Whence Then is Evil?

Yeah, Zee, I absolutely recall! That was when we were discussing sufis or Al Ghazali having discovered absolute knowledge or something. Right?

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


Sorry, didn`t pay it that much attention then, since you know what I think of Sufis and their ``Islam.``

Anything specific you had in mind?

#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?

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.

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((((((You keep on saying that the deductive logic that I used in the essay is outdated and supplanted by the modern logic but you didn`t clarify the difference between the two.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.

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: # 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.

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: # 112

Kaalchakra

(((((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.)))))

LOL....yap...well that`s exactly what he himself claims to be i.e. rootless. Actually he is the most famous existentialist of 20th centaury at least in masses (philosophers take Kierkegaard more seriously).....He actually developed his thesis on the basis `’ Merleau ponty’s phenomenological reductionism. Phenomenology is an anti-system philosophical movement which emerged in late 19th century and early 20th century. It was also deeply influenced by two world wars. It was basically a reaction against the Hegel’s pan-rationalism (philosophical sense).

You are right…some people consider it a bit close to eastern Sufism. Which I think a bit of oversimplification…however I won’t deny its ‘temperamental’ resemblance to Sufism…..The reason it’s difficult to give any judgment about this movement is its anti-system approach. You can interpret it in whatever way you like and that precisely an existentialist say…. He won’t go mad if he sees you raping his philosophy. It emphasize on individual’s freedom from any system (scientific or philosophical and social) ….and perhaps that’s the reason why Mr rhh was saying that logic fails and reason can solve these problems and Sartre is right….blah….blah.


A few years ago I was a staunch existentialist. I would even live like an existentialist, completely independent of any system and would enjoy being anti-social…etc…Anyhow.