Whence Then is Evil?

What is this beta nonsense? It goes berzerk off and on.

What is this beta nonsense? It goes berzerk off and on.

I had to stop had ad tocl a

Re: # 209

Philosopher

Hoping that you are still sober and would remain so in future as promised and adopting you as my grand I would remind you about an age old Persian advice:

"Griftan khataae Bazurgaan khata ust"

(To point out a fault in elders is itself a fault)

It is because we are the very result of a fault of their's - of dropping a dirty drops (Ghaleez qatra as Quran says)in our mothers' wombs. In fact it was the original sin of Adam which which started all this business of creation which is continuing indefinitely mostly just by default.

As for creation in abstract, I cannot understand any creation without the creator having first its idea somewhere. From where this idea comes, that is the question which defies my comprehension. If you call it a wish of the creator born of his instinct in genes then will it not aso be 'Mattahe gharoor', a fraud, all Maya?

# 209

philosopher

Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.

Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.

# 209

philosopher

Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.

Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.

re. Philosopher #197:

(Don't know how I missed that post earlier. 8-) )

re. "But in the case of universe the case is entirely different. IF universe has beginning, we cannot say that universe itself has created itself for we cannot explain that ITSELF."

Okay, just to be sure, you're right, it's a matter of definition. The definition of the Creator in this case (both as you define it above and as Masadi does) is, essentially, That which requires no creator but can itself create. This is an abstract postulate; not an entity either logically deduced or 'explained', as you put it. It is simply a requirement if we are to make some semantic sense of the causation chain. This is the God of the philosophers. Of course, it would be interesting to ask why those philosophers needed to have "explain" original causation in the context of the universe to begin with.

PM, Masadi, Philo bhai, and all others

So were we able to answer those eternal questions?

(1) Universe (the Totality of whatever exists, materially and potentially) cannot be self-created. Why not?

(2) Hence it needs a "separate" Creator, who is self-created. (1) How specifically must this creator be separate and different from the "Totality of all that exists and can potentially can exist?" (2) What must this Creator be/do and what must this Creator NOT be/do?


I realize answers to these questions are probably beyond my understanding but if they have been answered to everyone else's (or most others') satisfaction, then the discussion here has been well worth it. Did we, collectively, reach anywhere answering those questions?

----------------------------------------

Philosopher

Meanwhile, we can pursue less ambitious goals - understanding things that have been revealed to us! :)

Please do put your thoughts down, if you find time, about what evil (or even good, if that helps clarify) is according to Islamic perspective. (Real Islamic perspective, because both of us know very well there is real Islam and then there is what people make up to serve their own needs. Nobody, for instance, can have any interest in what Ahmedism would like to teach the world in general, and punjabis in particular :))

Also, the statement

``It is a logical neceissity extracted from the attributes of creation that necessitates a creator with different attributes at the very origin of which is the conversion from nothing to something.``

is bullshit to begin with. What attributes of the universe necessitate a creator? Masadi saheb is not allowed to assign and withhold such attributes. I could jsut as easily claim that the universe does in fact possess the attribute of self-creation or non-creation, as does your creator entity. That would ``solve`` the problem just as elegantly as you purport to, without introducing an unnecessary antecedent step in the causation chain.

But I suspect this is all a little beyond your intellect. So don`t worry too much if you don`t get it. Again.

re masadi:

``It is a logical neceissity extracted from the attributes of creation that necessitates a creator with different attributes at the very origin of which is the conversion from nothing to something.``

Either this abstraction, or you entertain other possibilities, such as the possibility that causation is an illusion to begin with. Mathematicians deal with infinity all the time. Saying that the universe necessitates a creator is pretty much like saying that infinity necessitates a starting point. Get it, dimwit? In essence, there`s nothing new in your abstract argument. The God of the Philopsopher was postulated thre hundred and fity years ago. It Died a but a few years later, when slightly honest folks learned to see the difference between an abstraction and a logical conclusion (which they often mix up with logical necessities.)

You posses skills of logical deduction!?! Hahaha! Sell that to the marines, mian!

PM writes <<< unless you establish that the said attributes of the universe, necessitating a Creator, are absent in the Creator itself. >>>

Like I said earlier, you don`t possess the basic skills of logical deduction. It is a logical neceissity extracted from the attributes of creation that necessitates a creator with different attributes at the very origin of which is the conversion from nothing to something. A creator possessing the attributes of creation would thus be absurdly illogical conclusion, if you follow the path of reasoning. If you haven`t still got it you are evidently dumb, if you got it but are being deceptive then you`re worse than dumb...

Re: # 208, teshah Saheb,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my posts. It has no doubt enriched my knowledge but you did not say anything on who is or what is meant by `devine`. My instinct says that the day human get to know what God is, whole universe including the Maya and beyond will explode and evaporate. Logic says it will never happen.

Samar

RE:#208

teshah sahib

I am sorry for my stupid comments.....whenever I write that kinda stuff i am drunk....you are like my elder brother...please accept my apology.....ye sab kata dharta umul-khabaais ka hai....I am trying to give it up.

teshah sahib says

((((As I can say off-hand; `kun` is a Quranic term which signifies the order of God to something non-existent to come into existence. `Kun` is the divine order for creation and what is created is not divine but only a fraud, a `maya` as the Quran says ``Wa mal hayyatuduniyaa illa mata-ul-gharoor`` (Yih dunya kia he bas dhoke ki tatti he` and Bhagwat Gita calls it `Maya`.)))))


In my humble opinion...the verse you have mentioned is referring to the material things, human beings have desire for. It is talking about the men`s desire for possession. It is not necessarily pointing to the world of matter and universe.

Re: # 203

Samar

Thank you dear for your courteous remarks about my self. You say:

``Glad you are back. Please explain what is `kun` and what is devine? If divine is outside universe then where is that ``outside`` and who created it?``

As I can say off-hand; `kun` is a Quranic term which signifies the order of God to something non-existent to come into existence. `Kun` is the divine order for creation and what is created is not divine but only a fraud, a `maya` as the Quran says ``Wa mal hayyatuduniyaa illa mata-ul-gharoor`` (Yih dunya kia he bas dhoke ki tatti he` and Bhagwat Gita calls it `Maya`.

I have again read all your posts on the subject and cannot but agree with your view-point. As you rightly said we are moving in a spiral which leads to nothing. As Gita says, the search for reality is like pealing an onion which leads to nothing inside it. Abu Yazid Bastami had said, ``I went to heaven but saw the chair there empty and so I myself sat in it``.

As for the necessity of a creator I can`t help repeat the words of PM at his post #205 in reply to masadi:

``Comprende? It still comes down to what every honest four-year-old knows but you don`t: You can`t escape the causation trap.``

But the make-believe dogmas are galore and many professing to believe in them without ever bothering to think critically about them.

Re: # 206

baby

you are the kind of a man that could be used as a blueprint to build an idiot.I heard you got a brain transplant and the brain rejected you?

Off course....my baap is bhudda and my grad baap is bhuha coz i am from a izatdaar family but you....anyhow i don`t wanna insult your family members. why should i blame them for your IQ of 2? Almost all of them are younger to you. Normally aulaad baap ko badnaam kartin hai, bhudhay tu apni aulaad ko baap kar raha hai.....sharam kar.

Re: # 204

philo-cipher

Budha tumhara baap, budha tumhare baap ka baap, jin ki tum bazaahir harrami aoulad ho.