:-)

[Charlie1965]

Hi Ahmed, Not sure I got your point. My English is not perfect either, so you may excuse , me for that. However some things I understood, that you misunderstood. Evolution does not work through randomness. Ok, genetic variations happen all the time (we are all unique) , but very few genetic variations will lead to evolutionary development. The engine is as I said the natural selection. Best evidence for this is maybe our own activity when making different races of dogs, cats, pigeons etc. We let some individuals that have the characteristics that we like, to produce themselves, while others are being removed. This is how we made all subspecies of dogs for example. Some are so different from other subspecies that in wild they would impossibly be able to get puppies. How did we do this? Are we gods? Of course not. We just use same methods that work in nature all the time. But we select with the goal we want to achieve and that makes the whole procedure a lot faster.
To your other statement. Well, evolution and big bang are two completely different things. Big bang theory (yes it is still a theory, although it looks more and more like the true fact) tells us about development of the universe. Nothing else. Evolution (not a theory anymore) explains us how species develop from one species to others. And yes.... Just as the word evolution means "development" it explains the development of life, not the start of life itself. Big bang is also talking about development of space.... Not about it's start. Not yet. What exploded and why it exploded, or was it really a start of the universe, or was there a universe even before? We don't know yet. This is a big task for science. But we know species did not just appear like they are now. They developed by millions and billions of years... This is a scientific fact, no matter what Quran says. Best regards from Charlie :-) a#

[Charlie1965]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

You put a very short question and I thought it would be easy to answer, but when i read the alternatives, i found it being more tricky. That is why i choose to reply Ahmeds mail before yours, even though it looked more complicated at first view. Well I know alternative 1 is wrong. It presumes a creator, and that is impossible. That would not be a real start because someone would have to create the creator before that... and so on.. It makes no sense. Alternative 2 sounds ok because something must have caused it, otherwise we would not be here, nor would the space be here. I presume we talk about the origin of the space, not just the species. Alternative 3... hmm....maybe, but here we are in too deep water. Eternity is a too long time for me to understand. Alternative 4 is "other". I have no real idea what it could be, but if you give me some idea, than maybe I can tell you.. I hope my answer did not disappoint you, but I could not give a simple answer here. Best regards Charlie#

[أحمد فتحي الموحد]

i admet that the discussion with you is intersting, not like the atheist arab, how are very stupid at least you admit that you havent the answer about the formation of the first cell that's what i want from you to say, because is imposible to creat a complex llife forme with only randoomness, you say that we imited what is goin on nature and you talk about natural selection engine?? abrother said: for me natural selection is like putting two boys in a swimming pool, one boy survived because he know how to swimm !..

natural selection still a randoom ((engine)) cant explain the varity on the nature

the fossil data deny the theory every day, wheres the the mutable form of the (between) creature,....

also: DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation

[ابن السنة]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

You put a very short question and I thought it would be easy to answer, but when i read the alternatives, i found it being more tricky. That is why i choose to reply Ahmeds mail before yours, even though it looked more complicated at first view. Well I know alternative 1 is wrong. It presumes a creator, and that is impossible. That would not be a real start because someone would have to create the creator before that... and so on.. It makes no sense. Alternative 2 sounds ok because something must have caused it, otherwise we would not be here, nor would the space be here. I presume we talk about the origin of the space, not just the species. Alternative 3... hmm....maybe, but here we are in too deep water. Eternity is a too long time for me to understand. Alternative 4 is "other". I have no real idea what it could be, but if you give me some idea, than maybe I can tell you.. I hope my answer did not disappoint you, but I could not give a simple answer here. Best regards Charlie#

Thank you Charlie
Well I didn't mean it to be tricky to trap you or something. Lets admit that the question is tough.
Well may be option 1 of a creator shouldn't be discussed at this point
I guess, the second option makes sense.
Saying it is eternal is even aganist the Big bang ( if it is correct)
Come to existence from nothing without a cause doesn't make sense to me and it violates the basic logic. and I can say that it destroys science which depends on cause and effect.
Eternal and caused by a certain cause are the only two options ( in my opinion as we will discuss they will be reduced to a single point)

Lets stick now to caused by a cause? I will not say a Creator at this point because logic would say may be it is someything else right?

Do you agree on that ? Can we move forward or do you think that there is something strange in what I said?


Charlie, I hope you caught my way of thinking: I want to start from the very basic principles, as we do in mathematics.

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

[Charlie1965]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now. But it does not have to be start of the time and probably it is not. However it is very difficult to study what was happening before the great explosion that changed everything in our universe and made it start from zero.
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God? How could he just appear from nothing? Ok you can say he is eternal, but in that case you accept a cause that you don't accept for the nature itself? And not just that, you even get another difficult question to reply: How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids? Best regards, from Charlie#

[Charlie1965]

Ahmed, you did not understand some basic things in evolution: The genetic variation is working with randomness, but the evolution does not! The natural selection only accept solutions that work. Only changes that are good enough will survive. Your example with 2 boys in the pool are not so stupid actually. One drowns, the other stay alive. Who will spread his genes forward? Well not the drown boy at least.
Your next statement that evolution can not explain the big variety of life on earth is also false. It can and if you understand how it works, you would see I am right. What do you think, that we would have just few species if evolution was right? Conditions at our planet are extremely various and they even changed throughout the earths history. The species have to adapt all the time and so they did. Those who did not, they did not survive. It would be very strange if the animals looked the same on the whole planet. About the fossils. They do not demand the evolution. They confirm it. You can see that for billions of years life was extremely simple. First about some 500-600 millions of years ago life started to give some more advanced animals like fishes for example. You will not see any birds, or mammals at this time. You will find them first hundreds of millions of years later. Why did your god wait soooo long time to create humans? You say there are no forms of life between the species? Look only at humans. There are so many forms and links between us and apes. And so you will find even among other animals. If you are the expert at the evolution, than I must say I am disappointed, but not too surprised. Evolution is the best evidence against creation, and DNA is the medium point in this evidence. DNA in our and all other creatures are unique for every individual. That gives evolution a chance to work. If we all had same DNA, there would be no space for evolution. We use evolution to change species of dogs, birds, cats, or whatever you want. How do we do that? By being gods? I wanted the answer on that question before, but you simply ignore questions you don't know how to answer. Other questions you reply very simple, like "DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation". In what way? Can you explain that to me? Best regards from Charlie#

[ابن السنة]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now. But it does not have to be start of the time and probably it is not. However it is very difficult to study what was happening before the great explosion that changed everything in our universe and made it start from zero.
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God? How could he just appear from nothing? Ok you can say he is eternal, but in that case you accept a cause that you don't accept for the nature itself? And not just that, you even get another difficult question to reply: How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids? Best regards, from Charlie#

Thank you Charlie for your message and interaction
I have some conservations about the law of conservation of energy
The law just says that if we have a box in space, then the energy in minus the energy out equals to the energy stored in the box. It is very hard to generalize the theory to all space, all time
why
Because General Theory of relativity doesn't conceal with Quantum Mechanics.
According to this condensed ( Matter and Energy) Quantum mechanics takes the role. But again QM cannot deal with gravity. Actually this point of concealing GR to QM is the work of research right now. I took last year a grad course in General University and I remember that the trend now is to conceal both theories but still no real progress has been done yet.

Actually this is just a side note

and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now.

Yes based on pure logic this can be true. That is why I said that it is caused by a certain cause.

Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God?

Lets not talk about God right now. Let our thoughts follow smoothly

You came to a very intuitive conclusion and I was actually planning to ask you that questoin but you answered by saying that the universe may be caused by a certain cause
Actually, I want to fix terminologies here
Lets define an event , E by saying it is an "entity" which needs an "external" set of rules to sustain its properties.
For example mass it can be converted to energy once the rule of "acceleration to hight speed is applied"
Time is converted to space when a huge object ( say a black hole) is introduced, so according to GR space-time will bend and time can be changed to space and vice- versa
Lets define a cause C by an entity which operates on an event E by the set of rules necessary to sustain its properties


In this case our universe is and event E, caused by a cause, C1 (1 here is just a label because we are not yet sure if this C1 is itself an event to another cause C2)
Like what you said previously Who created God

Do you agree on that Charlie

Best Regards Ibn Alsunnah

[حسام الدين حامد]

Mr. Charlie

First of all you are welcome in the forum, hoping that you will know more about Islam.

May be you know that the doctrine that Mr. darwin came with in the "origin of species" , which is an incomplete work as Darwin himself stated, isn't new. Species transformation into another was adopted , in different ways of course, many centuries before Darwin was born. But, Did Darwin himself was an atheist?? Did he find his theory opposite to presence of God?!

Geoffroy, Erasmus Darwin, his grandson and Lamarack , as evolutionists, rejected direct independent creation of species but they didn't reject God. So, why atheists today claim that darwin got them their salvation from belief in God while Darwin himself didn't claim that?! Have they ,atheists, got a new evidence that God doesn't or didn't exist?? Have you such an evidence Mr. Charlie?!

If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

You put a book in your living room and left. Your son enters and see the book but he didn't know that you came in. So, he starts postulating some assumptions. First, let's say that the wind carried the book and put it on the table through that open window. And , of course, the issue of how the wind carries the book only is out of question now!! May be some future discoveries about the nature of the wind will answer it. Secondly, He ,your little son, assumes that the papers and glue on the table mingled together and the result was that silly book! And, again, there is no reason to omit that assumption because the mechanism of mingling will be answered in the future!

In that example, your son builds his "scientific" assumptions upon a base that you didn't exist! He didn't see you coming in! I don’t know how you will react in this situation and how will you ,as an evolutionist, prove that the little kid is wrong!?

To sum that example in a direct question I may say, how can you prove that direct independent creation of species is impossible?! How can you be so dead sure that independent creation didn’t exist??

You to your son: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't "see" that!

Me to you: God created all species as he told us!
You "may" say: I didn't "see" that!

Your answer to your son is my answer to your belief in evolution!


Is it that simple?! Yes indeed! But the struggle was between evolution and Christianity which had been corrupted and old myths got its way to its texts! That weak Christianity couldn't offer that simple logic as Trinity is no way a simple logic neither a logic in any way!

Back to the son, what did your son do?! He put assumptions that doesn't require your being and he did succeed! What did "atheist evolutionists" say?! They say they put assumptions that doesn't require God. Did they succeed?!

Here I quote your saying "evolution doesn't work with complete random". How do you deal with "evolution"?? What is that "evolution" that works and doesn't work?! Who or What made it work that way and what or who makes it doesn't?! Your "evolution" still needs God and doesn't omit the presence of God and that is why Darwin and his ancestors "couldn't" abandon the presence of God!

That bird that got a third wing! How can you be so "scientifically" sure that it can't have offspring?! "such bird wouldn't be attractive to other sex!" you say! How do you know?! On the other hand that "new look!" may attract another curious female! You just say so because you know it didn't occur so you fill it with the suitable answer but that is in no way a scientific method!

Another example is that eagle with the wings. Why the wings don't get longer and longer?! You say "in real world it is not sure that our eagle male would be so successful" .. Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! It is another answer based on what already happened not what would happen if you were in the position to predict. You answer , or Darwin's sexual selection answer, is not a scientific law!


Sorry for that long reply. I may sum it up in few questions:
* If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

* How do you answer your son in the above-mentioned example?

hosam

[Charlie1965]

Hey hey Ibn Alsunnah! I though you are trying to simplify this debate, while instead you make it very complicated by trying to dive into subjects I think neither you or I know very good. No, I can not agree with you. Maybe you are right, but I did not understand much of what you talk about now. Still I am a person who is reading a lot about space and recently I was reading a book about black holes. Still I don't know much about QM. And I think maybe 99% of people in this forum don't know much about it. For me it is not important to know the QM. I have much easier ways to show that religions belong to old times when people did not know so much as we know today. There is a way that we say: Dizzy speaking is dizzy thinking. Best regards, Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Hey hey Ibn Alsunnah! I though you are trying to simplify this debate, while instead you make it very complicated by trying to dive into subjects I think neither you or I know very good. No, I can not agree with you. Maybe you are right, but I did not understand much of what you talk about now. Still I am a person who is reading a lot about space and recently I was reading a book about black holes. Still I don't know much about QM. And I think maybe 99% of people in this forum don't know much about it. For me it is not important to know the QM. I have much easier ways to show that religions belong to old times when people did not know so much as we know today. There is a way that we say: Dizzy speaking is dizzy thinking. Best regards, Charlie

Sorry Charlie, May be I was not clear. My reply to the law of conservation of energy was to what you said, however this is irrelevant to the discussion and I explicitly mentioned that.

Forget about all the defintions what do you think of the following statment
?

At the end we agree that the universe is caused by a certain cause C right
?
?

Note 1: Dr Hossam is very knowledgeable and I hope you will enjoy talking with him too

Note 2: About QM : I believe that many people here know alot about it to some extent

Note 3 : Your way of looking at religion as something from old days is a very unscientific argument. Remember that to discuss a topic with another team , both should agree on basic axioms which in our case are basic logic. So words like we know more everyday, Religion is just old stories, ...etc is not built on this common ground. The same if I say materialistic thinking is stupid,...etc

[Charlie1965]

HI Hosam, Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I feel sometimes that my questions are being ignored, while I try my best to answer all the questions when I can. So I try to answer your questions straight on. If I miss some, I apologize. You really wrote a long mail, so i might miss something.
About evidence that god does not exist. You have to be aware that it is very difficult to show evidence to a negative fact. In the court you are never asked to show evidence that something did not happen, before the other part shows evidence that it did happen. For example, If I say that Mickey Mouse lives at a planet out there how can you show I am wrong? It is not very likely.... it is unbelievable, but you can not give me evidence that it is not true. Can you? Same with God. You have to give me evidence that he DOES exist, before you ask me for evidence that he does not exist. So please go on. Give me evidence 1 and 2 that god exists. No one has yet succeded... so good luck...
The other central question is about the book and my son.#Well, I really hope I will not have a stupid son. I am sure he wil believe in the most logic thing. Not book being crated by wind, mixing the paper with glue. If I tell him I put it there he would believe I hope because it is the most logical answer. If he says he did not see me, than I tell him, "of course you did not... you were not in the room" and I am sure he would understand that. Kids are not stupid. He would take the most likely answer before those that are very unlikely. In the same way, I can not accept the idea of god, because it is very unlikely. You have to convince me I am wrong. If Quran would have included evolution and said "God started it all and started the evolution some billions of years ago", than it would be difficult to debate against it. But Quran does not say that. It says God created the species the way they are. And we know for sure that they changed a lot throughout geological history of earth and they change even today. It happens slowly so you can not see it at first view. The book is being brought into the room too slowly.. so you can not see it moving, unless you pay attention.
Anyway... about Darwin. It is funny how people like to concentrate on what Darwin believed or not.... did he regret his book or not... Did he believe in God or not. That is absolutely not important. Ok, I did read an article about his wife and she clamed till the end that Darwin was an atheist till his dead. She was not. She blamed the christian church to mislead the public by spreading wrong information about him. But this is absolutely not important. If I tell you I found water in the desert and show you the place, than you know it is there. It does not help if I deny it later. I opened your eyes and the water is there, no matter what I say later. So is the teaching of Darwin. Even if he would 100 times say "I was wrong" it would not change the fact that his teaching is correct. Species do change and we use the same principals to change the species.
It is also true that he was not the only one to come to the same conclusion. He even mentions that in the introduction of his book. I did read parts of it. It is very intresting that more than one person comes to the same conclusion that is very advanced, if it is wrong. This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran? O
You guys always claim that modern science do not confirm evolution of species, but denies them. Well, check any website of any famous university of the world and see it by yourself. I hate to send links, but in this case I will make an exception. You don't even have to read it. Just take a look. Oxford university near London, maybe the worlds most famous is celebrating 200 years of birth of Charles Darwin as one of the most famous scientist of the world. Check it here http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stori.../090210_2.html
Finally about the eagle and the evolution. You ask me "Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! " Well a simple answer is that if it works against than it can not spread it genes further. This is basic in the evolution. If it does not work, than it goes under. If it is successful, than it works and live on. About the bird with a third wing. It is a well known fact that animals mob out their mates that significantly differs from themselves. This happens among bird, among wolfs or any other animal that are living in groups. Not so strange actually. Usually it means that that something is wring with the individual. Better stay away from it. But even if it would find a female this bird would be very vulnerable. A third wing would make it more difficult to fly and make it an easy prey to a hawk. Even if it get chicks... and they also get the 3rd wing, it would cause them same problems. Such genes would not survive in the long run, but be erased very soon.
Finally, about what "works or does not work" for the evolution. This is very simple. If the animal (or a herb) has genes (construction) that stays alive and can reproduce themselves to next generation, than it works. No matter what tactics they use. If it works in given conditions, it will continue existing. If it does not work, meaning the individual will not survive to spread it's genes to the next generation, than it is out of the game and such genes stop existing. They die with the individual that had them.
Thanks for your questions. I hope you will see it is not so difficult to understand the evolution. You only have to be open to listen to the idea. You will see it explains a lot more than any religion ever will. Best regards from Charlie

[Charlie1965]

Hi again Ibn Alssunah,
Ok. let's bring the ball to the ground again ans simplify the discussion.
I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o
Note 1: I am glad to talk to such an expert as Dr Hosam. I am curious to see what new facts he can show me. o
Note 2: I would be very surprised if people in this forum know much about QM, but never mind. For me this is too deep water. Let's stay at the shallow. o
Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin. Best regards from Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Thank you Charlie for your response

I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o

I didn't mention a purpose or denied its existence
The reason for a stone rolling down the hill is gravity. In another word gravity causes the stone to roll down the hill. I didn't pre-assume that the universe was caused on purpose at this point. Ok
?

If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly

Again Charlie, you cannot deny that there is a purpose. Not knowing that their is a purpose doesn't mean that there isn't right
?
Lets not pay attention to the point if this cause C is on purpose or not

About Dr Hossam, If I can interfere
His reply was a response to your statement that you are 100% sure there is no God
Being 100% sure means you have evidence. Again about your example of Mickey Mouse, yes If you told me that Mickey Mouse is living somewhere on a planet out there is most likely wrong but I cannot say I am 100% that he is not out there. I will just say ok you said so prove it to me
But I will not say I am sure that 100% he is not there
get my point
?

Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin

Again Charlie, Lets try to be objective, I will not say Darwinism is wrong because I don't like it or because I feel that Darwin is not handsome.
I still look at Darwinism as a paradigm. This is something you can discuss with Dr Hossam and Br Ahmed.

Lets stick to our point
C is a cause of our universe to exist right
So what causes C another cause
C2
?
and so on
?
Do you think there is no problem in that
?

Thanks Charlie

[Charlie1965]

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,

Please make it a habit to sign with your name in each message. I am having debate with more than one person here, so sometimes I am not sure who is writing. If you end your message with "Thanks Charlie" it can be misunderstood like I am writing it which I am sure you don't want to happen.
Anyway... back to the topic. About the stone rolling down the hill, i will make a minor correction. Yes gravity is part of the answer, but many stones are at the hills and not rolling down. Why? Because you need to put them out of balance to make them start rolling. Some outer force is necessary fore that. But ok. You understand this and it is not controversial for either one of us. I maybe sound picky by this comment, but I take the risk ;-) .
One thing you are completely wrong about me. You said I can not deny the purpose of everything. It is exactly what I am doing! If you talk about purpose of life, or purpose of universe, than automatically means that someone or something gave it a purpose. And that one has to be a thinking force. Who could give it but a God? Since I deny existence of God, I deny the purpose of everything. This is a bit difficult for some people to understand and a bit scary, to think we are alone in the huge space and there is no one above guarding at us. But for me this is a reality we have to accept. I hope I will be able to show you this in the long run. o
About Mickey Mouse if someone told me that he lives somewhere out there, I would for sure say I am 100% sure that is false. It is so unlikely that saying 99% sure would sound like a huge chance that he is right (1%). Existence of Mickey out there is not just not proven, but it is not even likely. Not even close to likely. For me it is the same case with
God. o
Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.

Best regards from Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Hi Charlie,
I will sign with my name "Ibn Alsunnah" everytime , sorry for that

I don't feel it is scary that there is no creator so I stick with the idea that there is God. I am sure that there is a creator by both my emotions and my mind
anyway this is of no concern right now since emotions will not help here

Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.

So we have a chain of cause and effects
our universe <C1<C2<C3<C4<......Cn<Cn+1 and so
Here we can also consider the set of causes as the transforms which happen to the "eternal " matter. At this point we can see that the assumption of eternal matter is equivalent to a set of infinite causes.
Do u think that this chain of events can go up to infinity
?
Think for a while


Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah