36 replies to this topic

[Brother Hassan]

The rational proof for the existence of the Creator - By Sharif Hafezi

In order to understand the question of whether there exist a Creator or not we first have to sense the universe around us. By doing so we come to the clear conclusion that everything within the universe is defined by certain attributes and that these attributes are quantifiable. So whether we sense water with its particular boiling point, or the sun with its particular size, shape and temperature, or if it’s an atom with its particular atomic number all of these are definable and quantifiable hence we would term these things limited. So no matter what is sensed within the universe all things are ultimately limited. Further the universe is the sum of all that exists, and because all that exists is quantifiable and definable then the universe is the sum of all that is quantifiable hence the universe is also quantifiable. A further point to note is that all limited things that are sensed cannot exist on its own accord, that they also require other limited things to exist. For example, this paper has a certain size and shape, thus we will term it limited but the paper also required wood to exist. Wood is also limited and also requires trees to exist in order for it to exist, and trees require sunlight and carbon dioxide for it to exist, the sun requires the fusion of hydrogen for it to also exist. In truth anything we observe or sense within the universe are limited and dependant, which is they require other things to exist in order for it to exist.

This leads us to certain possible conclusions either everything depends upon each other in an infinite chain of interdependent limited things. Or everything depends upon other things in an elaborate cycle such that they achieve mutual dependence, for example how water depends upon the water cycle. Or finally, there needs to exist something independent that initiates creation i.e. a Creator.

Firstly, it is impossible for everything to depend upon other things in an infinite chain. For example imagine a row of dominoes, for the last domino to fall over it needs to wait for the preceding domino to fall first, and for that domino to fall over it also needs to wait for its’ preceding domino to also fall first. Now if there were an infinite chain of dominoes, meaning that there is no beginning domino to initiate the fall of dominoes, then would any of the dominoes fall over? In reality an infinite number of dominoes means each domino would have to wait for an infinite amount of time, meaning they would have to wait forever. Therefore if everything in the universe depends upon another thing and this chain goes on forever then nothing would exist as they would continually wait for the preceding thing to exist. Therefore a chain of interdependent things that goes on forever cannot exist.

As for the second possibility that everything depends upon ever other thing in an elaborate cycle, as an example like the water cycle. We can also show that this cannot occur. For example if we return to the analogy of the water cycle then we can say that for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water. However water does not exist as yet, hence nothing in the cycle exists until something initiates the cycle. Further we can understand this point by another simple illustration by stating that A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn’t exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in a form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence.

Hence this leads us to the final possibility as the only possibility to explain the universe around us. That is something independent requires to exist upon which every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited, this further necessitates that this unlimited independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that there must be an independent, unlimited, intelligent force that created the universe. For Muslims we call this Creator, Allah (swt).

‘Say, ‘Allah is one, who is self sufficient, neither He begets nor was He begotten and non and nothing is comparable unto Him.’ Quran 112
Comments anyone ?

[Kenny09]

Comments anyone ?

Who created the Creator? You say everything is limited and must rely on something else that is also limited. Therefor, shouldn't someone or something have created the Creator?

[Brother Hassan]

Comments anyone ?

Who created the Creator? You say everything is limited and must rely on something else that is also limited. Therefor, shouldn't someone or something have created the Creator?

Finally a reply
Well, then if the Creator was to have a creator than creation itself would be an impossibility Since the chain would be never ending. The Creator is by nature unlimited & eternal, thus He created

[Byron]

Comments anyone ?

Who created the Creator? You say everything is limited and must rely on something else that is also limited. Therefor, shouldn't someone or something have created the Creator?

If you don't believe in a creator because of the question, "Who created the Creator?". Then you must believe in evolution. Therefore you must ask yourself these questions:

Who or what started evolution?

If your answer might be, The Big Bang.

Then who or what started the Big Bang?

etc, ect, ect.

I myself believe in God who has always existed.

[i7Grendel]

1. The reason for something new to come to being, is some kind of mutation. An anomaly. No infinite being is necessary to do something like that.

2. Even if there is an ultimate being, how do you know it is the one you call a god. Why does it have to be God, Allah, or some other divine being. Why can't it be a flying spaghetti monster? Why doesn't it show itself even though so many people pray for it? "The Creator" and your "God" don't necessarily have to be the same.

---Space for future atheistic jokes---

[Brother Hassan]

If you don't believe in a creator because of the question, "Who created the Creator?". Then you must believe in evolution. Therefore you must ask yourself these questions:

Who or what started evolution?

If your answer might be, The Big Bang.

Then who or what started the Big Bang?

etc, ect, ect.

I myself believe in God who has always existed.

Exactly
Who is it that controls the laws of Physics ? Who makes the Sun rise ? Who created & maintains gravity ?
Without an Eternal creator, existence is an impossibility

1. The reason for something new to come to being, is some kind of mutation. An anomaly. No infinite being is necessary to do something like that.

What makes that anomaly come into existence ? Who brings about change ? Does the universe run by itself ? A ball does not reach a goal without a kick, how than can such a great universe function without someone running it ?

Even if there is an ultimate being, how do you know it is the one you call a god. Why does it have to be God, Allah, or some other divine being. Why can't it be a flying spaghetti monster? Why doesn't it show itself even though so many people pray for it? "The Creator" and your "God" don't necessarily have to be the same.

Because the Creator told us He sent his message to mankind, to offer them guidance My religion gives me proof for its authenticity, which in turn confirms my belief that it is from the Creator.

[PenTester]

Well, then if the Creator was to have a creator than creation itself would be an impossibility smile.gif Since the chain would be never ending. The Creator is by nature unlimited & eternal, thus He created smile.gif

That's why i stopped to think about god. But I know there is god(power) above us.

No need to think whether there is god or not.
Praying is good thing to be a man.
Quran, Bhagavat geetha, Bible or anything teaches same things.
Just follow any one, You will become a man.

[Brother Hassan]

That's why i stopped to think about god. But I know there is god(power) above us.

No need to think whether there is god or not.

Thats an ignorant attitude. To not think is to be ignorant. God must either exist or not exist & without making a decision about his existence, no progress can be made in understanding reality.

Praying is good thing to be a man.
Quran, Bhagavat geetha, Bible or anything teaches same things.
Just follow any one, You will become a man.

The fundamental question is not weather the books teach different things but rather which book does God want us to follow. Praying is not important it is praying as God wants us to pray. Without studying religion & God, our existence is one of ignorance

[Byron]

God is all about science and contrary to popular belief the true God of the bible is not looking for blind faith. He wants us to know what we believe in. He wants us to search him out and to connect with him. If you'll search him out and earnestly try to understand him, you WILL find him.

[Brother Hassan]

God is all about science and contrary to popular belief the true God of the bible is not looking for blind faith. He wants us to know what we believe in. He wants us to search him out and to connect with him. If you'll search him out and earnestly try to understand him, you WILL find him.

Agreed

Well, both science and religion both tell that their is a creator (religion: God, Allah, etc..; science: The big bang, time supposedly did not even exist before), so I'm gambling that there is indeed a "creator," even if the creator is not still here, and/or not conscious.

Just as the big bang proves the existence of the Creator, the laws of physics prove the conscious presence of a Creator. How is it that something that does not live like gravity, exists and functions ? Nature is testament to Gods existence

[RT60 Calculator]

Hey there,
Just presenting another opinion. I am of the scientific stance, but I'd like to think that these are valid points, or at least, fodder for discussion...

...all of these are definable and quantifiable hence we would term these things limited.

I know I'm making a small and arbitrary point, but there is a difference between 'quantifiable' and 'limited'. Just because something can be counted does not mean there is only a certain amount to count.
As I say, not an important point.

The concept (for want of a better word) of God or any god/deity/supreme power/etc is only a function of faith, or belief in said god. Faith is very difficult to quantify, as it does not provide anything other than a feeling of wellbeing, companionship or guidance and is almost entirely self-sustaining. Most people have a faith in a situation where answers are not readily available, and this faith can (often vaguely, but almost always satisfyingly) explain or give reason to the nature of a given circumstance.

At least, this is the modern faith, where science and religion are often at loggerheads. As a result, the above argument is constantly wheeled out and whored to suit anybody's narrow scientific view. This is wrong - the foundation of the scientific method is to observe with an open mind, without prejudice or predilection (I should point out that I am of the scientific stance, but am outlining this anyway).

There have been a few posts both ways, regarding the ubiquitous 'impossible infinite chain' argument, in an effort to both prove and disprove the existence of a god and of the big bang. Unfortunately, it is not conclusive in either case: if this first instant - for whichever reason - initiated the universe, then by definition it also marks the beginning of time, which is a finite and impassable boundary. At least, with our technology and wisdom.

This leads to another point. If we do, somehow, cross the threshold of time, will the findings make a difference? Even if we found out the cause of the birth of the universe, how do we understand whether or not it was determined by a Creator? All we would find is the actual physical incident. Let me clarify with a simple analogy: if we stamp on an anthill, the ants know that the anthill was flattened by a large object coming from above, the impact of which caused it's collapse. They will not understand that we meant to do it, only that it happened.

A parting shot - if a god is a function of belief, does the god still 'exist' if nobody believes?

TL;DR -> Does it really matter?

An interesting thought?

The RT60 Calculator Guy.

[RT60 Calculator]

A parting shot - if a god is a function of belief, does the god still 'exist' if nobody believes?

Does a falling tree make a sound if no one hears it? Of course it does. The sound is still made because the air particles still reverberate. Same concept applies.

A falling tree has a physical (thus quantifiable?) effect on it's surroundings. What physical, demonstrable effect does a god have?

[Byron]

A falling tree has a physical (thus quantifiable?) effect on it's surroundings. What physical, demonstrable effect does a god have?

The God of the universe causes the earth to spin on it's axis.