Whence Then is Evil?

Has any one ever wondered about the following:

If a book (the Qur’an in this situation) is meant to be from God/Allah, why do two individuals of equivalent intelligence always come up with different interpretations of the text?

There are many contradictions in the Quran; the only people unable to see them are those completely brainwashed and have lost the ability to think rationally. They come up with all sorts of historical/non-historical justifications for these such as the arabic language/literary peculiarities etc. nothing substantial or scientific; perhaps they are not aware of this concept.

There are literally billions and billions of galaxies and star systems in our “known� universe; supposedly we are talking about a creator that is well beyond the confines of any material boundaries; why would such a “person� even care about what goes on in individual hearts and minds on a teeny weeny planet! Why would he be upset about, for example, a woman showing off a bit of skin or someone not observing some ritual exactly how it was prescribed; when there are literally hundreds of such, very contradictory, rituals in Islam amongst the sects; not to quote countless other similar examples.

If the “Loh-e-Mahfouz� was the first thing created with the deeds of all living things and their fate already prescribed, what the hell is the meaning of “the free will�?!

If a ruler of my country wanted me to abide by ceratin rules, I would expect them to be laid down explicitly and clearly for all to understand. Otherwise, I would think they were unjust in prosecuting me for misgivings; why are there so many ambiguities as to what the “true Islam� is; that definition is certainly not unanimous by anyone’s standards as we all know; the interpretations are so varied and far apart at times that it is mind boggling!

According to the Quran, Allah gave his blessings to the Bani Israel but they betrayed his trust many a times, so he went off them completely and chose a different people for revival of his “Only and True Message�! Are we thinking that an omniscient and omnipotent God, with the inherent knowledge of everything, transcendent through the confines of time, made a mistake!! Then he tried to correct it by chosing arabia for his chosen messanger! How odd!!

Prayer is such a contradictory term, don’t you think. If all is already decided, does God change his mind if we were to grovel before him and grants us our desires as a reward; very confusing!!

The only answers I ever got for these as a child, and many other similar questions, was that we CANNOT work out God’s will and he is the only one who does; what the hell are we doing with our assess up in the air five times a day then!!

All of the above seem to be the desires of the needy and not fullfilled “persona� (to quote Al-Razi); Is it that we have created this “persona� is OUR OWN IMAGE rather than the other way around?

Is our “conflict� with the rest of the world sheer paranoia “they are out to get us�!! and the only reason we cannot accept this is our inherent “sense of pride� so deeply indoctrinated that we cannot listen to reason.

The reason I am talking about the Islamic context here is because that is my background and I wish to discuss the very foundations of this faith. It is all very well to hide behind the “good aspects� of Islamic history and ignore the other “less desirable� aspects, but the question is what it is all based on; without foundation, there is nothing left. I criticise any dogma based on “faith� and th other so-called faiths are no exception to this; however, I prefer people from those cultures to comment on their own cultural heritages.

Problem with being “moderate� is that moderation, whatever it might mean, harbours and nurtures extremist elemnts. Extremists to me mean people who are trying to follow their “faiths� down to the last letter. This Sufism etc have nothing to do with what Islam actually is; it is a digression from the mainstream. Sufis were always at the fringes of mainstream society and their ideas of “Sulha-e-kul� etc have nothing to do with the message of Islam; though I do admit it can make Islam a bit more palatable!

If we had all the “knowledge/Ilm� in the Quran, why would we strive for more; the whole idea of “the completeness� of “Deen/way of life� is not compatible with modernity of any kind, however that is defined. Of course we can cherry pick and find quotes to justify absolutely anything that WE WANT TO; that itself is the biggest weakness of religious dogma; interpretable with vast differences of opinions between individuals of equivalent intelligence!

Surely, they can't ALL be true!!!

IF there were no EVIL, would GOOD still mean anything ? And for what would you exercise your so-cherished free will?

Re: # 242

Kaal ji, thank you for the flattering courtesy ! In fact I have reached the age of enlightenment when , according to Ghalib, the Great:

“Bazeecha e ittifaal he dunia mere aage
Hota he shabo roz tamaasha mere aage
Ik khel he aourange Sulemaan mere nazdeek
Ik baat he ehjaaze Mssiha mere aage�

About Ghalib’s poetry, Allama Iqbal had said that it is the most valuable heritage of Muslim culture in India, which would be understood after a century. What you call ‘the group of regular/normal Muslims’, who are devoid of any rational thinking, call him and any one who thinks like him as ‘Satra bhatra’and usually ignore him. Thanks to the internet, especially the 'chowk'that such matters could be discussed seriously with the thinking people like you.

Surprisingly, the advent of globalization and the surge of IT which should have, as a matter of course, advanced liberalism, resulted instead in the spread of religion, and that too the extremist, violent and fanatic type of Wahabi Islam resulting in rejection of Khuda, a liberal and charitable god, in favor of a revengeful Wahabist Allah.

teshah ji, you are a very strange person (in a very good way, for me). I can't figure out how you must be conversing with any group of regular/normal Muslims :)

It's much easier to understand ideologies and religions - no matter how complex - than it is to figure out human beings. There is so much to learn :)

Re: # 240
kaal

Thank you dear! I have found the answer as I expected from you. The question now is why khuda which is a natural answer and complement of 'khud' (self) becomes Allah, a supernatural obscurantist thing, sitting in the heavens (excuse me, like Altaf Hussain in London) and sending messages through angels to selcted persons to divide humanity into believers and non-believers (here Altaf has an advantage over Him that he can use direct dialing).
I wonder if the Persians have not disowned their khuda in favour of Allah either. How thought provoking! I will have to think over it. So more later on.

Regards.

teshah sahib, you pose some of the trickiest challenges (recall the issue of "why faith may achieve more than knowledge" - I never got back to answer that either).

Khuda is almost a secular God - I agree. This God seems very easy to accept, even in absence of faith. There is a connection (at least, seems to me) between khud, khudee, and khuda...That may be just my hallucinations (since I don't know any Persian), but it resonates with a certain tradition I know reasonably well, and the concept of Khuda fits in very well.

Allah is an entirely different matter. My own guess is that Allah will entirely replace Khuda everywhere except in Iran. Iranians have to figure out who they are. They are in quite a dilemma....

Ha! Why would anyone likhao rappat against a person whom one deeply likes and admires. Aur akbar allahabadi chahe ghar pe hon yaa thaane mein, aazad hi rahenge :)

Just didn't see it, teshah ji. Will come back soon and respond a bit later. Best regards. Kind regards.

Kaal has perhaps gone to a Police Station to get a 'rappat' (FIR) registered against me as detractors had done against Urdu poet, Akbar Allahabadi, as complained by him in his famous couplet:

"Raqibon ne rappat likhwaai ja ja ke thane mein
Kih Akbar nam leta he khuda ka is zamaane mein".

kaal

Where have you gone dear Kaal?

Re: # 234

Kaal

Thank you dear for your valuable response. I personally feel no difference between Allah and Khuda used as symbols for some superhuman power. But Allah which was a mere national god (Rabbe Kabah) of Arabs was upgraded by Islam to a god for the entire universe through Arabian conquests and spread of Islam as a result thereof. As for Khuda it being a creation of Persian civilization does not carry any religious or national label. The matter perhps requires a deeper study by persons like Gill and Hood Bhai.

You say:

"If Muslims are willing partners, then why are they doing this? You see, I have never accepted that Muslims are any less intelligent or any more gullible than anybody else. So if we take those explanations out, what remains?"

As Iqbal had stated in his couplet quoted by me the people being by nature idol worshippers they are generally prone to rely more on tangible idols than on abstract symbols like Allah or Khuda. They have even made Allah, called Rabe-Kaabah, an Idol now in the shape of Kaabah with the 'Black stone', called'Hajre Aswad'. It is not the lack of intelligence that they worship idols but the dominance of 'Nafs' (greed or fear?) which makes them do all this. Allah by its historical background being more amenable to this ritualiusm than Khuda is becoming popular all over the world these days. In fact Khuda is almost a secular god, not requiring any obscurantist ritualism which has made it unpopular these days of religious extremism and hate-grouping, so much so, that according to a news report, a Presidential candidate of America has advocated bombing of the sacred places of Islam to put an end to all this. The ultimate war seems to be at hand now.

One more thing, teshah ji, I would request you to count out (for now at least): the evil outsider. I know you don't think like that, but that is the Islamic equivalent of the non-Islamic secularist argumen (which is, Muslims are all personally stupid and incapable of thinking - obviously not true, either).

teshah ji, I know those things and fully agree with you :)

Up until recently, the thought that Khuda could be considered almost 'unIslamic" would have gotten any person laughted out of a room. That was such an absurd proposition.

But now Khuda is being thrown out. By Muslims, themselves, willingly.

Aand this is the big thing to which i would request your attention: Is media doing it all on its own, or are Muslims willing participants in this process? :)

If Muslims are willing partners, then why are they doing this? You see, I have never accepted that Muslims are any less intelligent or any more gullible than anybody else. So if we take those explanations out, what remains?

Re: # 232

kaal ji

What is this what you call "a deeper and very Islamic understanding of what Khuda is and what Allah is"? Will you elaborate, please? For your information even the National Anthem of Pakistan mentions 'Khuda' insted of 'Allah' as:

"Sayeaa khudaae zuljalaal" but Zia could not change it. I just opened 'Kulyaate Iqbal' ad random (page 340) and saw khuda mentioned in his couplet:

"Buton se tum ko ummeedein 'khuda' se nowmeedi
Bataa to sahi aur kaafri kia he".

Allama Iqbal, in your view, did not have deeper understanding of Islam that he held those who had no hope in Khuda as infidel.

No dear it is the 'krishma' of media, especially the electronic one which made Allah so popular.

For your further information I may tell you that the name of Allah was not introduced by Islam but it is an Arabic name for God which was popular even among the pre-Islamic Arabs as the very name of the Prophet's father was Abdullah, meaning (the slave of Allah).

teshah ji

IMO, the amazingly quick replacement of Khuda by Allah has to do with a deeper and very Islamic understanding of what Khuda is and what Allah is. Zia's and Mullahs' role was limited even in Pakistan, and that replacement is proceding apace even in India and the US.

Some 'Muslims' will insist on calling Allah khuda or even Ishwar, but their numbers are small and will go down continuously.

Re: # 230

Kaal

Sorry! It should have been 'There is no god but God' instead of 'There is no God but God's to assuage your religious proclivities. As for Allah it is specifically Arabic name for god not necessarily an Islamic one. In our part of the world the name 'Khuda', a Persian version of God, is more popular. Zia, the usurper, tried to popularize Allah, the Arabic name of God, over the government media, to gain favour of the Mulla and the Saudi rulers and surprisingly he was successful to a large extent in doing so. Today, people in Pakistan say 'Allah Hafiz' instead of usual 'Khuda Hafiz',to beseech Allah to protect them but with what results. They are being blown away in the very name of Allah by suicide bombers, another result of so called pseudo-Jehadist culture introduced by Zia with the help of American and Saudi Dollars.

In any case, I think for scientific discussions the use of a somewhat secular term for god, like God, in English and 'Khuda', in Urdu would be more appropriate.

teshah sahib, I always felt the correct form must be "There is no God but Allah," not "There is no God but God."

There is not God but God is a very petty property. That is true for anyone and anybody - like there is no kaal but kaal, or there is no teshah but teshah.


That demeans Allah who is the only true God, according to Islam.

Re: # 228

nasah

Muslim God, named Allah, cannot possibly face extinction as it stands on the dialectics of 'Nafi, Isbat' (negation and confirmation) as per the most perfect formula for existence of 'La Ila Ilillah' (There is no God but God) as a Punjabi poet,Sultan Bahu, says:

"Nafi Isbaat da panrhi milaya har rag har jaai hoo"

( He gets his nourishment both from negation and confirmation)

Muslim God is a species that -- unlike the Christian and Jewish species -- has stopped evolving and may be awaiting an asteroid to go for mass extinction.

Beta Release

Its good! They are improving it fast. They have re-introduced interact index which was badly needed. Thanks. The site also seem to have stabilized.

Re: # 225

philosipher

Thank you dear for your illuminating reply. I have read all your posts got impressed with your insight. But as Iqbal said:

"Aql charaghe raah he manzil nahien"

Or:

"Gaah meri niga-e-tez cheer gaei dile wajud
Gaah ulajh ke reh gai mere touhimaat mein"

We have but to bow down to that reality which is beyond existence/non-existence, 'La illa ilillah', whic Iqbal calls 'Haqiqate Muntazir' (a reality, a truth in waiting but never making itself manifest).

But why we keep on searching for it to the end of our life?

Re: #224 Posted by teshah on

((((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 also be 'Mattahe gharoor', a fraud, all Maya?")))))

teshah sahib

You are right, existence (being) is one of the most important and complex philosophical issues. And I have discussed this issue exhaustively in various posts on this board. You can read #182. As for as concept of 'Maya' is concerned, I don't think this view can only be traced in Hinduism. This concept (if we can call it) can be traced from early Greek philosophy to even 20tgh century philosophical movement.


Ok here is my #182

(((((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.)))))))

So in that case, you are right that world(matter) would be merely an illusion or ‘Maya’. Dear teshah this article is already a whipped horse. You can read my interacts and if you have any question in mind it will be a great honor for me to answer that.

Regards.

Itis alright dear,but I expected your valued sober comments on the question raised in my post # 209 as reproduced hereunder:

"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 also be 'Mattahe gharoor', a fraud, all Maya?"

Ghalib had also raised a somewhat similar question in his couplet quoted hereunder:

"Nah tha kuchh to khuda tha
Nah hota kuchh to khuda hota
Daboeya mujh ko hone ne
Nah hota mein to kia hota?"

It is the question of 'being' which has been baffling the human mind finding no answer whatsoever. What does your philosify say in this respect? I would welcome your sober comments which I value much.

As for the beta chowk I am getting used to it now and they are perhaps also improving it. But I agree with you that it is not that chowk which we all loved. It still needs lot of improvement.

teshah sahib

Thanx for accepting my apology and your kind response.

Well...this beta thing....its just a pathetic effort of chowk(late) staff to meet the ''challenges'' of the 21st century.

This format is just a load of crap. it sucks big time. It's a great pain to be on chowk these days.This is not the chowk we all love.

Hope everything is good at your end

Regards

To hell with this beta

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: # 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?

# 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.

# 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.

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: # 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: # 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: # 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: # 204

philo-cipher

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

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.

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: # 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: # 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: # 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.

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: # 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: # 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.

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.

Re: masadi,

I would repeat PM`s question.

If Universe exists becuase God is observing it, then who observes God?

PM writes <<< You do realize that you`ve just provided a ``strong`` argument for any and all manner of anti-empirical, counter-intuitive and maybe even illogical theories >>>

You can say anti-empirical but you cannot say illogical. You should talk to leading modern day cosmologists and physicists who have worked out its mathematics to intricate details. It is speculation thus far but does not mean that you use it to ignore the realities of our own universe.

Regarding the existence of uncollapsed wave functions IF God observes everything:

1. Either he chooses not to observe certain things
2. He observes but the collapse in multiverses
3. The athiest version: There is no one observing anything- infinite universes exist and ours happens to be the one where life is formed and we can thus view it

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.
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. So by criticizing my limited explanation you actually shoot yourself in the foot.

Philosopher writes <<

For it implies the infinity of matter and energy. Regardless of the paradoxes and the difficulties of its philosophical implication, one thing is clear that it would explode complementary concept of God and the ``uncertainty at quantum level’’ (the Copenhagen’s stance) For if there are multiverses than there is nothing (rational) that can ``necessitate`` the concept of God or even the notion of ultimate reality (even if God `actually` exists) For the ``scientific theology’’ (the one you advocating) to be true there MUST be only ‘’Universe’’ not multiverse….else your own philosophy would be inconsistent. >>>

Not necessarily, I am not talking of the ``multiverse`` as those who try to skirt around the problem of the fine tuning of this universe invoke. I am only talking about the uncollapsed wave functions, the progress of history and human free will and choice, (all limited) existing in alternative histories. As you can see I was trying to combine the Copenhangen with a limited multiverse interpretation as an explanation on why uncollapsed wave functions exist in the universe IF God is observing everything, which was offered as an explanation option of universal observation coexisting with uncollapsed wave functions. If you have a better explanation to choice and multiverse- quite novel on my part, let us hear them.

I argued against the unlimited universe hypothesis in my article http://god.rationalreality.com and I understand what you are saying, I am not advocating that unscientific/unverifiable assertion at all.

You write <<< Mr Masadi....``necessitated`` means complementary to each other >>>

By ``necessitated``, I mean ``necessary cause``, without whose observation the universe could not happen

re. khurram #170:

``This implies that the act of observation not only determines the state of the particle at that time but also its entire history upto the last observation. It is meaningless to say that the universe(or your fish in the dark tank) existed when no one was observing it. Your observation establishes its state, including its history.``

Khurram, I have yet to read the article for which you provided a link. It just occured to me, having read some comments by physicists including Bohr, that a lot of the assumptions or interpretations outside of the purely mathematical domain consititute not Science but metaphysics. For decades now, many eminent Scientists have been questioning the scientific credentials of much on the so-called frontiers of modern physics, including string theory. Philoo bhai has, perhaps unwittingly, made reference to this practice of passing off goobledegook as Science too.

But to return to the question of the fish and its state when not observed... Do we really need some frickin` physicists with wave-function collapse theorizing to tell us what is obvious through a little `deeper` thinking? The idea that `reality` ceases to exist when there isn`t an observer has been around at least since, I think, Berkeley`s time; perhaps much earlier. Russell treats this question of reality and state-persistence excellently, and lucidly, in his Problems of Philosphy. To my understanding, the questions of state-persistence comes down to one`s definition of Reality. 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.

Please correct me if I`m wrong. You seem to have thought through this stuff. :-)

God is or He is not
No Science and no religion can prove if God is or He is not. 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 are vague because one can`t visualize beyond senses and the other refuses to use senses to see if He is at all there or not. For scientists God is too vast to feel and the religionists IN FACT don`t want to feel Him, they just believe that what they believe is true.

Samar

Re: # 124

masadi

Thank you dear Masadi for your learned response. But excuse me you are mixing up science with belief (Aqeeda), ethics, etc.. If you believe in unitarianism then why keep god and nature two separate entities. Why not see the unity of truth, existence, reality, etc. as propounded in the idea of `Wadatul-wajood`? Why see god sitting in heavens and ruling the world, an obvious duality? He, the Abrahamic god, could create any thing by calling its name (What a contradiction btw as He is calling a thing by name to be which is yet non-existent) by his magic of `Kun` but had needed earth to make Adam to blew in him His spirit, displaying thereby the duality of spirit and the matter, both of which seem to be eternal.

khurram:

Thanks for that link. Will visit it later, though, as it`s really late where I am. Here`s a link for you. I haven`t viewed the video myself, but maybe you can do so and tell me if it`s worth it, since I pay a bundle for net bandwidth where I am. :-)

masadi, khurram:

You guys might find this discussion of some relevance to the question of wave collapse causation through observation. I think it nicely clears up questions about objective reality and wave collapse. The gist:

Person A: Can blind people collapse the wave function or is the wave collapse restricted to the sense of sight? Can other senses such as smell, taste, hearing and feeling collapse the wave function?

Person B: Wave function colapses when it is measured. `Measured` is a fairly undefined term. But it is stupid to assume that measuring only pertains to what we see.

Person A: I was reffering to the paradox of Shroedinger`s Cat in which the thought experiment uses the sense of sight to conduct the measurement. The idea of sense collapsing the wave function came from a book (A book on physics and philosophy) and is not my idea. If a conscious being does not collapse the wave function then it must be a purely mathematical abstraction.

Person B: A wavefunction is an algorithm for determining probabilities. It has NOTHING to do with human vision, consciousness, or blind people. Your philosophy book has mislead you.


And here is something from Wiki`s page on the Cophenagen interpretation:

There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a ``real`` wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with positivism and some of Bohr`s statements. Niels Bohr emphasized that Science is concerned with the predictions of experiments, additional questions are not scientific but rather meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and took different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[4]

Even if the wave function is not regarded as real, there is still a divide between those who treat it as definitely and entirely subjective, and those who are non-committal or agnostic about the subject.

An example of the agnostic view is given by von Weiszacker, who, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the CI asserted: ``What cannot be observed does not exist``. He suggested instead that the CI follows the principle: ``What is observed certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. We use that freedom to avoid paradoxes.``[5]


Goodnight for now...

Re: # 171

please Read(((((necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is easy to say that))))))

As...((((necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is NOT easy to say that

Re: # 167 Masadi said;

((((Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, but the limitless though based on discretion observation by God has collapsed them in all their potentialities in multiverses)))))

My Response..;

So you are interpreting ``aalimeen`` as `Multiverses???Mr Masadi...You are swimming in the midst of Atlantic without life jacket...The concept of multiverses would explode the idea of creation and the big bang theory on which at least ``scientific theology`` is based (let me clear, I am not saying that it would necessarily deny the concept of God).

For it implies the infinity of matter and energy. Regardless of the paradoxes and the difficulties of its philosophical implication, one thing is clear that it would explode complementary concept of God and the ``uncertainty at quantum level’’ (the Copenhagen’s stance) For if there are multiverses than there is nothing (rational) that can ``necessitate`` the concept of God or even the notion of ultimate reality (even if God `actually` exists) For the ``scientific theology’’ (the one you advocating) to be true there MUST be only ‘’Universe’’ not multiverse….else your own philosophy would be inconsistent.

Masadi says;

((((because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities)))) (((( that are beyond your field of observation))))


Not a sound argument....It is only an assumption or at the most a ``hypothetical possibility``. There is nothing complementary here. If we cannot perceive those events than on what ground would we assume their existence???? You have said that these events are beyond our possibility. Are you deriving it from ``scientific theory``? if you are, you have to have concept of multiverses and in that case we have to face a paradox that i have mentioned above....for it would deny the concept of ``not-being`` and as a result the concept of ultimate reality.

Masadi says;..

(((((((Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe... ))))))


Mr Masadi....``necessitated`` means complementary to each other. Well it is easy to say that two concepts are ``complementary`` to each other in human knowledge because we don`t have the definition of that ``necessity``. It is kind of a ``rational dogma`` and itself implies certain philosophical outlook rather than a methodology of analysis..

What these developments on quantum level have done is that, it has exploded the classical materialism on which ``Atheism`` was based. philosophers have been holding this view since the medieval ages that concept of mechanical cause of effect or the independent existence of matter does not necessary deny the concept of God....but second rank thinkers of 18th and 19th century kept sticking to this view and used it as an effective weapon against theology. But even after the demise of classical materialism both on scientific and philosophical level these second rank thinkers came 180 degree that the concept of God is not necessary to explain this phenomenon on Quantum level.(though they are right but didn`t accept when theology was vulnerable to such attacks).

Only hypocrisy has the existence independent of any subject and sense datum. The developments on Quantum level show the limitations and uncertainty of science. Despite being a religious person i am not a big follower of science and religion debate (whether of conflict or reconciliation). In my humble opinion (anybody can disagree with it, and I know I am hitting the hornets net...good luck to my fingers), they both have different frameworks and methodologies. The developments in the Modern physics, however, have revived the confidence of theologians. But i think these developments have contributed to the cause in a `negative` way i.e. it has exploded the classical materialism and left the atheists alone in the desert without a drop of water. It has shown the failure of science in solving the problem of existence and other age old question which have been raised by some of the greatest minds ever to walk this planet. From this point religious epistemology comes into play and picks the thread up from here.(what we have been discussing in God knows how many posts).

Re: PM #166
``See, it`s the same ol ``Does a Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it fall still make a sound falling?`` question dressed up in Modern Physics garb``

Indeed, it is exactly the same thing. And masadi is giving exactly same answer as Bishop Berkeley. But, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics holds Bishop Berkely to be wrong. One of the most of the most fascinating thought experiments of quantum mechanics is `Wheeler`s delayed choice experiment`
(see here, http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm)

This implies that the act of observation not only determines the state of the particle at that time but also its entire history upto the last observation. It is meaningless to say that the universe(or your fish in the dark tank) existed when no one was observing it. Your observation establishes its state, including its history.

re. masadi #167
``Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe... ``

I guess this makes my point about subjective reality-- the manner in which the `Cophenagens` used the word `real`.

To use ``Allah passes by what he wills and establishes what he wills, with him is the source book`` to mean:

`` ... he chooses to pass over i.e. not observe, which also feeds into the idea of free will for a set time, and the purpose of creation to which one of you is best in deed. ``

is surely a stretch!! But I guess you have the prerogative to use this interpretation, whether or not it passes the Occam`s Razor test, which is surely would not.

``Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, ``

You do realize that you`ve just provided a ``strong`` argument for any and all manner of anti-empirical, counter-intuitive and maybe even illogical theories, don`t you? It would seem that your `reasoning` takes this form: If it can`t be perceived [or pass logical tests?] here, it`s beceuase of our limitations perceiving, or could be perceived [or proven logically?] in parallel universes. Hello? Where is the falsifiability? Or plausibility? Surely you can`t possibly call this manner of tendentitous, self-serving hypothesising-- beginning with the desired conclusion and working backwards-- Science?!?

In any event, God as original `observer` doesn`t solve the logical problem of infinite regression either. You write:

``... So regardless, it has nothing to do with the fact that in the absence of God, the universe couldn`t have become reality...``

This immediately implies that for God to be/have been reality, he/she/it would have had to have been observed, in turn, by some antecedent being? And so on....

In #167 read <<< So, your answer is that the chooses to pass over >>>

as <<< So, your answer is that he chooses to pass over.... >>>

Khurram writes <<< Actually masadi is right about the Copenhagen interpretation. Only that it does not necessitate God in any way >>>>

Of course it does, without observers there can be no reality, so God is necessitated at the quantum level early universe...

Regarding your other question <<< If God is observing all the time, why do we have any uncollapsed wave functions at all?
Why does human observation collapse the wave function? Why isn`t it collapsed already due to God`s observation? >>>

On this I give you two options, Let me answer you from the Quran:


Allah passes by what he wills and establishes what he wills, with him is the source book

So, your answer is that the chooses to pass over i.e. not observe, which also feeds into the idea of free will for a set time, and the purpose of creation to which one of you is best in deed.

Of course a related option would be that the uncollapsed ``wave functions`` seem uncollapsed to you because of a limit of perception, limited to this universe, they have collapsed in all their potentialities (aalimeen) in multiple universes, that are beyond your field of observation, but the limitless though based on discretion observation by God has collapsed them in all their potentialities in multiverses... So regardless, it has nothing to do with the fact that in the absence of God, the universe couldn`t have become reality...

re. khurram #160:

``Regarding your example, it is meaningless to say that the fish has any state until an observation is made.``

Good observation, khurram. Now, would that be truer had you, or anyone else NOT made it? :-) See, it`s the same ol ``Does a Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it fall still make a sound falling?`` question dressed up in Modern Physics garb. Berkeley said it MUST make a sound, and that God was the one hearing it (Viola! A proof of His existence!). The error is that sound, like `reality` in the sense used by the Cophenagens is a totally subjective experience, without any meaning outside a reference to a human or some other hearer.

None of this, of course, necessitates some Omnipresent being, unless you ask the wrong question to begin with, which folks in Berkeley`s time obviously were doing. Then ``God`` becomes a self-serving answer (though, as you point out) it creates more problems than it solves). But those too eager to `find` a proof of God ofte