Whence Then is Evil?

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

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

I had to stop had ad tocl a

re. Philosopher #197:

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

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

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

PM, Masadi, Philo bhai, and all others

So were we able to answer those eternal questions?

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

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


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

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

Philosopher

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

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

Also, the statement

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

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

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

re masadi:

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

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

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

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

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

re. masadi: #199

Okay, let me cut through the crap... since you obviously aren`t able to, it being your own:

My logic isn`t circular, you are showing a lack of ability to deduce and reason. That the universe cannot create itself is revealed by its attributes, therefore necessitating a creator- that is 1.

Dimwit. The Universe needing a creator does not obviate the need for that Creator (once you introduce it) to have a creator-- unless you establish that the said attributes of the universe, necessitating a Creator, are absent in the Creator itself. Which you HAVE NOT done!

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

please correct #199 from philosopher says to PM says

Philosopher writes

<<< 1. The universe can`t create itself. It needs a creator.
2. That Creator must be free of the requirement of a cause (since this would make it no different from the universe, and leave us with the problem of infinte regression)
(So far, we`re on the same page, you, me, philo and khurram. But Here`s where you make a strange leap: )
3. You restate the unparanthesised part of #3 as a conclusion, or affirmation, even though its really a requirement.

Your logic is thus hopelessly, dare I say it? -- CIRCULAR.
>>>

My logic isn`t circular, you are showing a lack of ability to deduce and reason. That the universe cannot create itself is revealed by its attributes, therefore necessitating a creator- that is 1.

The ``nature`` of the Creator so to speak is deduced from the attributes of the universe that gave rise to the necessity of the creator. 1 was the conclusion, 2 the deduction from that conclusion about the ``nature`` of the creator, unlike any creation.

In all your philosophising, try to cut through the crap and use your mind ...

re. masadi:
``So if the creator has these same attributes he would require a similar causation agent and so on. Empirically that attributes of a creator, that would negate a causation agent simply do not exist in the universe for it to be self-created....this is quite easy to understand yet you insist going round and round in circles...``

Acutally, I understood this very well the first time `round, and pointed to the flaw. You`re right, its very simple: Even if we take as a starting point that the universe is incapable of self-creation, the non-existence of attributes in the universe that negate a causation agent does NOT automatically imply the existence of a being with such attributes. At best, we simply cannot know, or must abandon the search for causation altogether (which is about as intuitive, and as ``elegant`` a solution as that of an abstract Creator which needs no cause.)

Please note, your God is little more than an abstraction that, while solving the `problem` of creation of the universe, fails to solve the problem of infinite regression. Your reasoning, if it can be called that, in a nutshell is:

1. The universe can`t create itself. It needs a creator.
2. That Creator must be free of the requirement of a cause (since this would make it no different from the universe, and leave us with the problem of infinte regression)
(So far, we`re on the same page, you, me, philo and khurram. But Here`s where you make a strange leap: )
3. You restate the unparanthesised part of #3 as a conclusion, or affirmation, even though its really a requirement.

Your logic is thus hopelessly, dare I say it? -- CIRCULAR.

Re: # 196

PM

((((simple: Even if we take as a starting point that the universe is incapable of self-creationthe non-existence of attributes in the universe that negate a causation agent does NOT automatically imply the existence of a being with such attributes))))

Well regardless of the intellectual fate (or creditability) of this debate, the idea of ``self-creation`` itself is quite misleading and sounds ridiculous whether it is being argued in the context of God or the universe. `IF` universe has beginning than it won`t be easy to deny the creationist theory (on the scientific basis). Regardless of the content it offers (creationist) it would be ‘technically and rationally the least incorrect` theory. In the case of beginning there is no choice other than having ``either be or not be` approach to this matter i.e. either it has beginning hence created or no beginning therefore not-created.

Theologian or I better say `scientific theologian`` does score a point over atheist provided the big bang theory is correct. When we say God has no cause or we HAVE TO accept such a being which has no cause or creator it does not mean that God HIMSELF is the creator of himself. Because we never say that God has made his own beginning possible. We simply say that God has no beginning; in fact, it’s in the ``definition`` of God. But in the case of universe the case is entirely different. IF universe has beginning, we cannot say that universe itself has created itself for we cannot explain that ITSELF.

Here we have the problem of definition. Being in itself (himself) is in the `definition`(i.e. creator) of God, whereas the STATUS of universe is yet to be decided.

We are debating on this issue that whether Universe has the beginning or not, whether it is infinite and finite, does it have creator or not. There is nothing that we accept as an abstract definition of universe but in the case of We have an abstract concept of God and one of the aspects of that abstraction is creator(as for this debate is concerned).

Having atheistic view based on science is possible only if universe has no beginning and dare I say no end (in the context of this issue)
Even if, as PM said, the whole scientific debate ends up with sheer agnosticism, this ``agnosticism’’ itself would be the pre-requisite for the religious philosophy (as I have mentioned #71 in reply to PM`s #48).

Re: # 197

Philosopher

You say:

``IF universe has beginning, we cannot say that universe itself has created itself for we cannot explain that ITSELF.``

But does not God`s `KUN` supposed to do the same thing; asking a non existent thing to be?

Why to waste logic on something which is shere `make-believe`, absurd and illogical?

Re: # 198

teshah baba

((((((((((Philosopher

You say:

``IF universe has beginning, we cannot say that universe itself has created itself for we cannot explain that ITSELF.``

But does not God`s `KUN` supposed to do the same thing; asking a non existent thing to be?

Why to waste logic on something which is shere `make-believe`, absurd and illogical?)))))))))

Great question: in fact one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the histotry of ideas has just been witnessed on this board.This is what human intellect had been missing for ages. teshah has solved the greatest mystry of human knowledge. He has answered the questions which have been raised by some of the greatest intellectuals mankind has ever produced. Now nothing can stop Man from conquering the forces of nature. Now the `light` of knowledge enlighten the dark souls and the darkeness of ignorance will see the light of the knowledge.

Aab jalaain gay ilam ke charaagh. it proves what Man is capable of doing if he keeps pursuing the truth. ilam ka jo deeaa aaj roushan hua hai ,oos se jahiliaat ke aandharay chaat jaingay.

jab Aqal aur shaoor ki yeh aabshaarain ,arzaiy zehni insaani ki banjar satah ko sairaab karain gi to oos sey ilmo hikmat ki wo faslay gul ubhray gi jisay koi aandaisha-i-farda nahin ho ga. Aur Insaan to bas jeeteta hi chala jai ga.

Baba ji (satraa bahatraa)

Hazoor aap aik ainak lay hi lijiye or get the old one repaired.(Gill sahib, plz do help him from the old citizen interacter fund, and save us from this BS)

If you have really read my post ,you have missed hell lot of things. I have said that universe can not create itself without a supereme intervention because we cannot define that ITSELF in the case of universe. When God says `kun` it means there is the intervention of supreme beings and both these concepts are exactly opposite to each other. Read it again, i say read baba if your last brain cell is still working.

Ask your grand grand..... son. he would tell you the difference between created by some intervention and created by ITSELF.

Re: # 201

philo-cipher

You say:

``Ask your grand grand..... son. he would tell you the difference between created by some intervention and created by ITSELF. ``

You may be my grand grand son, though adopted and harrami one, so tell me what is the diferrence in `creating by itself` and `asking it to be`?