Who created god

[czgibson]

Greetings,

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..

Who told you that? ^o)

Peace

 

[جوري]

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?

How do you define 'Natural' and what would be likewise your definition of a 'supernatural world'?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

What are the other theories or the feasible ones?

Here's one with no scientific basis whatsoever, however perfectly feasible from a philosophical standpoint, at least I think so.
Our universe is a byproduct of a reaction that took place in another universe where our logic, causality etc don't apply.
The second one that I can remember, I think it was already posted here somwhere, claims that the universe is basically a form of nothing. If correct, are views of nothingness would of course have to be wrong, they may be, considering that the current definition was produced by philosophers centuries ago.

 

[Hamayun]

Here's one with no scientific basis whatsoever, however perfectly feasible from a philosophical standpoint, at least I think so.
Our universe is a byproduct of a reaction that took place in another universe where our logic, causality etc don't apply.

But that would still lead you back to the original question.... where did that universe come from? How is that an answer to the question? :?

 

[wth1257]

I wanted to know how to back this up as Atheists are always on about this

It's not a good question for atheists in itself, it usually comes in response to the cosmological argument whose key assumption is generally some variant of the proposition "Everything needs a cause" and ends with the conclusion "therefore there must be some ultimate first cause". To this the atheist justafiably asks, "well, if everything needs a cause, then what about God"

 

[Whatsthepoint]

But that would still lead you back to the original question.... where did that universe come from? How is that an answer to the question? :?

The point is that the laws and logic in the primal universe were or are still different, for instance, matter can be created out of nothing or it can exist forever or something.
There are no evidence to support the theory but it's perfectly valid, just like the god theory. Personally I can't tell which theory is more probable so I call myself an agnostic.

 

[wth1257]

The point is that the laws and logic in the primal universe were or are still different, for instance, matter can be created out of nothing or it can exist forever or something.
There are no evidence to support the theory but it's perfectly valid, just like the god theory. Personally I can't tell which theory is more probable so I call myself an agnostic.

In relativistic physics matter is energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Some of the physical laws may have been codified with the big band. For example time is asymmetrical. You can break an egg but you cannot unbreak it, why is this? It's not anywhere in the mathematical description of the physical process of breaking the egg.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

In relativistic physics matter is energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Some of the physical laws may have been codified with the big band. For example time is asymmetrical. You can break an egg but you cannot unbreak it, why is this? It's not anywhere in the mathematical description of the physical process of breaking the egg.

I'm gonna have to answer a question with a question. Was that a rhetorical question or question question?

 

[wth1257]

I'm gonna have to answer a question with a question. Was that a rhetorical question or question question?

I ono:embarrass

I guess rhetorical but if you want to dabble in theoretical physics far be it for me to stop you and good luck

 

[BlackMamba]

(57) It is related by Abu Hurairah that the Apostle of God said: “Occasionally, Satan comes to you and asks, ‘Who created this thing [and] who created that thing,’ It goes on like that till about God Himself he sows the doubt in your hearts [that when everything has been created by someone] who is His creator? So when this stage is reached the bondsman should seek the refuge of the Lord and stop."
-Bukhari and Muslim
Commentary.-It shows that such ideas and misgivings are the handiwork of Satan and when he causes a doubt concerning the very existence of the Lord to crop up in anyone’s heart the best course for him is to beg the protection of God against the mischief of the Devil and divert his mind from it. When the existence of Allah is an Attribute of His Being and He is the Creator of all things a question like this does not arise about Him in the least degree

 

[Zamtsa]

I wanted to know how to back this up as Atheists are always on about this

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).

What Allahu Ta'ala do before creating? He likes to praise Himself. There was a time when Allahu Ta'ala doesn't create anything nor talking, but He always have the ability of creating, talking and any other ability, characters, actions which he has.

Allahu Ta'ala had shown Himself through His names which He informed to His Rasul, which He showed in His Kitab, and which He keep inside His knowledge of the unseen.

 

[^[AnKaBooT]^]

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

I have thought about this topic about from where god existence started but its BEYOND OUR DUMB MIND.

THERE IS NO BEGINNING.

U CANT THINK OF A BEGINNING.
U(humans) can THINK 999999999999years.BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING .
ThERe should be no statement such that he was ALWAYS there.THERE IS NO 'ALWAYS'.It is just THERE!
Sry if i made any mistakes GOD FORGIVE ME.

 

[alcurad]

god is incomprehensible, and there is no way for us to know what happened before the big bang, let alone if indeed it occurred as currently described.

 

[Gator]

Re: Athiests are saying as if the universe didnt need a god

Hi.

My questions to the knowledgeable among us;

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

Its a scientific theory.

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

I don't think evolution disproves a god. It could be gods mechanism.

I think it is used to argue against certain ideas (like YEC) and provides a framework for a naturalistic view on how things came about.

Thanks.

 

[Qingu]

god is incomprehensible, and there is no way for us to know what happened before the big bang, let alone if indeed it occurred as currently described.

There is no such thing as "before the big bang."

In the same way, there is no such thing as "north of the north pole."

The universe contains all of space and all of time. If the big bang is the earliest point in the universe, then it doesn't make any sense to talk about "before" the big bang, because time itself did not exist.

A lot of the confusion on this subject comes from the fact that our language is based on the existence of time. Past, present, future tense, words like "before," all assume a constant flow of time. But if time is limited to a dimension inside the universe, statements such as yours literally break down into nonsense.

I know this is confusing, but if you'd like to read more about it, I heartily recommend Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time.

 

[Qingu]

Another clarification: a lot of religious people think science says time is "infinite."

This is not the case. Time, like space, is not infinite. The universe has a limited area, and it has a limited age. In fact, time and space are part of the same sort of fabric, called "spacetime," which is what Einstein proved.

So the question is not whether spacetime is infinite. The question is whether spacetime has any sort of "edge" or "boundary." When people say the Big Bang is the "beginning" of time, they often have in mind a sort of drop-off or edge, where at one moment there was no universe, and then the next moment there was.

But this doesn't make any sense. Because "moments" are all part of spacetime, and thus part of the universe.

A better way to think about the Big Bang, the "beginning," is like the North Pole on Earth. The North Pole is the "northernmost" point on earth, just like the Big Bang is the "earliest" point in spacetime. But the North Pole isn't an edge or a boundary. The surface of the earth doesn't drop off at the North Pole—it remains smooth. You can't go "north" of the North Pole, just like you can't go "before" the Big Bang. But this is because the Big Bang is simply a point on the structure of the universe, like the North Pole is a point on Earth's surface.

The upshot of all this is as follows: If there is no time outside of the Universe, then the Universe has by definition always existed. Just like you believe your God has always existed. It may be finite—it may have an "earliest point" or "beginning"—but its finite time is all the time there is.

 

[alcurad]

why can't it happen in relation to other events, in a time other than our own so to speak?

 

[alcurad]

Another clarification: a lot of religious people think science says time is "infinite."

I don't see much to do with being religious or not, it's a pretty 'normal' assumption.

 

[Chuck]

There is no such thing as "before the big bang."

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
​

 

[Whatsthepoint]

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
​

Wow, this confirms my theory.