BELIEF: Who is the Creator?

Discussion in 'Islam' started by madina, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. madina

    madina Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can It Be Matter? by Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris


    A very popular question among atheists is, ‘Granted that the existence of temporal things necessitates the existence of an eternal cause, why should that cause be the God of religion? Why can’t matter be eternal and be therefore in no need of an eternal creator?’ I shall argue, on an Islamic basis but at the same time also on a rational basis, that the attribute of eternity entails other attributes, which matter does not and cannot have, and cannot, in view of this, play the role of the original and ultimate cause of temporal things. Muslim theologians say that eternity of existence logically implies everlastingness. This is true because, if something is eternal then it does not depend for its existence on anything outside itself. If this is so then it can never pass away, because only those things pass away that lose some of the external conditions on which they depend for their existence. If the ultimate cause of temporal things is eternal and everlasting, it must of necessity be self-sufficient, qayyoom and ghanee.

    Can there be more than one such creator? The Quran tells us that this is impossible;
    “God never had a child, nor have there been any gods beside him. [Had there been any], each of them would have appropriated to himself what he created, and some would have overcome others.”

    This Quranic argument was paraphrased by some Muslims theologians in a way somewhat like the following: The assumption that there are gods beside the one true God leads to false consequences and must therefore be false. If there is more than one god, then (a) if every detail of everything in the world was the result of the action of one of the gods, it cannot at the same time be the result of the action of another god. But if (b) some things in the world were created by some gods, and others by other gods, then each god would rule independently over what he created, which means that nothing in his world can even in principle, be influenced by anything outside it. But this contradicts the observed unity and interdependence of the world. And if that is impossible, then (c) some gods will overcome others, but if that happens then the ones who are vanquished cannot be true gods. There can, therefore, be no more than one creator.

    How does this creator create? Since He is self-sufficient, He cannot be said to depend on anything outside Himself in any actions, and cannot therefore be said to produce His effects the way natural causes do. But if He is not a natural cause, He must be a volitional agent. And since intention implies knowledge, and knowledge and intention imply life, he must be a living being. Since He is an eternal and everlasting being, all His attributes must reflect this quality; thus He must be not only knowing, but all-knowing, not only powerful, but all-powerful, etc.

    Since no matter in any form can answer to these attributes, and since all these attributes are implied by the two attributes of eternity and everlastingness, no form of matter can be either eternal or everlasting, and thus no matter of any form can play the role of that ultimate cause. This much of the attributes that an eternal and everlasting creator must have is enough, I suppose, to show that it cannot be matter.

    But this conclusion can be further confirmed by what modern science tells us about the nature of matter.

    Why Should He Be The God Of Islam?

    Some might say, ‘Granted that this god is a personal and living God, and that He has the attributes which you mentioned, why should He be the God of Islam and not, say the Christian or Jewish God?’ The God of Islam is the God of all true prophets of God from Adam down to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. But it is a basic claim of the religion with which Muhammad came that previous religions (including Christianity and Judaism) have not been kept in their pristine form which those prophets advocated, but have been tampered with and distorted. The only religion whose book has taken upon itself to be preserved from any such distortions is the religion of the last of God’s prophets, namely Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is not to say that everything in those religions is false or bad. No! There is much in them that is good and true; it is only those elements in them that contradict Islam which must be false or bad. But even if they were to be purged of everything that is not in consonance with Islam, they would still be less perfect than Islam is, especially in their conceptions of God, therefore unsuitable for being universal religions.

    Having said this, let me give one example of a non-Islamic religious belief which the Quran considers to be a stupendous blasphemy against God, namely that He has children. At the time of the Prophet, some Arabs believed that the angels were the daughters of God, while some Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God, and some Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God. Just as the Quran gave arguments for the impossibility of there being any gods besides the one true God, it also gave elaborate arguments to show the impossibility of Him having a child, whether male or female. If the Creator is one and self-sufficient, then He is also unique, ahad, “Nothing is like Him.” But if so then, “He neither begets nor is He begotten.” “How can He have a child if He has no consort, and if He created everything?” The Quran is here saying that the claim that God has children contradicts the facts (acknowledged by those who make this claim) that He is the Creator of everything, that He is self-sufficient, and that He has no spouse. Now if He is the creator of everything, this necessarily includes the one who is claimed to be His child. But if this is created by Him, it cannot be His child; it has to be one of His creations. One does not create one’s child; one begets it. If it is insisted that the child is actually begotten and not created by God, this will entail the following false consequences:
    1. The begotten child must be of the same nature as its father, in which case God will not be unique or one.
    2. God will not be the creator of everything.
    3. God will have to have a spouse, who must of course be of the same nature as He is, otherwise they cannot beget anything.
    4. But in that case the number of beings who are of the same nature as God will be raised to three.
    5. If the child is begotten then it cannot be eternal, i.e. it cannot be of the same nature as the father.
    6. It must therefore be temporal; but in that case it has to have a creator. But if the God who is its father cannot at the same time be its creator, then there must be its creator, then there must be another creator besides that God the father; but in that case, this other creator will be the one true creator because it was through his power that the first one was able to beget its son. This will raise the number of gods to four.
    No wonder than that the Quran said about those who claimed that Allah has a child,
    “You have indeed come with something most monstrous, of which the skies almost burst, the earth split asunder, and the mountains fall down in utter ruin. All this because of their attributing a child to Allah.”
     
  2. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    please cite the sources from which you are taking these articles, if they are not your own thoughts, thanks :)


    i've never heard an atheist pose the question:

    "Granted that the existence of temporal things necessitates the existence of an eternal cause, why should that cause be the God of religion? Why can’t matter be eternal and be therefore in no need of an eternal creator?"

    how does the existence of temporal things imply an eternal cause?
     
  3. Cordoba

    Cordoba Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    That's a good question.

    Logically-speaking, all what exists around us has a start and an end. A baby is born, then grows and 80 years or so later he dies.

    This person is not eternal, which means he is created.

    The same applies to stars, trees, birds, .... etc. They are all not eternal.

    Logically-speaking, all these elements in our universe must be traced back somewhere, and science can take us back around 14 billion years to the Big Bang.

    Q: What caused the Big Bang?

    A: The Eternal Necessary Being, who designed and created all this immense universe.

    For further background, if of interest, you may wish to have a look at this site:

    http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/

    All the best.
     
  4. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Salaam Cordoba,

    thank you for the post.

    well... this isn't entirely accurate... there are known phenomena in the universe which have no cause, thus, no start nor end. virtual particles and all of that sort of thing. leaving QM aside, i understand your point here.

    how's that work? not being eternal does not then imply that a being is created. it simply means that the being does not exist eternally. the being may be created in any number of fashions, theistically, naturally or a combination of causes, conditions and karma.

    agreed, and nobody has posited that they are. these are phenomena which have arisen based on causes and conditions, and when these causes and conditions are no longer present, the phenomena ceases to manifest.

    that a object does not exist outside of time does not imply a creator.

    well... science can take us to one of several theories regarding the arisinig of this particular universe. i'm not all that fond of the rapid inflationary theories.. i tend towards the No Boundary Proposal coupled with the SAP, as proposed by Hawking and Turok.

    we've not established that this is the correct theory, ergo, there seems to be little value in speculation in this regard.

    from the scientific point of view, it doesn't matter who or what started the Big Bang (if that is correct) since the information would not be transferred into our universe, we'd never know about it one way or the other.

    however, we've not established that such a being exists, let alone, is responsible for the phenomena that arise in our universe.

    sorry... Harun Yahya does not possess the credentials to determine if what he says is correct or not :) he's not a scientist at all... he is a trained writer who has, according to his own bio, no degrees in any relevant scientific field.

    as such, i'll take the view of Dr. Hawking over that of Harun Yahya in matters of science :)
     
  5. Awaiting_the_fifth

    Awaiting_the_fifth Where is my mind?

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    The original post in this thread is the worst proof of anything I've ever come across. (when will people learn that religion cant be proven?)

    I can back up this statement and I reckon I can pick out at least 10 sentences from this piece which purport to be logical proofs but are actually either leaps of faith or downright nonsensical.

    Of course that would take quite a bit of effort and its kind of late, so what Ill say is this, if anyone (other than the original author of the thread) reads through it and cant see any flaws in the logic then I'll demonstrate ten flaws right here right now, challenge me if you must!

    Let me also state that this is in no way a rebuttal of muslim beliefs, I just wish to hell that people would stop trying to prove their religious beliefs. It cant be done. (Except my religion of course which is obvious and empirically and logically proveable)
     
  6. Awaiting_the_fifth

    Awaiting_the_fifth Where is my mind?

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    By this logic, the teachings of mohammed must have also become distorted in the hundreds of years since he gave them and thus are equally as invalid as christianity and Judaism
     
  7. thipps

    thipps God Alone is Great

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    h| Awaiting_the_fifth,
    Must? no. You can start with a 'maybe'. And, this part of the article is giving the stance of the Muslims. thats all. its Islam's view on other religions. There is a thread regarding that subject. Please read it as well and yes there is a very good reason the word 'other' has been italicized.
    Anyway, as i was saying, the Quran itself speaks about this subject of distorting. When man was entrusted with the scripture to guard it, he played with it. The Quran, according to our beliefs, is the final revelation and in the Quran, Allah says that He will guard the Quran Himself.
    Thats your basic 20 sec run-down of the matter from the outside.
    And Allah knows best.
     
  8. PluckyAli

    PluckyAli Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Salam vajradhara,

    No,that is incorrect,Let me know if there is any.We know our universe is created(big bang) and everything in this universe is part of the parent universe,so everything is created(in context).

    And you are right.The correct logic is everything that has a beginning is created.

    s.
    We don't know how universe actually began,but we know it had a beginning.The evidence that universe is created is fairly strong.In other words the evidence for big bang is strong.Many new reserches suggest universe is finite but some suggest it's infinite but the truth is we still don't know if it's finite or infinite.


    And Big bang theory is a well known established theory.It's not proven since science theories are not meant to be proven.

    We have established such a being exist,but science has not,since science doesnot deal with why things were created or what,who created them.

    And you have no brain to distinguish harun yahya is right or wrong?.What stephen hawking has said may or may not be right.We will never believe him unless he will show some evidence.And haroon yahya is quite famous for his works.Harunyaha has a scientific research community.Maybe you need to visit turkish research center.
    http://www.harunyahya.org
     
  9. PluckyAli

    PluckyAli Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Awaiting the fifth,
    You say that on what logic?.We have not seen God doesnot mean god doesnot exist,it just means god may or may not exist.
    And what is your religion?.If you can prove your religion i will leave islam right here and right now.
     
  10. Bandit

    Bandit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    i just wish people would stop trying to prove, religious beliefs & spiritual matters cannot be disproven. When will people learn that God is a spirit & eternal cause & creator, cannot be disproven. It can't be done!:)
    I believe in the islam religion, God is the creator.

    So trying to prove that your belief of something that cannot be proven or proven, seems like a dead end discussion. Maybe consider, that some people hold there beliefs very sacred & maybe only want to try & share there beliefs with others who may want to try & understand them, & not be trampled & discarded for it.
     
  11. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Salaam PluckyAli,

    thank you for the post.

    actually, it is correct. please visit this link for more information on virtual particles: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

    further, the Rapid Inflationary Theory is one of several, well supported theories. personally, i feel that the No Boundary proposal accounts for what we observe more accurately than the Rapid Inflationary Theory.

    what new researches suggest this, certainly not the COBE experiments. in fact, they have determined that the universe is flat, based on the evidence collected thus far.

    nevertheless, suffice it to say that there are several theories about how the arose.

    clearly. nevertheless, there are other theories which account for our observations more satisfactorily, in my view.

    who is "we"? clearly science cannot have anything to do with the supernatural, being as how it is outside of the naturalistic worldview which the Scientific Method adopts as its a priori view.

    nevertheless, science does deal with created things... plastic, for instance.

    who can say? nevertheless, i've read Harun Yahyas material and found it incorrect and, in the case of his explanation of my religious tradition, plainly wrong and false.

    indeed... what would an Astrophysist know about stars and stuff that a literary professor wouldn't? you can read Dr. Hawkings work for yourself and determine if what it says makes sense:

    http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

    well, there ya go, evidence aplenty.

    been there and read his work, which is why i have the opinion that i do. his work is factually incorrect and deliberatly misleading. it is my firm opinion that Harun Yahya is actually a 5th Column in Islam, but most folks aren't aware of it.
     
  12. PluckyAli

    PluckyAli Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    I have written a more detailed reply b4 but i lost it somewhere in my hd.So i have to rewrite it again.

    I checked it and it was a fairly complex link.Anyway virtual particles r nothing than a pair of particle and anti particle.When they meet they annihilate each other.We can imagine space as virtual particles.If we can separta these particles they will become real particles for eg. electron and anti electron r virtual particles.

    Now back to topic.When there is no space there is no virtual particles.Big bang purposed space-time originated within it.It origated with zero vol,consequently infinite density.So that means virtual particles are created.

    Actually it is.Rapid inflationary theory purposed a period of rapid expansion shortly after the big bang.
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101inflation.html
    Acoording to this model,universe began with vacuum energy which in turn produces radiation and which in turn produces matter..Inflationary theory solved the known problems in the big bang theory,and is an extension of it.Everything in this universe has a beginning still holds true

    In general cosmology,universe is supposed to be flat and finite.

    Actually your incorrect when it comes to big bang theory.There are many theories but the theory which is well tested is called an establised theory.That is to say Big bang is a well established theory.
    Reference
    http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/ch1.htm

    Me,and Those people who believe in God.

    Evidence,examples and proof are necessary.
    Further i am not saying he is all correct,100%.No scientist has yet purposed a perfect theory.An attempt to purpose perfect theory(TOE) is still underway.

    Thanks for the link.

    I would disagree at this point.i have read his thoughts on matter and they are very interesting.
    Seems you are not serious.Again evidence,examples and logic will be welcome.
     
  13. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Salaam PlukyAli,

    thank you for the post.

    no worries :)

    i could not be more serious.

    let me present an example of Harun Yahya being factually incorrect.

    with regards to Buddhism, he states:

    "Generally, those who adopt Buddhism do so not because they believe in the logic of its philosophy, but because they're attracted by its "mystical" atmosphere, drawn to this superstition because it is presented to them as far more different and awesome than any other philosophy they encounter in their normal lives."

    this is patently incorrect and false. clearly, Harun Yahya isn't aware of Theravedan Buddhism or he has simply chosen to ignore it to make his point.

    further:

    "When we consider Buddhism's appearance, its scriptures, general beliefs, style of worship in the light of the Qur'an, we begin to see that its basic philosophy is founded on very deviant doctrines. Indeed, its worship contains strange practices leading its devotees to worship idols of stone and clay.."

    clearly, Harun Yahya is unaware of our philosphies as he simplistically thinks that there is only one, overarching, philosophical view which Buddhists share. this is not so. there are four distinct schools of Buddhist philosophy which Harun Yahya is unaware of.

    should i continue?

    " As a belief, Buddhism is contrary to logic and intelligence."

    yet, nothing is farther from the truth. Buddhism isn't about "beliefs" that is something that you guys are into... Buddhism is about studying the self... of course, you have to believe that a self exists to do this, so there are some beliefs, but i suspect that you share that belief.

    oh bother.... here's more of his tripe:

    "One basic reason for this is the laziness and indolence that Buddhism inculcates in its adherents."

    yep.. .those darn monks sure are lazy... getting up at 4am for 2 hours of meditation, performing all the required chores around the monestary, doing alsm rounds, mid-day meditation, afternoon chores, evening meditation, retreat and so forth.

    and, finally, the last of this crap that i'm going to post....

    "Because it lacks any faith in an eternal afterlife, Buddhism does not urge its devotees to be better or develop themselves, to beautify their environment, or to advance culturally."

    if there was a more laughable statement that a being could make with regards to Buddhism, i'm not sure what it would be. clearly, Harun Yahya, again, has no knowledge of my religion outside of other polemical sources that he's used to form his view.

    if you are interested in science, ask a scientist. if you are interested in Buddhism, ask a Buddhist. if you are interested in literature, ask a literary professor.
     
  14. PluckyAli

    PluckyAli Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Who is the Creator? - The Eternal First Cause

    Waalikum Asalam Vajradhara,Thank you for the reply.
    I 100% agree with you but....
    How about applying this logic to your self?.Every logical person who wants to know about buddhism will point to buddhism website and will confirm it from some buddha.I have not bothered to look for buddhism in haroon yahya website.Haroon yahya is a modern philospher and if you want to know about philosphy of life,you can go there.

    We all are not perfect,it's a well accepted fact.And you have not provided any evidence where haroon yahya said this or that.Anyhow i am not interested in what haroon yayha says about a particular religion except his own which is islam.I am already aware of people hypocrisy and how they twist other religions.

    Some one had posted a link to evidence of creation website and i think it has nothing to do with buddhism.

    I was interested in talking to a person who is atheist and not to a person who is budha.I have problems with atheists, not with budhas.
    Thank you for your time.
     
  15. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Salaam PlukyAli,

    thank you for the post.

    this bit is straight from the Harun Yahya site:

    with regards to Buddhism, he states:

    "Generally, those who adopt Buddhism do so not because they believe in the logic of its philosophy, but because they're attracted by its "mystical" atmosphere, drawn to this superstition because it is presented to them as far more different and awesome than any other philosophy they encounter in their normal lives."

    this is patently incorrect and false. clearly, Harun Yahya isn't aware of Theravedan Buddhism or he has simply chosen to ignore it to make his point.

    further:

    "When we consider Buddhism's appearance, its scriptures, general beliefs, style of worship in the light of the Qur'an, we begin to see that its basic philosophy is founded on very deviant doctrines. Indeed, its worship contains strange practices leading its devotees to worship idols of stone and clay.."

    clearly, Harun Yahya is unaware of our philosphies as he simplistically thinks that there is only one, overarching, philosophical view which Buddhists share. this is not so. there are four distinct schools of Buddhist philosophy which Harun Yahya is unaware of.

    should i continue?

    " As a belief, Buddhism is contrary to logic and intelligence."

    yet, nothing is farther from the truth. Buddhism isn't about "beliefs" that is something that you guys are into... Buddhism is about studying the self... of course, you have to believe that a self exists to do this, so there are some beliefs, but i suspect that you share that belief.

    oh bother.... here's more of his tripe:

    "One basic reason for this is the laziness and indolence that Buddhism inculcates in its adherents."

    yep.. .those darn monks sure are lazy... getting up at 4am for 2 hours of meditation, performing all the required chores around the monestary, doing alsm rounds, mid-day meditation, afternoon chores, evening meditation, retreat and so forth.

    and, finally, the last of this crap that i'm going to post....

    "Because it lacks any faith in an eternal afterlife, Buddhism does not urge its devotees to be better or develop themselves, to beautify their environment, or to advance culturally."

    if there was a more laughable statement that a being could make with regards to Buddhism, i'm not sure what it would be. clearly, Harun Yahya, again, has no knowledge of my religion outside of other polemical sources that he's used to form his view.


    all the bits that start and end with " " are from that site. further, Harun Yahya is not a single being, it is a company with many different authors writing material for publication and so forth.

    however, if you have no problem with Buddhists, that is good, for we have no problem with you.

    if you have a problem with atheists, then i suspect you will have an issue with us as we don't believe in a Creator Deity, either.

    in fact, you and i are both atheist. i just believe in one less God than you do :)
     
  16. Gnostradamus

    Gnostradamus Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi,

    How does a Muslim go about reconciling this view with the Hadeeths that tell us the instances in which the Quran has undergone changes?

    .
     
  17. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    perhaps, it would be of some benefit if you excerpted a few of the Ahadith which you are speaking of?

    metta,

    ~v
     
  18. BlaznFattyz

    BlaznFattyz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Almighty God is the creator of all things.
     

Share This Page