Proof God Doesn't Exist

[Suburbanite]

I don't know where I learned that but a lot of my thinking is honestly influenced by “Irony, Contingency and Solidarity” by Richard Rorty. A lot of it is just my way of talking about life, as a thing which can be created and recreated by all of its participants simultaneously.

Perfection and free will or choice are often misunderstood. People can be perfect and no one has free will or choice unless they have so called God-like ability.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say; but personally I chose not to talk about people in terms of “perfect”. I think that perfection implies a standard, a right way to be. I wouldn't know a perfect person if I saw one. It seems like the criteria for perfection is “subjective” and “relative” so to speak. As far as “free choice” again, I don't believe that this phrase has any necessary correspondence with reality, that is to say I think think the word free is anything but a word in a language with uncountable idiosyncratic contingencies that I can't say for certain are ever “true”. I think of “Free” as a word used by people trying to employ some kind of description of the worlds in terms of free or enslaved; a dichotomy created (like all words) by man. Am I making sense?

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: zauhiyq According to what? Where is your reference? or is this just how you feel? You just made it up? What book is this from?

My gist is based on some of the posts nos. # 2, 5, 17, 19, and 21 on this very threasd. You may please refer!!

[littleeif]

To argue against the Judeo-Christian approach to God, one should really know what that is, so let's review: (1) God is a first being, neither created himself nor in need of a creation; (2) God created both spiritual and material beings out of love for them, that for their own sakes they might know his own joy in existence; (3) As to man, God made him a being like God himself - immortal, creative and procreative, self-willed and free. Man was made unlike God in one thing only, that man is a created being therefore his nature was breathed into him by God. (4) Man, by his nature, is made to love God and in that loving relationship to find his fulfillment and joy. Love requires free will; love is proved in part by one's ability to walk away and one's refusal to do so. Love also requires that one weigh and account for the desires of the beloved. (5) Man found the requirement of the love of God too burdensome, choosing not to have God impinge upon his will. God, knowing the nature of man which he created, warned that man could not find fulfillment elsewhere. Man accepted the premise that God was not telling him the truth in order to prevent man from assuming God's own prerogative as the first being and walked away. (6) Man in his current state is a fallen or broken being because he has denied his very nature. (7) Jesus Christ was necessary exactly because God is all merciful and all just and in Jesus he demonstrates both while offering the human being a means of returning to his original relationship with God.

Now as I understand it, that is the ten thousand year belief regarding the existence of God held by Christians and Jews alike (but for item 7). I just haven't seen too much of an awareness of what it is many of you who disbelieve are disbelieving.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Kuldeep Therefore, to my mind God must be the basic driving force of this whole infinite universe, which can be equated to the self of any personified body living or non-living. Both self as well as God are not knowable by our limited materialistic natural senses. To know the absolute reality one has to go beyond one's personal ego of feeling of separate individual self existence! ! !:eek:

According to what? Where is your reference? or is this just how you feel? You just made it up? What book is this from?

Kuldeep says: My gist is based on some of the posts nos. # 2, 5, 17, 19, and 21 on this very threasd. You may please refer!!

#2 - After supposing so many imaginary items heaven, soul and then mainly even GOD, you are giving verymuch rational and mathematical proof that God Dosen't Exist!!! Is it not funny and totally imaginary????

The main falasy is that you consider GOD as separate identity than its Creation. In fact, GOD is sureme consciouness, which exists in whole living and non-living matter which comes to our conception. In other words, GOD exists in whole universe and even beyond. Till you (you not as material, but something what you call yourself as you) feel and consider yourself a separate identity, you remain so, but this is your own mind's creation and is thus, own created binding of remaining a separate identity. After death, you would still remain a same separate identity, due to your own thinking of mind as what has been termed as SOUL. But, if you are able to realise the reality behind you, your mind will be enlightened to know in fact you are a part of same supreme consciousness called GOD. Means, you would merge with GOD and all created limitations would dissolve. In both the states of your mind, supreme consciousness, GOD exists. So your statement based on theory on imaginary terms, "GOD Does Not Exist" is not correct!!!!

On the other hand sine we exist, is more than enough proof that HE EXISTS, AS A DRIVING ENERGY IN US ONLY!!!! OR, IN OTHER SIMPLER LAYMAN WORDS: CREATOR IS BOUND TO BE THERE SINCE CREATION EXISTS BEFORE US!!!!

#5 - I have not only understood you, but I knew it before the the start of discussion with you that "electrical energy" drives thought process. what you are not trying to understand WHY AT ALL THIS ELECTRCAL ENERGY IS GENERATED!!!! You yourself say materially dead body is same and identical as the live body; excepting that of your dear " electrical energy". Honestly, without wasting more of my and your time on this idiot "electrical energy"and brain, please tell me, are you or your respected science really know as to WHY AT ALL THIS ELECTRCAL ENERGY IS GENERATED!!!! If you have a clear cut answer due to what "electrical energy", or who produces it, then I would stop here!!!! I won't discuss any more!!
But, to best of my confidence since, I won't get answer from to my above question, I would continue and answer your second part of the post, since I, and not my electrical energy have the mood to finish this dicussion now. I have full sympathy with you and your eagerness to know the truth. unfortunately, the truth you want to know is not conceivable by your nature gifted senses. My repeated answer to my own posed question is that YOU ARE THE REASON BEHIND THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY WHICH DRIVES YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AS KNOWN TO YOU THROUGH SCIENCE. Had it not been so. we should have some sort of electrical generator in the brain producing " electrical energy" for neurons to move. In that case, that electrical generator should be YOU. Since, no electrical generator is ever found in the brain, so YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE which I term as SOUL.

Now coming to your vollies of questions on soul, I would answer one by one.
You, after death exist as thought, which again is driven by you only exactly the same fashion as in living stage. Before you laugh and put few more curious questions, I would drive you into stage of dream. Can you tell me how you respond in dream?? how you act, walk, talk, get frightened on seeing a lion, become happy on seeing your girl friend and the like??? The way you exist in dream even when you are sleeping with eyes closed, but still doing all the possible actions as you are able to do while in waking stage. I do not think, or for that matter, any materialist person can give you closer similarity to your existance after death than in your dream.

Your rest of questions can be answered on the basis of dream only. For example, tell me in dream what are you made of??? Then can you go anywhere you like??? what drives you and moves you?? I suggest you concentrate on dream, you may get some satisfaction. Once, I too was wondering what you are now, but I have clear picture before me!!! It may sound general belief, but it is fact. I do not have any doubt!!!

Read this:
In spite of seeing everybody dying, nobody even you would never feel that you would also die. It is fact, you may mentally calculate that you would die within 100 or so years, but feeling is different than calculation. That shows you do not die actually.
Hope, you have read explanation of existence of ourself after death and GOD's existence. Then even if, somebody comes and tells you exactly, what I have written about soul and GOD. You or for that matter friend like SoccerfreakAB2, or your Scientific community would call him and start their wellknown CT Scan and what not. give him few electrical shocks. If some life yet remains with him that would be finished in a mental hospital.

#19 - I can tell you, more than 10 persons of her own relatives are not only believeing her but are also eye witness to what she has narrated. May be around 1000 persons in this city only must be believeing it. Then many thousands also must have given a thought to her special memory, who must have witnessed a live T V telecast some one year back. It is not question of number of persons who believe her statement, but point is how she could know, the names of persons who she never met before. How her all the statement about previous birth's incidents with all of them, have been found to be correct by her father and few other relatives accompanying her. How can you, as debater say big NO to this fact??? you should reason it out and then refute!!!

I have no interest in getting qulified as a cult. My intention was to provide a realistic incident which might give eye opening solution to astonishing and inquisitive question, What before or after life??? You might have noted, I tried always to keep religions and faiths a loof. Our discussion should be rational!!!! We are not here to increase number of cults or the like. We are trying to sort out, what is the possible reality beyond our normal coventional conception!!! Nature has not gifted us to concieve whole of reality. This because we would have created problem for HIM (God or whatever you call it), if it at all exists some where. If some obivious narration from some rare person is coming our way, how without any solid reason we can ignore and term it absurd!!!

To conclude, what I have seen myself and it gives solution to other related mistries like, luck and destiny is good enough. I wanted to share with you all, my personal experience. If you term it bullshit, it is your choice!! I have nothing to say further. But even then, if main stream religions through beleivers like you can guide people including me, is welcome. Can you give me a living example such as I have given , who can clear cut say reincarnation is absurd, or give some altrenative reality????

321 - True, you exist exactly the way you exist now but without body. You would continue to have feel of existence, possibly would communicate with other bodyless persons, mostly your known persons, relatives, who have died before you. But obviously not with persons you have left behind, since they are caged in their bodies you are not. So, they can not have access to you and vice-versa. But, on the hand if, your or their wish is immense then, you can meet in their dreams. Alas!!! It cannot be proved.

These references are not authentic nor can it be verified.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: littleeif To argue against the Judeo-Christian approach to God, one should really know what that is, so let's review: (1) God is a first being, neither created himself nor in need of a creation; (2) God created both spiritual and material beings out of love for them, that for their own sakes they might know his own joy in existence; (3) As to man, God made him a being like God himself - immortal, creative and procreative, self-willed and free. Man was made unlike God in one thing only, that man is a created being therefore his nature was breathed into him by God. (4) Man, by his nature, is made to love God and in that loving relationship to find his fulfillment and joy. Love requires free will; love is proved in part by one's ability to walk away and one's refusal to do so. Love also requires that one weigh and account for the desires of the beloved. (5) Man found the requirement of the love of God too burdensome, choosing not to have God impinge upon his will. God, knowing the nature of man which he created, warned that man could not find fulfillment elsewhere. Man accepted the premise that God was not telling him the truth in order to prevent man from assuming God's own prerogative as the first being and walked away. (6) Man in his current state is a fallen or broken being because he has denied his very nature. (7) Jesus Christ was necessary exactly because God is all merciful and all just and in Jesus he demonstrates both while offering the human being a means of returning to his original relationship with God. Now as I understand it, that is the ten thousand year belief regarding the existence of God held by Christians and Jews alike (but for item 7). I just haven't seen too much of an awareness of what it is many of you who disbelieve are disbelieving.

Stand down! It's sad.

[zauhiyq]

[quote=Kuldeep;294765]Last few posts do not mention much as proof for God's non-existence! I want to remind gist of my thinking. No separate personified or manifested God exists since, no body till today has seen God. In fact, no one has seen God and described how it looks like. For that matter even Jesus Christ who was one with God did never hint how God looks like. I may be corrected if he did it otherwise!!!

QUOTE]

Step by step lets clear it up. GOD, where does this word come from?

[littleeif]

zauhiyq - Sit down and read Genesis - that's the first book of the Old Testament - wherein the God of Jews and Christians alike is first introduced.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Prometheus The argument begins like the famous Epicurean paradox. Definitions: Perfect Soul - a soul that has free will, but will not sin, and is as close to God as possible. Perfection of a Soul - (adjective) - How close a soul is to God. Free Will - a soul with free will can make a choice to do anything that is within its power to do in the universe it is in, at any time it exists. Assumption: 1. The Christian God exists, and the Christian universe as Christians claim it to be exists. Argument: 2. God is Omnibenevolent - God desires for us to be as close to him as possible, and desires to have a true relationship with us (with our free will) as opposed to him being close to us without our free will. (From 1) 3. God is Omniscent - God knows everything that will happen in the human universe, from Genesis to Exodus, from the beginning of time to the end. (From 1) 4. God is Omnipotent - God can manipulate the human universe in anyway he feels, and God has the ability to create any type of soul he wants. A soul is defined as an agent that can live in the human world, has free will, and thus can sin. (From 1) 5. There are souls that have gone through the human universe without believing in him from birth to death. Such souls are not as close to God as those that believe in him. The next part is tricky: 6. Man either has free will in heaven or does not. 7. If man does not have free will in heaven, then God is not acting omnibenevolent by sending us to heaven when we die, since that would be against the desire described in #2. So a contradiction occurs (since God can't be both omnibenevolent and not omnibenevolent) and therefore either God cannot exist or there is free will in heaven. (since God's existance is what are we are ultimately trying to disprove, lets assume there is free will in heaven). 8. Man has free will in heaven. 9. Man is closer to God in heaven than the closest any human being as has ever gotten to God on Earth. 10. God has the ability to make a perfect soul, and send it directly to heaven (where that soul still has free will by #8 ), without going through Earth first. 11. If God is Omnibenevolent, God must make every soul perfect and send it to heaven, because it is God's desire to be as close as possible to us while allowing us to have free will, and God has the ability to do so (by #10). 12. But God has not done what is said in statement #11, because statement #5 is actually the case, so therefore God does not exist, for if he did exist, statement #11 would be the case instead of statement #5. (or you can say therefore there is no free will in heaven, but then God cannot exist by #7) In my opinion, the best way to argue against this logic is to disagree with statement #10, and claim that God is unable to directly send people to heaven. However, there are multiple aspects of sending someone directly to heaven. There is the event of God making the perfect soul, and there is the second event of God placing that perfect soul in heaven. The second event must be within God's ability, since God makes our souls perfect and places them in heaven. So then God is incapable of making the perfect soul. At which point you can reformulate the argument: 13. God must have a limit on how close he makes a soul to perfection when he makes it. 14. God is capable of making those souls who at some point will believe in him and be closer to him during that soul's life. 15. God is not acting omnibenevolent by making the non-believer souls in statement #5, since he had the ability to make the soul a believing soul as well, but chose not to. 16. But God is omnibenvolent, so this in contradiction with #15, and therefore God cannot exist.

There is not much sense to polemize with, and I take your article as a joke. Otherwise, specify and/or rephrase it please.
( Some of your points carry syllogisms that contradict with determination(s), completely. )

[ima9rd]

Quote by: Kuldeep It is not tuning out. It has been tired to tune it out!!! Fact remains in your following Quote, which to my mind has not been correctly explained by SoccerfreakAB2 with the example of computer.. According to SoccerfreakAB2 and his scientific explanation, some unknown energy in every cell makes neurons to spin and create electricity, which carry messages from and to the brain. Why and where from cells get that energy is not explained!!

I apologize if someone has responded to this post already, I'm a bit under the weather and don't have the time to read all of the pages of this thread.

To explain this, you would really need to take an anatomy class, but I'll give it a shot anyways.

This "electricity" is actually just sodium and potassium ions inside and outside the cell, polarizing the inside of the cell. Proteins in the cell membrane use Adenosine Triphosphate [ATP] (Created in the mitochondria using glucose [you get this from food you intake]) in order to "pump", if you will, Na out of the cell and K back into the cell. This process pumps out three Na ions and pumps in two K ions. This creates a difference in charge across the cell membrane, usually balancing out around -70mV when comparing the immediate fluid on each side of the membrane (voltage balances out if you compare the entire fluid inside and out). Cell membranes usually have channel proteins that open in response to electricity (voltage gated). These channels are opened along the cell membrane and propagate a charge along the cell membrane until reaching the destination (usually the synaptic knob of a neuron cell [this is the part of the neuron that connects to other neurons' dendrocytes]). At this time, neurotransmitters are released, which bind to Ligand Gated channel proteins (proteins that open in response to a specific molecule binding to their receptor sites), and allow a flood of Na ions into the cell, therefore depolarizing the cell membrane surrounding the synapse and beginning the propagation of another charge along another neuron. Just imagine this happening trillions of times between billions of neurons.

Conscious thought is just communications between neurons in the cerebral cortex of the brain. The production of Adenosine Triphosphate is aerobic (requires oxygen), and when you die, your cells stop producing ATP and the cells themselves die due to a lack of nutrients, which makes conscious thought impossible. Therefore, "you" cease to exist, and what remains in a combination of decomposing cells.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: ima9rd I apologize if someone has responded to this post already, I'm a bit under the weather and don't have the time to read all of the pages of this thread. To explain this, you would really need to take an anatomy class, but I'll give it a shot anyways. This "electricity" is actually just sodium and potassium ions inside and outside the cell, polarizing the inside of the cell. Proteins in the cell membrane use Adenosine Triphosphate [ATP] (Created in the mitochondria using glucose [you get this from food you intake]) in order to "pump", if you will, Na out of the cell and K back into the cell. This process pumps out three Na ions and pumps in two K ions. This creates a difference in charge across the cell membrane, usually balancing out around -70mV when comparing the immediate fluid on each side of the membrane (voltage balances out if you compare the entire fluid inside and out). Cell membranes usually have channel proteins that open in response to electricity (voltage gated). These channels are opened along the cell membrane and propagate a charge along the cell membrane until reaching the destination (usually the synaptic knob of a neuron cell [this is the part of the neuron that connects to other neurons' dendrocytes]). At this time, neurotransmitters are released, which bind to Ligand Gated channel proteins (proteins that open in response to a specific molecule binding to their receptor sites), and allow a flood of Na ions into the cell, therefore depolarizing the cell membrane surrounding the synapse and beginning the propagation of another charge along another neuron. Just imagine this happening trillions of times between billions of neurons. Conscious thought is just communications between neurons in the cerebral cortex of the brain.

Wow! I thakyou for the basic knowledge of conscious thought.

The production of Adenosine Triphosphate is aerobic (requires oxygen), and when you die, your cells stop producing ATP and the cells themselves die due to a lack of nutrients, which makes conscious thought impossible. Therefore, "you" cease to exist, and what remains in a combination of decomposing cells.

The production of Adenosine Triphosphate is aerobic and according to you is basic requirement of survival of any type of life. But more important is next part of the sentence i.e. When you die...conscious thought impossible.

Dear ima9rd, this you I feel is the cause of the production of most important ingridient "Adenosine Triphosphate". The descriptive detail of this subjective YOU, in materialistic way has NOT been able to narrate by any human being till toay. Even you have left that YOU alone without description, since it not possible to describe. But then we have aviable published material which talk about near death experiences, previous life memories which can never be explained by our known scientific techniques and phsical knowlege.

Let me also call that you as YOU only but I feel that YOU has a sense of individuality much clearer than when caged inside the physical frame (the body). I further feel as long that individuality remains YOU remains as an individual and can at its will re-enter any other body frame in the womb of mammal or egg as the case be. But when YOU realises that indiviuality is his own illusion created by he himself then he loses its individuality and finds himself in the whole universe as the suprerme consciousness which one may term as GOD!!! Thus my belief God does not exist as individual but as some force behind this universe. So God exist as force not as mentioned in various religions

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: zauhiyq These references are not authentic nor can it be verified.

Before this also authenticity of my tale about lady was questioned by many others. To them, I told that the lady lives in our locality only.What she claimed in childhood was verified by her parents that time. Even recently at the age of about 50 years she repeated her claims in the form of TV interview. I myself vitnessed that programme.

I do agree with all that this can not be taken as scientific reproducable proof. Why don't you realise if every thing man knows what the super power do then!!!!

[xJesterx]

It's impossible to prove Gods existance/nonexistance beyond all reasonable doubt (or even a little reasonable doubt). Likewise you can't prove that you exist or that the computer you are typing on exists or that the oxygen you're breathing exists.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: xJesterx It's impossible to prove Gods existance/nonexistance beyond all reasonable doubt (or even a little reasonable doubt). Likewise you can't prove that you exist or that the computer you are typing on exists or that the oxygen you're breathing exists.

That's absurd and beyond any known reality. The question really boils down to whether or not it's worth accepting if something exists or not. I have absolutely no reason to deny your existence. I know your keyboard isn't typing by itself, that isn't reality, so I conclude that SOMEONE under the name Xjesterx is typing and this Jester is human. The philosophy that nothing can be known is nothing more that Philosophy 101 garbage that students of philosophy like to spout to show off their intellect. Do yourself a favor, put Kant, Hume, Descartes et al down and pick up a science book or two. You will learn that as a human, you need oxygen and other natural gases to remain alive so you KNOW it exists.

[ima9rd]

Quote by: Kuldeep Wow! I thakyou for the basic knowledge of conscious thought. The production of Adenosine Triphosphate is aerobic and according to you is basic requirement of survival of any type of life. But more important is next part of the sentence i.e. When you die...conscious thought impossible. Dear ima9rd, this you I feel is the cause of the production of most important ingridient "Adenosine Triphosphate".

Adenosine Triphosphate is produced in the mitochondria, through several chemical reactions with glucose and oxygen.

Oh, and I meant to say dendrites, not dendrocytes, and it won't let me edit my post.

[samsara15]

I'm not certain that, even if there is life after death, and we see God and go to heaven, we can be sure it is either God or heaven.

If there is no afterlife, there is no problem.

[littleeif]

Quote by: littleeif zauhiyq - Sit down and read Genesis - that's the first book of the Old Testament - wherein the God of Jews and Christians alike is first introduced.

Hey zauhiyq - I hope you have taken this time to read Genesis. Then you understand the God proposed there is a prime being, the first and eternal. As such, he is not subject to time. Being beyond time, he is also beyond space since one cannot exist without the other, therefore the entire premise of this thread is silly - one cannot be closer to or further away from God. Since he existed before materiality, he did not need to create it and since we read he found his creation good, he created for the joy of that which was created.

He made a specific creature, man, who was not intended to suffer death (therefore is immortal). Man had materiality (a body) and also spirit (a soul). Man was free to wield power without interference within the material world; more importantly he was able to disobey God (free will). Again, the premise of this thread is silly because the creature man has free will as long as he is man, wherever that is exercised. Were God to dictate to man his actions, make him behave in one way or another even were that for his own good, man would be but God's puppet or toy.

God wills that every man find complete joy. Otherwise, the exercise of creation which was never necessary to him and which he found good would be pointless. He wills to be separated from no man, ever. Any man, however, can will to be separated from God and if that is a man's express desire God will permit it although it bring that man suffering because he did not make a puppet - he made a man. God simply predicts that separation from him will in fact bring misery (death and the trappings of death) and works to convince man of this. So again, the premise of this thread makes no sense - an all loving, all just and all powerful God allows his beloved to perish against his own will if his beloved will have it no other way.

There are difficult, well constructed philosophical challenges to the existence of the God I have just described but not here.

[xJesterx]

Quote by: ItsDarts That's absurd and beyond any known reality. The question really boils down to whether or not it's worth accepting if something exists or not. I have absolutely no reason to deny your existence. I know your keyboard isn't typing by itself, that isn't reality, so I conclude that SOMEONE under the name Xjesterx is typing and this Jester is human. The philosophy that nothing can be known is nothing more that Philosophy 101 garbage that students of philosophy like to spout to show off their intellect. Do yourself a favor, put Kant, Hume, Descartes et al down and pick up a science book or two. You will learn that as a human, you need oxygen and other natural gases to remain alive so you KNOW it exists.

I have never studied philosophy and have no idea who Kant, Hume or Descartes are. Nor do I claim to have even a remote amount of intelligence (if you believe in intelligence). However I do believe that it is impossible to know that anything exists beyond the human consciousness. What you know to be rules, structure, society, oxygen and a keyboard - could all just be created by whatever force drives the simulation. When you dream, don't the objects seem real? The threats seem real? The need for oxygen? But they aren't. While you may have a slight surreal feeling to the dream state (not always the case) you still feel the world around you and its impact.

(oh btw - science is only of any use when operating on a purely scientific ground with a purely scientific thread. Since everything in science is theory and speculation it can't be taken as 'fact')

[1slam]

Simple Proofs for the Existence of Allah SWT (the Creator)

Contemplating Reality


"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, they are indeed signs for men of understanding." [Qur'an 3:190]

"Behold, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the alternation of night and day, in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind, in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead, in the beasts of all kinds that he scatters through the earth, in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, here indeed are signs for a people that are wise." [Qur'an 2:164]

Order from Disorder

This is a very easy concept to grasp. It basically states that in order to maintain any kind of order some external intervention is required.

To stop your garden from overgrowing you need to maintain it.

To prevent the woodwork from decaying you need to varnish it.

To prevent your bike from rusting you need to leave it under a shelter.

To prevent your bedroom from becoming a disaster area, you need to tidy it.

If you were to rip up the first page of hamlet and throw it up into the air, then no matter how many times you tied the pieces you would never be able to re-arrange them into the original page once they landed on the floor.

The idea here is that external work is required to correct things. When we look at nature rather than being random it is continuously being corrected. Even though on the surface it seems random (the dripping of the tap, the cloud formations, the structure of trees…) careful analysis using Chaos Theory has shown that nature is continuously correcting itself.

Chaos scientists have found that natural random variables once analysed and modelled properly display unique signs of order. The most advanced technology and computer aided design tools are being used to analyse such things as animal populations, the weather system, and even the dripping of taps. The mathematical structures being generated are producing strange 3 dimensional patterns, never before encountered (fractal geometry, the Mandlebrot set, strange and simple attractors).

A simple mathematic formula can produce eloquent and beautiful pictures when it is repeated over and over. The scientific world is coming to realise that the reality it studies is not just a colourless equation. Nature, is in fact displaying remarkable signs of order.

So indeed all the evidence points to the fact that order is being maintained. But by what? Why should matter take it upon itself to decide what it needs to do to correct the weather system, or balance animal populations?

From what we observe in reality we can deduce that an external agent is involved

[1slam]

Limited/Unlimited

The second rational concept is also based on observation and reality. It basically states that everything we perceive through our five senses is limited in some fashion.

There is nothing with a limitless length.

There is nothing with a limitless height.

There is nothing with a limitless volume.

There is nothing with a limitless density.

There is nothing with a limitless intensity.

There is nothing with a limitless pitch.

And so on, you get the general idea. These are what we define as the real four dimensions of reality i.e. the limitations of time and space. If we can measure it then we can limit it.

The fundamental aspect of this concept is that if two bodies are limited, then the sum of two is also limited.

This in fact applies to the universe as a whole. Since the previous example shows that the universe cannot be unlimited. Even if there were universes before this one, or there are universes currently developing or collapsing alongside us, the sum of all universes is limited.

It is not possible for a limited thing to have a limitless dimension.

Sound confusing? Well the following example should clarify.

Scientists often use the example of a line on a graph stretching to infinity. They really don’t understand the concept of infinity. If the line were to stretch to infinity then it would in fact become the unlimited being. If a piece of string had infinite length then no matter how light, or how thin it was, it would have to be the heaviest thing, the most spacious thing ever! Because no matter how much of it you measure there will always be some more to measure!

So we must assume that everything comprises of a set of limited things. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves:

What is there other than this collection of limited bodies?

How could the first limited thing have been created?

Whatever you may wish to call it you have to acknowledge that everything we perceive in reality originated from an unlimited source. This unlimited source Muslims call God or Allah (swt).

Cause and Effect

The third rational concept is the most damning, because scientists use it themselves to substantiate their formulae. It again is based on observation and reality. It basically states that for something to occur in reality a cause must exist.

If a man pushes a trolley the gain in momentum was caused by the man.

If a ball falls to the ground then the loss of position was caused by gravity.

If a bridge collapses then the breakdown in structure was caused by stress.

These few examples that have been given should illustrate the point that is being made. That every limited thing is caused by some other limited thing (or a collection of limited things, which comprises a limited thing anyway).

The question then arises that if everything is caused by something else preceding it, what caused the universe. Scientists argue that the universe was created from the debris of a previous universe, and that universe was created from the debris of a previous universe… and so on.

This is what they term the eternal chain.

But as mentioned before in the Limited/Unlimited concept, a limited thing cannot have a limitless dimension.

If you limit any part of a thing then the whole thing becomes limited.

Our universe is limited.

If our universe is part of the eternal chain, then the chain must be limited.

So the chain cannot be called eternal because eternal means never ending.

So the first link in the chain was limited.

How did this first link get created?

What initiated the conditions necessary to create the first link?

We must draw the conclusion, that an unlimited cause was responsible for the creation of the initial link. In addition since limited things do not have a mind of their own, we must also deduce that the unlimited source was responsible for the subsequent maintenance of order.

Who made God then?

This is probably the most asked question concerning the Creator. Every theist and atheist alike has thought about it, even if he/she could not answer it or did not wish to delve into it for fear of blaspheming.

Indeed, the reaction of most Muslims is either to shun the question or answer it without giving an explanation by declaring 'no one made God because he is Eternal! The confusion this creates, for a sincere seeker of the Truth is that on the one hand Muslims (and other theists) use the argument that every effect requires a distinct prior cause to prove that our universe could not have always been there, nor did it make itself or for that matter come from nothing. Therefore it must have been created or caused to come into being by some separate entity (ie. God). On the other hand, the same people appear to be anomalous in their line of argument by claiming that God was always there and was not caused. The questioner in this case is not denying that God exists. But is merely in doubt as to how can God could have always been there and had no beginning. In this article we shall endeavor to put an end to this controversial question by using a unique approach.

We need to first define what a Question is:

1 A Question is a sentence requesting information or an answer.

Now let us define what an Answer is:

2.An Answer is an explanation for an unknown thing that the question poses.

Hence we can safely state that the presence of an answer necessitates the existence of a question i.e. if there is no question there will be no answer. So, For example, if we define that a cat is an animal that cannot talk, and if someone then asks if the cat speaks Chinese, there is no answer to this question since it is a logical mistake as per definition and it carriers with it a supposition that the cats talks.

If we put the data concerning cats into a computer including the fact that cats cannot talk, how would the computer answer the above question? It would probably be programmed to display on the screen: "Question is illogical". It would be an incorrect answer to say: "No the cat cannot speak Chinese" because the implication is that it can speak although not Chinese, Equally incorrect is the answer: "the cat cannot speak," since that is the answer to a different question, namely: "Can the cat speak?"

Another question might be: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" Of course the definition of Germany is that it is a country and not a continent. But if one was to answer by saying: "Germany is not a continent" he would not be answering the above question but rather the question "is Germany a continent?" but with regards to the question: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" it is an illogical question according to the definition of Germany (i.e. that it is a country). On the other hand, if one answers by saying: "No Germany is not the largest continent in the world," he would still not be answering the question properly as he is indirectly implying that Germany is a continent although not the largest.

It is important to show the illogical nature of questions that are asked about the essence of God e.g. "Who created God?"

At this point, let us remind ourselves of the usual definition of God: we believe that God created everything including time, space, matter, energy and life. Thus, logically, the creator cannot be subject to the laws and concepts, which he created including time and space.

However, examining our above question about God, reveals that it carries with it an implicit assumption of time succession i.e. that God is subject to time.

The question: "who made/caused God?" implies that there was another thing/cause that existed before God existed and that thing is the power that created God at a later period in time.

The question also carries the supposition that the supposed creator of God is also subject to Time since it was there before it created God. In fact, the question assumes that Time is an eternal law and not a created law and that time was there before everything else, and everything else is subject to it. This, however, is not correct. Time is just one of the laws of the universe and a mere creation of God. Time is no more than an effect that depends on the observer’s motion and the speed of light, and can become zero (theoretically) i.e. void. Since Time exists within the universe and God is not part of the universe (or part of any of His creation for that matter), it naturally follows then that God is not under the influence of Time. Hence, God is Eternal and to ask a question which contains a negation of this attribute and an implication that God is subject to Time is in fact to not ask a question at all.

This is because the question then contains erroneous assumptions that make it inadmissible, non-scientific and meaningless. Such a question is not a question and therefore does not have a direct answer. It is similar to asking: How acute are the corners of a circle?" Because this question contains an intrinsic contradiction as per definition of circles, it becomes totally unintelligible and hence nullifies its validity as a question i.e. effectively the question does not exist.

Anybody advocating atheism ought to prove that time is absolute and eternal before posing the question, in the same way that someone who asks whether the cat speaks Chinese or not should first prove that cats can speak in the first place.

"Who is better in speech than the one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says I am one of the Muslims?" (Qur'an 41:33)

[littleeif]

Quote by: 1slam