Whence Then is Evil?

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.

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)

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: #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.

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?

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. 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...