Who created god

Salaam,
turning out to be a good thred? inshallah we hope to have answered you questions faisal
Peace wasalaam
 
Re: Athiests are saying as if the universe didnt need a god

Ali_Cena said:
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
Click to expand...


Thank you so much brother Ali that has really cleared it up, thanx for going to all that trouble.
 
salaam, mashallah brother faisal, that has made my day, thank you for the good reply brother, glad to have helped you out, and no worrys i am always glad to help you out in the truth inshallah, salam
Peace from brother ALi
 
Re: Athiests are saying as if the universe didnt need a god

Ali_Cena said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks brother. I agree; atheists are shocked when somebody questions even the slightest detail of evolution. Some atheists are very very religious indeed!
 
Last edited:
:w:
peace be unto you inshallah, thanks.
yea thats what i find, i mean if evolution was correct that doesnt really matter to us, i mean in islam, if everything was 100% correct with evolution intelligent design still backs up religion. and suppose 100% evolution is wrong, how the hell is athiest going to react, i mean think about it. you have been living a lie. anways, hope that filled you up with imaan inshallah, part of the thanks goes to Abdul Fattah. anways:D:D See you later
:sl: (need any more quesitons ask! lol)
 
:sl:

Everything that exists, has a cause. Like the universe - it's cause is God. So the atheist says, who created God?

If everything that exists has a cause, then something created God, and something created the something that created God and on and on.

Therefore, there must be a first cause that was not caused by anything - and this is God.

Hope that helped. :)

:w:
 
"Who created God" is the stupidest question ever. How can a Creator of life be created by another Creator. That really doesn't make sense whatsoever.
 
:sl:

I hate when atheist go down that road of who created god. The way i look at it, is if god was created then who created that god, and who created the god that created all gods..and who created him? So before we know it we have 3 billion gods, and still counting. But astagfirulah, this is not the case.
 
:salamext:


Our beliefs as Muslims is that Allah wasn't created, since Allah is Perfect. If something is perfect, it cannot be dependant upon another being or 'energy' to become what it is of perfection. Since perfection implies that the being is not dependant upon no other.

So since we believe Allah is Perfect, we believe He wasn't created, He was and always is. He isn't dependant upon anything and everything is dependant upon Him. He is the Ever Living, and is free from any imperfections.


This is why He forbids us from worshipping the creation and orders us to worship Him.
 
I have a question :-[ I know this is a very stupid question but I will ask anyway :-[

What did Allah do before he created the universe? What existed before the universe and the heavens?
 
The 'Who created God' argument presupposes that God is made of matter, and bound by the physical laws that govern life in this universe.

The major religions tend to teach otherwise.
 
Faisal Pervaiz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Atheism is the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which turned into dinosaurs.. :)
 
Argamemnon said:
Atheism is the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which turned into dinosaurs.. :)
Click to expand...
That's one theory. There several, some feasible, others less feasible, some utterly deluded.
 
Faisal Pervaiz said:
I wanted to know how to back this up as Atheists are always on about this
Click to expand...

I should emphasize that this has nothing to do with my "way of life".


The questions here are:

1) Can the natural world be created by a super natural being?

and similarly

2) Is there anything which cannot be explained by a supernatural cause?

3) What can we infer about the cause (creator) from the effects (i.e. "creation)?

If you have an answer to number 2 then you can move on the the original question.

In short, when you are speaking in terms of cause and effect, and the only information you have about the cause comes from the effect, you cannot ascribe to the cause any properties in excess of what is required to produce that effect.

Edit: To rephrase: With access to just the natural world, how can you infer any supernatural causes? In the process, are you begging the question by assuming anything which should not be assumed?

Sincerely,

Faysal
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top