Whence Then is Evil?
Mohammad Gill July 4, 2007
#217 Posted by teshah on July 17, 2007 7:25:36 pm
# 209
philosopher
Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.
Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.
philosopher
Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.
Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#216 Posted by teshah on July 17, 2007 7:21:44 pm
# 209
philosopher
Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.
Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.
philosopher
Its alright dear philosopher. I too am sorry what I said in reaction; more so, because I was sober.
Btw, what hell of a version this beta chowk is. I am fed up with it.
#195 Posted by samar1982 on July 12, 2007 1:53:59 am
masadi saheb,
``PM mian, you are confused and are going round and round in circles.``
Believe me, you all are going and will always go round and round in circles and could not FIND God as it has always been and will always be futile to find him. You may FEEL Him sometimes and He may not always appear to be what you think him to be or the religions and books tell you about Him. Prophets have many times tried to transmit their FEELINGS to their fellow beings but that is not possible for obvious reasons. That is the mystery of this whole thing.
Samar
``PM mian, you are confused and are going round and round in circles.``
Believe me, you all are going and will always go round and round in circles and could not FIND God as it has always been and will always be futile to find him. You may FEEL Him sometimes and He may not always appear to be what you think him to be or the religions and books tell you about Him. Prophets have many times tried to transmit their FEELINGS to their fellow beings but that is not possible for obvious reasons. That is the mystery of this whole thing.
Samar
#194 Posted by masadi on July 12, 2007 1:41:17 am
Samar writes <<< Because science works on hard facts requiring senses which are too inadaquate and small in comparison to the universe which is thought to be created by God to feel it. On the other hand religion depends upon belief which does not require senses. >>>
Both your assumptions about science and religion are incorrect. Science based on ``hard facts`` gives us enough information to draw intelligent conclusions about the God concept, regarding ``religion depends upon belief`` is also incorrect and is a broad generalization...
Both your assumptions about science and religion are incorrect. Science based on ``hard facts`` gives us enough information to draw intelligent conclusions about the God concept, regarding ``religion depends upon belief`` is also incorrect and is a broad generalization...
#193 Posted by masadi on July 12, 2007 1:14:41 am
PM writes <<< You seem, like most theists, to be willing to accept the counter-intuitive idea that some agent/being had no creator. Why is it so difficult then, to accept the equally counter-intuitive notion that the attributes of creation can in fact, be the attributes of the Creator (in other words, the Universe created itself!) >>>
Well simply because you haven`t been paying attention to what I wrote: attributes of creation, some of which we have been discussing here at the Quantum level and others at the larger structure level i.e. initial conditions, fine tuning of the universe, its origin in the Big Bang, its end and so on necessitate a causation agent, and in fact intellegent design. 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...
Well simply because you haven`t been paying attention to what I wrote: attributes of creation, some of which we have been discussing here at the Quantum level and others at the larger structure level i.e. initial conditions, fine tuning of the universe, its origin in the Big Bang, its end and so on necessitate a causation agent, and in fact intellegent design. 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...
#192 Posted by masadi on July 12, 2007 1:05:42 am
In addition do not confuse the implications for a creator at the origin point, i.e. before Planck time, using Quantum physics and the Copenhagen interpretation with the implications for a creator post planck time- no unifying theory that combines the two has thus far been formulated scientifically so do not try to translate the first into the second philosophically in trying to prove or disprove either...
#191 Posted by masadi on July 12, 2007 12:40:10 am
Philosopher writes <<< I agree with khurram that if we accept the thesis of masadi described earlier, all it necessitates is an ultimate observer not a ``creator`` in the strict sense of the term, if at all it necessitates something >>>
Actually it does necessitate a creator because something resulted as a result of that observation while before there was ``nothing``. Then when you observe the details of that observation in how the universe evolved, its ``fine tuning``, it most definitely makes any explanation without a creator not only improbable but impossible.
PM mian, you are confused and are going round and round in circles. You invoked Occam`s razor regarding the multiverse and you were correct if we take it to infinity, but as you did, you shot yourself in the foot because apart from the options I gave there are no others, are there?
Actually it does necessitate a creator because something resulted as a result of that observation while before there was ``nothing``. Then when you observe the details of that observation in how the universe evolved, its ``fine tuning``, it most definitely makes any explanation without a creator not only improbable but impossible.
PM mian, you are confused and are going round and round in circles. You invoked Occam`s razor regarding the multiverse and you were correct if we take it to infinity, but as you did, you shot yourself in the foot because apart from the options I gave there are no others, are there?
#190 Posted by philosopher on July 11, 2007 3:04:48 pm
Masadi/khurram
I think khurram has raised a very good point here. He has rightly understood my #182.That`s exactly what I meant. I agree with khurram that if we accept the thesis of masadi described earlier, all it necessitates is an ultimate observer not a ``creator`` in the strict sense of the term, if at all it necessitates something. As I have said in #182 that ultimate observer is the ``cause` of the ``idea of the existence of object`` or it is that supreme observer who (it) makes the ``material object` the reflection of our consciousness `possible`.
This ``causal`` relation between the ultimate observer and the idea of the ``existence`` of the matter in consciousness is not a sort of causal relation the one we have in natural sciences (at least hypothetically). Cause here only implies the supremacy of ultimate being that makes that consciousness of objects or even the consciousness about His own being, possible. The question of creation in the material sense and the necessitating the God (as a first cause) is not relevant here. And I don`t think khurram rephrased that first cause question as Masadi claimed.
If the developments at Quantum level imply (both scientifically and philosophical) what Masadi claims than the whole debate of ‘’first cause’’ (at least the classical debate) is an exercise in futility. These philosophical implications itself explode the idea of material cause (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). In that context, I see absolutely no reason to have God as ‘’first cause’’ in the material sense (even though we believe in God). Remember….denying a certain concept of God or an argument for the proof of ‘existence’ of God does not necessarily deny the concept of God or make you an atheist hence the favourite interacter of chowk staff.
Again the language, used in this relation, can be used only in the wobbly sense. Any theological debate or the one which has some sort of theological concern is meaningless unless we are clear on the nature (or the ‘usage’) of that language. The problem with taking religious languager that way is that the truths religious language is dealing with are of transcendental nature and there is no analogy possible there.
Because there is no common ground between the divine reality and the human reality, even if we are dealing with the concept of God as an ‘’abstraction whose validity is yet to be determined. In that case even atheist has to agree on a certain concept of God even if he does not believe in God. That is the point I raised in response to Gill’s interact that even if you don’t believe in the transcendental reality and hereafter you have to agree on certain ‘characteristic of that reality which your own ‘logic’ demand if at all you insist on applying that logic. If In the same way you accept certain ‘logical concept’ of God’ without having believe in God, only because it satisfies your logical requirement in a debate regarding the validity of religious assertion (and rightly so), than why cannot you have concept of ‘’transcendental’ (hypothetically) life on the same logically basis and than apply logic on it to analyse the ‘’internal coherence’’ of religious truths. I don’t think it was an unfair call. Because if you are going to deny something on the basis of its not being ‘formally’ inconsistent than there is no reason (in fact its logically necessary) that you don’t take into account all the concepts of religion and than show their internal inconsistency with respect to that ‘logic’.(if you insist on applying that logic at least let it reach at the point of climax. Leaving logic alone without having logical orgasm is the violation of international intellectual laws.
But Gill sahib quit the debate by saying that all these ideas regarding transcendental reality and ‘eternal’ peace are illusion and ‘’jhooti tassaliaan, along with that pointing out some spelling mistakes in my posts, for which I am grateful to him from the core of my heart(if at all it can be taken more than a blood pumping organ). He completely ignored the context I was taking these transcendental entities into account.
Regards
I think khurram has raised a very good point here. He has rightly understood my #182.That`s exactly what I meant. I agree with khurram that if we accept the thesis of masadi described earlier, all it necessitates is an ultimate observer not a ``creator`` in the strict sense of the term, if at all it necessitates something. As I have said in #182 that ultimate observer is the ``cause` of the ``idea of the existence of object`` or it is that supreme observer who (it) makes the ``material object` the reflection of our consciousness `possible`.
This ``causal`` relation between the ultimate observer and the idea of the ``existence`` of the matter in consciousness is not a sort of causal relation the one we have in natural sciences (at least hypothetically). Cause here only implies the supremacy of ultimate being that makes that consciousness of objects or even the consciousness about His own being, possible. The question of creation in the material sense and the necessitating the God (as a first cause) is not relevant here. And I don`t think khurram rephrased that first cause question as Masadi claimed.
If the developments at Quantum level imply (both scientifically and philosophical) what Masadi claims than the whole debate of ‘’first cause’’ (at least the classical debate) is an exercise in futility. These philosophical implications itself explode the idea of material cause (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). In that context, I see absolutely no reason to have God as ‘’first cause’’ in the material sense (even though we believe in God). Remember….denying a certain concept of God or an argument for the proof of ‘existence’ of God does not necessarily deny the concept of God or make you an atheist hence the favourite interacter of chowk staff.
Again the language, used in this relation, can be used only in the wobbly sense. Any theological debate or the one which has some sort of theological concern is meaningless unless we are clear on the nature (or the ‘usage’) of that language. The problem with taking religious languager that way is that the truths religious language is dealing with are of transcendental nature and there is no analogy possible there.
Because there is no common ground between the divine reality and the human reality, even if we are dealing with the concept of God as an ‘’abstraction whose validity is yet to be determined. In that case even atheist has to agree on a certain concept of God even if he does not believe in God. That is the point I raised in response to Gill’s interact that even if you don’t believe in the transcendental reality and hereafter you have to agree on certain ‘characteristic of that reality which your own ‘logic’ demand if at all you insist on applying that logic. If In the same way you accept certain ‘logical concept’ of God’ without having believe in God, only because it satisfies your logical requirement in a debate regarding the validity of religious assertion (and rightly so), than why cannot you have concept of ‘’transcendental’ (hypothetically) life on the same logically basis and than apply logic on it to analyse the ‘’internal coherence’’ of religious truths. I don’t think it was an unfair call. Because if you are going to deny something on the basis of its not being ‘formally’ inconsistent than there is no reason (in fact its logically necessary) that you don’t take into account all the concepts of religion and than show their internal inconsistency with respect to that ‘logic’.(if you insist on applying that logic at least let it reach at the point of climax. Leaving logic alone without having logical orgasm is the violation of international intellectual laws.
But Gill sahib quit the debate by saying that all these ideas regarding transcendental reality and ‘eternal’ peace are illusion and ‘’jhooti tassaliaan, along with that pointing out some spelling mistakes in my posts, for which I am grateful to him from the core of my heart(if at all it can be taken more than a blood pumping organ). He completely ignored the context I was taking these transcendental entities into account.
Regards
#189 Posted by PM on July 11, 2007 2:40:54 pm
re. masadi #179:
`` Things that necessitate a creator, i.e. the attributes of creation cannot be the attributes of the creator, or he (it) would need a creator as well. ``
I`m aure we all agree on this requirement (which in fact poses the question of Who created God?), but you cannot jump from this to ``There MUST have been a creator!``, simply because you cannot, then, escape the infinite regression, or the Who made God question. In effect, you`re arguing from an abstract position, and in a sense, attempt to prove a negative.
You seem, like most theists, to be willing to accept the counter-intuitive idea that some agent/being had no creator. Why is it so difficult then, to accept the equally counter-intuitive notion that the attributes of creation can in fact, be the attributes of the Creator (in other words, the Universe created itself!), or that the whole causation thingie is just an illusion in the first place? In each of the scenarios above, we`re left with the same degree of absurdity.
`` Things that necessitate a creator, i.e. the attributes of creation cannot be the attributes of the creator, or he (it) would need a creator as well. ``
I`m aure we all agree on this requirement (which in fact poses the question of Who created God?), but you cannot jump from this to ``There MUST have been a creator!``, simply because you cannot, then, escape the infinite regression, or the Who made God question. In effect, you`re arguing from an abstract position, and in a sense, attempt to prove a negative.
You seem, like most theists, to be willing to accept the counter-intuitive idea that some agent/being had no creator. Why is it so difficult then, to accept the equally counter-intuitive notion that the attributes of creation can in fact, be the attributes of the Creator (in other words, the Universe created itself!), or that the whole causation thingie is just an illusion in the first place? In each of the scenarios above, we`re left with the same degree of absurdity.
#188 Posted by PM on July 11, 2007 2:21:57 pm
re. masadi #179:
``So when you accuse me of invoking ``non-empirical`` unverifiable things, the athiest has taken that non-empirical to the level of absurdity by invoking ``infinite`` unobservable things.``
Masadi saheb, where did I say, or imply, that atheists cannot be idiots-- even highly educated ones!? You seem to be intent on playing the guilty-by-association game with me. :-)
``Occam`s razor that you talk about certainly supports the copenhagen interpreteation of God observing and causing the universe rather than an infinite number of universes existing.``
Whoa!! Easy there, bro... first, the Copenhagen interpretation says NOTHING-- NADA-- about a God (as a BEING/Creator) observing and causing the universe. That is merely a second layer of interpretation that theists are wont to add on. Nothing wrong with it, of course, but just so we`re clear, it`s still an interpretation, or interpolation, and one fraught with problems, one might add.
Secondly, I didn`t invoke Occam`s Razor to question the plausibility of the Copenhagen interpretation-- with a or without a God necessitation. I clearly calimed only that your suggestion that the very vague ayat quoted somehow corroborated the Copenhagen interpretation (or vice versa?) would not pass the Occam `test`.
``So when you accuse me of invoking ``non-empirical`` unverifiable things, the athiest has taken that non-empirical to the level of absurdity by invoking ``infinite`` unobservable things.``
Masadi saheb, where did I say, or imply, that atheists cannot be idiots-- even highly educated ones!? You seem to be intent on playing the guilty-by-association game with me. :-)
``Occam`s razor that you talk about certainly supports the copenhagen interpreteation of God observing and causing the universe rather than an infinite number of universes existing.``
Whoa!! Easy there, bro... first, the Copenhagen interpretation says NOTHING-- NADA-- about a God (as a BEING/Creator) observing and causing the universe. That is merely a second layer of interpretation that theists are wont to add on. Nothing wrong with it, of course, but just so we`re clear, it`s still an interpretation, or interpolation, and one fraught with problems, one might add.
Secondly, I didn`t invoke Occam`s Razor to question the plausibility of the Copenhagen interpretation-- with a or without a God necessitation. I clearly calimed only that your suggestion that the very vague ayat quoted somehow corroborated the Copenhagen interpretation (or vice versa?) would not pass the Occam `test`.
#187 Posted by khurram on July 11, 2007 1:06:53 pm
Re: masadi #186,
Are you sure that you agree with philospher`s #182?
You have made a scientific claim for God`s existence from Quantum physics. Philospher shows in #182 that it is not proper to talk of God in scientific terms.
btw, you are arguing for the necessity of an observer, not a creator.
Are you sure that you agree with philospher`s #182?
You have made a scientific claim for God`s existence from Quantum physics. Philospher shows in #182 that it is not proper to talk of God in scientific terms.
btw, you are arguing for the necessity of an observer, not a creator.
#186 Posted by khurram on July 11, 2007 1:03:14 pm
Re: philospher #182,
Yes, I agree with what you are saying.
That is why I was disagreeing with the statement that ``Universe exists becuase God is observing it`. All such `proofs` are erroneous because they reduce God to an existent being.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying.
That is why I was disagreeing with the statement that ``Universe exists becuase God is observing it`. All such `proofs` are erroneous because they reduce God to an existent being.
#185 Posted by masadi on July 11, 2007 12:04:51 pm
Khurram asks <<< If Universe exists becuase God is observing it, then who observes God?
>>>
Philosopher has answered your question, God and creation are two seperate things. Things that necessitate a creator, i.e. the attributes of creation cannot be the attributes of the creator, or he (it) would need a creator as well. You have merely rephrased the age old question, ``who created God?``.
>>>
Philosopher has answered your question, God and creation are two seperate things. Things that necessitate a creator, i.e. the attributes of creation cannot be the attributes of the creator, or he (it) would need a creator as well. You have merely rephrased the age old question, ``who created God?``.
#183 Posted by samar1982 on July 11, 2007 10:09:58 am
What you all are discussing in so many words is given in my post #176. You may go through it and sleep peacefully. In fact answer lied not in lengthy philosophical analysis but in simple mathematics.
Samar
Samar
#181 Posted by khurram on July 11, 2007 8:44:34 am
Re: PM #177
``Do we really need some frickin` physicists with wave-function collapse theorizing to tell us what is obvious through a little `deeper` thinking?``
What the physicists have done is to give the argument mathematical rigor and experimental verifiability.
``As long as reality (including the idea of `state`) is accepted the sum-total of sense-data/perceptions, it seems reasonable to say that a fish would have no state when not observed``
Well, it`s not `no state`. It`s a superposition of possible states. `Indeterminate state` would be a better description.
It all kind of makes sense. Science deals with observable data only. It can only construct reality through observation. Unobserved reality is a meaningless concept for it.
The next logical question is what is `observation` and how did scientists come to agree on its definition. This, of course, is not a scientific question.
``Do we really need some frickin` physicists with wave-function collapse theorizing to tell us what is obvious through a little `deeper` thinking?``
What the physicists have done is to give the argument mathematical rigor and experimental verifiability.
``As long as reality (including the idea of `state`) is accepted the sum-total of sense-data/perceptions, it seems reasonable to say that a fish would have no state when not observed``
Well, it`s not `no state`. It`s a superposition of possible states. `Indeterminate state` would be a better description.
It all kind of makes sense. Science deals with observable data only. It can only construct reality through observation. Unobserved reality is a meaningless concept for it.
The next logical question is what is `observation` and how did scientists come to agree on its definition. This, of course, is not a scientific question.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Eklavya: parthab You are so right.... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- parthaab: The intelligence and investigation... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- tahir: Re: # 32 Blow-J In... Translation of a (Love)
- tahir: Re: # 29 Quin "The... Translation of a (Love)
- tahir: Re: # 27 Naqsh "Tahir,... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: Asif, thanks for clarifying... Translation of a (Love)
- pakistan3: Re: # 362 tahmed32, It takes... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: and i once had... Dhokha and Being a
