Whence Then is Evil?

Actually, just coz this game is so much fun, I`d like to introduce the idea that God cannot be both Eternal and Good. (And this may appeal to Zeemax, actually). It`s not original, of course...

If God is Good, it means he/she/it conforms to some antecedent ethical standards. This of course, isn`t possible if he/she/it is Eternal, the First Cause, or indeed, ``just`` the authority on the whole What`s Good and What`s Evil deal. An ORIGINAL rule-setter on good and evil, implies that such and entity be amoral. (Not immoral, of course.)

Conversely, to be good (or evil) means to conform to (or infringe on) certain ethical standards that already exist. If God indeed is good, then there is that something that precedes his/her/its existence.

No?

Re: # 146, masadi saheb,

I said we can`t understand beyond our senses and reason is what our senses have derived/acquired the knowledge of the universe which evidently must again be limited. We can gain MORE and MORE knowledge which may be too vast to imagine today but still it will be limited because universe and the inside of the tiniest particle is infinite. So, we can`t know whether God is or not.

Samar

sorry missed part of the reference quotation in #149

Timothy Ferris states in his book, The Whole Shebang :

``...the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena, raising the riddle how the EARLY universe could have evolved in the absence of observers. The riddle may be ``solved`` by invoking God as the supreme observer, who by scrutinizing all particles converts their quantum potentials into actual states (Ferris, page 308).``

In #146 read, << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

as << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can`t answer most questions remaining within their limits >>

Re, #147

Let me quote the answer for you from my paper, God: The New Scientific Evidence:

(quote)According to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems (based upon which the singularity of the Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, because Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level), objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states (Ferris, Timothy 1997:255). The ``wave function`` of the universe could never have collapsed without the ``observation`` of an observer, i.e. God. The Koran states:

To God is due the starting point (primal origin, Badeeh in Arabic) of the skies and the earth. And Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says to it, ``Be`` and it is.``(Koran 2:117).

(end quote)

re. Zeemax 136:
God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ...

Right... And what, pray tell, do or can we possibly know, which is NOT a direct result of human perception?

re. masadi:
``Actually [Mr Gill] is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.``

Indeed it would seem that probabilistic causation and determnism are being incorrectly seen as opposites ( A commoon misunderstanding, I might add); but pray tell, masadi sahib, how is God necessitated by Bohr or Heisenberg being right?

Re: 145

That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits, you need not become a table to understand a table, similarly the limits of perception are filled through reason which expands human understanding way beyond the limits of perception. Saying that logic has its limits so we cannot understand God, and have to rely on faith is a lame argument, such arguments, supporting whatever status quo might exist at the time are mere excuses that try to take perfectly reason bound phenomenon to the realm of the forbidden.

143, Kal Saheb and Philosopher,

Humans have been given limited capacity of perception. They can`t see beyond speed of light, they can`t smell many things, they can`t express/understand/decipher many things. They have evolved the concept of infinity which they can`t visualize. So, they can`t know God. They can not say whether God exists or not. Similarly nothing is evil/good because many things which are good for humans are bad for other species of living beings and vice-versa. God/Nature or call it/Him anything has to look after everyone including non-living things so we, humans can`t decide which is good and which is evil. Universe is carrying on in its own way.

Samar

Gill writes <<< The research conducted to date has verified Bohr’s point of view. Certain aspects of quantum physics are not very clear in the classical sense and our understanding will probably change when (or if) a unified theory (Theory of Everything) is discovered... >>>

Actually this hypocrite is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.

That said, can you remove your damn photo from the front page of this site, it has been there for weeks, advertising a long gone article. Just because you happen to be the damn editor of Chowk does not mean you can advertise yourself and censor other much better written articles....

Philosopher

I have a request for you, my friend.

Before the question of whence evil? must come the question of what is evil? Gill sahib won`t even get into that other than portraying evil as the opposite of good. :(

You have a gift for putting across basic islamic insights in most logical fashion. And Islam probably has the best and clearest understanding of evil.

Could you take out a little of your time to write a note on what evil is from Islamic point of view. It will be very helpful.

Thanks in anticipation.

khurram: #141
Thanks for sending the article to me. We all learn from our objective and open-minded analyses of propositions that we come across now and then. I didn`t spend much time in analysing the problem step by step. I noticed the serious defect in assumption #2 and that was it. Be well,
Mohammad Gill

Re: freethinker #140,
I guess that is one way around it. To deny causality altogether.

I just saw this `proof` today for the first time and posted it because it was relevant to your earlier post. After I thought about it a little more I realized it has an obvious problem even if we accept causality. The proof says that God(G) must be an uncaused non-composite cause of the Universe(U) because the Universe being a composite system cannot be self-caused.
But if G does indeed exist as a cause of U then G+U make another composite system and we need to look for another cause. So we are back to the problem of infinite regression.

I was glad to realize this because I don`t believe in reducing God to `existence`.

khurram: #137

Although I had said in my last post that that was my last post, khurram has sent something else in my direction, which is the so-called (a new) proof of “The Existence of God?” The article (hyperlinked) itself recognizes that the proof is not entirely new because its essentials had already been formulated by Ibn-i-Sina in the eleventh century. Nonetheless, it is cast in a new logical frame (is it really new?) although it is the old cause-effect formulation. The accuracy of the proof rests on three assumptions which are described simply in the hyperlinked “A New Proof of God’s Existence?” If any of these assumptions is incorrect, the logical structure will collapse.

The number 2 assumption says, “For every system or composite phenomenon, any cause for the system is also a cause for every part of the system. (Every material thing, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum physics, is composite.)”

There was a 30-year long discussion (controversy) on determinism (cause-effect hypothesis) between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein believed in determinism while Bohr said the events taking place in the subatomic world are probabilistic; they are not deterministic. You can only calculate the probability of an event in the subatomic world but cannot say for sure that a certain event will actually occur as an effect of a prior cause.

The research conducted to date has verified Bohr’s point of view. Certain aspects of quantum physics are not very clear in the classical sense and our understanding will probably change when (or if) a unified theory (Theory of Everything) is discovered... Therefore the so-called proof is suspect due to questionability of assumption number 2.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: freethinker,
``When I see a convincing argument in support of the existence of theistic God, I`ll accept it and share it with other agnostics and atheists.``

Mr Gill,
What do you think of this?

http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214as.htm
(Don`t forget to click on the link at the end of the article)

Re: # 132

well Gill sahib

We both have presented our case. Now its up to the readers`s choice what they find more meaningfull.

Lets agree to disagree.it has been a pleasure to have debate with you. I am really thankful to you for kind response.

I haven`t found that mail...can you please send it on

philo_chowk@yahoo.com

Thank you very much for that.I find words so poor to express how much i am grateful to you for that.

Re:#134 by zeemax on July 9, 2007 12:45pm PT

Thanx mate.....lol to the last line.

Zee, Philo

Some people might suspect that you two are creating a new Islam. Or that your understanding of Islam is not any better than theirs or other Chowkies, say, Gill Sahib`s.

That can be easily put to test through # 133.

Actual scholars of Islam (again, not self proclaimed sufis) are unlikely to spend too much time proving God is good. Rather they would see Islam as the ``best`` way to reach God/ find His grace.

With Christians and Sufis, of course proclaiming the so-called goodness of God might be a big issue.


If anybody knows otherwise, it will be great to hear from them.

#132 by freethinker,

I think scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah.

Bhai ... God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ... Sir read Surah Ikhlaas.

Re: # 128
Re: # 128

kaal ji


((((how can one distinguish between the following two sets of statements?:

[God is omnipotent.
God is good.]

and

[Good is omnipotent.
God is evil.]

Can these be used interchangeably? Just because good exists, it does not prove that God is not evil)))))

well..kaal.. Religion or for that matter Quran has never said that God is ``good`` or evil. As i mentioned earlier that, these are the modes of substance which, we derive from attributes of substance and are infinite in numbers. For example; Omnipotence can accommodate both good and evil at the same time. But before that we have to define `good` and evil’. Both these terms are used in an emotional way which are further responsible for an ethical interpretation of religion, the fallacy that i was once discussing with you.(#282 daughter of hajar). This argument goes like that;

God is good....some part of religion is bad (even if it is one of core principles).
God is greater than the religion so come on guys lets change the religion...God would love it...because God is love....couple of songs in the church with a few candles and that is it.

This thinking was responsible for the decline of Christianity as a religion (both socially and theologically). Now you can understand why Islam is surviving even in the most intense materialism world has ever witnessed.

We label attributes of God as good or bad according to their ((those so called attributes .e.g. mercifull.raheem...compeller..etc)) consequences on our life. in that sense good and evil are not even MODES in the strict sense. These qualities are given by us to certain Actions depending on their implications, which again have relative value.

For example; in human life good means ``following moral laws`` Whereas in God`s case...its God who is the source of all moralities...So any concept of Goodness of God can be understood in the context of God`s primary attributes i.e. ominieverything...etc( if at all you think that logic is relevant there).At the end of the day the problem we will face is, the concept of infinity. So here we go.....even in that case we have insufficient methodology in the form of logic to analyze religious assertion....at the end of the day problem remains there from where it started. .First of all we have to have ABSOLUTLY certain and objective LOGIC if we insist on applying it on religion....And every student of philosophy knows there is NO such logic....but the problem with philosophy is that everybody considers himself a philosopher....If a person is not a doctor he will never say he is a doctor but if a student of philosophy tells someone even a fundamental concept of philosophy ``MR someone`` would never accept that....this is the problem. Applying this logic on religion is just like checking an out of order bus with a medical instrument and that too a broken one.


The question of evil and good (including the one you have raised) and their internal consistency are the result of a misunderstood concept of monotheism (as I have mentioned in my reply to PM in 71) and that is, taking oneness of God, as mathematical oneness. In Mathematics one is the half of two and double of half. We don’t know what kind of oneness of God has…Quran has always mentioned it as the denial ‘’shirk’’(associating partner with Allah).Analogical thinking is not relevant here. So deriving any ‘’abstract’’ conclusion from that ‘’oneness’’ is meaningless and shows the ignorance of the relevance of different epistemological dimension suited to the universe of discourse it is dealing with. Religion itself is an independent epistemology and cannot be understood by only one methodology.

It is simply impossible to understand religion without living in its climate of opinion and looking the entire reality with its perspective. Unless you come at level of ‘I’ to ‘I’ encounter with religious truths ,you will never be able to comprehend them. Religion gives you the methodology to follow and find the truth.

Regards

#127 by philosopher,

Excellent post. Guess you missed the pub today :)

``scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah.``

Zee, philo, or anyone else, have Islamic schcolars (not Sufi `scholars`) written much on this subject? Intutitively, it is far more logical to argue that Islam is good, and leads to good, than to worry too much about whether God Himself is good or evil. That seems too sufi (read either nonsensical or deceptive) or Christian (read incomplete).

philosopher:

You say good and evil are relative and “Good” is not an attribute of God. I think scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah. In your concluding paragraph you wrote: “According to the Quran ``latter (the hereafter) is always better than the former`` so for Quran world is temporary and `evil` is nothing but only a ``possibility``. In this way ``death`` which looks an evil to agnostic mind, is the way to find eternal peace. So the the question of evil becomes meaningless even in ‘’non-logical’’ way.” If God is not good then there is nothing to discuss in as much as my article is concerned.

Both Christianity and Islam asserted that this world was temporary and would come to an end soon. We factually know only this world (and only conjecture about the other world, the hereafter) to exist even after 2100 years when its impending end was predicted. One can, of course, shut one’s eyes (if one chooses to do so) and pronounce “evil is nothing.” To one school of thought, the whole world is an illusion.

If good and evil are relative, so is God. The Christian God (God of Love) is different relative to Muslims’ Allah and Hindus’ Baghwan. There are number of other deities also in which Hindus believe. So by this argument also God, Allah, Baghwan and others of its kind “are nothing.”

This is my last post on this subject and I have written it reluctantly because the whole discussion is getting out of hand. If you want to continue this discussion with me, please send your comments by e-mail to me and I’ll respond by e-mail, as I had suggested in one of my earlier posts. Otherwise, this discussion is over in as much as I am concerned.

I had sent you an e-mail through Chowk (since I don’t know your e-mail address); I don’t know if you received it or not. If not, let me know by e-mail, I’ll send it to you directly. It is a commentary on modern logic by a philosopher. There are many sides to philosophy none of which may be very certain without empirical evidence.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Ooops, just noticed an error in # 128. Sorry, philo. Here are the two sets of statements:


[God is omnipotent.
God is good.]

and

[God is omnipotent.
God is evil.]

Zee, these were some of the first things you said that made clear that you knew what you were talking about. Why the heck do I call you ustaad, ustaad? LOL

#128 by kaalchakra,

Is it time for you to use my `shaitan` in Islam argument :)

Good one, philosopher. Christianity doesn`t get those basic facts. That`s why, it is not a complete religion in the sense that Islam is.

To grasp the philosophical framework better, strictly within it (that means, without brining in extraneous elements, assumptions etc.), will one be able to/ or how can one distinguish between the following two sets of statements?:

[God is omnipotent.
God is good.]

and

[Good is omnipotent.
God is evil.]

Can these be used interchangeably? Just because good exists, it does not prove that God is not evil.

---

Just trying to understand the framework by playing with it a little, philo :)

Re: # 126Masadi

That is the point i have been trying to explain in my debate with Gill that ``good`` is not a logical abstraction by any means even if logic were relevant here on these issues.
Omnipotence is ``logical abstraction`` regardless of the relevance (or even validity) of logic, for omnipotence has absolute definition for every one regardless of one`s own inclination and temperament.

````Good`` and ``evil`` on the other hand are relative as Masadi has mentioned. Gill has been calling them ``attributes`` however; technically they don`t qualify to be attributes. .they are the `MODES` of SUBSTANCE because they have derivative value. They (modes) are derived from the attributes and can be derived in infinite numbers from attributes. Religion has mentioned these `MODES and attributes in countable quantity. Though at the same time Quran says that ````there is nothing like HIM``. these modes and attributes are only to make divine reality for humans.

So debate of contradiction is meaningless on more grounds than one. I challenge anybody here to show me that these two statements..;

God is omnipotent
God is good
are contradictory on the ground of the existence of evil in the world. Both statements have different predicate therefore any debate regarding contradiction is an exercise in futility.

Boy... how do i tell you guys that these are obvious and basic things and every serious student of philosophy knows that....

the problem of evil within the framework of religion arises because of ignoring the fact that religion talks about two universes of discourse, one material or temporary world and other hereafter? Now whether hereafter actually exits or not, you have to take it into account if you are analyzing the ``internal coherence`` and consistency of religion, for if you claim religious assertion to be contradictory you will have to show it by taking all concepts of religion into account and only than can you apply Logic.

According to the Quran ``latter is always better than the former`` so for Quran world is temporary and `evil` is nothing but only a ``possibility``. In this way ``death`` which looks an evil to agnostic mind, is the way to find eternal peace. So the the question of evil becomes meaningless even in ‘’non-logical’’ way.

Re: # 124Masadi
((((Not only does nature not reveal two gods one for good and one for evil, putting labels of good and evil (absolute) automatically assings grades of superior and inferior, bringing down the whole system of two gods to naught, the evil might claim ``good`` according to its nature and claim the ``good`` evil and so on...))))

Very well said...;

More later.

masadi sahib`s last sentence seems very important. IF evil actually exists, it certainly will claim goodness for itself. Evil gains nothing by being open about or announcing its evil to the world.

Inversion of the language (in one of my ancient ilogs I wondered about it), where night becomes day, freedom becomes slavery, and slavery becomes freedom, etc MUST be integral part of the evil. Although evil itself may not be a bad thing...it may even be good by its own linguistic inversion.

teshah writes <<< This unity of command was also advocated by Changez khan....>>

It was also advocated by Einstein whose fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity, states this unity of law phenomena in nature. Unity of command is a fact of nature, though its generalization to himself as Changez did amounts to idolatory; there is absolutely no problem in monotheism regarding ``evil``, Gill has skirted around, avoiding my posts and not being able to answer them, which says quite a bit about how stumped he is. Not only does nature not reveal two gods one for good and one for evil, putting labels of good and evil (absolute) automatically assings grades of superior and inferior, bringing down the whole system of two gods to naught, the evil might claim ``good`` according to its nature and claim the ``good`` evil and so on...

Regarding #8, #120, I agree with the censors.

REGARDING #120: WHAT HAPPENMED TO YOU ECHOBOOM?

Due to cOmputer problems, I could not enter in the discussion earlier. Congratulations, Gill Sahab, for bringinging another unpopular, among Muslims, but deep subject to fore.

Your last para:“Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.”
I agree with. But the new way HAS been pointed out 2000 years before Buddha and Gandhi ji in India.

BUT WILL THE WORLD HEED AND ACT RATIONALLY?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 118

samar ji

wonderful.....Thanx for sharing..

To not think of anything is metaphysics enough.

What do I think of the world?
Who knows what I think of it!
If I weren’t well then I’d think about it.

What’s my idea about matter?
What’s my opinion about causes and effects?
What are my thoughts on God and soul
And the creation of the world?
I don’t know. To think about such things would be to shut my eyes
And not think. It would be to close the curtains
Of my windows (which, however, has no curtains).

FERNANDO PESSOA

To think about God is to disobey God,
Since God wanted us not to know him,
Which is why he didn’t reveal himself to us…

Let’s be simple and calm,
Like the trees and streams,
And God will love us, making us
Us even as the trees are trees
And the streams are streams,
And will give us greenness in the spring, which is its season,
And a river to go to when we end…
And he’ll give us nothing more, since to give us more would make us less us.

FERNANDO PESSOA

Samar

It is the monotheism (Unity of command as Mush would put it) which created this problem, otherwise no such problem existed under the concept of bi-theism wherein Ahriman represented the evil and Yazdan, the good. Quran, being an advocate of Monotheism, does proclaim ``Wa kherihi, wa sharrehi`` (Good and evil are both from Him). This unity of command was also advocated by Changez khan who used to proclaim that since there is only one God in heaven there must be a single ruler on earth. Paradoxically the people claiming to believe in oneness of God received the brunt of his evil side as they are subject even today of this unity of command.

Re: # 114

Masadi said;…

(((((((Philosopher don`t call this miserable sob ``sahib``)))))


Mr. Masadi its your own opinion. I am not interested in getting my posts deleted. I Have sympathy with you. I see absolutely no problem with your posts. I think everybody has got the right to say whatever he wants. The hypocrisy of chowk staff is so obvious to every interacter here. A buffoon like Hamid gets away with all kind of rubbish just because his threads have anti-Islamic rhetoric . On chowk, writing against America and liberal democracy is considered blasphemous. I have seen many interacts here which are much better than the articles published on this great website.


Masadi says((((He is a lost, blind soul who censors articles that go contrary to his dimwit, pseudoplagirized, tape recorderesque articles. Allah has left him to wander blindly in his BS, let him be)))))



Well seriously I think Mr Gil is not as dishonest person intellectually as pervez hoodbhoy. Though I think there are some serious gaps in Gill’s scholarships but after reading most of his articles I have got the feeling that he is ready to learn and don’t intentionally try to hide the truth e.g. on women’s issue ‘liberals’ of our country deliberately try to undermine contribution of Islam. Even though every educated person knows that Islam gave some very obvious rights to women. Gill would not do that. He would accept if he comes across anything like that. He sounds to me an agnostic not an atheist. Nor does he seem to be undermining anything like a ‘’liberal pragmatist’’ who even tells lie to counter religious thinking(pervez hoodbhoy…not that he knows something ‘’secret’’ but whatever he even knows to be false of some irreligious theory he would deliberately tell lie on T.V to let religion and religious people down.))) I don’t consider Gill in that category (I don’t have long experience but that’s what I think). I am literally sick of that hypocrite (pervez).


I don’t have beef against any agnostic as long as he is sincere in his intellectual pursuits. You know even according to the Quran….its not unbelievers who are dumb and deaf, its evil people and the people who have material pursuits even if they are religious. The Glorious Quran’ s epistemology gives utmost importance to this sincerity and purification of heart in the intellectual journey. For Quran, morally and intellectual corrupt and wicked can never be able to comprehend the ultimate truth. Quran itself give methodology to comprehend divine reality a methodology which no lexicographical meanings of language understand. This is methodology of following the path of the glorious Quran…It promises you the true knowledge. The path that shows you light in the illusion of appearance. It’s a surprise that atheists are not ready to give it a go at least once. That’s the hidden wickedness Quran talks about on innumerable places.


But I can understand the dilemma of people like Gill. I myself have been a staunch atheist. Even they have pick and choose approach and a kind of ‘’dogmatic belief’’ in atheism and the methodology they follow. Gill and company is unaware of the fact that its impossible to understand religious philosophy without living in it and without devolving a perspective based on religion’s own epistemology just like a scientist works in laboratory and find implicit values and norms in the real development of science.

Gill ji….at least go inside the laboratory of religion if you really have true quest of knowledge.

Re: # 114Masadi



Masadi said;…

<<<<>>>


Mr. Masadi its your own opinion. I am not interested in getting my posts deleted.
I Have sympathy with you. I see absolutely no problem with your posts. I think everybody has got the right to say whatever he wants. The hypocrisy of chowk staff is so obvious to every interacter here. A buffoon like Hamid gets away with all kind of rubbish just because his threads have anti-Islamic rhetoric . On chowk, writing against America and liberal democracy is considered blasphemous. I have seen many interacts here which are much better than the articles published on this great website.


Masadi says<<<<>>>>



Well seriously I think Mr Gil is not as dishonest person intellectually as pervez hoodbhoy. Though I think there are some serious gaps in Gill’s scholarships but after reading most of his articles I have got the feeling that he is ready to learn and don’t intentionally try to hide the truth e.g. on women’s issue ‘liberals’ of our country deliberately try to undermine contribution of Islam. Even though every educated person knows that Islam gave some very obvious rights to women. Gill would not do that. He would accept if he comes across anything like that. He sounds to me an agnostic not an atheist. Nor does he seem to be undermining anything like a ‘’liberal pragmatist’’ who even tells lie to counter religious thinking(pervez hoodbhoy…not that he knows something ‘’secret’’ but whatever he even knows to be false of some irreligious theory he would deliberately tell lie on T.V to let religion and religious people down.))) I don’t consider Gill in that category (I don’t have long experience but that’s what I think). I am literally sick of that hypocrite (pervez).


I don’t have beef against any agnostic as long as he is sincere in his intellectual pursuits. You know even according to the Quran….its not unbelievers who are dumb and deaf, its evil people and the people who have material pursuits even if they are religious. The Glorious Quran’ s epistemology gives utmost importance to this sincerity and purification of heart in the intellectual journey. For Quran, morally and intellectual corrupt and wicked can never be able to comprehend the ultimate truth. Quran itself give methodology to comprehend divine reality a methodology which no lexicographical meanings of language understand. This is methodology of following the path of the glorious Quran…It promises you the true knowledge. The path that shows you light in the illusion of appearance. It’s a surprise that atheists are not ready to give it a go at least once. That’s the hidden wickedness Quran talks about on innumerable places.


But I can understand the dilemma of people like Gill. I myself have been a staunch atheist. Even they have pick and choose approach and a kind of ‘’dogmatic belief’’ in atheism and the methodology they follow. Gill and company is unaware of the fact that its impossible to understand religious philosophy without living in it and without devolving a perspective based on religion’s own epistemology just like a scientist works in laboratory and find implicit values and norms in the real development of science.

Gill ji….at least go inside the laboratory of religion if you really have true quest of knowledge.

Philosopher don`t call this miserable sob ``sahib``. He is a lost, blind soul who censors articles that go contrary to his dimwit, pseudoplagirized, tape recorderesque articles. Allah has left him to wander blindly in his BS, let him be....

Re: # 112

Kaalchakra

(((((This Mr. Sartre seems like a rootless kind of a guy, like our brother paarthab - a little better than sufis and Soroushs, but not by much.)))))

LOL....yap...well that`s exactly what he himself claims to be i.e. rootless. Actually he is the most famous existentialist of 20th centaury at least in masses (philosophers take Kierkegaard more seriously).....He actually developed his thesis on the basis `’ Merleau ponty’s phenomenological reductionism. Phenomenology is an anti-system philosophical movement which emerged in late 19th century and early 20th century. It was also deeply influenced by two world wars. It was basically a reaction against the Hegel’s pan-rationalism (philosophical sense).

You are right…some people consider it a bit close to eastern Sufism. Which I think a bit of oversimplification…however I won’t deny its ‘temperamental’ resemblance to Sufism…..The reason it’s difficult to give any judgment about this movement is its anti-system approach. You can interpret it in whatever way you like and that precisely an existentialist say…. He won’t go mad if he sees you raping his philosophy. It emphasize on individual’s freedom from any system (scientific or philosophical and social) ….and perhaps that’s the reason why Mr rhh was saying that logic fails and reason can solve these problems and Sartre is right….blah….blah.


A few years ago I was a staunch existentialist. I would even live like an existentialist, completely independent of any system and would enjoy being anti-social…etc…Anyhow.

Philo

This Mr. Sartre seems like a rootless kind of a guy, like our brother paarthab - a little better than sufis and Soroushs, but not by much.

Re: # 108

rhh (dear your nick is so vulnerable to any `sensational` interpretation...clarify it as soon as you can...you are not aware of the uncanny knack of of interacters here to `deconstruct`` the ambiguous language.. )



(((((Its amazing how all thinking eventually reasons up to Sartre)))))


Reasons up to sartre.....lol...just rephrase it


Reason ``beneath`` sartre....coz he considers reason a prostitute.

Kaal ji

He is refering to famous french philosopher Jean paul Sartre...he was an existentialist and of the the opinion that life is absurd...blah..blah..reason is pros...there is no objective knowledge..blah..blah

Kaal says;...
((((You know bhains ke aage been bajaana? Aaap, PM sahib, and masadi wahi kar rahe hain))))

kaal ji bhaains ke aagay been bajanay se kum se kum doodh to mil jata hai....yahan to wo bhi naseeb mein nahin.

Aadab.

to us common men and women.

(it got too common :))

philosopher bhai

You know bhains ke aage been bajaana? Aaap, PM sahib, and masadi wahi kar rahe hain.

All three of you can bajaao and bajaao and bajaao....:) :)

---

rhh

Who is/was sattare and what does/did he or she say to the us common men and women?

The approach that is most convincing, for me, in proving the existence of god, is the deterministic law of causality which traces god as the initial `causer`. But even that is not covincing, for what caused god? And why are we supposed to be moral agents then? Its amazing how all thinking eventually reasons up to Sartre

Re: # 102Gill sahib


((((((You keep on saying that the deductive logic that I used in the essay is outdated and supplanted by the modern logic but you didn`t clarify the difference between the two. Nor did you specfocally point out any error or mistake in my line of thought. Does your modern logic lead to a different inference of the problem that I discussed in the essay?)))))


My Response;

Gill sahib….I have quite clearly shown the difference between the traditional logic and modern logic by giving the example of deriving the existential general proposition from a non-existential general proposition. It was responsible for a lot of confusion in the Aristotelian logic. I even showed how you were ‘’inconsistent’’ even within the framework of your own methodology. I have clearly shown that the religious assertions you have mentioned in your essay are not technically contradictory. The assertion ‘’omnipotent God’’ and ‘’good God’ are Not contradictory to each other even if there is EVIL in the world.


Both assertions have different subject and the same predicate and for the two propositions to be contradictory they must have the same subject and predicate but different quality and quantity. You have never mentioned the DEFINITION OF CONTRADICTION but you have always claimed religious assertions to be contradictory to each other. How you can claim that without defining the term contradiction is beyond me.

Gill sahib said…..


<<<< I confess I don`t have any formal background in logic or philosophy, per se; I would like to know what mistake(s) did I commit in applying the deductive logic in my essay.>>>>


My Response….



I have already shown that you are not aware of even the fundamental laws of logic which you are going to apply on religion e.g. contradiction…etc.


Gill sahib said…..

<<<< You may teach me a few things in logic and philosophy for which I will indeed be grateful to you>>>>


My Response…..


Sir…we all learn. I am not able to teach anybody. I am only a humble and ordinary student of philosophy. I have only tried to point out some fundamental flaws in your thesis which are so obvious that even an intermediate student would not have any problem to figure it out.


Regards.

To All

There were a few mistakes(spelling...repetition...etc)in my #98. Please read my ilog for the edited post.

Thanx

kaalchakra

Just thought I would clarify a bit on your #96 which I missed to do before.

I think you had mentioned allah ki raza (reza?) - ``Will of God`` concept?

Actually, what I had said was `Mashi`at-e-Aizdi` in Islam is `God`s often quite incomprehensible and imponderable judgment (or something to that effect). It`s not the same as Allah ki Raza (Will of God) which is something different and plainly explained in Qura`an. `Mashi`at-e-Aizdi` is not explained anywhere because it cannot be explained. It is upto God`s judgment alone.

Regards

Brainwashing has taken a new meaning. Not only youngsters, but now educated people are willing to be brainwashed and `educated` in nonsense and superstition called religion.

We should recognise religious brainwashing in madrasas, which must be investigated by Indian intelligence agencies and destroyed with an iron hand NOW!

If ever there was a blaring call to ban religion - muslim, jew, sikh, christian or hindu, THIS IS IT! It is high time we banned religion.

Religious brainwashing of youngsters should be made a punishable offence with immediate effect.

freethinker

You did not even try to refute masadi sahib # 92. Should we wait a little longer? :(

(Haven`t seen GT bhai in a while. He would have been very helpful in adding clarity.)

philosopher:

I read your ilog (because I wanted to understand what your position is after reading my my response) and tried to make some sense out of it. I am sorry to say that your ilog was muddled and I couldn`t understand what you were criticizing me for.

You keep on saying that the deductive logic that I used in the essay is outdated and supplanted by the modern logic but you didn`t clarify the difference between the two. Nor did you specfocally point out any error or mistake in my line of thought. Does your modern logic lead to a different inference of the problem that I discussed in the essay?

I confess I don`t have any formal background in logic or philosophy, per se; I would like to know what mistake(s) did I commit in applying the deductive logic in my essay.

If you mean that the religious statements are phenomenological in the sense that they don`t mean what they apparently say, we can resolve the underlying conflict. You stated that I don`t understand what `contradiction` means; can you explain it clearly what it means?

I don`t really want to indulge in any lengthy discussion on this issue on this board because then I would be going beyond the scope of the original essay; please send your comments to me in the e-mail at the following address:

akramgill@yahoo.com

Please take your time to write your comments in simple and readable English (without much repitition) so that I may understand them. You may teach me a few things in logic and philosophy for which I will indeed be grateful to you.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

# 100 continued

But as you know, zee, you do NOT need too many of such lovers of Islam. Just two things (1) a few who are willing to do WHATEVER needs be done, and (2) some way to support them for as long as they might need help.

Zee, people who actually believe in Islam and care for God`s faith enough to want it above all else have not even taken up the Hafsa subject seriously, unless I missed it :(

As mentioned on Atif`s board, I do think believers might not want to conclude any real loss so soon. Rather they might want to use this time to do some real cold, hard-boiled analysis: Do they really want Islam badly enough to care for nothing else? If they do, then the goal should not be and cannnot be of analyzing any `failure` but understanding why, relative to so many other countries, Pakistan has been so much slower in experiencing Islamic change. And then determining what methods must be adopted to speed the process.

If there are not sufficient numbers of Pakistanis who want and love Islam over everything else, then promoters and talkers of Islam might as well take their big marbles and go home. :)

God is the second best thing manmade aftger sliced bread

Re: # 74

Gill sahib said;..

((((I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory))))

MY Response;....


oooopsss.....Gill sahib i am sorry to say that now you seem to be completely unaware of even the basic logical principles....Sir may i ask you where have you got this logic from....it is as basic and simple principle of logic that if i didnt know it i would still have been doing My F.A in philosophy....Boy....shocking.......

Gill sahib what do you think contradiction is?? you seem to have ``common sense`` meaning of the term instead of its technical and logic meanings.....

Any intermediate student of philosophy knows that contradiction is logical relation between two proposition having the same `subject` and `predicate`, at the same time differing in both in quantity and quality.....in other words, contradictory relation exists between a universal proposition and a particular proposition of the same quality...

if i put it in logical form,it goes like that;

All S is P And some S is not p

lets take a concrete example(but remeber logic is not concerned with concrete thought...its just a example and giving these example has been the root of all problems or may i say` EVIL` in human thinking)..

All men are mortal

some men are mortal

Now this a contradictory relation taught in intermediate logic...contradiction is considered the most perfect logical relationship BUT only in the TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION...

In modren logic...i.e. from 17th century onwards there have been revolutionary changes in the domain logic....In the MODREN SQUARE OF OPPOSITION these issues are dealt in an entirely different way....

for example in the traditional logic the following relation is absolutly justified;...

All men are mortal

therefore

some men are mortal

It looks so obvious and almost a ``category of thought` both logicaly and on the common sense level....BUT(i wish i could make it the biggest BUT of all times) this simple obvious principle of the traditional logic is the most UNACCPETABLE logical relationship in the MODREN LOGIC......you know why??? I was gonna ask to mr |Gill but he does not know the definition of contradiction how on earth could he be aware of this relatively complex issue....

the reason is that the major premise in this inference is ``Non-existential`` proposition and the minor premise or the conclusion is ``existential proposition`` so its ILLOGICAL(in modren logic) to derive exitential proposition from a non-existential proposition......

This explodes the (almost) entire structure of traditional logic......Anyhow its immpossible to go in details here and perhaps USELESS for the reasons................n.


Gill sahib said;....

(((((There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction)))))


My Response;.....


Sir...Where did i say that...i have not said that you have applied deduction validily or invalidly....or you may say that`` you mean there is nothing with method of logical deduction ``as an objective logical method```

First of anybody on this forum go and read my interact in 71 and tell me ...did i really something like that??.....sir gill ji....i was talking about the RELEVENCE of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC as a METHODOLOGY to analyze non-propositional language...at least one interacter PM would confirm it......


OK....even if you take that issue....the issue that i have raised of the derivation of ``existential`` proposition from ``non-existential`` proposition...doesn`t it deny the validity of the most of the greek logic?....Gill sahib...these are obvious and established and objectively accepted logical devolopments in the philosophical circles.....the deduction is relevent only if you are dealing in the traditional square of opposition.....it is ``valid`` in that framework but it has lost its creditability as a methodology even where LOGIC is relevent not to mention where it is NOT.....

and who says that the propsition you mentioned are contradictory...

GOD Is omnipotent

God is good

evil exists(((even though you didnt mention it...i ease your burden)))

Now guys do u see this inference to be consistent with above mentiond definition of contradiction??? Gill sahib both statements have same subject but different predicate so the whole debate of contradiction is meaningless...



Gill sahib said;....

(((Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.)))

my response...

Who told you that i was deducing something there.....sir i was just showing that people who demands from religion to ``internaly coherent`` often use such rhetorics based on their pre concieved moral notion which i called ``tarka`` e.g. religion says`` virtous wife is obedient to her husband`` Now if a feminist doesnt wanna be obedient she may(or sometimes do) conclude that there is no God coz its ``zulum`` on women....blah-blah...

It was not important to our debate as such...it was just an example.....CASE CLOSED...


GILL SAHIB SAID;.....

(((I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct))))

My Response;...

Gill sahib...now this is too much sir....you have just done ``aakheer``...Boss,again you are commiting a fallacy.....when did i say that?.......hazoor....you again seems to be clueless of the whole issue...my God.... what are u saying.....i said PHENOMOLOGICAL language is non-propsitional... you cannot apply it propositional logic on it....you are again dealing the issue of the validity and infalliability of ``religious assertions`` in a propsitional way....because here the issue is not infalliability but the methodology which would determine the validity and invalidity of those assertion according to their NATURE.... you are again demanding them to be INFALLIABLE AND CORRECT.... according to you may i say CONSCIOUS crtierion of validity becuase you simply seem to be completely clueless about the entire issue....That is precisely the reason why i said that DR SOHAIL `s article `God is metaphore` would look a load of trash to any student of philosophy.....because religious assertion itself is claiming to be METAPHORICAL...so its not a big deal....remeber the distiction made by the Quran of ``MUTASHABIHAAT AND MUHAKMAAT`` (categorical and metaphorical verses) the language is metaphorical because there is no common ground between divine reality and human reality...for example we say God is good...good in our definition means ``following moral laws`` on god this kinda analogy is meaningless....therefore the language is metaphorical and couched in a terminology which humans could easily understood...anyhow i will send my article on this issue we will discuss it in detail(if you publish it...lol..kidding)

Gill said;....

((((((The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another)))))

My Response;...


Gill sahib...you are just unbelievable.....i dint mention that it was PM`s thesis....Read 71 again you would see i havent touched this issue intentionaly because i wanna deal it separatly....I see language of every religion that way....because it wasnt our topic so i left it alone.....Again you are commiting a same fallacy in every assertion because your `` fundamentals`` are correct....i have said that these ``atributtes`` are not mentioned in the Quran,i have said that these atribbutes are ``non-propositional`` and of non-formal nature and cannot be dealt this way.....I am calling them ``atributtes`` because you have used the term... i know all of them are not atributtes......

Atributte is what that consitutes our conception of SUBSTANCE....they are only those by which there can be no conception of substance(if you are applying logic)...and those are omi everything etc....but the so called ``atributtes`` which you consider to be CONTRADICTORY to those atributtes, are NOT even atributtes. they are merely MODES of substance...and cannot be taken in relation with atributtes the way you are dragging them.
Because they are not necessary to the conception of SUBSTANCE.....every student of logic knows that logic is not concerned whether God is ACTUALLY good or evil....Even if you apply logic it will deal only with assertion....and here you have made another fallacy that you don`t even know which ones of those ``atributtes`` are primary and which are ``secondary....anyhow....more latter

Regards

#96 by kaalchakra,

No ... well ... maybe. That`s why ``Revealed God`` doesn`t make sense in a human framework.:)

BTW, why`re you making such a conspicuous absence from the Hafsa subject?

Yeah, Zee, I absolutely recall! That was when we were discussing sufis or Al Ghazali having discovered absolute knowledge or something. Right?

I think you had mentioned allah ki raza (reza?) - ``Will of God`` concept?


Sorry, didn`t pay it that much attention then, since you know what I think of Sufis and their ``Islam.``

Anything specific you had in mind?

... add-on #93...

But of-course your addressee wouldn`t know anything about `Mashi`at` ... now would he?

I recall having a little conversation about that with you on some board a long time ago ...

Re: # 89
[...Three ‘cyber-jihadis’ who used the Internet to urge Muslims to wage holy war on non-believers were jailed for between six-and-a-half and 10 years on Thursday in the first case of its kind in Britain...]

Alright - finally the brits are waking up... way to go...

But zeemax has nothing to worry... his backup plan is ready: red purse, blue burkha and the paki-made getaway ``car``...

But philo and masadi are scr@wed... they have nowhere to hide...

#91 by kaalchakra

To repeat, while ``Go-od`` HAS to be beyond human ``sense`` and human senses, ``Revealed God`` MUST make sense in a human framework.

LoL Kaal ... as I have said often before, You`re the limit ... !

But it`s good to have the language skills honed .... no? So `Go-od` must be `Good` to have made that possible .... :~)

Gill writes <<< There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another. >>>

Look, fool, not only have you not been able to address anything I wrote, you`re making claims that are totally false. First, there are more than 99 attributes that describe the `personality` of God in the Quran, the Mullahs decided to stop at 99, that is their problem, and NONE of those attributes contradict the other, that is your limited/sophomoric intelligence that tells you that they do...

Gill sahib

Many of these interacts are simply beyond me since they are framed exclusively for semitic and, as in Parthaab`s case, Leninist/Maoist minds.

Here is something that many Indians would agree with.

Where does evil come from? It comes from the same place and source that man comes from.

Go-od, by which I mean the ``Indian God,`` cannot be understood. So talking of human will with respect to such a God is a wasteful excercise (it is not totally useless. For instance, it is excellent for honing one`s language skills).

We can only speak of the ``Revealed God`` - God as understood, ``captured,`` by our knowledge at any time. May be that is what you mean by ``something less than God.`` We Indians call it a descended form of God. To be ``true`` this God HAS to make sense in a human framework.

To repeat, while ``Go-od`` HAS to be beyond human ``sense`` and human senses, ``Revealed God`` MUST make sense in a human framework.

As a corollary, speaking of ``religion`` is nonsense, unless we first specify what we are talking about - specifically what kind of ideas.

Make that distinction, specify what good and evil mean to you, and, Indians argue, you may begin to see where evil comes from.

---

Granted, like anything else, this may not be true, and may be as much Sanskrit to many as detailed discussions of God and free will are Latin to me....:)

sorry, #89 was meant for the burqa board .....

zeemax, philosopher and echo (?) ...

...... since you guys receive your welfare checks from her majesty`s government, you might want to be careful - your budding careers as aspiring cyber jihadis might be in jeopardy ........... the uk, and the rest of the civilized world, has had enough ..... as for the chicks with sticks and the younger male `students`, i really feel sorry for them and blame their parents for their predicament - the state should not allow them to return to their homes .........

LONDON, July 5: Three ‘cyber-jihadis’ who used the Internet to urge Muslims to wage holy war on non-believers were jailed for between six-and-a-half and 10 years on Thursday in the first case of its kind in Britain.

Tariq Al-Daour, Younes Tsouli and Waseem Mughal had close links with Al Qaeda in Iraq and thought there was a ‘global conspiracy’ to wipe out Islam, the Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London was told.

Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, was jailed for 10 years; UAE-born Al-Daour, 21, received a six and half years sentence; and 24-year-old Mughal, who was born in Britain, was given seven and half years.

Sentencing them, Judge Charles Openshaw said the men had engaged in ‘cyber jihad’, encouraging others to kill ‘kuffars’ or non-believers.

Re: # 87

Kaalchakra

(((((Yes, parthaab

Let`s ban religion, now!

(((Brothers and sisters, Parthaab bans religion!! Let it be known to all.)))))


ROFL.,.


see you guys soon..

Yes, parthaab

Let`s ban religion, now!

Brothers and sisters, Parthaab bans religion!! Let it be known to all.

Brainwashing has taken a new meaning. Not only youngsters, but now
educated people are willing to be brainwashed and `educated` in nonsense
and superstition called religion.


We should recognise religious brainwashing in madrasas, which must be
investigated by Indian intelligence agencies and destroyed with an
iron hand NOW!


If ever there was a blaring call to ban religion - muslim, jew, sikh,
christian or hindu, THIS IS IT! It is high time we banned religion.


Religious brainwashing of youngsters should be made a punishable
offence with immediate effect.

the root of all evil

PM: #80

The answer to your query regarding free will was there in my essay; I therefore didn`t think appropriate to repeat it.

Man has free will without any doubt. But it is difficult to square it with the concept of an Almighty and All Good God.

The cause and effect issue that you mentioned is also interesting. It seems to break down in the world of subatmic particles; there all that you can suggest is only the probability of an even taking place.

Einstein had a continuing discussion until the end of his life with Bohr on this subject for 30 years. Neither of them accepted the other`s point of view. Einstein argued for cause and effect (determinism). Evidence so far has vindicated Bohr`s point of view in the subatomic world. Cause and effect prevails in the macro-world, the world of our day-to-day experience.

Thanks for your valueable discussion.

Mohammad Gill

Dr Saheb,

A good article. But I have doubt about the concept of good and evil. The creator has made everything as he chose to make. There is nothing evil as such. Even if we go with the concept of God as someone doing only good then too we can`t deny Him because he has created everything and has to see the wellbeing of each and every species including the non-living things. So, something that appears to be evil for the humans might be in fact good for some other species. If we judge Him with the sole perspective of humans it will be too selfish for us to do. God should not be expected to take our perspective into account. Therefor on this ground only we can not declare Him to be evil or good.

I have also published a similar article `God, Religion and spirituality` in `self publish`. Will you please read and comment on that. In my opinion, humans have been given limited senses and a limited capacity to use them so it is not possible to say for sure whether God exists or not. For example, it is not possible to explore anything beyond the speed of light. We can`t smell or hear as many animals can. Then, we can`t know what the non-living things are `doing`. As such, it is and it will be a futile exercise to search God. Those religions which believe in God may be spiritually and philosophically true but there are religions, like Buddhism, Jainism and many Hindoo scriptures too, which deny God and can`t be declared wrong. All religions have flourished with the backing of and served the purpose of the power/establishment.

correction to #80: ``But the recognition that, with our present capabilities and emotions it is in fact absurd to look for a First Cause... ``

re. klpd:
``Man by definition is finite. God by definition is infinite. The infinite is beyond the comprehension of the finite.``


er.. so how did man comprehend his existence or his infinitude, since its impossible to comprehend that which we cannot... er.. comprehend, right?

It`s a little like saying ``The colour of my shirt is ERSEDE. But don`t even try figuring out that colour because its not within the spectrum of light that the human eye/brain can perceive.``


...as I wait for someone now to tell me that shirts can and do contain colours that the human eye cannot perceive, and thus miss the point altogether.

re. freethinker #77:

``Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Gill sahib, looking for a First Cause, which is essentially the `problem` you recognize here, will always be a futile exercise for man-- at least with his present level of mental capacity. This, of course, not to suggest the introduction of a Superior Being, which would only reproduce the problem at an atecedent step. But the recognition that, with out present capabilities and emotions it is in fact absurd to look for a First Cause (since our emotions will lead us, if we`re honest, to ask ``But who made that?``) might lead us to consider that our slavery to the cause-effect paradigm of reality is what`s causing us problems in the, er, first place.

Mathematicians are comfortable with the idea of infinitude and the non-necessity of an origin. Maybe the common, modern, man could, with some training, develop a similar non-linear concept of time and events.

But now I`m ramnbling, I think.

By the way,Gill sahib, you didn`t comment on my critique of your rejection of the `free will` thesis as a reconciler of the seeming contradiction in question. But it`s not important, since I was limiting the argument to `evil` caused by individual actions (no matter how far down the chain of events) and not to `evil` such as a child born a parapleigic, or developing some horribly painful disease. I am absolutely unable to reconcile a Good God (in any sense-- phenomenological, transcendental or logical) to the existence of such `evil`. In this sense, if I believed in a God, I would have to conceded that he/she/it possessed a sadistic streak.

#75 klpd

Here is a parting image for your viewing pleasure - how your Mullah Aziz was unable to fool the sharp eyes of the ever alert Pakistani khakis.

Let nobody tell you that you have no useful purpose in life!! :)

The problem is that people ascribe human emotions and values to God. If God exist then
HE/SHE/IT should be above and beyond all this. If there is a force/entity responsible for this somewhat ordered universe, then it is not the God of the Organized religions. This God is at best the attempt of the human mind to define an ideal.

It is like the blind men trying to define an elephant by touching its various limbs, but in this case the men are not only blind but really have not other senses either.

hamidm2: #76

No, because there is a lot of goodness in the world also. There can probably be a tentative resolution if it is assumed that Devil is a god of evil and Allah, for instance, is god of ``all goodness.`` The two are equally mighty and one can not overpower the other.

But there is a simpler solution. Assume, like Darwin, that there is no god. We, including everything else, are just evolving. Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Science does not have answers for everything. We still do not know for sure if there was anything before the big bang. There has to be because after all big bang was an explosion of energy that was already existing.

I, for myself, am content with partial but consistent knowledge. The knowledge that religion provides us to fill the gaps is not credible.

Mohammad Gill

gill sahib,

......... just a thought : does this problem go away if we assume that god is evil instead of good? ........ since he is omnipotent, for all we know ,he could be the biggest jerk of them all .......... my personal opinion is that if god does exist, he is one mean son of a gun - all this talk about his goodness is sheer speculation and wishful thinking ......... anyone who can come up with the concept of hell has to be exceptionally cruel and mean ..........

........ i hope i have solved your problem .........

Man by definition is finite. God by definition is infinite. The infinite is beyond the comprehension of the finite.

Good luck, you assholes.

philosopher: #2 and 71

I don’t have any problem with your assertion that “Logic is only concerned with the ‘Form’ of thought not the content,” (I hope by content you mean content of the premises). This is true. If your premises are wrong, your inference cannot be true (although it may be consistent with the premises). Logic only ensures that the inference is derived with a logical consistency. I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory), they lead to an inference which contradicts at least one of the premises. There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction.

Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.

I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct.

The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 72

PM

join me here tomorrow 6th july....

re. #71

Philo sahib,
Thanks for exhausative response, which was quite enlightening too.

Your point about the inapplicability of formal logic to non-propositional language was noted at the start of my previous post, where I repeated what you`d said about religious statements being phenomenological in nature.

As I said earlier, the problem arises in a context in which Religion claims internal logical coherence for itself, and thus becomes fair game for the ``logicians.`` I said that I did not believe that there was any movement in Islam, let along the Qur`an itself, that made such a claim, but that Christian scholastics did `indulge` in such tautologies. As such, Gill`s debate would be more relevant to a Christian audience than to Muslims. (Though it must be added that very few scholarly Christians nowadays take such a propositional, as opposed to transcendental, apporach to belief anyway.)

re. `` ....contrary to the common view about logical positivism [LP],it has never rejected the validity of religion or religious assertion.``


I didn`t suggest that LP did so. If you re-read my statements, I said that the LP method may be used on religious assertions coming together, or in other words, deliberately forming a propositional, pseudo-logical `whole`y. Otherwise, of course, religous statements are, ndividually, outside the scope of logical positivism.


AS regards the possible connection between faith and skepticism, suffice it to say that I have read quite a bit of A.K. Soroush and am deeply impressed. Erich Fromm too, has written on this connection between faith and a healthy skepticism.

I`m gals someone point out the difference between Russell`s philosphy and his polemics. finally someone who actually understands russell!

regards,

Re: # 48

PM ji

One of the best posts i have read on chowk.

PM said....;

(((((((to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)))))))

My response.....;

You are right religion has never constructed the concept of God on logical basis....the attributes which God is said to possess or the ones that consitutes our concept of God have no `formal` nature neither in religion nor in humans.....this thinking or the concept of God is the product of the the ``conceptualization`` or the anthropomorphic view of God....
This is the product of derivative thinking which has direct relation with authouritarianism on the social level(Note:Islam has abolished clergy...kuchh samjhay? It points to its ``non-formal`` concept of God)

The formal Logic ,that Gill sahib is applying, has become irrelevent a long time ago.....It converts every kind of language into propositional statements and than studies it....because this is its basic requierment to study any thing......Now if you apply this language,say, on poetry,the entire poetry and literature would look a load of crap.....

The language of the religion is the verbal expression of ``religious experience`` therefore its multidimensional.....terminologies used in religion have non-propositional nature(read # 2)
The attributes of God mentioned in the religious language have been given a bit too importance....becuase of the propositional analysis they almost become the ``ineveitable categories of thought`` through which other things are seen....i have already discussed the problem of logic in # 2......As a student of philosophy, it is ,in fact, a kinda shock for me to see that this is kinda analysis of still going on in our academic circles.....Gill has mixed up not only different epistemological frameworks and their context but also he does`t seem to be having no clue of different methodologies...Gill sahib`s approach seems to have(at least unconsciously) ``reductionistic`` approach based on the traditional laws of thought.....this is the problem with agnostics who are sincere in their pursuites but technicaly are not the students of philosophy......Another point you would observe,is the concept of ``unity of truth`` again based on the formal logic`s theory of truth i.e. ``coherence theory of truth`` without even anlysing the validity of this theotry of truth or for that matter the formal logic in general.....they always demand religion to satisfy their basic(prmitive) notions of thought......Ridiculous part of this thinking that people, who demand that ``internal coherence`` from religion based on formal laws of thought , denies religion on the the grounds its not being according to their ``moral ideal`` on the social level.....the ``moral idealism`` which is the ``tarka`` of selective values,picked and chosen from anywhere they see something ``irreligious going on``......e.g.

`` in religion husband is supposed to be the head of the houshold``

I am a feminist

``therefore``

there is (can be) no God....blah..blah


there is another problem which stems from the misunderstood concept of ``oneness`` of God especialy in Islam....in mathematics `one` is the double of half and half of 2 but we can not make such analogy in the matter of God....for we don`t know what kind of ``oneness`` God possess...The Quran has always mentioned it in ``negative`` sense i.e. to deny worshipping of anything except God...(Masadi can explain it better).....Most of the times Quran condemns ``shirk``(associating partners with God)....

Devoloping analogical view of God on the basis of attributes and to worsen the situation makes it a proposition is the product of the complete ignorance of the methodological differences of various domains of knowldge in general and methodology of religion in particular.......

PM said....;

((((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))))))

My response....;

No you cannot apply `logical positivistic`(((if you mean the 20th century philosophical movement)))) approach because it is irrelevent(not invalid) to what `logical positivism` determines the criterion of the proposition to be true.....coz neither is it a tautology not a factual statment in the strict sense of the word......the attributes of of God have transcendental nature and logical positivism doesnt deal with it....contrary to the common view about logical positivism,it has never rejected the validity of religion or religious assertion. A logical positivist e.g. A.j.Ayer would not deny the ``religious experience`` or the validity of religious assertions,all he would ask you is the ``the nature of religious language`` i.e. what is it dealing with and how is it different from the proposition ,say, logical positivist would deal(remeber:this movement was finally failed...coz they didnt have the gem like hamid)...the justification of independent(in the loose sense)) epistemology is based on its function of dealing with the ``existential`` and transcendental chrachter of the ultimate reality.....in that sense the agnosticism and scepticism of a philosopher is different than of the layman....this agnostcism and ``faith`` are not mutually exclusive....on this issuei would Quote something from my another post....(its tone would sound a different coz its taken from another article where i wrote this)........;

The agnosticism and skepticism of philosophers (ironically) is the prerequisite for religious philosophy (surprised? if you are you are understanding it)

Lets move forward.Skepticism in philosophy has various dimensions. A philosopher can be both skeptic and believer at the same time or it might be his `skepticsim` which would ultimately lead him to believe in God. Funny,isnt it? For example `immanual Kant` is `skeptical` about the certain aspects of knowledge but he is a believer.same is the case with descarte, hume etc. Russelian[of Bertrand Russell] is also a different knid of skepticism from what non..technical minds think it to be. It depends on the ``nature`` of their philosophical pursuits. An ordinary man would think that Iqbal and bertrand Russell can not be true at the same time. This kind of thinking stems from the complete ignorance of philosophical systems. Iqbal and Russell work within two completely different epistemological frameworks which are not by any means mutualy exclusive. They can both be relevent at the same time. Bertrand Russell`s real philosophical work is hell lot of different than the one common man read in the pseudo work of Russell and feel himslef to be ``even greater philosopher than bertarnd Russell by reading the books like ``why i am not christian`` ``A free man`s worship`` etc. These books are nothing more than garbage in the serious philosophical circles. It has nothing to do with his original philosophical position[which is impossible to discuss here]. He starts his philosophical pursuits with a question raised in his first book on philosophy ``problems of philosophy`` that; `` is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?`` after 36 years in his last book on philosophy ``HUMAN KNOWLEDGE....its scope and limitation`` [and the last line of this book] he says`` All Human Knowledge is uncertain, INEXACT and partial and to this doctrine we havent found any limitation whatever``.

Now this is ultimate kind of skepticism. It shows the failuire of epistemology and science in solving the ULTIMATE problems of Knowledge and answering the questions which have been raised by some of the greatest minds of all times.

The religious{especialy Quranic} epistemology already claims the inadequecy of these epistemological dimension and picks the thread from here and develops its own system.``




PM said;...

(((((( 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.)))))


My response....;

This is an excellent point that you have derived from the Gill`s article (and he has derived it from ..God know where)..... Now if you see it in the context of my response to your post you would find it very intresting.....now you see this the problem with this logic ``its circular`` and if be ``consitent`` even your point can be denied with an arguement which would look equally consistent within that logical framework....(Read my #2) again...

regards

Re: # 50

Farzana:

“…then why do many Muslims who say `I am a Muslim` have to go through racial profiling?...”

The answer, Fazrana, you know it too. You may not remember Hare Krishna antics had brought unwanted exposure only in the last decade. There antics were only limited to their acts on the streets, malls and airports. Now if bajrang dal rams planes in Pentagon and World Trade centers, we all would be asking the same questions but for different set of people.

My personal opinion is that such humiliating profiling will continue until people like yourselves and Hamidm from within will forcefully reform that book and that notion of finality to get rid of justification of violence under any circumstance against any people (believers or non believers). My views are on God are clear to me and my friends for a long time. Yet I am labled as liberal hindu, as if my friend knows what it means. A couple of days ago, my daughter and I were invited over for the dinner at a friends home. We know each other for almost 20 years, yet she and her father were insisting that for the work I do, I believe in God more than them (both certainly are very pious and God fearing). She was insisting that the second lease of my life is because God wanted me to do more.

What else can I say except that it is all relative. Evil is the what we humans create to make ourselves look better, which some would say itself is evil. Otherwise there can be no good, no one will need it. So much for philosophy for now.

Hope we didn`t hijack the board with all this godless talk. DM ji, (I think) I understand and empathize with you. But there have been educated, grown-up Hindu men on Chowk claiming that Gandhi`s Ram Rajya meant giving high caste men freedom to kill ``low-caste`` men.

You can see what ignorance does and why it is so harmful to everyone. Khair, apologies for this brief detour into irrelevant topics.

DM-ji,

Never, in the wildest of my dreams would I call you a ``pinko``. Any inadvertent misconstruing is sincerely regretted.

BTW, the circle of time knows it all and only pretends to limit his knowledge to the timeless oval of a number. Pay no attention to his cloak of humility and do watch out for that sharp dagger of intelligence - moving ever so rapidly! :)

BJ Kumar

#66:

Just so there is no confusion, sending invitation cards to deity ``foolish`` was a normative statement, stating that the religious serials added to the BJP votes was a descriptive statement.

kaalchakra:


I am sure that you know the difference between Normative and Descriptive statements.

dm sahib

With all pleasure, call anyone foolish you wish to, and they would call you foolish back. That`s what joy of life, and Indian freedom, is all about. Since we don`t have true knowledge, this foolishness fest is very very precious. Let`s celebrate all our foolish gods and goddesses; and live and laugh with them, at them; making sure they get due respect, but never get too big for their godly boots.

And hopefully, you don`t mean you would rather have people ignorant so long as they don`t vote BJP (if there is any coneection between the two at all).۔۔۔ this is rank communalism of the worst sort.

---

beej

Then we would be truly left with nothing.

bjkumar:

``In particular, those who pooh-pooh the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the cowardly lot. There are many good values to be learned from those Books.``

That`s not me. I love Ramayana and Mahabharat. In my childhood, I never missed RamLila and tears swelled in my eyes when I would see Ram crying over his unconscious wounded brother , Lakshman and cheered for Hanuman when he carried the whole mountain to bring Lakshman back to life.

I also feel that these two epics are a masterpiece in literature and equal or better than any other epic produced by any other civilization. And I haven`t even seen many episodes of the serial.

But I do believe that those two serials did add to the vote-bank of the BJP.

#60 Circle of Time

[I don`t get this Nehruvian desire to rid India of all foolishness. What would we have left to celebrate]

You would have the LEFT to celebrate.

kaal:

I have no problem with people`s foolishness (and I wouldn`t have gone to India for that particular wedding even if I had received the invitation in time). But foolishness is still foolishness and Nehruvians don`t have a copyright in calling it that.

The wholesale negation of ancient Indian holy books by the Indian pinkos is a matter of absolute shame and disgrace – especially in view of the fact that they reserve such negation to Books of Indian origin only – and virtually pee in their pants when it comes to extrapolating the same criticism to religion at large, including any large elephants in the room! Highly hypocritical!

In particular, those who pooh-pooh the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the cowardly lot. There are many good values to be learned from those Books.

Such books do not try to tell you what to do but in their stories there are morals to draw for an individual who is willing to exercise his/her judgment. There are the examples of both good and evil – it is up to individuals to pick what examples they wish to emulate.

There are acts of selflessness as in case of Bharata. One could emulate those.

But there will always be some individuals who would rather follow Bhima’s example and drink their own brothers’ blood! :(

dm sahib, this is what I don`t get. What difference does it make? How about if I start sending out invitations to dogs (I often do)?

What happened in the case was sheer inefficiency, mismanagement, or just chance that the card did you reach you. If they had planned their foolishness well, they would not have been late in sending you the card.

Don`t people have a right to be as foolish as they want so long as they don`t hurt you and expect you to be as foolish?

I don`t get this Nehruvian desire to rid India of all foolishness. What would we have left to celebrate?

kaalchakra:

When did this tradition of delivering invitation cards to the deity start? Before or after the invention of printed invitation cards?

hmm eng-lightenment is not a bad word......

re: dost-mittar # 55

May such jaahilpana increase din doona raat chaugana :)

Seriously, I have a mind to buy a few ramayana/mahabharata video/dvd series sets and gift them to friends with kids.

---

If simply knowing your own tradition is jaahilpana, then down with all engligtenment and all knowledge.

Re: # 50

Farzana versey

(((((you will find to your utter surprise that they aren`t burping some ayat into their beards after saying Alhamdollilah following the tequila shot))))))

If i had a beard i would have taken it as an `offensive statement..

hamidm:

I should have added. The nouveau-religiosity among Hindus, especially among the younger folks, is in part due to television. In particular, the two serials - Ramayana and Mahabharat - inculcated a new sense of pride (bigotry?) among Hindus and probably contributed significantly to the vote bank of the BJP. So, people may still not know about their Vedas but they do so about Ramayana and Mahabharat. Also, I have noticed that TV serials and Bollywood are really into religious rituals, which seems to be having their influence; recently I did not receive an wedding invitation until it was too late, apparently, there is a new custom in India whereby the first invitation has to be hand-delivered to your favourite deity (Vaishno Devi in that particular case). Yes, Farzana, we too have our share of Jaahils - Ek dhoondo hazaar miltay hain!

Masadi,

You cannot create a coherent argument without throwing in jargons and indulging in ad-hominems.

If you have a GUTS theory that you think has been revealed in the message then tell us how, than trying to abuse Gill Saheb and others.

Till then we can only laugh at your self conceited `knowledge` about your ``truths``.

``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