Who created god

I suppose the reason behind asking "Who created God?" is when we go about spreading Islam we tend to tell Atheist sto look at complexity of things around us (like eyes, cells etc), through which we tend to justify to them, that a God must exist in order for such complexity to come in to being.

Now the logic behind them asking "if so who created God?" is if cells or the eyes are so complex and couldn't have come to being without a God. How could God come to being without a creator (since by your logic God must be complex beyond comprehension).
 
You, I and all other mortals are trapped in a solid universe that has a beginning and an end. We are stuck with a concept of time. In order to understand eternity and for the ability of Allaah(swt) to have no limits of creation or end, we need to break free of our physical concepts and just follow the simplistic thought. If something created has a creator, the creator can not have been created, for that to be, the creators has to have always been.
 
Chuck said:
And relevancy, to this discussion, of your point is?
Click to expand...

The relevance of my post is in direct relation to the relevance of your post.

You presented a certain world view and either made a mistake in referencing (Stephen) Hawking's lecture (which it is not), or you were refering to another "Hawkings", or you misquoted the passage in your post.

Mistakes happen, perhaps I'm mistaken, which is it?

My citation from "A Brief History of Time" is part of an attempt to explain that the mathematical singularity which exists prior to the inflationary phase of the Big Bang Theory, is insufficient to posit a physical singularity at the creation of the universe. It is a limitation of the Theory of General Relativity. To my knowledge, Stephen Hawking has not shown otherwise, nor has any other scientist. Although, you could prove me wrong.


Sincerely,


Faysal
 
Woodrow said:
You, I and all other mortals are trapped in a solid universe that has a beginning and an end.
Click to expand...

Come again, can you please shoe me the "proof" that this universe has a beginning and also prove that it has an end....

Cheers


Woodrow said:
We are stuck with a concept of time..
Click to expand...

Oh, a concept. Who's concept exactly is this, please share with us the concept of time. Is it real or just an illusion for example, is it the same for us all? What exactly is time. That kind of thing.


Woodrow said:
In order to understand eternity and for the ability of Allaah(swt) to have no limits of creation or end, we need to break free of our physical concepts and just follow the simplistic thought. If something created has a creator, the creator can not have been created, for that to be, the creators has to have always been.
Click to expand...

What a load of tosh, this could equally be applied to the universe itself, it could easily have always been by itself and not by any divine inspiration. Your asking us to accept a premis you yourself refuse to accept. So why should we accept your premis......
 
Muslim - Book 1 - Hadith 242

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (salla Allaho 3alaihi wasallam) said: Men will continue to question one another till this is propounded: Allah created all things but who created Allah? He who found himself confronted with such a situation should say: I affirm my faith in Allah.
 
Last edited:
tetsujin said:
The relevance of my post is in direct relation to the relevance of your post.

You presented a certain world view and either made a mistake in referencing (Stephen) Hawking's lecture (which it is not), or you were refering to another "Hawkings", or you misquoted the passage in your post.

Mistakes happen, perhaps I'm mistaken, which is it?

My citation from "A Brief History of Time" is part of an attempt to explain that the mathematical singularity which exists prior to the inflationary phase of the Big Bang Theory, is insufficient to posit a physical singularity at the creation of the universe. It is a limitation of the Theory of General Relativity. To my knowledge, Stephen Hawking has not shown otherwise, nor has any other scientist. Although, you could prove me wrong.


Sincerely,


Faysal
Click to expand...
I quoted the wrong lecture. Anyway, if you are following the discussion I was quoting to show that early scientists objected to to BBT because it was invoking creation. As for POS, GR breaks down at POS, but that doesn't affect that universe started from hot and dense matter from a single point in time, even hawking believes that. Quote of Hawking is not arguing this, but he arguing whether there was singularity before inflation of universe or not, which is entirely different topic. Anyway, seems like he has changed his mind, this from his later lecture:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=57
Click to expand...
 
root said:
Your asking us to accept a premis you yourself refuse to accept. So why should we accept your premis......
Click to expand...

Just to clarify... No one is telling you to accept anything. You came on this forum... we did not come looking for you.

You come here , post sarcastic replies to the moderators and then have the cheek to make it look like we came preaching to you???
 
root said:
Come again, can you please shoe me the "proof" that this universe has a beginning
Click to expand...

LOL hi root, just wanted to say:

how old is the universe?
becuase if it has an age, then it has a beginning lol lets say for example the universe is 4billion years old, then it had a beginning which was 4billion years ago. lol

so how old is the universe?
 
root said:
Come again, can you please shoe me the "proof" that this universe has a beginning and also prove that it has an end....
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider proof. One astronomical proof is the fact it is dark at night. Why is it dark? Stop and think if the universe had always existed, enough time has elapsed so that every light source would now permeate the entire universe and light would be evenly distributes to every point. There would be no darkness it would be like we were in the center of a fluorescent lamp. In the world of sub atomic particles it has been shown that the speed of electrons in atoms is slowing. at some point in the futre if matter lasts that long motion will cease at which time all temperature will reach absolute zero at which point matter ceases to exist.

Than we have the visual evidence of nova, black holes etc all of which depict an end of matter.

I believe you have studied enough physics and astronomy to agree there is ample prove that the universe has a measurable age. We may disagree as to that age, but there is a measurable age.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Cheers back, my old resident nemisis




Oh, a concept. Who's concept exactly is this, please share with us the concept of time. Is it real or just an illusion for example, is it the same for us all? What exactly is time. That kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Thsi will differ among scientists, philosophers and theologians. But I believe the most widely accepted concept of time is it is the relationship of the movement of one object to another object. The emotional concept of time is a psychological phenomenae probably unique to sapient beings.





What a load of tosh, this could equally be applied to the universe itself, it could easily have always been by itself and not by any divine inspiration. Your asking us to accept a premis you yourself refuse to accept. So why should we accept your premis......
Click to expand...

Yes it is a load of tosh. No more and no less less than all of the tosh thrown at us to explain God(swt) can not be can not be an eternal, immortal creator. We are both tied up in the realm of observing that which supports our own beliefs and our individual sets of proof.

To those of us who believe in God(swt) the proof is self evident. To those who don't, no proof will ever be sufficient.

You and I share different sets of concepts. One of us is correct, one is wrong. But, we have no mutually acceptable sources of reference. Without that all debate is fruitless. We can only express our own reasons and offer what we each see as proof.

Our only option is to agree to disagree, respectably..
 
Woodrow said:
To those of us who believe in God(swt) the proof is self evident.
Click to expand...

That's a contradiction in terms, something is self-evident when it is known to be true without proof. What you mean, I assume, is that such belief means proof is not necessary?
 
On a separate note..
I am surprised no one mentioned 'string theory' a blend of the two Quantum mechanics and General relativity.. I quoted it from Wiki for those interested in the full article, the link is included.. though even with, I fail to see how any theory on science can intercept religion?

String Theory is a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity. The Strings of string theory are one-dimensional oscillating lines, but they are no longer considered fundamental to the theory, which can be formulated in terms of points or surfaces too.

Since its birth as the dual resonance model which described the strongly interacting hadrons as strings, the term string theory has changed to include any of a group of related superstring theories which unite them. One shared property of all these theories is the holographic principle. String theory itself consists of many theories with different mathematical formulas. The logical coherence of the approach, however, and the fact that string theory can include all older theories of physics, have led many physicists to believe that such a connection is possible. In particular, string theory is the first candidate for the theory of everything, a way to describe all the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system. On the other hand, many detractors criticise string theory because it has not yet provided experimentally testable predictions.

Like any other quantum theory of gravity, it is widely believed that testing the theory experimentally would be prohibitively expensive, requiring feats of engineering on a solar-system scale. Although some critics concede that string theory is falsifiable in principle, they maintain that it is unfalsifiable for the foreseeable future, and so should not be called science.

String theory is of interest to many physicists because of the mathematical truths involved and because of the large number of forms that the theories can take. String theory strongly suggests that spacetime has eleven dimensions,[1] as opposed to the usual three space and one time, but the theory can easily describe universes with four observable spacetime dimensions as well.[2]

String theories include objects more general than strings, called branes. The word brane, derived from "membrane", refers to a variety of interrelated objects, such as D-branes, black p-branes and Neveu-Schwarz 5-branes. These are typically extended objects that source differential form generalizations of the vector potential electromagnetic field. All such objects are known to be related to one-another by a variety of dualities. For example, the black hole-like black p-branes are identified with D-branes, upon which strings end, through Gauge-gravity duality. Research on this equivalence has led to new insights on quantum chromodynamics, the fundamental theory of the strong nuclear force.[3][4][5][6]​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory


cheers
 
Chuck said:
I quoted the wrong lecture. Anyway, if you are following the discussion I was quoting to show that early scientists objected to to BBT because it was invoking creation. As for POS, GR breaks down at POS, but that doesn't affect that universe started from hot and dense matter from a single point in time, even hawking believes that. Quote of Hawking is not arguing this, but he arguing whether there was singularity before inflation of universe or not, which is entirely different topic. Anyway, seems like he has changed his mind, this from his later lecture:
Click to expand...

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...d=62&Itemid=57
Click to expand...

Sir, it is the same topic. Mathematical singularities are precisely the arguments being made on both sides. The lecture you are referencing in no way contradicts what I quoted earlier.

If you read the transcribed lecture as a whole, not just the conclusion, you no doubt have come across this (paragraph 5):

Stephen Hawking said:
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Not only that but he continues on to the next paragraph:

Stephen Hawking said:
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
Click to expand...

You seem to have quoted the wrong lecture again. Have another go.


Skye Ephémérine said:
On a separate note..
I am surprised no one mentioned 'string theory' a blend of the two Quantum mechanics and General relativity.. I quoted it from Wiki for those interested in the full article, the link is included.. though even with, I fail to see how any theory on science can intercept religion?
Click to expand...


Which side of this debate are you on? Respectable scientists and philosophers don't bring up string theory because 1) it requires an understanding of qunatum mechanics at the functional (if not theoretical level) 2) an understanding of the 4 fundamental forces (discounting for the moment other observable forces that can also be calculated) and 3) a level of abstract reasoning to which not everyone is accustomed.

But, let's grant that we could include Supersymmetric String Theory and part of Twistor Space and Twistor Theory in this debate, it certainly doesn't help "our" side as we don't have the observable data necessary to confirm the existence of the particles or forces that the theory predicts. That really is the reason why we're dumping so much money into bigger and better particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider which started up last year. So ironically, we can't just provide a mathematical proof and say "look we've got it", religious apologists will demand some physical evidence.

Why you think science can never contradict your religion is a question only you can answer.

Epicurus was hard enough, can theodicy also combat Heisenberg?

Sincerely,

Faysal


Edit: my lunch is over, I'll edit for spelling later on....
 
tetsujin said:
Sir, it is the same topic. Mathematical singularities are precisely the arguments being made on both sides. The lecture you are referencing in no way contradicts what I quoted earlier.

If you read the transcribed lecture as a whole, not just the conclusion, you no doubt have come across this (paragraph 5):



Not only that but he continues on to the next paragraph:



You seem to have quoted the wrong lecture again. Have another go.
Click to expand...
Lecture is correct one, link is at the bottom of the quote. And both of your quote in above post shows that he believes this universe originated from singularity and this universe had a beginning, that is what I said. But early quote from "Brief History of Time" appears to show that he was trying to avoid problem of singularity at the beginning of BB.

Its been a very long time I read "Brief History of Time", he goes through alternative possibilities and theories what was before BB and what could have started BB in that book, but I don't remember him denying BB.

What you are talking is not relevant to this discussion as Hawking is not denying BB.

Another thing (Hawking quote): "This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."
^^ That is old, physicists are changing their opinion about that with new data. To investigate beyond BB, you don't have to go through mathematical singularity for everything, example given in BBC link I posted earlier.
 
Last edited:
tetsujin said:
Which side of this debate are you on? Respectable scientists and philosophers don't bring up string theory because 1) it requires an understanding of qunatum mechanics at the functional (if not theoretical level) 2) an understanding of the 4 fundamental forces (discounting for the moment other observable forces that can also be calculated) and 3) a level of abstract reasoning to which not everyone is accustomed.
Click to expand...
I guess you are not the only victim to Argumentum ad scientiam + adding 'respectable' really does nothing to sway my opinion into one direction or another.. nor have I mentioned which I find most plausible and it doesn't really matter, I merely threw it out there because I thought it deserved the same attention as the others--why hide it?.. perhaps this didn't make it to a theory but any theory is but popularly accepted knowledge to explain a specific set of phenomena, it is always amenable if falsified, and as the scope of knowledge expands!
But, let's grant that we could include Supersymmetric String Theory and part of Twistor Space and Twistor Theory in this debate, it certainly doesn't help "our" side as we don't have the observable data necessary to confirm the existence of the particles or forces that the theory predicts. That really is the reason why we're dumping so much money into bigger and better particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider which started up last year. So ironically, we can't just provide a mathematical proof and say "look we've got it", religious apologists will demand some
Click to expand...
Why don't you cut the circuitous route and give me your bottom line?
I suggest you define yourself what 'science' is unless of course you are using it for mere epideictic orations?

Why you think science can never contradict your religion is a question only you can answer.

Epicurus was hard enough, can theodicy also combat Heisenberg?

Sincerely,

Faysal
Click to expand...
The question to be posed really is why you think Science contradicts religion?.. I am really not following how the movements of particles, sub-particles,, wave forms, series of probabilities, simultaneously measuring position and momentum to arbitrary precision, random combination of atoms etc etc has anything at all to do of whether God exists or not?.. perhaps you can cut the crap and all the adjectives and tie it together for us?

Edit: my lunch is over, I'll edit for spelling later on....
Click to expand...

Don't bother, we are not grading you on grammar or anything in between!
 
Last edited:
addendum: To staff

there was an article here once about Quantum light cone-- can anyone find it for me.. the search feature isn't very helpful..


:w:
 
doorster said:
try link @ http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/650-atheism.html#post3137 (I've not read it though)
:w:
Click to expand...

I found on the web Light-cone quantum mechanics of the
eleven-dimensional superparticle (see link below)

the mathematics of it is very complex.. I wonder if it poses a challenge to someone like 'Steve' he should come on here to tell is what he thinks... nonetheless the other one covered this topic in a less academic manner for the average Joe..

Jazaka Allah khyran for trying to help..

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1126-...quest-id=019cd57f-0cef-47e3-963f-b3ffaa64240a


:w:
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top