> I don't find it absurd to think that there is The God (Allah) ...

I do, I see no reason to think such a being exists, absent extraordinary evidence, and inventing one seems absurd to me.

Why must god be the first element? Why must there even be a first element?

People don't try to disprove god by askingwhat created god, they are trying to invalidate a particular argument that is used by those who do believe - that the universe must have been created by some original force because it is so huge/amazing/complex, and we'll call that force god. But there is no reason it must have been, and if we imagine there is such a thing, there is no particular reason to stop there other than that semantically you have decided to call it the first. Because if the universe was created by a huge/amazing/complex god, then by the rules of your own argument we ought to look for a deeper cause.

So yeah ... it's not a 'disproof' of god, so much as pointing out that that specific argument relies on some dodgy assumptions and is not any sort of proof of god, nor justifies belief in one in any way.

The problem you describe works in both directions though. If God is introduced to explain, say, the existence of the Universe, and you’re not allowed to ask what created God or why God exists, then why not just say you’re not allowed to ask what created the Universe or why the Universe exists?

> In math there is the concept of having a first element...

There is also the mathematical concept of not having a first element of a sequence, where each element has an infinite number of elements indexed before it.

You seem to be arguing that the existence of a mathematical concept implies that the universe must follow it. In this case, you have one concept that implies a first element and another that implies no first element. They can’t both be true.

No, he’s implying that an infinite series doesn’t have to be infinite in both directions to be infinite.

>...doesn’t have to be...

That argues that there might be a first.

To be clear, I’m not saying there isn’t a first. I’m just saying this particular argument doesn’t support the assertion.

I agree that there might be a god, but why would such a god that can transcends time and logic.. care about humans? Humans are just a type of animal, an advanced organism, in biological terms we are not too different from bacteria, trees and sheep.

That there is a first element seems natural, however why should this first element to care about the 100010847238384392938474934th element?

In terms of the Islamic tradition, Allah [lit. The God] is both transcendent and immanent.

Quran 50:16 states that Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein and Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.

Now to answer why He cares, the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him.

And indeed, the recurring injunction in the Quran is to remember Allah, because you already know Him—Quran 7:172 states that we testified to His Lordship in a pre-birth state.

Interestingly this sounds like the new agey saying "We are the universe experiencing itself".

> Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.

So Allah is everything or at least he is IN everything. The universe is everything.

> the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him.

Mankind experiences Allah, the universe.

Would you agree with this kind of mapping or am I making any unjustified leaps here?

I would not agree with that because it's pantheism.

One meaning for His Face being everywhere is that everything is turned towards Him whether they know it or not, since He is the giver of being. It does not mean a literal encapsulation or identification of the Infinite with the finite.

Rather, closer to your sentiment from an Islamic theological perspective is to say that what we experience in the universe is an interplay of His attributes since He is the causer.

This is a tangent, but I don't have many opportunities to speak to people knowledgeable of Islam. Is there a concept of original sin in Islam? Do we need to seek forgiveness or salvation?

Islam does not have a concept of original sin attached to the descending of mankind to earth. Adam and his wife disobeying the command to eat from the forbidden tree is described as a "slip" in the Quran, not a monstrosity of a rebellion as seen in Christianity. Indeed, the Quran also says that before even creating Adam, Allah announced [to the angels] the purpose of Adam and his offspring is to be put on the earth as a vicegerent (Quran 2:30).

I define salvation as: 'being preserved in Heaven', and in Islam this is sought through forgiveness.

Quran 39:53 Say, “O servants of Mine who have transgressed against their own selves, do not despair of Allah’s Mercy. Surely, Allah will forgive all sins. Surely, He is the One who is the Most Forgiving, the Ever Merciful."

Thanks for the information and the pointers to the text in the Quran. Time to do some reading!

Nope. The Islamic approach is to optimize to our maxima. Essentially our core purpose is to strive to "find/discover/understand" God through manifesting different values (the 99 names of Allah). The various prophets (Jesus) are those among us who came closest so that understanding and manifestation.

I’ve never understood this argument. What else would god “care” about, if not the only truly sentient creature that we know of?

Trillions of light years of pointless rock with a few Apes in the middle who can contemplate God. Seems pretty damn special fo me.

Look at your kitchen sink. On that metal lives a billion bacteria cells. Maybe some of them are even sentient. Do you even care to find out? Not really - its far beneath you. Humans are infinitely inferior to a god. We are no different to a moving rock.

You're assuming God's values though.

We are the only creature we know of that's capable of reasoning about our own existence and understanding our potential creation. That is a scientific fact of which there is no counterevidence.

To deny that in an effort to refute the potential existence of God is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

This statement can also be taken as one as a limitation of our understanding of the internal lives of other creatures. And there's nothing scientific about it.

The problem is, if you're going to make that case, the same argument can be applied to a limitation of our understanding of our origin.

a sentient bacteria? How would that work? Does the bacteria have a huge brain so that sentience can emerge from it?

The entire universe we know could be but a single neuron firing in a huge brain of something much much bigger... and they don't even realize we exist...so size is very... relative/immaterial to sentience...we could be the sentient bacteria.

I think God just cares about self reproduction, not of a specific species but in general. But I would rather consider this a natural force like a locally reversed entropy instead of a sentient agent who acts on the world.

There are a million hobbies in this world. Why did you choose the hobby you chose? Because it pleases you.

Why did you pick up that one shell at the beach while there are thousands of them? Because your eye fell on it.

I am not sure if I understand your argument. If there is a God who is the first and last element, who created everything, why wouldn't his eye fall in love with one element? And why not with all elements?

> In math there is the concept of having a first element of a series and no one questions what was the element before the first element because if you can find an element before the first element then by definition that element you thought was first is not the first.

Bad example. What's the first real number after zero?

I was raised in the evangelical Christian tradition and have since had my views broken down and rebuilt numerous times. I am still seeking. I am ignorant about Islam, other than the way it is represented in popular media and from some basic readings.

Your descriptions of God are interesting. Are these concepts that come from reading the Koran?

> Your descriptions of God are interesting. Are these concepts that come from reading the Koran?

These descriptions are in fact sourced from the Qur'an. Allah gives us his description throughout the Qur'an. He has 99 names/attributes which you can look up. Below are example verses where he gives us part of the 99 names. It's a recurring theme in the Qur'an where He emphasizes His attributes. If you would like to read a Qur'an I would recommend "The Clear Quran, a thematic translation".

""He is Allah—there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him: Knower of the seen and unseen. He is the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful. He is Allah—there is no god except Him: the King, the Most Holy, the All-Perfect, the Source of Serenity, the Watcher ˹of all˺, the Almighty, the Supreme in Might, the Majestic. Glorified is Allah far above what they associate with Him ˹in worship˺! He is Allah: the Creator, the Inventor, the Shaper. He ˹alone˺ has the Most Beautiful Names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth ˹constantly˺ glorifies Him. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise."" Qur'an (59:22-24)

Those concepts can also be found in the Christian bible.

Maybe the biblical series by Jordan Peterson (@YT) are something for you.

But logic doesn't need to be created. The problem here is the idea of existence. There doesn't actually need to be a universe for the laws of logic still to be what they are. It's like how algorithms have the complexity they have regardless of whether computers exist, or whether they're made with silicon or buckets of water.

But God isn't a necessary assumption for the universe to exist.

What if there isn't? Isn't just the belief in a God going to affect the way you think and act?

We know for a fact that particles can come into existence spontaneously from a vacuum; it is happening literally all the time.

There is truly no physical evidence pointing to the existence of God, otherwise it won't be a matter of belief. I also don't see any evidence that contradicts the existence of God.

For me, the existence of God makes more sense in my philosophical model than his non-existance.

It seems like a statement like this cannot be made without first giving a definition of God. Clearly, people have different ideas of what God is.

So either you are saying there is no evidence for one particular definition of God, but you are not giving us the definition or you are saying there is no evidence for any of the different definitions of God that might exist. The latter is a difficult argument to make in my estimation, because any one person is probably ignorant about a sizeable portion of definitions.

I'll try to explain my idea of God.

He isn't bound by space or time, ah he created them. Following that, he has no material form otherwise he would be bound by space.

He created us humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is complete, in the sense he lacks nothing. All human feelings that stem from lack don't apply to him (hunger, loneliness, jealousy, etc...)

It's impossible to prove such a supreme being exists. However, I elected trust the words of people who claimed to be his prophets, as I have found no logical contradiction that proves God can't exist.

>So either you are saying there is no evidence for one particular definition of God, but you are not giving us the definition or you are saying there is no evidence for any of the different definitions of God that might exist

Russel's teapot.

I don't think this is an example of Russel's teapot. In Russel's teapot, you are giving a solid explanation of what you are claiming, it just happens to be unfalsifiable.

In the example I was criticizing, the word "God" was used without any further explanation of its meaning (in a thread which hosts discussions on different definitions of the word "God" no less).

Of course, if you are a priori assuming that any definition of God is going to be unfalsifiable, you can draw the connection to Russel's teapot, but again, I don't think you can convincingly do this without knowing all the definitions.

Where does the vacuum come from? What causes a particle to emerge from a vacuum?

The question you're asking about where the vacuum came from is the good one, we can answer the second by reference to the laws governing the vacuum.

are you referencing to virtual particles? If so, are those real or just mathematical device used for quantum calculations?

In set theory maybe, but in category theory the universe can create itself.

Without time how can you even conceptualize causation or determine what created what?

I agree the logic. To me conceptually god and the creator in cthulhu maybe the same

where is time created IN? and where is logic created IN? and how can logic even be created? Is the pysical world that Allay somehow transencds contained in something or not? If not, where can Allah transcend to?

Is your Allah living completely alone in eternal loneliness or are there other beings that they can converse with?

I don't know. Just because you do some word trickery and somehow relate it to maths, the essential questions are still not being answered at all...

thus, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of no Allah, no god, no jehova, etc

Loneliness isn't something that can be attributed to God. Loneliness stems from the lack and desire for contact with others, but God is complete. He doesn't lack and doesn't need.

God isn't constrained by space nor time because he created both.

As for your first two questions, I can't comprehend them enough to think about them.

you realize that your first to sentences sound like stuff some weird sect leader would preach, right? it doesnt make any sense.

also, why does god have a gender? why do you assume they are male?

Because I'm used to referring to God with male pronouns. Someone could refer to him with female pronouns, doesn't matter as the human gender construct doesn't apply to God.

I would like to hear your opinion about just why you think that first doesn't make any sense. To me, it's logical you wouldn't ascribe hunger, thirst, lust loneliness, etc... To God.

Also, that second part of your comment makes ot sound like you aren't arguing in good faith.