Who created God?

[جوري]

This post is a combination of a straw man and "god of the gaps" fallacy.

I have heard that line so many times, it isn't even amusing anymore.. how about "science of the gaps fallacy"? since you are the authority on science and can handle yourself with an amazing dexterity, maybe you can tell me how to distinguish Mesenteric fibromatosis from gastrointestinal stromal tumors? it been on my mind all afternoon and seeing how you are easily able to lay the powers of your miltaonic mind to work using wiki and hawkings, you can just as easily allay some of the more pressing scientific conundrums of the day?!

Philosopher:
About the big crunch -- do you know that it is merely a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is defined as "an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation. " In other words, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess and is lacking empirical evidence and peer review.

thank you for the definitions courtesy of Merriam Webster. I am now convinced of your "evidence"-- please stop wasting my time!

Philosopher:
I am astounded by how you blatantly reject Hawking's, who specializes in the study of black holes.

have a swig of water-- there there!

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

What am I to do with this? wiki is peer reviewd? I can't even get myself to be amused by your sub-mediocrity ..
Same page you present speaks of equally acceptable theories (including big crunch)..

Philosopher:
If you don't know what a theory is, or if you fail to grasp the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," maybe you need to leave this debate to avoid further embarrassment.

more redundant rhetoric? BTW this is from your wiki, I know how keen you are on presenting it as evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

source!

Philosopher:
Another unfounded claim. The only thing that is infinite is the multiverse. Maybe if you can prove to me the existence of Allah, as opposed to the tooth fairy, and then I will take this statement seriously

what you take or don't take seriously is inconsequential to me, I find your debating style rather juvenile and comically absurd-- in fact I have made it abundantly clear in the beginning of this debate, that if you worship a cow or dawking or hawking or whomever your idol du jour has no impact on me whatsoever .. I rather think incumbent on the atheist who fancies himself a scientist to give the world a reasonable explanation as to its origin, show me primoridial goo budding giving life, sentience and speciation, and then can we come and speak of pastas and tooth fairies..

 

[Abdul Fattah]

@ Philosopher
I have two points to make.
First your proof of the brain being hardwired for religion is completely biased. Skimming trough that article I found no "proof" once so ever. Just a whole bunch of speculation. There is one test though I read about in Eos the other day where they tested the brain for a religious hot-spot. It is often speculated that that is the cause of religion. However you need to understand exactly what they've done there at what it implies. They tested certain regions of the brain for activity in correlation with certain emotions/thoughts. So they know certain thoughts are correlated wit hcertain regions, but they don't know what the causality is between those two! It could be either the feeling causing the brain activity or vice versa. We know practically nothing about how the brain works, so iot's all jus tspeculation at this point.

Second point about Ockhams Razor:

consider the following two viewpoints:
[Pro creation by anthropic theory:] When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life impossible1,2. It all started with a design of life; then the universe was custom made in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.

[Contra creation by anthropic theory:] This appreciation of the inherited characteristics of nature is a result of ignorance. People being overwhelmed by information that is beyond their comprehension and their imagination looking for a simple explanation. Order is subjective. In reality things are very disordered, but we just categorize them in an orderly manner as that is easier to grasp. If the laws of physics were different, we would have classified and ordered them differently. And life could very well have existed albeit in a completely different way from what it is now. Such hypothetical life would probably be even so different our limited minds aren't able to comprehend. It would simply evolve differently from the way it has evolved now. This based on the fact that different laws of nature would call for different adaptations. Everything started as a result of the laws of the universe. That life has risen out of these natural inherited laws is the result of mere luck.

We notice that the contra argument can can be defended with Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. The term luck is a cover up. It indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use it when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. When we win the lottery we call it luck; we can even calculate the chance of winning mathematically. But in the end, the numbers are not decided by luck. There is no chance; the numbered balls simply follow the laws of physics. Their movement is just too complex for us to calculate the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events, then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument is the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore –to him- such a design seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

 

[Azhir]

First, this question is a typical question that comes from Shaitan . No doubt.

Second, as muslims we shouldn't stop even for a second to think "who created God".

Third, The straight away answer should be "Nobody created God, God has no beggining or end", or say "audhubillahi minashajtani rrajeem".

as for providing a logical answer, i'll try to answer , but i don't want to get into these, cuz it's just a question which comes from shaitan into our brains.
we make these questions based on our imagination. But in fact our imagination is limited, we think that everything that God does or knows, can be precieved by our imagination. who knows, maybe outside our imagination the term 'creation' doesn't even exist. But as humans we have these things such as 'creation'. So the questioner is very naive, he/she thinks that his/her imagination is unlimited.
If Allah swt wants He can dissapear the term creation, destroy all human kind? and then? how can you ask such a question. This question works only within the range of the creation of Allah swt, since it's our imagionation .

similar question was "Can god create a rock that he can't lift?",
We think that our imagionation is unlimited so that the term 'weight' applies to God too.
If God wants he can dissapear the term of gravity, and shape, and color, and material?? now where's the stone? same thing is with the creation, Allah can do things that our beoynd our imagionation, and we think that the term creation applies for God too. it's foolish. God is independent of time, food, drink..... He doesn't need anything, He is also independent of the term 'Creation'. the term creation applies only to the creation, since Allah swt created our imagionation and the ability is needed to understand creation so we could recognize and worship Him as our Creator.

Alhamdullilah

VERY good explanation, makes sense.

Thanks!

 

[Woodrow]

this thread as interesting as it is has really run it's course.

there really seems to be no further need for it and the only remining potential it has is to be a play ground so before this becomes just another frivilous thread or a battle ground it is best to let it rest.

:threadclo