Whence Then is Evil?

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`?

Re: # 202



teshah budhay

I`ll tell you but not before severly spanking your old bottom. Ready? Kuchh paanay ke liye kuchh khona parta hai babay.

I tell you something....you are literally a dust bin of expired brain cells and human organs. These things can only be understood by living and organised human organism with sufficient quantity of brain cells. I have serious doubts that you are one.

Re: # 204

philo-cipher

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

Re: # 206

baby

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

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

Re: # 202, teshah saheb

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

This is all ``round and round`` (masadi saheb) and ``CIRCULAR`` (PM) and endless and futile (me). But these intellectuals refuse to read or think on my comments in #176 183 184 and 195. Can you please read them and say something if you have time?

I think it is not just round and round or circular which would meet at some point again and may give these people some insight BUT it is a forward moving circle (ie spiral) which tricks the mover to believe that they are aproaching towards knowledge of God. But alas...!

What do you think?

Samar

Re: # 203

Samar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 208, teshah Saheb,

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

Samar

RE:#208

teshah sahib

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

teshah sahib says

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


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

Re: # 209

Philosopher

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

"Griftan khataae Bazurgaan khata ust"

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

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

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