Because it's purely based on fate and religious egotism, which are both selfish. And due to this God is both unprovable and based on will. And something that is based on will is a psychological phenonemon, and thus it doesn't exist outside of the mind until proven otherwise.

God right now is as much as a theory as black holes and time travel are, and has been a theory ever since mankind started looking to the heavens and wondering. God is just another theory to explain the universe. Currently there's no proof of god other than what humanity has written, and nearly none of these writings were done without selfishness.

In the end while I do believe in god, I also realize that the arguement f...

Because it's purely based on fate and religious egotism, which are both selfish. And due to this God is both unprovable and based on will. And something that is based on will is a psychological phenonemon, and thus it doesn't exist outside of the mind until proven otherwise.

God right now is as much as a theory as black holes and time travel are, and has been a theory ever since mankind started looking to the heavens and wondering. God is just another theory to explain the universe. Currently there's no proof of god other than what humanity has written, and nearly none of these writings were done without selfishness.

In the end while I do believe in god, I also realize that the arguement for god's existence is still based on fate and fate alone, and thus due to this I can't ever believe in God outside of speculation.

Hello Arthur , you are very wrong my friend. Its got nothing to do with egotism and everything to do with Logic and rational thought. The main basis for the Existence of the Creator is that something cannot come from nothing. Hence we must all come from something. Hence something must exist at the beginning that ALL things came from. And that First thing must therefore have been in existence ALL the time. ie It did not itself come from anything. This is a simple yet very powerful proof of existence of an origin entity (or Creator or Thing or Prime Mover) that ALL things came from. There is no emotion or arrogance or prejudice involved. It is basic logic.

If you disagree then tell me what i...

Hello Arthur , you are very wrong my friend. Its got nothing to do with egotism and everything to do with Logic and rational thought. The main basis for the Existence of the Creator is that something cannot come from nothing. Hence we must all come from something. Hence something must exist at the beginning that ALL things came from. And that First thing must therefore have been in existence ALL the time. ie It did not itself come from anything. This is a simple yet very powerful proof of existence of an origin entity (or Creator or Thing or Prime Mover) that ALL things came from. There is no emotion or arrogance or prejudice involved. It is basic logic.

If you disagree then tell me what is wrong with it.

For more a verbose version of this proof or argument you can look at
http://groups.msn.com/oxfordislam/topics.msnw
under 'Is there proof for the existence of the Creator'.

Best Regards,

Sorry, but it's laughable that you use the words "logical" & "rational thought," then state EVERYTHING has a beginning & therefore there's a Creator. Um, then where did the Creator come from? Oh, the Creator's Creator. No wait, that hypothesis doesn't work.

Look, forms of spirituality have been exhibited in humans for as far back as we can tell. So let's just agree that spirituality, in whatever form & whatever degree, is part of our nature as humans.

And since there is no one religion, obviously somebody has to be wrong--but who? If you ask us to respect your faith, then you must likewise respect other's faith, or lack thereof.

The bottom line is that this is a topic has never been resol...

Sorry, but it's laughable that you use the words "logical" & "rational thought," then state EVERYTHING has a beginning & therefore there's a Creator. Um, then where did the Creator come from? Oh, the Creator's Creator. No wait, that hypothesis doesn't work.

Look, forms of spirituality have been exhibited in humans for as far back as we can tell. So let's just agree that spirituality, in whatever form & whatever degree, is part of our nature as humans.

And since there is no one religion, obviously somebody has to be wrong--but who? If you ask us to respect your faith, then you must likewise respect other's faith, or lack thereof.

The bottom line is that this is a topic has never been resolved & we're not going to solve it here. And, frankly, it doesn't matter. Because ultimately the only thing that's important is how we live our lives.

Be good. Be responsible. Think.

Truthiness, hello, and thanks for your comment. I did make a mistake. For a Being that has allways been in existence it is wrong to ask about its beginning. I should say where do all things come from? There must be something that ALL things come from. Here I would obviously exlude the origin Thing, as it would be the source of ALL other things and it itself has never come, yet exists (ie eternal) !

Regarding the infiinte regression point, we have been through this on other clips, and it doesnt apply when the origin thing or Being is eternal and has no starting point in time. It doesnt need a creator because, simply, it never got created. It was allways there.

So the hypothesis does work ...

Truthiness, hello, and thanks for your comment. I did make a mistake. For a Being that has allways been in existence it is wrong to ask about its beginning. I should say where do all things come from? There must be something that ALL things come from. Here I would obviously exlude the origin Thing, as it would be the source of ALL other things and it itself has never come, yet exists (ie eternal) !

Regarding the infiinte regression point, we have been through this on other clips, and it doesnt apply when the origin thing or Being is eternal and has no starting point in time. It doesnt need a creator because, simply, it never got created. It was allways there.

So the hypothesis does work i believe. And the challenge is up for anyone out there to disprove it. I am open to other viewpoints. As long as they are based on logic and not on emotion.

Best regards, ali

Truthiness, thankyou for your good wishes. But. I would like to continue the logic debate we are having. No need to fear anything . Its just words.

Where we differ so far is that you believe it is Matter that is eternal and uncreated whereas I dont. ie You believe that Matter is the source of ALL that exists, whether we can see it or not see it. This is a BIG assumption, and how can one prove it?

How does Islam answer this issue. Islam doesnt specifiy or define the THING that all things come from. It doesnt say, oh its Matter or oh its Energy. It says it is something that is Unlimited. That is because it is uncreated, that means there are no designs or limits laid down for it. Because the...

Truthiness, thankyou for your good wishes. But. I would like to continue the logic debate we are having. No need to fear anything . Its just words.

Where we differ so far is that you believe it is Matter that is eternal and uncreated whereas I dont. ie You believe that Matter is the source of ALL that exists, whether we can see it or not see it. This is a BIG assumption, and how can one prove it?

How does Islam answer this issue. Islam doesnt specifiy or define the THING that all things come from. It doesnt say, oh its Matter or oh its Energy. It says it is something that is Unlimited. That is because it is uncreated, that means there are no designs or limits laid down for it. Because there is no one before it to lay down any such designs or specs or limits for it. So its a Thing like no other. Unique.

So it is unlimited in ALL aspects , in Size, Power, Intelligence, Life, Beauty, Choice, Freedom, Ability, Speech, Hearing, Knowledge, Sight etc. So this rules matter or energy out or anything that we can percieve out. Because they are all limited entities. eg Matter cannot talk or think, or create. Its just a thing that some other things in this universe are made of. Like bricks of a house, in my view. So we cannot actaully define what that Origin Thing is. Its undefinable as far as we are concerned. Its just a Strange Thing. And it must have life so it is a Being, not just an inanimate thing. And at the end of the day if It created us, how can the creature claim to understand its creator? Something Higher than him.

Now you can start asking, has that Thing or Being communicated with us. If so when and how. And how can we know that this communcition really came from It and wasnt made up by men. This is the next question. But its important to understand the previous issue that it is Unlimited. No limits have been placed on it, by anyone or anything. Since there is no one or thing before it.

Is there any flaw in what I have said so far?

Best regards, ali

(Sorry, keyboard is sensitive) Oh I am not saying that there is a flaw in your logic, I am just saying that if you philosophize with logic long enough, you can spew out a complex web of 'logic' while ignoring, or only selectively using the facts, and thus with this type of logic to form logic you can logically make everything seem logical in a logical sense. My four second theory on the universe could be made as all encompassing and difficult as your explanation on why the creator exists if I went down this path.

But if I try to base it completely in facts without making assumptions or weaving a logic parachute, then I might just find myself kicking my own mouth.

And I am not trying to be ...

(Sorry, keyboard is sensitive) Oh I am not saying that there is a flaw in your logic, I am just saying that if you philosophize with logic long enough, you can spew out a complex web of 'logic' while ignoring, or only selectively using the facts, and thus with this type of logic to form logic you can logically make everything seem logical in a logical sense. My four second theory on the universe could be made as all encompassing and difficult as your explanation on why the creator exists if I went down this path.

But if I try to base it completely in facts without making assumptions or weaving a logic parachute, then I might just find myself kicking my own mouth.

And I am not trying to be rude here. I am just saying that two cups of water can be vampire burning holy water if you think hard enough.

Again, I am not saying that we should all drop logic and thinking and wander around the world aimlessly without questioning the meaning of the universe. And your logic is more complex than just saying 'God exists because he just does,' that of which I hear many times when I argue on this. And if you wanted, your arguement could be made very detailed and thick. I know plenty that could be added to it.

The point I am trying to make, and have been since I first started talking in his clip, is that your arguement is as invalid, at times ignorant, and at other times rocky as other arguements, Stephen Hawking including. We don't know if God exists, and no amount of philosohical talk will ever bri...

Again, I am not saying that we should all drop logic and thinking and wander around the world aimlessly without questioning the meaning of the universe. And your logic is more complex than just saying 'God exists because he just does,' that of which I hear many times when I argue on this. And if you wanted, your arguement could be made very detailed and thick. I know plenty that could be added to it.

The point I am trying to make, and have been since I first started talking in his clip, is that your arguement is as invalid, at times ignorant, and at other times rocky as other arguements, Stephen Hawking including. We don't know if God exists, and no amount of philosohical talk will ever bring us closer in our current form of existance; not saying we should stop thinking, I am just saying you think better, and you can explore further, only if you lose your bias.

It may be my young age, but I refuse to settle on a single theory. I believe in God, but I also realize this belief is illogical and may truly in the end be only something of my mind. But this doesn't stop me from exploring God, praying to it, thinking of ways to credit and discredit it, and contemplating on why it may or may not exist.

It is mature to say that Scientists explore the world without God, and that religious men explore the world without Science, but it isn't mature saying Science is all there is, or saying that God is all there is. It isn't mature saying that God exists without also thinking that God just might not exist in the end; and it isn't mature thinking that Science is the world without also thinking that there may be more then Science can explain.

Oh dear, Arthur. Please permit to say that there is major confusion here.

you are very very right in saying that you start biased you will never reach the answer. And even if you did you may not have confidence in it.

you start by being completely unbiased and saying lets look at all possiblities. There is a Creator, there is no creator, there is something else we havent thought about etc.

Then you take each option up and explore it like you say. Trying to remove any bias you may have towards it or against it. This is the normal scientific method in looking at hypotheses. In Islam science is not taboo by the way.

Creator existing means that all things came from something.

No creator mea...

Oh dear, Arthur. Please permit to say that there is major confusion here.

you are very very right in saying that you start biased you will never reach the answer. And even if you did you may not have confidence in it.

you start by being completely unbiased and saying lets look at all possiblities. There is a Creator, there is no creator, there is something else we havent thought about etc.

Then you take each option up and explore it like you say. Trying to remove any bias you may have towards it or against it. This is the normal scientific method in looking at hypotheses. In Islam science is not taboo by the way.

Creator existing means that all things came from something.

No creator means that all things came from nothing. Its better to label Creator as origin Thing ( or the thing at the start, as it were). Why? Because the origin thing may not be a being that creates. eg it could be just something that somehow things come out of. To be a creator it needs to have mental faculties etc.

Are you with me so far?

I am following you and I understand you well, but again you're starting off with no bias and moving to a bias, and I feel that my point is being missed.

Answer these questions.

Do you believe in God?

If yes, then why?

If no, then why?

Now make a valid logical arguement to support your belief.

And once you've done this, make a valid logical arguement to contradict your belief.

If you try hard enough, you'll find that both arguements can cancel each other out, and that the belief in God existing or not existing is both equal and valid. This is a much more metaphysical method for explianing the Creator, and is appropriate at this time. It's the movement from nonbias, to bias, and then b...

I am following you and I understand you well, but again you're starting off with no bias and moving to a bias, and I feel that my point is being missed.

Answer these questions.

Do you believe in God?

If yes, then why?

If no, then why?

Now make a valid logical arguement to support your belief.

And once you've done this, make a valid logical arguement to contradict your belief.

If you try hard enough, you'll find that both arguements can cancel each other out, and that the belief in God existing or not existing is both equal and valid. This is a much more metaphysical method for explianing the Creator, and is appropriate at this time. It's the movement from nonbias, to bias, and then back to nonbias.

As for your arguement that things cannot come from nothing can easily be contradicted with 'Who said, and who can prove, that God lives by our physics?' And so on.

And this is why I keep saying we can't come to a mature conclusion in out current forms, since all we really know is the world we live on. There's so much more out there. And physics, as Science has shown, isn't always as predictable as it seems.

And this is why as long as we're on Earth, God can only exist in faith.

I dont agree with you Arthur.

The belief in an Origin Thing comes from the real observation that things dont come nothing. Hence there must be something at the start.

If I said that there can be nothing at the start ie things can come from nothing i would need a) verification from reality that would be real examples of this (can you find any?), and b) i would have to have a logical argument to explain how things can come from nothing. In my mind the only way this can happen is if the thing that came from nothing was able to create itself before it was there. And this is impossible. Hence I reject this thesis. Because of logic and real world observation.

But i am willing to accept i may b...

I dont agree with you Arthur.

The belief in an Origin Thing comes from the real observation that things dont come nothing. Hence there must be something at the start.

If I said that there can be nothing at the start ie things can come from nothing i would need a) verification from reality that would be real examples of this (can you find any?), and b) i would have to have a logical argument to explain how things can come from nothing. In my mind the only way this can happen is if the thing that came from nothing was able to create itself before it was there. And this is impossible. Hence I reject this thesis. Because of logic and real world observation.

But i am willing to accept i may be wrong. So you tell me what logic can be followed to show that something can come from nothing. Forget that in reality this doesnt happen, lets just see if logically it can happen.

This thesis came from my teenage years when I studied Buddhism, and came to the conclusion that due to the theory of balance and equal actions, there must be an equally valid counterarguement to any arguement, and that the best way to understand a subject, a point of view, a person, and yourself, is to see both sides of the story, and then take a middle path between them. Since if you see all sides of the story without bias--or without much bias--and then nod, and come to an agreement that fits neither sides, then you can see the subject in its whole, and truly understand it. This doesn't work for everything, such as math, and some threads of logic, but it is a very good way of looking at th...

This thesis came from my teenage years when I studied Buddhism, and came to the conclusion that due to the theory of balance and equal actions, there must be an equally valid counterarguement to any arguement, and that the best way to understand a subject, a point of view, a person, and yourself, is to see both sides of the story, and then take a middle path between them. Since if you see all sides of the story without bias--or without much bias--and then nod, and come to an agreement that fits neither sides, then you can see the subject in its whole, and truly understand it. This doesn't work for everything, such as math, and some threads of logic, but it is a very good way of looking at the world and more metaphysical things such as God, spirituality, and the soul, I find.

Well your arguement says that God is infinite, and came from nothing.
But something can't come from nothing. And if God came from something,
then where did this come from?

Arthurdwayne, you have engaged in so much illogical fallacies. it is hard for me to know where to start. I wont tackle them all

Among you statements is this self-refuting claim. Which itself is a claim about God. Namely that you are God. Further, it is circular reasoning to redefine God to engage in your argument......God, by definition, is the author of everything, and requires no creater, for He is the Primne Mover.

the best way to understand a subject, a point of view, a person, and
yourself, i...

read more»

Well your arguement says that God is infinite, and came from nothing.
But something can't come from nothing. And if God came from something,
then where did this come from?

Arthurdwayne, you have engaged in so much illogical fallacies. it is hard for me to know where to start. I wont tackle them all

Among you statements is this self-refuting claim. Which itself is a claim about God. Namely that you are God. Further, it is circular reasoning to redefine God to engage in your argument......God, by definition, is the author of everything, and requires no creater, for He is the Primne Mover.

the best way to understand a subject, a point of view, a person, and
yourself, is to see both sides of the story, and then take a middle
path between them.

This is relativistic and denies all truth. It basically means truth cannot be known and only exists as a compromise between opinions. This is self refuting too because...how can you claim for this statement to be true?, and who are you to make it true?

But something can't come from nothing.

How can you actually make this comment and say God does not exist? If something cannot come from nothing, where did we come from? You hold God accountable to this thinking, but not our own existence? This is not very clear thinking.

And this is why as long as we're on Earth, God can only exist in faith.

So does this mean God exists or not? There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. You appear to just not be educated about it. There are many design arguments, cosmological arguments, and moral arguments. They are all philosophicllay sound. Add onto that the revelation of God's relationship to man, the history of His people, and God's fulfillment in the revelation of Jesus Christ, and you have more proof than anyone can reasonably expect. If you are an open minded person engage in this idea and see for yourself.

Willhelm, I never said I don't believe in God.

I am only saying that a thinker should tackle both sides of the issue whether they believe in God or not--and that is my own strong opinion.

As for the claim of 'we are all our own God', that is just an arguement, and one the Athiest community often uses, to justify the nonexistance of god. And while I am not an athiest, I agree that this does make sense, since until there is definite proof of God outside of faith and the mind, then God tends to exist within the mind only.

And please don't disprute my knowledge of religion and theology without knowing me first. I have attented Catholic school all of my life, and have extensively studied man...

Willhelm, I never said I don't believe in God.

I am only saying that a thinker should tackle both sides of the issue whether they believe in God or not--and that is my own strong opinion.

As for the claim of 'we are all our own God', that is just an arguement, and one the Athiest community often uses, to justify the nonexistance of god. And while I am not an athiest, I agree that this does make sense, since until there is definite proof of God outside of faith and the mind, then God tends to exist within the mind only.

And please don't disprute my knowledge of religion and theology without knowing me first. I have attented Catholic school all of my life, and have extensively studied many religions. And I have read many of those philosophical arguements, and none, to me, give any real proof of anything outside of the psychological.

And don't get me started on truth. The more I explore both sides of the issue, the more I realize truth really isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Now, as for Alis last comment. I cannot answer that without going into speculation. The question of 'How can something come from nothing' has always stumped me. I am unable to comprehend the infinite without resorting to something beyond humanity. God, perhaps?

And please don't disprute my knowledge of religion and theology without knowing me first.

I was merely pointing out the fallacies of your comments. I agree each person should confront faith with all ones mind and comprehension. That is why I am adamant about pointing out fallacious thought, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance.
The fact you went to catholic school is probably more a hindrance to your awareness than a help, but since I did not go to a religious school I cannot say that with certainty. I hope you will reread my comments for more clarity and understanding. I am a Christian that questioned everything. I came to God with no preconceived notions. I read ...

And please don't disprute my knowledge of religion and theology without knowing me first.

I was merely pointing out the fallacies of your comments. I agree each person should confront faith with all ones mind and comprehension. That is why I am adamant about pointing out fallacious thought, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance.
The fact you went to catholic school is probably more a hindrance to your awareness than a help, but since I did not go to a religious school I cannot say that with certainty. I hope you will reread my comments for more clarity and understanding. I am a Christian that questioned everything. I came to God with no preconceived notions. I read everything, from every religion, I could get my hands on. While I respect your background and your views, I will not pretend to accept their validity. My feet are not planted firmly in midair. They are grounded in truth.

Arthur, I think I see the error now. Sort of.

I think you have become biased to a flawed premis without realising. This flawed premis is that logical arguments must have an equally logical opposite argument. And you specifiy that this particularly applies in metaphsyical areas like the issue of the Creator.

I showed you that in the case of the Creator area of logic, that even then your premis doesnt apply. ie you cannot logically argue that something can come from nothing.

So there are two choices now :
a)Either you start to question your original premis , that i claim is actaully flawed. or
b)You question the proof that it is flawed in the case of metaphysics ie the Creator argument.

I...

Arthur, I think I see the error now. Sort of.

I think you have become biased to a flawed premis without realising. This flawed premis is that logical arguments must have an equally logical opposite argument. And you specifiy that this particularly applies in metaphsyical areas like the issue of the Creator.

I showed you that in the case of the Creator area of logic, that even then your premis doesnt apply. ie you cannot logically argue that something can come from nothing.

So there are two choices now :
a)Either you start to question your original premis , that i claim is actaully flawed. or
b)You question the proof that it is flawed in the case of metaphysics ie the Creator argument.

I think you should explore both options. You should find at the end, assuming we are doing this impartially without bias, that your thesis about opposites is the one that is not logical and incorrect. Why for example should it be correct? What is the evidence that it is correct? Can you give me examples where it is correct and actually works?

Regards, ali

I noticed a lot of comments mentioning 'the creator'.

For those who want to get on source, here's an interesting quote from this book:

Hawking said:


The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start ...

I noticed a lot of comments mentioning 'the creator'.

For those who want to get on source, here's an interesting quote from this book:

Hawking said:


The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

[Last paragraph, Chapter 8 "The Origin and the Fate of the Universe]