Whence Then is Evil?

``scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah.``

Zee, philo, or anyone else, have Islamic schcolars (not Sufi `scholars`) written much on this subject? Intutitively, it is far more logical to argue that Islam is good, and leads to good, than to worry too much about whether God Himself is good or evil. That seems too sufi (read either nonsensical or deceptive) or Christian (read incomplete).

philosopher:

You say good and evil are relative and “Good” is not an attribute of God. I think scholars of Islam do emphasize that God is good and just and these are attributes of Allah. In your concluding paragraph you wrote: “According to the Quran ``latter (the hereafter) 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.” If God is not good then there is nothing to discuss in as much as my article is concerned.

Both Christianity and Islam asserted that this world was temporary and would come to an end soon. We factually know only this world (and only conjecture about the other world, the hereafter) to exist even after 2100 years when its impending end was predicted. One can, of course, shut one’s eyes (if one chooses to do so) and pronounce “evil is nothing.” To one school of thought, the whole world is an illusion.

If good and evil are relative, so is God. The Christian God (God of Love) is different relative to Muslims’ Allah and Hindus’ Baghwan. There are number of other deities also in which Hindus believe. So by this argument also God, Allah, Baghwan and others of its kind “are nothing.”

This is my last post on this subject and I have written it reluctantly because the whole discussion is getting out of hand. If you want to continue this discussion with me, please send your comments by e-mail to me and I’ll respond by e-mail, as I had suggested in one of my earlier posts. Otherwise, this discussion is over in as much as I am concerned.

I had sent you an e-mail through Chowk (since I don’t know your e-mail address); I don’t know if you received it or not. If not, let me know by e-mail, I’ll send it to you directly. It is a commentary on modern logic by a philosopher. There are many sides to philosophy none of which may be very certain without empirical evidence.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

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: # 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.

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.

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...

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

Re: # 118

samar ji

wonderful.....Thanx for sharing..

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