reply to post by Unvarnished
I had posted this elsewhere, but this is good for here too:
The universe is not self-created.
A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is
dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that the universe created itself, entails two
contradictions simultaneously. It would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself. This also breaks the Law
of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time"
Law of Non-Contradiction
III) The universe is not beginning-less..What if someone told you "I will give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time". Will you ever
receive this dollar? No. Likewise, if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, will it ever be traversed? No. The claim entails that an
infinite amount of time can be traversable - which is impossible. In other words, an explanation:
Premise A: We exist here today.
Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of
events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)
If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone
claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a
contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,”
and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite
number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events
first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.
In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no
series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that
infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.
Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible
for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any
attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a
beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything
with a beginning must have been brought into existence.
We know from the above, by mathematical precision and logical necessity, that the Creator exists and does not resemble His creation. From the fact
that the world has a beginning, we have proven that it must have a creator. The name of this creator is Allah in Arabic. If someone asks, “Who
created Allah?” we say Allah does not have a creator, and does not need one since God has no beginning. If someone then asks, “how can you accept
that Allah has no beginning, while you do not accept that the world has no beginning?” The answer is that we have shown that the world has a
beginning based on the fact that it changes (changes are events). We do not believe, however, that Allah changes. Rather, we believe The Creator is
One, and doesn’t change and has no beginning.
The fact that Allah does not resemble the creations can also be known by saying that since The Creator's existence must be (as shown above), then it
cannot also be merely possible (since “must be” and “possible” are incompatible meanings – something cannot be both a must and a possibility
at the same time). Therefore, The Creator must be clear of any attribute that belongs to the possible category of things. For example, weakness,
limits, boundaries and needs are attributes that may or may not have existence; their existence depends on them being created; their existence is a
possibility, not a must. They need a Creator to specify their limits. We know that we need a Creator, because we know that our own attributes need
specification. We know they need specification because they have limits, and limits must be specified. For example, if you pointed at a table in a
room and said, “Who made it in that shape?” and someone answered, “No one, it is just there like that eternally!” Would you accept this? Of
course not, because we know anything limited needs someone to specify it.
If someone asked: If an event can be defined as an action that has a beginning and giving a series of events existence is an action with a beginning
(and if it’s not, then what is it?), then how can one rationally conclude, based on the logic presented above, that the Creator is not attributed
The answer to this is that we did not define events as actions having a beginning, but as “anything that has a beginning.” Actions may have a
beginning, namely the actions of creation – as they all share this resemblance, or they may not, namely the actions of Allah.
Allah does not resemble the creations, so He is not an event or attributed with events. This is because to “create” is to “bring into
existence,” and all events are therefore by definition created. As Allah’s attributes are not creations, they are not events.
Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask:
“What if the world’s existence is cyclical?” Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some
may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: “Before Allah created this series of events, was God able to create another series or not?” Our answer to
this is that this is a nonsensical question, because what we established was that there must be an event that is first, regardless of the number of
series, or the number of worlds preceding the current one. We also established that Allah’s actions are not events, so they are not described with a
^this was taken from: sunnianswers.wordpress.com...
And just a note...
Due to empiricism not applying to it, it does not necessitate that the thing's existence must be nixed.
Just because something isn't empirical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have never seen another person's mind; yet I hesitate not in believing
that the people I deal with have minds/intellect. I see that in their speech and behavior--that is, I see the signs of their intelligence, and
likewise, when I see the creation, I see the signs for The Creator's Existence.
Nowadays, scientists are able to discover many things because of technological advances. One hundred years ago, some empiricists would say since
amoebas aren't observable, they don't exist. To the contrary, in the present day, one can use a microscope and see that it surely exists - such an
application of empiricism is flawed.
edit on 19-7-2011 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)