Does God beget ?

 What is in creation he chose to share with us therefor it is in the realms of our understanding.

   Just because God created things for us to enjoy does not necessarily mean that we can fully comprehend them. He doesn't forbid us to try. But His creation prepared for our existence does not mean He is obligated to see that we have no sense of mystery about it.

Complexity is not a sign of the trinity, you would make a better argument stating the impossible as sign of 3 equaling one.

  I didn't see where JasperStone said "complexity" per se was a aspect of the Trinity.

  I see that he made the case that even in creation there are things which we cannot fully explain. I see you counter by saying that God must expect us to comprehend it if He created it for our sharing.

  I contribute that that is not necessarily so. We can enjoy and derive benefit from things which are mysterious to us. Most of our curiosity is based on a desire to munipulate the laws of nature to make life easier for ourselves in some way.

  Man suffers for the scarcity of things. He labors under the curse that devours the earth because of the rebellion of Satan and of man. Because of the hard labor and scarcity of resources man is ever curious how to control the forces of nature to lesson his plight of labor and suffering.

 The inventions like the light bulb, the hydro electric dam, the telephone, the TV, the computer, even space flight are all aimed at improving our suffering condition under the curse of fall of man.

  Under the full kingdom of God with its plentitude, justice, love, harmony, and pervading peace, I am not sure how the curiousity of mankind will react to abundant provision of all things needed.

   Anyway, the saved will have eternity to find out.   
   
   

ok I give up....

The Moor wrote: The Qur'an and Sunnah are clear that Allah does not sire children. The rational proof that God does not beget or sire offspring lies in the fact that God is Indivisible--that is, God is not subject to division and therefore, God is not a body.  If God were a "father," it would mean that an alleged "part" of God would have divided/separated and entered the womb of a consort/mother.    This we can see is logically impossible.  God (Allah) has always existed.  Allah is not subject to time and is not subject to change.  (Change occurs in time and has to have a start--that which has a start cannot be the Eternal God.)  Separation and division cannot exist outside of time. They are necessarily created, and God is not created and does not have created attributes.    Furthermore, if God were a father, it would mean that God is a body of some sort.  God, however, is not a body (neither a material nor a spiritual body).  For if God were a body, then God would be dependent upon the dimension of space (a body by its nature needs a certain amount of space to exist--a body cannot exist independent of space). God, however, is without a beginning and existed before the creation of space.  God is not dependent upon anything.  From the above, it should be clear that God does not change, God is Free-of-Need, and God is not a body, and therefore, "fatherhood" cannot be ascribed to God, for fatherhood is a total contradiction to Eternality and the status of Godhood.   And Allah knows best.

If you agree that Hippocrates is the father of medicine, what do you think he sired?  And, with whom? ;)

What alleged "part" of Hippocrates divided/separated and entered the womb of a consort/mother?

Do you also reject the Old Testament verse that says God breathed (Gen.2:7) because, according to you, that would mean he needed a body with lungs or gills, etc.?

What about the Old Testament verses that refer to God's hand, finger, face, etc.?  Do you think they are wrong, too?