Whence Then is Evil?

#96 by kaalchakra,

No ... well ... maybe. That`s why ``Revealed God`` doesn`t make sense in a human framework.:)

BTW, why`re you making such a conspicuous absence from the Hafsa subject?

Re: # 74

Gill sahib said;..

((((I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory))))

MY Response;....


oooopsss.....Gill sahib i am sorry to say that now you seem to be completely unaware of even the basic logical principles....Sir may i ask you where have you got this logic from....it is as basic and simple principle of logic that if i didnt know it i would still have been doing My F.A in philosophy....Boy....shocking.......

Gill sahib what do you think contradiction is?? you seem to have ``common sense`` meaning of the term instead of its technical and logic meanings.....

Any intermediate student of philosophy knows that contradiction is logical relation between two proposition having the same `subject` and `predicate`, at the same time differing in both in quantity and quality.....in other words, contradictory relation exists between a universal proposition and a particular proposition of the same quality...

if i put it in logical form,it goes like that;

All S is P And some S is not p

lets take a concrete example(but remeber logic is not concerned with concrete thought...its just a example and giving these example has been the root of all problems or may i say` EVIL` in human thinking)..

All men are mortal

some men are mortal

Now this a contradictory relation taught in intermediate logic...contradiction is considered the most perfect logical relationship BUT only in the TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION...

In modren logic...i.e. from 17th century onwards there have been revolutionary changes in the domain logic....In the MODREN SQUARE OF OPPOSITION these issues are dealt in an entirely different way....

for example in the traditional logic the following relation is absolutly justified;...

All men are mortal

therefore

some men are mortal

It looks so obvious and almost a ``category of thought` both logicaly and on the common sense level....BUT(i wish i could make it the biggest BUT of all times) this simple obvious principle of the traditional logic is the most UNACCPETABLE logical relationship in the MODREN LOGIC......you know why??? I was gonna ask to mr |Gill but he does not know the definition of contradiction how on earth could he be aware of this relatively complex issue....

the reason is that the major premise in this inference is ``Non-existential`` proposition and the minor premise or the conclusion is ``existential proposition`` so its ILLOGICAL(in modren logic) to derive exitential proposition from a non-existential proposition......

This explodes the (almost) entire structure of traditional logic......Anyhow its immpossible to go in details here and perhaps USELESS for the reasons................n.


Gill sahib said;....

(((((There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction)))))


My Response;.....


Sir...Where did i say that...i have not said that you have applied deduction validily or invalidly....or you may say that`` you mean there is nothing with method of logical deduction ``as an objective logical method```

First of anybody on this forum go and read my interact in 71 and tell me ...did i really something like that??.....sir gill ji....i was talking about the RELEVENCE of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC as a METHODOLOGY to analyze non-propositional language...at least one interacter PM would confirm it......


OK....even if you take that issue....the issue that i have raised of the derivation of ``existential`` proposition from ``non-existential`` proposition...doesn`t it deny the validity of the most of the greek logic?....Gill sahib...these are obvious and established and objectively accepted logical devolopments in the philosophical circles.....the deduction is relevent only if you are dealing in the traditional square of opposition.....it is ``valid`` in that framework but it has lost its creditability as a methodology even where LOGIC is relevent not to mention where it is NOT.....

and who says that the propsition you mentioned are contradictory...

GOD Is omnipotent

God is good

evil exists(((even though you didnt mention it...i ease your burden)))

Now guys do u see this inference to be consistent with above mentiond definition of contradiction??? Gill sahib both statements have same subject but different predicate so the whole debate of contradiction is meaningless...



Gill sahib said;....

(((Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.)))

my response...

Who told you that i was deducing something there.....sir i was just showing that people who demands from religion to ``internaly coherent`` often use such rhetorics based on their pre concieved moral notion which i called ``tarka`` e.g. religion says`` virtous wife is obedient to her husband`` Now if a feminist doesnt wanna be obedient she may(or sometimes do) conclude that there is no God coz its ``zulum`` on women....blah-blah...

It was not important to our debate as such...it was just an example.....CASE CLOSED...


GILL SAHIB SAID;.....

(((I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct))))

My Response;...

Gill sahib...now this is too much sir....you have just done ``aakheer``...Boss,again you are commiting a fallacy.....when did i say that?.......hazoor....you again seems to be clueless of the whole issue...my God.... what are u saying.....i said PHENOMOLOGICAL language is non-propsitional... you cannot apply it propositional logic on it....you are again dealing the issue of the validity and infalliability of ``religious assertions`` in a propsitional way....because here the issue is not infalliability but the methodology which would determine the validity and invalidity of those assertion according to their NATURE.... you are again demanding them to be INFALLIABLE AND CORRECT.... according to you may i say CONSCIOUS crtierion of validity becuase you simply seem to be completely clueless about the entire issue....That is precisely the reason why i said that DR SOHAIL `s article `God is metaphore` would look a load of trash to any student of philosophy.....because religious assertion itself is claiming to be METAPHORICAL...so its not a big deal....remeber the distiction made by the Quran of ``MUTASHABIHAAT AND MUHAKMAAT`` (categorical and metaphorical verses) the language is metaphorical because there is no common ground between divine reality and human reality...for example we say God is good...good in our definition means ``following moral laws`` on god this kinda analogy is meaningless....therefore the language is metaphorical and couched in a terminology which humans could easily understood...anyhow i will send my article on this issue we will discuss it in detail(if you publish it...lol..kidding)

Gill said;....

((((((The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another)))))

My Response;...


Gill sahib...you are just unbelievable.....i dint mention that it was PM`s thesis....Read 71 again you would see i havent touched this issue intentionaly because i wanna deal it separatly....I see language of every religion that way....because it wasnt our topic so i left it alone.....Again you are commiting a same fallacy in every assertion because your `` fundamentals`` are correct....i have said that these ``atributtes`` are not mentioned in the Quran,i have said that these atribbutes are ``non-propositional`` and of non-formal nature and cannot be dealt this way.....I am calling them ``atributtes`` because you have used the term... i know all of them are not atributtes......

Atributte is what that consitutes our conception of SUBSTANCE....they are only those by which there can be no conception of substance(if you are applying logic)...and those are omi everything etc....but the so called ``atributtes`` which you consider to be CONTRADICTORY to those atributtes, are NOT even atributtes. they are merely MODES of substance...and cannot be taken in relation with atributtes the way you are dragging them.
Because they are not necessary to the conception of SUBSTANCE.....every student of logic knows that logic is not concerned whether God is ACTUALLY good or evil....Even if you apply logic it will deal only with assertion....and here you have made another fallacy that you don`t even know which ones of those ``atributtes`` are primary and which are ``secondary....anyhow....more latter

Regards

God is the second best thing manmade aftger sliced bread

Zee, people who actually believe in Islam and care for God`s faith enough to want it above all else have not even taken up the Hafsa subject seriously, unless I missed it :(

As mentioned on Atif`s board, I do think believers might not want to conclude any real loss so soon. Rather they might want to use this time to do some real cold, hard-boiled analysis: Do they really want Islam badly enough to care for nothing else? If they do, then the goal should not be and cannnot be of analyzing any `failure` but understanding why, relative to so many other countries, Pakistan has been so much slower in experiencing Islamic change. And then determining what methods must be adopted to speed the process.

If there are not sufficient numbers of Pakistanis who want and love Islam over everything else, then promoters and talkers of Islam might as well take their big marbles and go home. :)

# 100 continued

But as you know, zee, you do NOT need too many of such lovers of Islam. Just two things (1) a few who are willing to do WHATEVER needs be done, and (2) some way to support them for as long as they might need help.

philosopher:

I read your ilog (because I wanted to understand what your position is after reading my my response) and tried to make some sense out of it. I am sorry to say that your ilog was muddled and I couldn`t understand what you were criticizing me for.

You keep on saying that the deductive logic that I used in the essay is outdated and supplanted by the modern logic but you didn`t clarify the difference between the two. Nor did you specfocally point out any error or mistake in my line of thought. Does your modern logic lead to a different inference of the problem that I discussed in the essay?

I confess I don`t have any formal background in logic or philosophy, per se; I would like to know what mistake(s) did I commit in applying the deductive logic in my essay.

If you mean that the religious statements are phenomenological in the sense that they don`t mean what they apparently say, we can resolve the underlying conflict. You stated that I don`t understand what `contradiction` means; can you explain it clearly what it means?

I don`t really want to indulge in any lengthy discussion on this issue on this board because then I would be going beyond the scope of the original essay; please send your comments to me in the e-mail at the following address:

akramgill@yahoo.com

Please take your time to write your comments in simple and readable English (without much repitition) so that I may understand them. You may teach me a few things in logic and philosophy for which I will indeed be grateful to you.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

freethinker

You did not even try to refute masadi sahib # 92. Should we wait a little longer? :(

(Haven`t seen GT bhai in a while. He would have been very helpful in adding clarity.)

Brainwashing has taken a new meaning. Not only youngsters, but now educated people are willing to be brainwashed and `educated` in nonsense and superstition called religion.

We should recognise religious brainwashing in madrasas, which must be investigated by Indian intelligence agencies and destroyed with an iron hand NOW!

If ever there was a blaring call to ban religion - muslim, jew, sikh, christian or hindu, THIS IS IT! It is high time we banned religion.

Religious brainwashing of youngsters should be made a punishable offence with immediate effect.

kaalchakra

Just thought I would clarify a bit on your #96 which I missed to do before.

I think you had mentioned allah ki raza (reza?) - ``Will of God`` concept?

Actually, what I had said was `Mashi`at-e-Aizdi` in Islam is `God`s often quite incomprehensible and imponderable judgment (or something to that effect). It`s not the same as Allah ki Raza (Will of God) which is something different and plainly explained in Qura`an. `Mashi`at-e-Aizdi` is not explained anywhere because it cannot be explained. It is upto God`s judgment alone.

Regards

To All

There were a few mistakes(spelling...repetition...etc)in my #98. Please read my ilog for the edited post.

Thanx

Re: # 102Gill sahib


((((((You keep on saying that the deductive logic that I used in the essay is outdated and supplanted by the modern logic but you didn`t clarify the difference between the two. Nor did you specfocally point out any error or mistake in my line of thought. Does your modern logic lead to a different inference of the problem that I discussed in the essay?)))))


My Response;

Gill sahib….I have quite clearly shown the difference between the traditional logic and modern logic by giving the example of deriving the existential general proposition from a non-existential general proposition. It was responsible for a lot of confusion in the Aristotelian logic. I even showed how you were ‘’inconsistent’’ even within the framework of your own methodology. I have clearly shown that the religious assertions you have mentioned in your essay are not technically contradictory. The assertion ‘’omnipotent God’’ and ‘’good God’ are Not contradictory to each other even if there is EVIL in the world.


Both assertions have different subject and the same predicate and for the two propositions to be contradictory they must have the same subject and predicate but different quality and quantity. You have never mentioned the DEFINITION OF CONTRADICTION but you have always claimed religious assertions to be contradictory to each other. How you can claim that without defining the term contradiction is beyond me.

Gill sahib said…..


<<<< I confess I don`t have any formal background in logic or philosophy, per se; I would like to know what mistake(s) did I commit in applying the deductive logic in my essay.>>>>


My Response….



I have already shown that you are not aware of even the fundamental laws of logic which you are going to apply on religion e.g. contradiction…etc.


Gill sahib said…..

<<<< You may teach me a few things in logic and philosophy for which I will indeed be grateful to you>>>>


My Response…..


Sir…we all learn. I am not able to teach anybody. I am only a humble and ordinary student of philosophy. I have only tried to point out some fundamental flaws in your thesis which are so obvious that even an intermediate student would not have any problem to figure it out.


Regards.

The approach that is most convincing, for me, in proving the existence of god, is the deterministic law of causality which traces god as the initial `causer`. But even that is not covincing, for what caused god? And why are we supposed to be moral agents then? Its amazing how all thinking eventually reasons up to Sartre

philosopher bhai

You know bhains ke aage been bajaana? Aaap, PM sahib, and masadi wahi kar rahe hain.

All three of you can bajaao and bajaao and bajaao....:) :)

---

rhh

Who is/was sattare and what does/did he or she say to the us common men and women?

to us common men and women.

(it got too common :))

Re: # 108

rhh (dear your nick is so vulnerable to any `sensational` interpretation...clarify it as soon as you can...you are not aware of the uncanny knack of of interacters here to `deconstruct`` the ambiguous language.. )



(((((Its amazing how all thinking eventually reasons up to Sartre)))))


Reasons up to sartre.....lol...just rephrase it


Reason ``beneath`` sartre....coz he considers reason a prostitute.

Kaal ji

He is refering to famous french philosopher Jean paul Sartre...he was an existentialist and of the the opinion that life is absurd...blah..blah..reason is pros...there is no objective knowledge..blah..blah

Kaal says;...
((((You know bhains ke aage been bajaana? Aaap, PM sahib, and masadi wahi kar rahe hain))))

kaal ji bhaains ke aagay been bajanay se kum se kum doodh to mil jata hai....yahan to wo bhi naseeb mein nahin.

Aadab.

Philo

This Mr. Sartre seems like a rootless kind of a guy, like our brother paarthab - a little better than sufis and Soroushs, but not by much.