Whence Then is Evil?

``you have yet to understand strong arguments for the proof of existence of god.``

I have already provided atleast 50 `proofs` for existence of God on the Chowk on other boards - and all of them were `good` enough for any looney who wants to buttress his faith through `proofs`.

The issue of ``faith`` versus ``reason`` has been the centre of debate in christian theology since ages and the only honourable solution for those who want to keep their faith is by not indulging in sophistry. One can understanding God and his message only through the language of ``metaphors`` as Gill Saheb rightly suggests and not through ``science``.

Theology and spirituality can never be a ``science`` and hence trying to construct ``proofs`` is a futile excercise.

Re: # 50 FV
[....why is it okay if a Hindu believes in rituals and passes it off as religion but a Muslim doing a bit of bending and stretching is considered `jaahil`?...]

You tell us...

It`s an essay - of whatever quality - about God, and we can`t discuss it without calling one another a-holes, idiots, super-idiots, feeling offended, being guilty, making others guilty, throwing petty tantrums etc etc. :)

God does have a strong effect on some people.

#37 by hamidm2:

You have got a few things wrong. Perhaps you should hang out with Muslims too occasionally and you will find to your utter surprise that they aren`t burping some ayat into their beards after saying Alhamdollilah following the tequila shot. For a people with rather well-defined jawlines it is a pity that they choose to cover their chins, isn`t it? But then we assume they all do so.

Your query has been answered by all the nice, liberal Hindus here. This `karma` business is such a fright. It isn`t, as DMji suggests, all about taking responsibility for your actions. It is about sowing what you reaped in the last birth. So, your friends at the bar were probably amnesiacs in their last birth and forgot all about their religion in this one. Besides, reciting something by rote does not constitute religiosity. It is about how you have internalised your conditioning.

I don`t understand this: why is it okay if a Hindu believes in rituals and passes it off as religion but a Muslim doing a bit of bending and stretching is considered `jaahil`? Only because the Muslims have one book and the Hindus have like four Vedas, a few epics, and the Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita? That is a hell of a lot of written material to go through to call a religion a ``way of life``.

If some Muslims behave like idiots it is because they have not got those choices.

If, as Anil says, simply saying I am a Hindu is enough, then why do many Muslims who say `I am a Muslim` have to go through racial profiling? Two goddamn Indian doctors are suspected in the UK failed bombings and it becomes an issue about 160 million Indian Muslims. I know, I know, this is seen as more whining from IMs...but isn`t it `evil` (to return to the subject being discussed)?

Re. your # 13:

[fv,

``Can evil transform into goodness at some point in time?`` ......... of course - haven`t you heard the saying ``she is so bad, she is good !``]

Unfortunately, I have got to hear more often that she is so bad she couldn`t get any worse!

Be well...
- - -

PS to the one who is concerned: One does not degrade oneself by where one is but what one is and how one conducts oneself. I am okay; it is indeed the power of my will that makes me do what I do. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

re. #28
``you have yet to understand strong arguments for the proof of existence of god.``

Yeah, me too, Philoo. Care to enlighten?

philospher, gill saheb,

Phlioo, you post #2 is excellent in explaining the phenomenological nature of belief. I wonder if this debate is a non-starter for Muslims in the first place because, to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)

The paradox that Gill cites is an almost valid debunking of the Christian idea of God, (or more correctly, SOME Christians` idea) which, far from having ``merely`` phenomenological value and pointing to ``something intuitive deep withing man``, has a supposedly rational, logical basis.

Quite apart from the issue that the untestability of the statements regarding God`s essential, ``omni``, attributes renders these statements unsicentific, it may still be possible to apply a logical positivist approach to any such claims or statements coming together, and possibly demonstrate their collective tenability or otherwise.

If put it simply, Gill`s treatment of the God-question is fair game as long as God is being sold with rational arguments. But let`s look at the arguments, none of which, of course, are original.

Acutally, let`s just look at the last of them, against Free Will, with which I take issue. This is what Gill writes:

``Another escape route from such a paradoxical fix that is provided to omnipotent and omniscient God is that of Free Will. The argument goes that God created man with a free will – he has a choice of doing good or doing evil. Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts. In this way, God has a
basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in the Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers. No matter, how you cut it, if God is indeed omnipotent, He is also responsible for creating evil directly or indirectly by endowing the human beings with free will.``

I find this line of arguement quite ridiculous. God seems to be indicted for evil-creation even if the evil is an outcome of His granting Free Will to man. The absurdity is readily apparent when you consider that,

i) Free Will automatically-- logically if you might-- implies the possibility or existence of evil, and,

ii) In the absence of Free Will, the entire concept of evil becomes nonsense (in the philosphical as well as common sense usage of the word.)

To better grasp this absurdity, consider having free will without the existence of evil. Now THAT`s a paradox if there ever was one. And that`s also the flaw in Gill`s argument on Free Will. The following statement simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny:

``Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts.``

Apart from the fact that, as Philo said, any sophomore could point out that the creation of a potential for something isn`t the same as the creation of that thing itself, in the context of free will, evil is as necessary, as coulours are to a pallette. Those that would like Free Will without the possibility of evil want to eat their cake (of ``innocence``, or amorality) and have it too!

The statement following the one last quoted is logically even weaker:

``In this way, God has a basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers.``

Omigod!! Could Gill sahib be any more absurd?!? Never mind that the question of consequences is extraneous to the debate at hand, which is whether the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good being is compatible with the existence of evil (which is a given)-- no, now Gill sahib is suggesting that:

i) Free Will itself was an evil plan hatched by God to ``exact`` reward and punishment on its agents, (Again, I suppose Gill sahib would like CHOICE without RESPONSIBILITY) and,

ii) God`s own evilness is sufficiently demonstrated in his willingness to consign evil-doers to eternal damnation.

Whether or not one agrees with the last contention (personally, I would agree, except that I`m agnostic, both on the question of God and of Free Will), the fact is that that last argument is NOT a logical argument against the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good God. It rests on the acceptance of the proposition that punishment for evil-doing is also a form of evil itself.

Now, that is only as `true` as one feels it to be. But whatever one feels about it, it`s not open to logical scrutiny, and using it to argue God`s evilness, or God`s impossibility, is just not on.

Re: # 37

Hamidm sahib:

Could it be that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense you were brought up to believe a religion. Its followers are not required to even remember the names of four vedas, simply saying to yourself that ``I am a Hindu`` is its Kalima (??), after that you are free to choose.

ballukhan writes <<< It is amazing to see superstition of a deity called god running the lives of millions of human beings. >>>

What is amazing to see is that this BS khan was claiming to be an Indian Muslim, and pontificating on God and theology and how he believes in it, when people here knew he was just faking it. Now he comes out in the open, the poor idiot could not restrain himself. God has nothing to do with running the lives of millions, he has everything to do with giving them life, those who have everything to do with designing institutions that govern the life/death and determine the personality of people in the millions,. i.e. the elite are absolved of all evil by a-holes like bs khan and tahmed, while assigning the blame to God. The ``higher superstition`` does not involve God, it involves the mythology and symbolism of advanced capitalism that enslaves the many to benefit the very few...

burpinder writes about Gill <<< It sounds like the work of some first year philosophy major. >>>

Actually it is more like a high-school level essay, my first year students, some of them, those that know how to read and write that is, have come up with much superior work than this pseudo-plagiarized, tape-recorder-esque piece. The guy is spending a meaningless existence in the USA, like most folk over there, working day and night for a paycheck or if retired frequenting restaurants and what not. It is meaninglessness multiplied by meaninglessness and so he sits on his computer and composes this pathetic piece, while trying to censor the writings of others.... and then he has the audacity to claim that this kind of moronic existence is what humanity is all about. If I were Mr.T, I’d say, “I pity the fool”.

Gill quoting Hitchens <<< Is He willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent?
Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent?
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? >>>

You don`t need to be an Einstein to conclude that the above is based on the ``thinkers`` reductionism, there can be alternative choices, like

He is able and willing but restrains himself till a set time

Why you ask: In order to remain consistent with his nature that of a Just God, after he has determined a purpose for creating the world, not as end by itself but a pathway to the end where evil will then (after a set time) not exist. And why will evil not exist, because ``evil`` is not an attribute of `creation` but going contrary to your nature i.e. not submitting to God; it is therefore relative based on specific criteria...



Quran 16.61] And if Allah had destroyed people for their evil, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He respites them till an appointed time; so when their time will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time).

Why such a long time you ask? ``Longness`` is also relative.



Quran 30.55] And at the time when the hour shall come, the guilty shall swear (that) they did not tarry but an hour; thus are they get misguided.

---

Think Gill and recognize the glory of the Quran