotes which some primordial cell (not unlike an amoeba) engulfed via endocytosis. The mitochondria, for instance, retains its own DNA, which is funny because this DNA is unaltered (it does not get split and mixed via meiosis), so you can use the mDNA to track the genetic heritage of humans back to Africa.

see my above reply!

cheers

 

[tetsujin]

It is indeed my own personal belief though I haven't imposed it on anyone, that knowledge of any subject leads to Allah swt...

the one I read is the one I immediately replied to.. but you are right otherwise, we have not much to discuss-- we come from two completely different schools of thoughts..

Was that so hard? I'm beginning to think we're friends.

"When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the one to the other, and can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect." ~ Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

A positive claim is made for the constant intervention of Allah in the "natural" world, thus far indistinguishable to me from universe created by a deist god which requires no constant intervention. If you cannot distinguish the two, what purpose does it serve to believe that Allah is intervening at every quantum moment?

Edit: Is there a flaw in my school of thought, other than simply not accepting yours?

You can always throw it out.. I am sure no great injustice will come your way for parting with something you find distasteful...

I'd rather not waste it.


Sincerely,

Faysal

 

[جوري]

Was that so hard?

Forgive me.. I thought it was rather obvious?

"When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the one to the other, and can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect." ~ Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding

'The principle is clearly false on our normal understanding of what are the criteria of inference about empirical matters. For the universal adoption of this celebrated principle would lead to the abandonment of science. Any scientist who told us only that the cause of E had E-producing characteristics would not add an iota to our knowledge. Explanation of matters of fact consists in postulating on reasonable grounds that the cause of an effect has certain characteristics other than those sufficient to produce the effect'.~~Richard Swinburne

I find it rather absurd you dissembling self search and free thought to your conclusions of God's nonentity, yet yield to quotes from atheist philosophy..
I suppose this should have the same effect on me as my usage Quranic verses on you.. nonetheless as you can see, it takes a total of two seconds to find another school of thought to rebut fallacies within the first..
True discovery is a solo act.. I suppose there so few pioneers left, the rest must leach off of them!

A positive claim is made for the constant intervention of Allah in the "natural" world, thus far indistinguishable to me from universe created by a deist god which requires no constant intervention. If you cannot distinguish the two, what purpose does it serve to believe that Allah is intervening at every quantum moment.

I agree... maybe after much deliberation you can see, that you come quite evenly matched with 'theists' in your belief system?.. and truly atheism enforcing a universal negative is nothing but a belief system.. it has neither been able to prove God's nonexistence, nor has it made a logical scientific claim to everything in existence....
really no different than two schizophrenics, one who displays all positive symptoms, and the other all negative symptoms.. which ever route they are on, they are still schizophrenics.. and likewise whichever route you choose, you are a slave to something.. albeit it a philosophy of lesser luster in my humble opinion!

I'd rather not waste it.


Sincerely,

Faysal

as you like!

 

[tetsujin]

Forgive me.. I thought it was rather obvious?


'The principle is clearly false on our normal understanding of what are the criteria of inference about empirical matters. For the universal adoption of this celebrated principle would lead to the abandonment of science. ...

I can't think of a single example where that was true.

...Any scientist who told us only that the cause of E had E-producing characteristics would not add an iota to our knowledge. Explanation of matters of fact consists in postulating on reasonable grounds that the cause of an effect has certain characteristics other than those sufficient to produce the effect'.~~Richard Swinburne

Scientific hypothesis are models based on recurring events or models which define a process, the resulting theory therefore postulates on reasonable grounds that the cause of an effect has certain characteristics. These can be, although not always, expressed as a mathematical formula. They need not describe a singular event, such as the cause of a particular apple falling from a particular tree at a particular moment, but and explanation of the mechanical framework for the acceleration which the apple experiences and which every other object can experience.

Swineburne overstates Hume's objective which was not to limit the explanatory power of any theory to a singular event, but to forgo any unnecessary and/or irrelevant axioms which are the true source of impediments to scientific inquiry.

No theory thus far, known to me, is in need of any characteristics in excess of that which is required to explain any recurring phenomena. Whether we speak of a planet orbiting its host star of the classic apple falling from a tree... Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is applicable. Other theories may be used to describe other phenomena, but that in no way contradicts the quote I provided.

Hume's tacit atheism neither adds nor detracts from the logic on which this philosophy is based, that in my opinion is Swineburne’s personal problem as his criticism was refuted well within his professional career.

Sincerely,
Faysal

 

[جوري]

I can't think of a single example where that was true.

The same mind that takes flight with independence and creativity in thought, can likewise be restrained with limitations of its own choosing..
It is just a matter of comfort zone. (everyone is guilty of it)

Scientific hypothesis are models based on recurring events or models which define a process, the resulting theory therefore postulates on reasonable grounds that the cause of an effect has certain characteristics. These can be, although not always, expressed as a mathematical formula. They need not describe a singular event, such as the cause of a particular apple falling from a particular tree at a particular moment, but and explanation of the mechanical framework for the acceleration which the apple experiences and which every other object can experience.

why are you giving me the dictionary definition of science? as I haven't spend the last 13 years of my life studying it-- The perk about science is, its every changing and ever self correcting.. It doesn't suspend itself with archaic laws to appease the belief system or a philosophical movement..
indeed, somethings need not always be expressed by mathematical formulas, but probabilities, and mathematics loan more credence than mere postulations assumed to be true based on general principle to a necessary effect and not supported by any experimental and/or observable facts.
If at the very fulcrum upon which all else rests is a belief, then the rest too is likewise no matter how credible the claim.. substituting one philosophy for another with more decorative words is just the same!

Swineburne overstates Hume's objective which was not to limit the explanatory power of any theory to a singular event, but to forgo any unnecessary and/or irrelevant axioms which are the true source of impediments to scientific inquiry.

Swinburne concerns me as much as Hume, perhaps you've missed the point entirely which is your quote of a school of thought reduces you to the very thing you appear to despise. I find both schools of thoughts flawed, or perhaps I should say I found my niche in something else all together!

No theory thus far, known to me, is in need of any characteristics in excess of that which is required to explain any recurring phenomena. Whether we speak of a planet orbiting its host star of the classic apple falling from a tree... Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is applicable. Other theories may be used to describe other phenomena, but that in no way contradicts the quote I provided.

I have no idea of the relevance of any theory whether I personally accept it or not to do with God's existence or nonexistence?.. Science is limited to science.. You have any unspecified thing and work to explain it preferably by setting some standards and variables.. the more variables the more complex the formula.. and from where I am standing, we are in a very complex universe with most variables unaccounted for!

Hume's tacit atheism neither adds nor detracts from the logic on which this philosophy is based, that in my opinion is Swineburne’s personal problem as his criticism was refuted well within his professional career.

Sincerely,
Faysal

philosophy is philosophy and often time akin to bull ****!

have a great evening

 

[ZarathustraDK]

I am game with that..I am willing to go along-- I'd very much like that demonstrated, well beyond the get together of inorganic compounds, to amino acids to actual form and functionality.. as I am sure a man of your intellect has heard of introns and exons, nonfunctional units ejected from the process for no apparent reason. Perhaps you can discuss the 'few' missing details (you know that is where God actually is).. I'd like an evolution of everything from those pesky Noble metals to the sodium potassium pump to sentience from the few inorganic compounds..

Introns and exons does not get ejected for "no apparent reason", they get ejected because they happen to be spliced that way when translated. Some of them serve a purpose, others are just junk-code which doesn't confer any negative traits onto its host and is thus exempt from natural selection.

From inorganic compunds to the sodium potassium pump, ask an evolutionary biologist or attend a class, you can't honestly expect me to elaborate on the whole process in a forum as it's a topic you can write thick books about. I mean look at this:

That's "just" how a late subproduct of sugar is oxidated in order to make a compound that'll later be made into energy in an equally complex manner. You want me to explain not only how that (and a million other things like that) works, but also how it came to be that way, in a FORUM?!

I'm not saying it's impossible, simply that it isn't feasible.

 

[Qingu]

Guys, I really recommend just ignoring Skye. I feel like having discussions with her legitimizes her kind of hateful and condescending posting style. There are plenty of other Muslims on here who are willing to have more respectful and open-minded discussions.

 

[Qingu]

There is:

A team of physicists has claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang.
The discovery comes from studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB), light emitted when the Universe was just 400,000 years old.
Their model may help explain why we experience time moving in a straight line from yesterday into tomorrow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm
​

This is "multiverse" hypothesis, which simply pushes the goalpost back. The same problem arises when you get to the earliest "universe" from which our universe eventually emerged from.

So my point still stands.

 

[Qingu]

I don't know, ask Mr Yahya.
What I'm saying is that it is equally baseless to assume the verses speak of seven universes or seven layers of the atmosphere.

Seven heavens was a common belief at the time the early Arabs were writing. It's based on the Greek idea that the Earth is surrounded by seven celestial spheres—one for the sun, one for the moon, and one for the five visible planets. Most cultures at the time of Muhammad believed this and wrote about it, including the Jews and Christians as well as the pagans during the Greek and Roman Empires.

So you could just as easily (and dishonestly) claim that all these cultures' actually knew about "seven universes" and had sacred texts referring to multiverse theory.

Of course, multiverse theory is highly controversial anyway, and there's certainly no evidence that there's seven universes. If it's true there would be a ridiculously huge number. So even if we accept the ridiculous premise that the Quran was actually referring to seven "universes" instead of the seven "heavens" that everyone in their time referred to using the same language, it's still wrong.

 

[Ali_Cena]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Multiverse_-_level_II.svg
you should check this out, scientists claim that if the theory is correct, then thiwer would be 7 universe(and then you say this is a ridiculese amount), count them up.

second you claim all this nonsense about "popular belifes" this that, withouth any sources, its just like me saying "blah blah blah", any old fool can say this and that. second off. what ever theory big bang mulltiverse bubble, it doesnt matter. this thread is about; well you can read the title.

peace.