Whence Then is Evil?
Mohammad Gill July 4, 2007
#117 Posted by teshah on July 7, 2007 8:51:47 pm
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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#114 Posted by masadi on July 7, 2007 12:18:42 pm
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....
#116 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 1:23:50 pm
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.
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.
#115 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 1:22:11 pm
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.
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.
#112 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 10:05:28 am
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.
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.
#113 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 10:53:48 am
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.
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.
#110 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 7:59:20 am
to us common men and women.
(it got too common :))
(it got too common :))
#109 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 7:42:13 am
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?
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?
#108 Posted by rhh on July 7, 2007 6:28:33 am
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
#111 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 8:11:37 am
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.
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.
#106 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 5:16:03 am
To All
There were a few mistakes(spelling...repetition...etc)in my #98. Please read my ilog for the edited post.
Thanx
#105 Posted by zeemax on July 7, 2007 5:08:45 am
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
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
#104 Posted by parthaab on July 6, 2007 6:00:48 pm
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.
#103 Posted by KaalChakra on July 6, 2007 4:05:44 pm
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.)
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.)
#102 Posted by freethinker on July 6, 2007 3:14:03 pm
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
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
#107 Posted by philosopher on July 7, 2007 6:17:47 am
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.
((((((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.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: arjun: The difference is that... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- Dash_Dot: parthaab....for you man...you can... Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo!
- nkg: Re: # 251 GT... Mughals survived... Dhokha and Being a
- Naqshbandi: Mocking the great saint... Translation of a (Love)
- nkg: Re: # 247 Tahmed.... contd... As a... Dhokha and Being a
- masadi: new ilog posted under... Dhokha and Being a
- Eklavya: from Gandhi-Nehru days... Remember, religious... Dhokha and Being a
- HPsauce: Re: # 76 tahir... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
