Whence Then is Evil?

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: # 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

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...

Re: # 124

masadi

Thank you dear Masadi for your learned response. But excuse me you are mixing up science with belief (Aqeeda), ethics, etc.. If you believe in unitarianism then why keep god and nature two separate entities. Why not see the unity of truth, existence, reality, etc. as propounded in the idea of `Wadatul-wajood`? Why see god sitting in heavens and ruling the world, an obvious duality? He, the Abrahamic god, could create any thing by calling its name (What a contradiction btw as He is calling a thing by name to be which is yet non-existent) by his magic of `Kun` but had needed earth to make Adam to blew in him His spirit, displaying thereby the duality of spirit and the matter, both of which seem to be eternal.

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.

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.

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

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

Re: # 118

samar ji

wonderful.....Thanx for sharing..