@Aupmanyav just argues in circles with me.
He asks for evidence, and claims that he doesn't mean "show me G-d in the flesh",
but cannot say what he does mean.
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
He asks for evidence, and claims that he doesn't mean "show me G-d in the flesh",
but cannot say what he does mean.
- Messages
- 3,650
- Reaction score
- 1,737
- Points
- 108
Did you see my new thread about this - "What evidence would you accept" in Belief and Spirituality?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Anything that could not have happened without the intervention of a God.
For creation of universe, science has the theory of Big Bang. For emergence of life, science has RNA world.
That science is the observation of the physical universe ..
..but G-d is not physical .. so asking for physical evidence is useless.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Some one said if God interferes in the physical, then it is physical.
What's "it" ?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Your God is not a male or a female or an LGBTQ. Nor its existence has ever been proved. So how do I mention it?
In my Advaita belief, Brahman is always addressed as 'It'. So, I believe, a force of habit.
In my Advaita belief, Brahman is always addressed as 'It'. So, I believe, a force of habit.
Ah, you mean G-d, the Most Merciful..
No. G-d is not physical, despite what some might say.
"If all the trees were pens, and all the oceans ink, with seven more besides,
the words of your Lord would not be exhausted".
G-d is of an infinite nature .. He is able to create universes ad infinitum.
Should I believe His words, or yours?
I am satisfied that His words are of great wisdom, whilst you continue to ask for proof,
and ignore them. So be it.
The history of documents pertaining to the G-d of Abraham go back 1000's of years,
by various authors and reliability. People who analyse them come up with varying
conclusions, but to believe that they are all part of a giant hoax is highly improbable.
Not only that, but if it were a hoax, then existence itself is mere coincidence, with
nothing responsible for it. Hmmm, I think not!
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I would not be interested in a book of a million volumes.
Your God's words or the words of Muhammad?
To you your belief.
Have you ever given a proof?
It is a hoax started by Moses, continued by Jesus and Muhammad, and the later variants.
The gullible, the superstitious and the priests/clerics are responsible for the continuation of the hoax.
That's next to impossible. Only those with little knowledge (or with bad intention) could
claim that.
The hoax is that of devils, who want to extinguish the light of faith.
The sequel is for the righteous, who acknowledge truth.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
The hoax starts with the concept of God and ends with prophets/son/messengers/manifesttions/mahdis.
<ignore>
</ignore>
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I have said very clearly in one of my posts that I would accept the Abrhamic God if he interchanges the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.
Not just me, but all atheists would accept him. But the Abrahamic God does not seem to take up the challenge.
Ah .. you speak for all disbelievers.. you must be able to read their minds.
..so how would your belief in "the Abrahamic God" change your life?
What would you do differently?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I think if atheists get a proof they would not unnecessarily deny God/Gods/Goddesses.Ah .. you speak for all disbelievers.. you must be able to read their minds.
..so how would your belief in "the Abrahamic God" change your life?
What would you do differently?
He has not made the change of orbits. So, I remain an unbeliever.
I will go to mosque nearest to my house and pray five times a day. Rehmatullah, Barkatullah.
What for? What good would it do you?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Does not Rehmatullah, Barkatullah, explain it?
But I remain an atheist because the Abrahamic God does not come forward to take up the challenge.
The theory of Big Bang was originally named the Theory of the Primeval Atom.
It was once a priest named Georges Lemaitre who loved science and looking at the cosmos he imagined that the whole expansion of heavens full of stars dispersed at random appeared to be similar to what is an explosion.
His idea was that an atom, the primeval atom, was a unique particle in the middle of nothing, that suddenly suffered an explosion and started to spread out. According to him this explosion caused the birth of space and stars.
In those times, the fanatics of another theory known as relativity, these scientists found gold in Lemaitre's idea, or better to say, imagination. They used the fantasy to accommodate their theory, which of course is also a total fraud, and promoted it all around the scientific community.
When you think about Lemaitre's theory, you must analyze the possibility of having the entire mass of the universe you see today, but compressed in a single atom. The idea itself overpasses the limit of the absurd. To add more analysis, the cause of such an explosion has no been given up to today, but books and websites portrait for you lots of images representing such an expansion without any scientific evidence. Explosions in space are very common, specially when supernovas occur. These explosions can justify the detection of microwaves leftovers.
And please don't get me wrong, I'm not against science. Totally the contrary I am a science's lover, and surely it can explained better the creation of the universe based in the scriptures. Not in seven literal days, of course. Point is that science is not against religion at all, but what is against religion is the bunch of science theories which are notorious today. Most of modern theories of science lack evidence. These are created or invented based on formulas written in a piece of paper.
Leaning on the current theories of science to obtain an idea of the formation of the universe is a waste. Of course, people can decide by themselves what they can believe, still, what the theories of science state together with the big bang idea is just a belief, definitively is not science.
I somehow envy the ant of the tiger, because other species don't waste their lives thinking about who created God. If a God exists and never informed us how that being came to be, then I guess the question is just a great topic to increment our curiosity. However, I don't think we will discover the answer for that enigma.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I do that because I have time to waste. Who knows? Perhaps at some time in the future.
