Whence Then is Evil?

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. 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.

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

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...

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...

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...

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?

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

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.

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`.

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.

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.

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?``.

*lies*

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

.Re: # 180

khurram

((((If Universe exists because God is observing it, then who observes God?)))

When we talk about material objects being dependent on our (or for that matter God`s) perception or observation, we are not asserting some sort of ``existence`` of those ``objects``. All we are saying is that it is merely the reflection of our senses or `consciousness`. Even when we talk about the `existence` of God we don`t consider God a material being. God, in that sense, is ultimate consciousness (mind, observer) and He is the ``cause`` of that idea (of existence of material) in human minds. The problem arises because of the usage of the term ``existence`` without describing it.

NOTE: Anybody who is looking into it.... this is by no means an exhaustive answer to his question. Existence` is an incredibly complex philosophical issue and it’s impossible to discuss it here.