Who created God?

[Trumble]

Zakir Naik uses the "theory of Probability to PROVE TO AN ATHEIST The Existence of Allah

He puts forward a case for it, no more. It is important to learn to distinguish the difference whichever side of the debate you happen to be on as I made clear earlier. Naik's 'proof' doesn't survive one skim reading from the perspective of an atheist. Most atheists simply do not accept that the Qur'an contains any important scientific (or "unknown at that time") references at all; I personally find that the particular claims made range from "mildly intriguing" to "laughable". Even if they did accept that the Qur'an contained such information in anything like the quantity Naik suggests, the "theory of probability", as he calls it, is unsound - it proves nothing unless you can also quantify the probability of God, which is absurd. It just boils down to the usual "this is unlikely to have happened otherwise, so I'll conjure up God to to fill in the gap". That is not a 'proof'.

All of which is off-topic; your question was not whether there is a God, but who (if anyone) created Him. You are unlikely to convince any atheists just by telling them the question is "illogical", although I'll grant that might work rather better than blaming it's existence on Shaitan! I'll let you research the arguments for yourself, but where the chain usually ends up in following your claim is a 'proof' (note the inverted commas !) that if God was uncreated then he must logically also be totally incapable of interacting with the universe, i.e incapable of actually creating anything!

 

[ranma1/2]

One of the thing that puzzles me about these atheists is their hypocrisy!

If it is not a religion then what the hell are they doing at religious forums wasting their time preaching?


wa salaam alaikum to believers and seekers

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

 

[Makky]

Anything that involves "the word Allah or God" CANNOT be a 'scientific conclusion'

Why?

 

[Makky]

God created himself, hence why he's GOD!! - If he was created by anothr, who would be God??!!

I don't need to repent it is Allah who revealed it to humanity this way!

And where did he reveale it to humanity this way?

 

[Nerd]

Have you guys ever considered the fact... Science and human mind has its limits?

 

[Philosopher]

This is a very common posed by atheist to people carrying out dawah... which certainly requires a clever, logical and scientific answer... I will leave this question opened to you dear brothers and sister... "Who created God?"

Man.

But from a theist standpoint, consider this:

1.) Anything that is infinite has no origin. (Remember, infinity = boundless)
2.) God is infinite
3.) From (1.) and (2.), God has no origin.

 

[Trumble]

Why?

Because as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated scientifically, or even theorised in purely scientific terms, His 'word' cannot have any scientific validity. That isn't just a straight theist v. atheist choice; even theist scientists accept that any inclusion of God in a 'scientific' theory must must inevitably result in it being shot down by their peers on the basis of unjustifiable assumptions. There are two.. first that there is a God and, equally important but frequently forgotten, that the 'gap' in the theory the inclusion of God is trying to fill must necessarily be filled by God and not something else. Of course, if somebody did ever manage to prove God exists it would be open season, but science as we know it would end over-night.

The only way to resolve that particular conundrum is to re-define science. We have already seen that tried in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in an attempt to admit 'intelligent design' into science. Unfortunately, those trying to do same were forced to concede that the definition they needed would also accept astrology, not to mention assorted other mumbo-jumbo, as 'science' as well.

 

[sevgi]

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

hate to burst ur bubble but...ur jst defining the diffrence between monotheists and atheists...thats not exactly a great way to end ur argument...

to say that we are atheists to all Gods but our own implies that there is an absolute certainty of more than one god and we exclude it...then yeah, we are atheists to all other gods..and were proud of it too...it means were 'FOLLOWING A RELIGION'...or simply 'MONOTHEISTS' or more simply 'NOT ATHEISTS'.

since there is no reality of more than one god, nor is there any discussion of "who created the Gods?" it is out of the question. monotheists believe that there is one god and non other...and to believe in other gods, if any, makes us polytheists..

so thanks for the definition...i just thought i'd broaden it out for u to encompass some argumentative discussion.

 

[Muezzin]

If what is not a religion?
Atheism?

I think many of us enjoy discussions. Also i think many of us tend to use logic in our daily life and take double takes at things we see to be illogical or based on nothing but belief and no evidence.


Of course as stated many times atheism is a belief that a particular god or gods do not exists. You my friend are an atheist in all gods but your god.

I just go 1 step further and include your god as well in my disbleif.

True. Though your 'g-d' is logic. You believe in something. Everybody does. It's part of being human.

 

[Hashim_507]

God is All Mighty, there is only one God in this whole universe and beyond. This not tricky question; human being in dunya can not go beyond its limits such seeing the unseens. God has no association; their many definition for that. When Allah has no association; Allah means his only one God. God bring the concept of creation; the term creation came from Allah. The term creation was to teach slaves of Allah that God is the creator.

 

[Nerd]

Here is the hadith mentioned by one of the brothers earlier:

The Hadith is Sahih.
Al-Bukhari's Sahih:
Volume: 9,
Book Number: 92,
Hadith Number: 399
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said,
"People will not stop asking questions till they say, 'This is Allah, the Creator of everything, then who created Allah?' "

 

[asadxyz]

Just another aspect;
There is a simple mathematical principle:
x^0 (raised to power "0'')= 1
If you replace "x" by the word "universe" it will become
(universe)^0 (raised to power "0") = 1
It means when universe will be finished (0) ,then only "one" is left and that is Allah Almighty.

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ
﴿28:88﴾
Everything is perishable except Himself:
Best of luck

 

[Makky]

Because as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated scientifically, or even theorised in purely scientific terms, His 'word' cannot have any scientific validity.

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

can you put a scientific rule for that?^^^

for example :you can say : seen things or whatever you want..

 

[Philosopher]

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

can you put a scientific rule

for example :you can say : seen things or whatever you want..

1.) First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
2.) Kepler's three laws
3.) Newton's laws of motion

 

[Trumble]

let me ask a question?! what can be demonstrated scientifically and what cannot be?

To successfully explain a phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.

 

[barney]

I'm in favor of a creating force or forces making the universe.

I'm not too sure it was intelligent design. Probably was, cant say for certain.

What created these forces eh?
That is a question beyond our understanding.
Currently, Nobody can answer that. Beleivers can beleive, and this is their truth.
Disbeleivers disbelive and that again is theirs.

I've heard everything from "matter from a different plane came through a rip in reality and gained sentinence", To which i ask. "Ok, on that other plane...who created that?"

What I do beleive is this question has always been asked in some form, and it's a basic human need that appeared after we satisfied our lower needs of food shelter and company.
In the ancient times, a readily acceptable answer was needed. Padum-Tish. God was "created" by man. I mean here in the sense of as he is known by the religions of today.

The basic premise of Christianity, Judism and Islam is that we are directing our thoughts to the "one who made all".
Since we were not in contact with it, we desperatly wanted to be in contact with it. So when prophets, charasmatic, potent speakers, with the cult of personality told people that this entity was in touch with them....It was snapped up like a Doughnut at the Global Police AGM.

None of this negates that something created all.
And we will probably never know.

Lets hope we dont end up wiping each other out thinking we all know best.

 

[asadxyz]

1.) First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
2.) Kepler's three laws
3.) Newton's laws of motion

peace;
In Newton is Second Law
F = mA
m = contant
But now mass is not considered to be a constant factor.Eistein refuted it.
Best of luck

 

[Skavau]

'Who created God?' is an excellent question to be asked when it the teleological argument is cited as evidence that a designer (assumed to be God) must logically exist. The response of the question regarding 'Who created God?' usually takes the form of a decree declaring God separate from all logic conveniently applied to the universe. If God can simply be assumed to be infinite then why can the universe not be assumed the same? Why must the universe have been created at a specific point?

Both a Theist and Atheist can agree that existence is infinite. The difference is that the Theist often simply assumes that God is infinite and the Atheist assumes that the universe is infinite.

There can only be two answers to the question of origins..
1- it created itself
2- Some being created it

Why not simply infinite existence?

Now that being said, I know they can't/won't/ unwilling/unable to do it, then I suggest we part ways amicably. I find most Atheists simply crude, nothing holds them back, they just blather out crap..

What is the purpose of engaging in generalising ad hominem attacks with a tint of guilt by association? This is about the question regarding 'What created God?'. I fail to see how your rant about how you feel Atheists should be obliged to explain everything fits in with this.

so how is that these lay people, whose only approach to science is through some cheesy third rate article come and argue to the world the "non-existence" of G-D with any such conviction.

I don't argue the non-existence of God.

Ultimately believing or non-believing is a personal choice-- I am not sure why they want the whole world to be lost and purposeless right along with them?

Who says Atheists do want that? Who says Atheism asserts a lack of purpose?

 

[جوري]

Who created God?' is an excellent question to be asked when it the teleological argument is cited as evidence that a designer (assumed to be God) must logically exist. The response of the question regarding 'Who created God?' usually takes the form of a decree declaring God separate from all logic conveniently applied to the universe. If God can simply be assumed to be infinite then why can the universe not be assumed the same? Why must the universe have been created at a specific point?

I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!

Both a Theist and Atheist can agree that existence is infinite. The difference is that the Theist often simply assumes that God is infinite and the Atheist assumes that the universe is infinite. Why not simply infinite existence?

If you can find me one thing in this universe of ours that can infinitely exist and has beaten death, then please bring it forth...

What is the purpose of engaging in generalising ad hominem attacks with a tint of guilt by association? This is about the question regarding 'What created God?'. I fail to see how your rant about how you feel Atheists should be obliged to explain everything fits in with this.

I think it fits perfectly well, why would someone who doesn't believe in G-D want to be so preoccupied with something that to s/he obviously doesn't believe in? and thank you for proving my point =)

I don't argue the non-existence of God.

Great then, why do you then participate in this topic? clearly this is addressing those who pre-occupy themselves with proving the non-existence of G-D, you are free to walk away and disengage yourself.. or are you offended by proxy?

Who says Atheists do want that? Who says Atheism asserts a lack of purpose?

an observation I have made from some posts I had read on this forum!

peace!

 

[Trumble]

I guess you can simply observe things in this "infinite universe" dying up to and including stars... that can be your clue, with death one ceases to be infinite!

An infinite universe does not require that any phenomenon or phenomena within it have infinite duration. Existence is an infinite sequence of cause and effect; all phenomena are impermanent.

If you can find me one thing in this universe of ours that can infinitely exist and has beaten death, then please bring it forth...

You have already conjured that up yourself, God.