If God created the universe, who created God?

[Ouroboros]

Peace
ArtieE please stop twisting the words that i used.You can go and chech what i said.I never said "every thing has to have an inventor or designer".
I said "Every thing we see around us has to have an inventor or designer".

So quarks don't have an inventor or designer... since we can't see them. Which means that quarks are God?

 

[McBell]

Forgive us that seek God as the explanation when all science fails.

No, I do not forgive those fond of the God of the gaps.

Actually it did.

Only for those in your choir.
For those outside your choir, it was severely lacking.

Gotta love Mest. Master of the "one sentence" responses hahahaha

I merely use the fewest amount of words required.

Unlike some people who think that really long posts of words upon words that do not really say more than a couple sentences helps their position some how.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Forgive us that seek God as the explanation when all science fails.

The problem is, "God did it" is no real explanation- God did what, exactly? If you can answer this, then you've included your explanandum in your explanans in toto- the explanans is richer than the explanandum; in addition to what we need to explain about X, we now need to explain God as well; we end up with more things to be explained than we started with. Clearly, this doesn't cut the mustard. (on the other hand, consider scientific explanations, such as Newton's theory of gravity, which accounted for a large body of data with a handful of mathematical expressions- the explanans is simpler than the explanandum, which is what we're looking for.)

Saying "God did it" isn't any more informative than saying "a wizard did it".

 

[ArtieE]

Peace
ArtieE please stop twisting the words that i used.You can go and chech what i said.I never said "every thing has to have an inventor or designer".
I said "Every thing we see around us has to have an inventor or designer".
Now please don't come and tell me you can see God because if you can see God then go and ask him who invented him.
Good try ArtieE but try again.
Peace
Farouk

What do you mean we can't see God?

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:9-11
Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.

Exodus 33:11-23
And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. (v.11)
And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts. (v.23)

Numbers 14:14
For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.

1 Kings 22:19
I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

Job 42:5
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Perhaps the god of the Qu'ran is not the same god as in the Bible?

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that miracles are generally believed in in all religions, so what is to be one's position vis-a-vis them? Accept all? Accept none? Accept only those in my religion?

I'll just stick with my "I don't know" response.

 

[farouk]

So quarks don't have an inventor or designer... since we can't see them. Which means that quarks are God?

Peace
Firstly.
Ouroboros you are mistaken when you say we can't see them.
There your link
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/PUS/leaflets/leaflet1.htm

HOW TO SEE QUARKS
Microscopes allow us to see objects that are too small to see directly. Optical microscopes, using light, go down close to 1 micron or (1 millionth of a metre). To see still smaller objects, towards the scale of atoms, requires a microscope using a beam of electrons rather than a beam of light. Light and electrons both behave as waves, and how small you can see depends on the wavelength you are using (the distance between the peaks). Visible light has wavelengths in the region of 0.5 micron, while the wavelengths associated with the electrons in an electron microscope can be 1000 times smaller still. This is because wavelength depends on energy: the greater the energy, the smaller the wavelength - and the finer detail you can see!
To see down to the level of quarks requires very high energies. At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre in California, a machine 2 miles long accelerates electrons to such high energies that they can "see" inside nuclei. In 1969 this machine provided the first glimpse of point-like concentrations of electric charge inside protons and neutrons - in other words, the particles we know as quarks, with charges of +2/3 and -1/3 the charge of the proton.

Secondly
I never stated that what man cannot see is God.

Thirdly
If man says that quarks don't have a designer and inventor then that is a man made law due to his lack of knowledge.

Finally
Let me repeat what i said.
"Every thing we see around us has to have an inventor or designer".
Hence we can see quarks then there has to be an inventor and designer.
Peace
Farouk

 

[ArtieE]

"Every thing we see around us has to have an inventor or designer".
Hence we can see quarks then there has to be an inventor and designer.

And since I showed in my last post that plenty of people saw God then God must have an inventor or designer according to you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hence we can see quarks then there has to be an inventor and designer.

Ok. Fair enough.

Can you see magnetic fields? Gravity? Can you see black holes? Can you see to the end of the universe? Can you see Big Bang?

I can only conclude that "seeing" something doesn't mean that it's "made." We don't know if God made the quarks either, so even if we see them, it doesn't mean they're made. A premise based on the assumption that God made the quarks and therefore everything we see must be made is circular argument and begging the question.

Btw, responding in Boldface Size=4 doesn't make something more convincing, rather the opposite. Just so you know.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, I do not forgive those fond of the God of the gaps.

Well if you won't forgive us, then forgive science for failing to provide an adaquate explanation to the question of why does a contigent universe exist.

Only for those in your choir.
For those outside your choir, it was severely lacking.

What a coincidence. I feel the same way about atheism and naturalism.

I merely use the fewest amount of words required.

Unlike some people who think that really long posts of words upon words that do not really say more than a couple sentences helps their position some how.

Well, if one sentence is irrational, there is a good chance that one irrational paragaph will follow. So by all means, stick to one sentence :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Saying "God did it" isn't any more informative than saying "a wizard did it".

It is informative to those that believe it.

 

[McBell]

Well if you won't forgive us, then forgive science for failing to provide an adaquate explanation to the question of why does a contigent universe exist.

At least science has the balls to say "I don't know"...

Well, if one sentence is irrational, there is a good chance that one irrational paragaph will follow. So by all means, stick to one sentence :yes:

Your transference is duly noted.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is informative to those that believe it.

No, because-

... you've included your explanandum in your explanans in toto- the explanans is richer than the explanandum; in addition to what we need to explain about X, we now need to explain God as well; we end up with more things to be explained than we started with...

You may fool yourself into thinking "God did it" has any explanatory power, but that's it.

 

[Awoon]

If God created the universe, who created God?

The universe is a projection of Mind Energy...AKA God.

 

[farouk]

Ok. Fair enough.

Can you see magnetic fields? Gravity? Can you see black holes? Can you see to the end of the universe? Can you see Big Bang?

I can only conclude that "seeing" something doesn't mean that it's "made." We don't know if God made the quarks either, so even if we see them, it doesn't mean they're made. A premise based on the assumption that God made the quarks and therefore everything we see must be made is circular argument and begging the question.

Btw, responding in Boldface Size=4 doesn't make something more convincing, rather the opposite. Just so you know.

Peace
Ouroboros
Sorry about that size 4...it was a copy and paste from the link that i gave you and i had no intent on screaming.I am new on the forum and still trying to figure how to rectify those boldface letters......Please accept my humble appologies.
Ouroboros i advice you read my post 53 again so that you can fully understand what i was putting across.(expecially my conclusion).
On the subject of quarks.
More than 1400 years ago the Quran stated that the atom is not the smallest part.
Surat Yūnus 10:61....The Noble Quraan
"In whatever business thou mayest be, and whatever portion thou mayest be reciting from the Qur'an,- and whatever deed ye (mankind) may be doing,- We are witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record.(The preserved Tablet)."
My question to you is how could an illiterate manProphet Muhammad(PBBUH) who lived more than 1400 years ago have known that the atom is not the smallest component of matter?
This is proof that its the creation of God.
Peace
Farouk

 

[Ouroboros]

Peace
Ouroboros
Sorry about that size 4...it was a copy and paste from the link that i gave you and i had no intent on screaming.I am new on the forum and still trying to figure how to rectify those boldface letters......Please accept my humble appologies.

Apology accepted.

Ouroboros i advice you read my post 53 again so that you can fully understand what i was putting across.(expecially my conclusion).
On the subject of quarks.
More than 1400 years ago the Quran stated that the atom is not the smallest part.
...
My question to you is how could an illiterate manProphet Muhammad(PBBUH) who lived more than 1400 years ago have known that the atom is not the smallest component of matter?
This is proof that its the creation of God.
Peace
Farouk

Uh... I'm not sure what that has to do with your earlier statement. I'm confused. It seemed like you were trying to make your own version of the Kalaam argument earlier, but now you're arguing for the authenticity of the Qur'an. It wasn't what I thought we were talking about.

The question about Qur'an and atoms... well, I'm no scholar, but I know that translations can come out in many different ways.

I had a debate with a muslim many years ago while I was still Christian. His argument against Christianity was that the Bible was translated in so many version and God's word should only be read in the original language. Here, I see someone translated old Arabic to modern English. According to him, the muslim, that's something you can't and shouldn't do, and is against God's will. Anyway, let's say it's okay to translate to English, then the question is if the translation is correct or adjusted to modern views. Perhaps the translators picked the world "atom" out of convenience? Perhaps it doesn't say what it seems to say at all? I wouldn't know. It's always easy to fix old texts to say whatever you want when you "translate" them into modern language.

 

[farouk]

"Every thing we see around us has to have an inventor or designer".
Hence we can see quarks then there has to be an inventor and designer.

And since I showed in my last post that plenty of people saw God then God must have an inventor or designer according to you.

Peace
ArtieE
If somebody is worshipping a statue as their God then there has to be an inventor and designer.
If somebody calls a human their God then again there has to be an inventor and designer.
Simply put it .It depends on what ones concept of God is according to his beliefs.

If you look at my conclusion on post 53 i said.....
"In simple lay mans launguage everything which is created has a beginning and the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of such thing is the creator.Science tells us the sun has a beginning, the moon has a beginning, our universe has a beginning. Who will know the mechanism? The creator God Almighty offcourse.The answer to its mechanism is in our Noble Quraan."

Peace
farouk

 

[farouk]

Apology accepted.



Uh... I'm not sure what that has to do with your earlier statement. I'm confused. It seemed like you were trying to make your own version of the Kalaam argument earlier, but now you're arguing for the authenticity of the Qur'an. It wasn't what I thought we were talking about.

The question about Qur'an and atoms... well, I'm no scholar, but I know that translations can come out in many different ways.

I had a debate with a muslim many years ago while I was still Christian. His argument against Christianity was that the Bible was translated in so many version and God's word should only be read in the original language. Here, I see someone translated old Arabic to modern English. According to him, the muslim, that's something you can't and shouldn't do, and is against God's will. Anyway, let's say it's okay to translate to English, then the question is if the translation is correct or adjusted to modern views. Perhaps the translators picked the world "atom" out of convenience? Perhaps it doesn't say what it seems to say at all? I wouldn't know. It's always easy to fix old texts to say whatever you want when you "translate" them into modern language.

Peace
May be you don't trust me.
Here is a link that will give you 6 different translators.

http://quran.com/10/61

Peace
Farouk

 

[Ouroboros]

Peace
May be you don't trust me.
Here is a link that will give you 6 different translators.

http://quran.com/10/61

Peace
Farouk

The word that's translated into "atom" also could mean "small ant" according to one translation. So God knows the weight of a small ant is an alternative.

I assume that the phrase "small ant" was a phrase used at that time to mean "the smallest thing". And the translators understood that and translated it to "atom" based on its meaning rather than its literal word.

The word is not "atom" in the original language, is it?

Here's the transliteration of the sura:
"Wama takoonu fee sha/nin wamatatloo minhu min qur-anin wala taAAmaloona minAAamalin illa kunna AAalaykum shuhoodan ithtufeedoona feehi wama yaAAzubu AAan rabbika minmithqali tharratin fee al-ardi walafee assama-i wala asghara min thalikawala akbara illa fee kitabin mubeen"
The word "atom" should show up somewhere there if that was the original word.

The sura actually made more sense when I had it translated to Swedish:
"Inte ens [vad som motsvarar] ett stoftkorns vikt, på jorden eller i himlen, är dolt för din Herre och ingenting finns, varken mindre eller större än detta, som inte [är inskrivet] i [Guds] öppna bok."

As you can see, it's not atom but "neither smaller nor larger than this" is the phrase that's translated to "atom" in English.

Therefore, the answer is, the Qur'an doesn't say anything about atoms or smaller than atoms. The translators, however, knew about atoms and used it for the translation.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think any one thing created the univers , the univers is creation itself and that s all I can say.

 

[Juanita]

I don't think any one thing created the univers , the univers is creation itself and that s all I can say.

Ahhhh, there you are....OK, I'll take the bait...What exactly do you mean "the universe is creation itself"? Is the universe what people call God? Good to "see" you...:yes: