Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."

[CosmicPathos]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)



This is wholesale God-of-the-Gaps. To dismiss an idea as unlikely and not believe in it, you don't need to know the real answer. One can simply admit they don't know rather than inventing an explanation or adopting an explanation of another. When we didn't know why it rained some would jump to the conclusion that there must be a rain god we can do dances and sacrifices to, so he'll make it rain. A few others may simply have admitted the real answer isn't known yet. They didn't need to know about cloud formation and precipitation and air pressure to see through the stories of rain gods. Same applies here.

What the atheist is doing is tantamount to saying "it actually did not rain" rather than saying "I dont know" through his statement "there is no God." I hope you see your ridiculous position.

 

[Pygoscelis]

What the atheist is doing is tantamount to saying "it actually did not rain" rather than saying "I dont know" through his statement "there is no God." I hope you see your ridiculous position.

No. In this analogy, saying "it did not rain" would be like saying "the universe does not exist".

And this doesn't just apply to rain by the way. As humans have developed more and more knowledge and better science, there has been less and less gaps for Gods to fill. God's job description is getting smaller and smaller each day.

 

[marwen]

And this doesn't just apply to rain by the way. As humans have developed more and more knowledge and better science, there has been less and less gaps for Gods to fill. God's job description is getting smaller and smaller each day.

Perhaps you got this idea from ancient greek theology myths : god of rain, god(dess) of beauty, god of disasters, ... But this conception of God is not the same for every religion. We don't just claim that God is the cause of a phenomenon X because we don't understand X. But we believe God is dominant, omnipotent and omnipresent. This means God has control over everything whether we understand it or not. God can act indirectly upon universe, but nothing can be done without his power and He has control over physical laws (that we believe he created). Meaning, even if we understand how scientifically something works, we should believe it's by God's will and God's power (indirectly).
So, there is no Gaps o be filled by God or to be taken from God. God has always control over the universe's parts, whether we understand how each part works or not. Hope this idea is clear.

 

[Lynx]

If we are to go by the three confines of 'logic' that you've proposed then you need to show me how 'an object is the same as itself' is applicable at all to 'something out of nothing' something out of nothing indeed doesn't violate an object is the same as itself but neither does an anchorites flyfishing on a Saturday you need to establish a relation for us to see the applicability.. something popping into existence out of 'no where' does violate the law of the excluded middle-- either something is true or its negation is.. since none of us have in fact observed or experimentally proved that something comes out of nothing then its opposite is true-- the last law you've proposed is contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously with similar applicability to the previous.. in fact stating that something comes out of nothing is the only fallacy in your writing that avoids an unpleasant truth which is the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something can and has come out of nothing with respect to physical science without resorting to the incoherent logorrhea of deceased philosophers!

all the best

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic). Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

 

[جوري]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

This is exactly what I mean by being here for an X number of years and walking away or staying in having learned absolutely nothing!

This is wholesale God-of-the-Gaps. To dismiss an idea as unlikely and not believe in it, you don't need to know the real answer. One can simply admit they don't know rather than inventing an explanation or adopting an explanation of another. When we didn't know why it rained some would jump to the conclusion that there must be a rain god we can do dances and sacrifices to, so he'll make it rain. A few others may simply have admitted the real answer isn't known yet. They didn't need to know about cloud formation and precipitation and air pressure to see through the stories of rain gods. Same applies here.

And cherry topped by your usual inane overly simplistic conclusions -- I am wondering why you didn't throw in pink elephants and celestial tea-pots.. Let me ask you this.. if your mind is created along linear tracks, why do you insist on wasting your time and ours. Islam has already given us the answer to what 'we don't know' your lack of ability to come up with better or accept the obvious makes you the one with the one with the problem, and I believe that problem will continue on for you.. Usually when folks sign up for a new course, or enter into a classroom or a club, they do it with the hope that they can walk away with something new. In your case, like any other atheist encountered, love to waste your time parading your two ignorant bits, and then waste ours in the process!

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic).

Thanks for admitting the obvious with the first part of that statement-- anything accessory thereafter is not needed!

Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

Go ahead and provide ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES and we'll work by process of elimination.. as for 'big-bang 'poofing' itself into existence well that isn't a possibility.. we have the science to prove it by the means proposed then go ahead and do so.. the only real difference between the two theories, is that the first humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene and the second offers some cute fairy-tales guised under some scientific jargon, but it so happens that science is my area of expertise and I can cut through the crap pretty quickly, so if you'd like the latter route, I'd be more than willing to discuss what you propose at length .. So go ahead!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

This is exactly what I mean by being here for an X number of years and walking away or staying in having learned absolutely nothing!

[/QUOTE]

I agree with sis Lily.
Pygo has been here for 2006 and is still asking what muslims define by God?

Come on.

 

[Lynx]

Thanks for admitting the obvious with the first part of that statement-- anything accessory thereafter is not needed!

Go ahead and provide ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES and we'll work by process of elimination.. as for 'big-bang 'poofing' itself into existence well that isn't a possibility.. we have the science to prove it by the means proposed then go ahead and do so.. the only real difference between the two theories, is that the first humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene and the second offers some cute fairy-tales guised under some scientific jargon, but it so happens that science is my area of expertise and I can cut through the crap pretty quickly, so if you'd like the latter route, I'd be more than willing to discuss what you propose at length .. So go ahead!

There are an infinite amount of possibilities. The point I was making is precisely that the 'first cause' can be ANYTHING because we have no clue what it could be. At this point our knowledge of what came *before* the big bang is almost nothing so to claim it was God requires a seperate argument that isn't covered in the OP and thus the OP's argument fails to show "God did it". There is no reason to think God did it anymore than there is reason to think everything came out of nothing. Both, without further argumentation, are equally possible as mere logical possibilities. To put it simply, the argument run by the OP can only, at best, show that *something* started it. That something could be ANYTHING. The argument proposed by the OP has been around for centuries and it hasn't gotten over its fundamental flaws. The first cause argument does not work to prove that God exists let alone that Allah exists.

Also, I find it curious that you say the the notion that God created everything as a notion that "humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene". How is it humble to claim that your particular God whom you have a clear definition of, is the creator of the universe? Doesn't it seem like saying "I don't know" is the more humble and honest answer...especially since no one really knows what came before the big bang?

 

[جوري]

There are an infinite amount of possibilities. The point I was making is precisely that the 'first cause' can be ANYTHING because we have no clue what it could be. At this point our knowledge of what came *before* the big bang is almost nothing so to claim it was God requires a seperate argument that isn't covered in the OP and thus the OP's argument fails to show "God did it". There is no reason to think God did it anymore than there is reason to think everything came out of nothing. Both, without further argumentation, are equally possible as mere logical possibilities. To put it simply, the argument run by the OP can only, at best, show that *something* started it. That something could be ANYTHING. The argument proposed by the OP has been around for centuries and it hasn't gotten over its fundamental flaws. The first cause argument does not work to prove that God exists let alone that Allah exists.

Allah and God are the same thing.. Arabic ( a Semitic ancient language) was there before English, certainly if you survey Arab christians/Jews then the term they use to refer to 'God' sans the Jesus fiasco the difference is, the unique attribute in Arabic can't be made plural or feminine or engendered in general like we see in English (gods, goddess) etc.! .. certainly one can invoke God by many of his names which are in fact his attributes (which should take care of the questions of our dear friend pyg) who spent almost half a decade on this forum and still has no clue what it is that Muslims believe in-- Now, I keep asking you to bring forth those 'infinite possibilities' so we can discuss them.. There is no point to simply keep repeating 'There are infinite possibilities' -- Yes would you like to expound on that picture so we can see whether or not God fits into the scheme of things or some aliens from a distant planet or that we are living in someone's dream hoping s/he won't wake up? I keep emphasizing that nothing comes out of nothing as is clearly evident, so your point has no physical palpable truth unless you simply enjoy semantics but not common sense?

Also, I find it curious that you say the the notion that God created everything as a notion that "humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene". How is it humble to claim that your particular God whom you have a clear definition of, is the creator of the universe? Doesn't it seem like saying "I don't know" is the more humble and honest answer...especially since no one really knows what came before the big bang?

There is no point to discuss 'which religion' when you haven't established the truth of God!.. you do understand that some questions can't be answered until part one of the equation is answered? To give an analogy, you can't say because you've come across a case or a distant relative with hepatitis and Aids that I can't treat this patient with lamivudine because he is on epivir when you don't know whether the etiology of his scleral icterus and tiredness is due to Hep A, B, C, D, E, cholecystitis, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, pancreatic cancer, dubin-Johnson syndrome, Rotor syndrome, crigler najjar, or a simple case of gilbert? Do we understand each other?.. I find that carpet bombing non-systematic approach boring and a waste of time in any field and shows your lack of scholarship.. sort of like the 'logic' that you through around without establishing a relationship between it and what you are arguing against! It just tells me you've browsed through google under Gods to see what came up to pad your point of view with absolute crap!

'I don't know' sounds meek not humble! What we have certainly seen from atheists is a far cry from humble or meek even-- more of a vocal and pompous response that hardly concedes to 'I don't know' -- 'I don't know' merely comes out when an inquisitive query is made of proposed hypotheses to be supported by experimental results!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

I agree with sis Lily.
Pygo has been here for 2006 and is still asking what muslims define by God?

Come on.

No he wasn't. He was replying to what mad scientist said after being asked how he would define God.

As he is an atheist - it is not up to him to provide a definition of God (as he does not believe in one). Remember, he has no reason to be biased and favour the traditional theistic rendition of God as proposed by Islam and Christianity. He may have (in fact, as I've chatted with him for a long time probably has) interacted with and probably is aware of Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism just as well as he is aware of traditional theism. These are all just different claims of what God is to him. He has no reason to provide his own definition and indeed cannot if he does not believe in one. This probably makes him also an Ignostic, like me.

So I would ask everyone who misread what he said to perhaps, apologise.

 

[جوري]

No he wasn't. He was replying to what mad scientist said after being asked how he would define God.

Mad-scientist didn't ask him to define God, in fact as usual pyg saw fit to insinuate himself in an ongoing dialogue between me and trumble without reading all that was written in full.. Most of you are so eager to get your pearls down as if it were the first time you are tinkling it. You should in the least read what is in front of your eyes before you make some secondary dialogue about two people who aren't even the original party involved.. How funny the chinese whispers in written form!

As he is an atheist - it is not up to him to provide a definition of God (as he does not believe in one). Remember, he has no reason to be biased and favour the traditional theistic rendition of God as proposed by Islam and Christianity. He may have (in fact, as I've chatted with him for a long time probably has) interacted with and probably is aware of Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism just as well as he is aware of traditional theism. These are all just different claims of what God is to him. He has no reason to provide his own definition and indeed cannot if he does not believe in one. This probably makes him also an Ignostic, like me.

See above and calm yourself down a bit you sound hysterical!

So I would ask everyone who misread what he said to perhaps, apologise.

lol.. we'll be waiting for your apology then or are atheists exempt from common sense and proper reading? ;D

 

[Skavau]

Oh, sorry, you asked Trumble to define God and Pygoscelis correctly intervened to state that it is not upon atheists to define what God is, not that he did not know what Islam says about God.

At any rate, the claims that he does not know what Islam says about God are just without evidence and not at all what he said.

 

[جوري]

Oh, sorry, you asked Trumble to define God and Pygoscelis correctly intervened to state that it is not upon atheists to define what God is, not that he did not know what Islam says about God.

You should therefore follow the entire dialogue between trumble and myself before jumping to the conclusion that he 'correctly intervened' Seriously take this down a few notches this is not trauma one or even trauma three-- there is no reason to page the entire on call team for 'intervention'. ;D

At any rate, the claims that he does not know what Islam says about God are just without evidence and not at all what he said.

If he knew what Islam says about God, then he wouldn't be asking how we define God now would he? in fact that is the whole point if you'd paid close attention you'd have inferred that I needed to know what Trumble's definition of God or an alternative to God for him not to be accepting of the Islamic view presented here!

Pls. read before you write.. that should also include the articles that you link us to if you wish for them to support your point!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

If he knew what Islam says about God, then he wouldn't be asking how we define God now would he? in fact that is the whole point if you'd paid close attention you'd have inferred I need to know what Trumble's definition of God or an alternative for him not to be accepting of what is presented here!

He didn't ask how Islam defines God. He says, as an atheist he doesn't have a definition of what a God ought to be as of course, he is not a theist.

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

When he says "If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God" he means it in a general term. He is speaking broadly about what many different theists contend about God and perhaps making reference to the inconsistency of the definitions that others give.

 

[جوري]

He didn't ask how Islam defines God. He says, as an atheist he doesn't have a definition of what a God ought to be as of course, he is not a theist.

I am aware of what he wrote.. & what he wrote had no relation to the entire context of my Q which I have thoroughly explained in my last post!

When he says "If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God" he means it in a general term.

And the General term has been defined, except that was never the point of the original post!

He is speaking broadly about what many different theists contend about God and perhaps making reference to the inconsistency of the definitions that others give

This subject isn't about which God!

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

People are not often in the habit of creating ideas, or Gods in this case, for the express purpose of disbelieving them. When this does happen, it is done as an analogy to make a point - such as Bertrand Russel introducing his celestial tea pot to make the point that because you can't disprove something is not a valid reason to believe it to be so. So I say again, it is not the atheist's role, nor within the atheist's power to define God. The atheist can only work with Gods as others define him/her/it/them. Atheism, or non-belief in anything, theistic or not, is not proactive, but reactive. Atheism does not exist until a theist posits a God. It is pointless to ask an atheist his idea of God. It is pointless to ask an atheist what he/she means by "God".

And back on topic, this thread is about if the universe is eternal and if a God is required. And yes, if you say a God is required you'll have to define which God. Most arguments for creation by God conveniently and silently skip from "there must have been a first cause" to "my particular God did it". Even if you prove that something can't come from nothing, and even if you prove that there was a first cause, you still have all your work ahead of you if you intend to prove your god did it.

Oh and just as a side note, the constant ad hom attacks and attempts to offend non-muslims on this board only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotype of muslims that so many good muslims work so hard to dispel.

 

[جوري]

People are not often in the habit of creating ideas, or Gods in this case for the express purpose of disbelieving them.

A useless introductory statement!

When this does happen, it is done as an analogy to make a point

What is the point then?

- such as Bertrand Russel introducing his celestial tea pot to make the point that because you can't disprove something is not a valid reason to believe it to be so.

A celestial teapot was never and never shall be an answer to the universe we find ourselves-- it is the silly rant of a silly man not unlike other atheists!

So I say again, it is not the atheist's role, nor within the atheist's power to define God.

No one here has asked you to define God, but we certainly don't need your accessory description that you attribute to god on the side!

The atheist can only work with Gods as others define him/her/it/them.

You don't seem to have a clue as to those either unfortunately, making any conversation point in a cul de sac from beginning to end!

Atheism, or non-belief in anything, theistic or not, is not proactive, but reactive. Atheism does not exist until a theist posits a God. It is pointless to ask an atheist his idea of God. It is pointless to ask an atheist what he/she means by "God".

It is indeed useless to ask an atheist anything.. why then do you then insist on membership on forums that are about god and involved in philosophical discussions on theology, persisting still when clueless at best as to the beliefs of the members of said places joined?

And back on topic, this thread is about if the universe is eternal and if a God is required. And yes, if you say a God is required you'll have to define which God.

Can there be any other god of relevance? can a ship be run by more than one captain?

Most arguments for creation by God conveniently and silently skip from "there must have been a first cause" to "my particular God did it". Even if you prove that something can't come from nothing, and even if you prove that there was a first cause, you still have all your work ahead of you if you intend to prove your god did it.

No argument has skipped which god, there are multitudes of threads on comparative religion, again another pointless point to someone who doesn't believe in God all together!

Oh and just as a side note, the constant ad hom attacks and attempts to offend non-muslims on this board only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotype of muslims that so many good muslims work so hard to dispel.

Are you after our very freedom of speech? No one cares otherwise on what you deem positive or negative about Islam.. you are welcome to leave having added and subtracting nothing from the forum with your ever persistent presence here!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

To the atheists on board:

This is Islamic forum, and on this thread so far you are having on going discussions with muslims (qatada - the op, vale's lily, marwen, dagless, mad_scientists, me) and I can't see people of other faith involved in this thread discounting lauras - whos always vague about everything, so surely when you ask definition of God, you have to stick to what muslims say about God.
This is to advance the discussion to a more fruitful outcome.
That is, unless all you want to do is arguing in circles you make with your own semantics.

And how many times do I have to write down surah Al Ikhlas?

 

[جوري]

And how many times do I have to write down surah Al Ikhlas?

Between suret Al-Ikhlas ans the 99 names of Allah swt which describe his attributes.. no one on board who has been here for more than 3 months has any excuse whatsoever for this level of ignorance and pedantry .. further if the other two would follow what is actually written, they would have deduced that my query is about their alternative to God, or what they'd think a God would be like if a God were the first cause on the account they are not happy with the Islamic definition!
We are already assuming a starting point.. I am really tired of nearly half a decade of insinuations from these net trolls when they don't want to make minimal effort at progress!

 

[Skavau]

This is Islamic forum, and on this thread so far you are having on going discussions with muslims (qatada - the op, vale's lily, marwen, dagless, mad_scientists, me) and I can't see people of other faith involved in this thread discounting lauras - whos always vague about everything, so surely when you ask definition of God, you have to stick to what muslims say about God.

Qatada's original argument in the opening post, if accepted as true (premises and all) only illustrates that a deity of some kind must exist. Qatada did not move on to try and demonstrate that God must be Allah.

Given that the people disputing the original post in this thread are atheists, we are not even going to accept that a God must exist much less that the God that could exist must be Allah. Indeed, if you are to claim that Allah is God then you have all your work ahead of you - for you do not only contend that the universe was designed by a God (standard deism) but you also advance the claim that this God has directly interacted with Earth, continues to interact with earth, has an interest in our survival and has given us objectives to accomplish. These are things that are not really involved with this thread - so we focus specifically on the claim that a non-descriptive God created the world. Keep in mind that with this noted, an atheist has no reason to hold preference to God over the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you are to make the claim that God designed the universe - you have to give a reason why it must be a God as you describe. You cannot just assume that if the premises of the cosmological argument are accepted as sound that we must automatically agree that it was a God - much less, Allah.

 

[DuncG]

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.