Posts Tagged ‘Takween’

Existential Amiss

September 30, 2018

Common sense, Reason, Logic, Causality, Imagination, Morality & Ethics!

 Image result for Pic of Existential amiss

I intended to write this piece in a secular fashion but the overwhelming relevance of the Divine wisdom kept piercing through my thought canvas, hence surrendered making it part of the discourse. Human discourse or argumentation, anyway, barely scratches the obvious externalities of the issues while the Divine wisdom put forth the internally woven realities in a succinct yet aptly simple manner. One may notice the examples of such Subtleties in the course of reading this treatise.

Had Common sense, reason and logic been potent enough to reach the absolute certainty of the conclusions drawn, there would have been no need for the Divine religions to barge in. All of these tools are perceptual or experiential outcomes of human endeavors which; given the deficient nature of human faculties; are incapable of coming even remotely close to the level of Divine Wisdom; Revelation, the only fait accompli. (A subtle hint/deduced from Q, 17; 37) Hence some of the precepts of the religion are above and beyond the realm of human commonsense, causality, reason and logic, exuding perfect certitude and submission. (A state of affairs enormously repugnant and conceptually unacceptable to the secularists, anti-religionists and non-believers)

 Common sense is really not as common as perceived. Variegated sense perceptions render it somewhat-common, partially-common, quasi-common or purely individualistic rather than really-common in the true sense of the word.

  Reason and Logic are even more disparate; propitious-reason and logic; sometimes referred to as rationality; are used to justify a conclusion, one is at home with. (Rational bias) A slightest dissension or differentiation would entail disapproval or divergence. Therefore, all these tools may create some sort of near or quasi-convergence but not an absolute or conclusive one. Logic is derived from the Greek word “logos”. In Muslim Philosophy another Grecian alternative “monads”*1 is used instead, to justify a position/stance by distinguishing a good reason from the bad one. It is only the Divine revelation (wisdom, word) which is flawless, absolute and ultimate-truth; authoritative in its perception, understanding and validity…worthy of even blind-Faith.

Kurt Gödel puts it succinctly as follow:- 

The logical axioms that underlie everyday things like arithmetic depend on us accepting as reasonable the notion that infinity comes in several different sizes.

In Islamic parlance, however “pristine-reason” (Haq al Yaqeen); in the absence of a human messenger; is considered to be potent enough for a rational being to come; at least, to the cognition of the existence and oneness of God, hence obviating disbelief. “Pristine-reason” here, is “elevated to the status of a “non-human-messenger” of God, for reason gains an edge when the logic fails rational being. (Deduced from Q, 17: 15)

Contemplative tools; human faculties, given the amiss, may help us reach the level of most probable/likely certainty (in the temporal, ancillary and ritualistic matters) but not that of an absolute certitude (in the core matters of belief/faith); which is only possible by Divine consent/intervention through the heart (Q, 10:100), as in the above case of cognition of God’s Oneness. Here the externality of this intervention cloaked in the garb of; “pristine-human-reason”, is upgraded to the status of “non-human-messenger”

Non-believer’s obstinate rejection of the Divine, religious injunctions and that of hereafter; though based on (tenuous and vitiated) reason, logic and common sense, amply explains their state of affairs.           (Q, 10:100)

*1 Universal Spirit, the first cause, singularity, Divine, Intermediary agent etc.

Imam Ghazali;- “With regard to sense-perception says; it made him very hesitant to accept the infallibility of reason. He believed in the testimony of sense till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason. Well, perhaps there is above reason another judge who; if appeared, would convict reason of falsity and if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent it does not follow that he does not exist.”

When Imam Ghazali could not reconcile the philosophical dispensations with the Divine wisdom, (Obviously there is no comparison between the two; one represents the mundaneness, while the other, word of the Divine) he turned to Sufism.

In quantum physics (Double-Slit) experiment, our act of observing something seems to change what’s observed – we are ourselves part of the experiment. Is this the ultimate problem of self-reference, one that suggests a limit to how much we can ever reason about—our surroundings—the universe?

 Role of the religion, therefore, becomes inevitable; for it presents us with flawless and absolute truth; which is perceptually-authoritative and practically valid, engendering “Taqwa”. [Innate reverential-fear (Awe) of Allah (SWT). Distinct from the usual fear of other (agencies)]

An incisive consideration and pondering, on just two of the aspects of the divine religion: 1) Belief in the hereafter. 2) The contentment would vouch for and warrant religion’s inevitability.

Belief in the hereafter is often considered a conceptual absurdity and theological fallacy hence rejected by the non-believers. Belief in the hereafter, however, is the source of immitigable hope and equity, which no atheistic belief/doctrine/philosophy may even, conceives to offer. Unbelief in the hereafter renders one scuttled of many realities. Such as; ultimate-reality; ultimate-hope; ultimate-triumph, and ultimate-Justice. One, without the belief in the hereafter, is like, latching onto the event-horizon of a black hole of hopelessness and despair. The statistics, available on depression/hopelessness resulting in suicide and homicide, is a vindication of this fact. Conversely, in the overwhelmingly religious affluent Middle East, there are hardly any such issues, hence NO mental hospitals needed.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/scuttling-the-mental-capacity/

Contentment is a huge blessing for a rational being. When someone (even a non-believer) is suffering; no relief in sight; distressed/desperate, resorts back to God, is blessed with His mercy. (Q, 27:62) Overwhelmed with gratitude, he takes a sigh of relief and the most joyous sense of contentment sets in. (One’s resorting back to God while distressed, means un-recalcitrant-submission; invigorating the innate impulses; meeting the pre-requisites; of belief in Him, His injunctions, including the belief in the hereafter).

Is He [not best] who responds to the distressed/desperate one when he calls upon Him and removes evil and makes you inheritors of the earth?” (Q, 27:62)

Fasting in the month of Ramadan from dawn to dusk is a fine practical example of it; whereby one is patiently content (nafs-al-mutmai’nna) all day long, hoping the accrual of the temporal and divinely rewards at the end of the day.

Faculties of thinking and the exercise of Free-will (choice) are also signs of deficiency on the part of the creation. Allah does not think but intends; for He is omnipotent; causer of both, the cause and the effect. Nothing wrong/bad may emanate from His essence (Q, 48:23); but from His schematic creational activities, such as the creation of rational beings inseminated with good and bad. Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, “Be,” and it is” (Q, 16:40)   On the other hand; when rational beings would exercise the option of intention; in the similar fashion; (without thinking and deliberations) it is bound to be fraught with pitfalls, for rational beings are created with an existential amiss.

Imagination is of non-local (metaphysical/spiritual) origin; for it traverses both, the local and non-local domain. Therefore, those who accuse believers of worshipping an “imaginary God” are, unwittingly, admitting this reality. God inculcated, in the constitution of the rational beings, two-pronged sense of imagination (topical and non-topical); a schematic molding, hence the relevance and necessity of Divine and Divine religion becomes inevitable. God does not think but “Wills” whereas man’s will (choice) subsists in God’s will whereby He equilibrates it with the elements of hope and fear, (existential amiss) rendering it rationally operative. (Q, 17:57)

People need religion because it is the blueprint for the functioning of the “Soul” in the temporal realm. Voltaire, an archpriest of rationalism, alludes to this inevitability in a mundanely best possible way: “Man would have to invent God, even if He does not exist”

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/?s=inevitable+God

Religious Truth is multifaceted. It is comprised of science, logic, philosophy, history, ethics, and experience all mixed together. It is, in a sense, a different kind of knowing, not ignorant of the other kinds of truths (known and yet to be known), asserting the inevitability of the religion.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/scientific-elaboration-of-surah-at-tin-fig-95-verse-4/

 (Hadith) Every child is born on Nature— (his natural disposition/course. Resorting back to/linking with the Creator)

“It is asserted here that fitrah is the essential condition and state of existence in which God fashioned mankind; with innate impulses/urges including the sense of good and bad; fear and safety; pain and relief; cognition of God; submission, transgression and arrogance etc. (existential amiss–Imperfection, tendency/choice to swerve). It is present in the very essence of the creation and is inextricably kneaded into the very substance of the “rational beings” (Q) which is acutely elicited in the following verse.

 

إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الاٌّمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الإِنْسَـنُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ
نَظَلُوماً جَهُولاً –

 “We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed ignorant  and foolish” (Q, 33:72)

 

Ordinary beings, given their basic knowledge of the religious fundamentals, are tested for their weaknesses (existential amiss). The window of forgiveness is wide open for them; even if they have a mountain of mistakes/sins on their back; as long as they keep seeking forgiveness with utmost sincerity and a commitment not to repeat the same. (There is no numerical or time limitation)  This is an esoteric expression of the unbounded mercy of the Creator; for the people of knowledge and intellect who understand.

Men of knowledge (Aalim/Scholar), given the higher degree of knowledge, are tested for the equitable dissemination of the knowledge while acting upon it themselves as is due. Their test becomes harder and their failure attracts equally harsher punishment, for they are given the knowledge as the inheritors of the Prophet (PBUH).

Prophets; given the highest degree of knowledge and the duty of disseminating the message entrusted to them, often face the hardest of the tests for their perseverance, firmness, devotion and endurance instead. They are immunized of the mundanity (existential amiss) to a large extent due to their highest station/status. (Protected from major sins—Asmah/Masoom); which keeps them even from minor sins but some rare slips. (Q, 4:31)

“If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden, We will remove from you your lesser sins and admit you to a noble entrance [into Paradise]” [Q, 4:31]

Hadith: when a companion asked the Prophet, despite being a Prophet of Allah why do you always keep asking for His forgiveness? He replied; “for any moment passed without His remembrance” This emphasizes the point that one, regardless of his station, should never be oblivious of the innate existential amiss and always keep asking for His forgiveness.

“Cause and effect” is a phenomenon of the sequential morphing of things/ideas in the space-time spectrum. It, however, can’t continue ad-infinitum. It also cannot fully transcend back into the metaphysical/spiritual realm. Therefore, becomes unhitched, regressive, and even ineffective. ‘Ex Nahilo’ is an outright negation of temporal phenomenon of “causality”. God (SWT); the very first (primal) cause, therefore, is the sole cause/causer of the Universe. (Creational activity in the space-time realm is known as “Khulq/Takhleeq” )

“When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is” (Q, 2:117)

In the absence of space-time spectrum, there is but an intention/will (ordinance {Amar}), of the primal cause, for the matter/idea to come into being. In the metaphysical/spiritual realm, contrary to the physical realm, no material/tangible cause has to exist to produce a material/tangible effect. Divine causality, therefore, is inimitable by the rational beings in the space-time spectrum. (Creational activity in the absence of space-time spectrum is known as “Takween”)

 Temporal causality vs. Divine causality

Here are vivid differences.

In temporal causality, a causer may activate the cause but may not have the capability to determine the effect. He would also not have the capability to alter the effect (outcome) of a cause. A rational being may be dealing with a clear cause or INUS (insufficient but non-redundant parts of conditions; which in itself unnecessary, but sufficient for the occurrence of the effects). This distinction would not exist in the Divine causality.

In Divine causality, The Causer of the cause and effect is the same. The Causer is omnipotent to alter/determine the effect(s) as He wills. The Causer is also competent to produce an effect without cause (Ex-Nahilo). The Causer may pre-determine effects or causes in multiple, and then afford the medium (sentient beings) the application of Free-will (Choice) to commensurate effect(s).

“And when We would intend to destroy a township We had sent a commandment (warning) to its people of authority leading easy lives; who yet disobeyed and transgressed; so as a result of our Judgment passed, We annihilated it with complete annihilation” (Q, 17:16)

Note:- (Ghazali’s views on causality, read: http://www.ghazali.org/articles/gz-aylon2.pdf)

Morality, mortified by the psychology of innate fear, sprouts from the Divine religious injunctions. Although it lays the ground-rules for this word, the effects also transcend to the next.

Morality, based on reward and punishment, (retribution) works wonderfully due to the psychology of “innate-fear” of being monitored unimpeded and continuously by the “Invisible”. Religion (Islam) “submission” was enacted simultaneous to the Creation (forbidding Adam and Eve from eating the fruit) and the punishment for its violation was established by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Heavens. Satan (Lucifer) was also expelled for his disobedience due to his avarice and pride. They were not simply expelled but with specifically (and schematically) mandated rights, roles, and responsibilities; which, in specifically Islamic parlance could be called “Sharia’a” and in everyday parlance “Morality”.

Ethicality is developed by the rational beings, in the light of their past collective experiences. It regulates the immediate, contemporary cultural, societal or communal behavior. It is limited to temporality in scope, optional in its practicality; often floutingly by-passed without compunction. Needless to say that, the resourcefulness of Morality is unsurpassable by the man-made ethicality.

Ethics (Laws) are devised by the people for a community, society or culture; monitoring whereof is also done by people (an agency) employed for the purpose. The compliance would simply depend on either one’s call of the conscience or the fear of being caught by the monitoring agent. The physical absence of the monitoring agency would offer all kind of inducements to flout, as it cannot be established and no penalty would ensue.  This is the weakest aspect of the man-made ethicality.

A distinct difference between Divine law and the man-made law is that Divine Law compassionately seeks avenues to forgive while the man-made law is hell-bent on seeking evidence to punish.

Those who envisage morality, without religion, in fact, misconstrue ethics as morality.

After all, man is created with an existential amiss.

 Innate Fear, Psychology of fear is employed by the Divine to elicit the compliance of the religious injunctions without the presence of a physical watchdog.

  • An infant, when made to hold a bar, would continue clinging to it due to the innate fear of fall and hurt until made to feel safe to let it go.
  • In a situation of distress, “heightened state of fear/anxiety” (even in the case of a non-believer) all boundaries and impediments are dismantled; a connection between the Lord and the distressed-servant is immediately activated, and the call of the distressed is heard by the Almighty. (Q, 27:62)

Innate-fear, therefore, is not just a predicate of punishment, as often complained, but also that of an “SOS” signal, in the situation of distress.   

shakir2.wordpress.com

Topics covered:- Logic, reason, pristine reason, common sense, causality, Temporal/Divine causality, revelation, Divine wisdom, Inevitability of religion, Non Human Messenger, Gazali’s falsity of reason, imagination, Imaginary God, belief in the hereafter, Contentment, Voltaire’s rationalism, Fitrah, khulq/takween, Ordinary,/ scholar/ prophet, Psychology of Innate fear, Morality, Ethics and  The-Distressed.

Advertisements

May GOD be dispensed with ?

November 25, 2015

BThree Faiths One God compos

The idea of Supreme-Being suggests a continuum of non local intelligence, permeating space and time. This is however, in contrast with Newtonian view of a perceptive tissues locked inside the skull. The mystical scriptures of religions express the idea of a single underlying reality embodied in a Supreme Being (GOD), the absolute self. We however, delude ourselves with the thought that we know much about the science and materiality and so overestimate material (in the sense of physical/evidentiary/empirical) causation and believe that it alone can affords us a true explanation of life. Materiality, on the other hand, is as inscrutable as non-materiality. As to the ultimate thing we can know nothing, and only when we admit this, do we return to state of sensibility. Nature will reveal anything we are capable enough to handle and clever enough to seek sincerely. From materialistic point of view, the life is supernatural and from life’s point of view, mind’s realm is supernatural. Higher in these invariably permeates and influences the lower as if to perpetrate a miraculous—Divine–intervention. A Divine Order and command over the universe of matter, life and mind. Acknowledging this Order is EXACTLY the faith in UNSEEN.

 

The idea of world as an organism has been called “Gaia Hypothesis”—named after mythical Greek goddess of earth. Mass consciousness effects suggest that there is a mind of Gaia. Individual neurons in a brain would find it hard to believe, that they are participating in a complex dance called “mass consciousness”, which affects the mind of Gaia. Similarly individuals participating, through life activities, in a complex dance affect the mind of God. God affirmed this in Qura’an, “I am what My slaves perceive/imagine Me as”

 

Evidence of Existence of God

There is a small segment of society which not only disbelieves in God but refutes Him too. Some go to the extent of, I guess out of spite, declaring His non existence. In this treatise therefore, a wide range of avenues are explored to reach a tenable proclamation justifying His existence for, an overwhelming majority of human-race, one way or other believes in God.

 

Traditional theosophy presents three well recognized modes/arguments for God’s existence.

 

1) Cosmological   2) Teleological   3) Ontological

 

  • Cosmological-a

Dependent character of the universe argument concludes that a necessary, self subsistent, being must exist. Reason being that everything that moves in the universe needs a mover. Every effect needs a cause—there exists a chain of observable causes at the end of which has to be a–principal–unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, by necessity–In absence whereof this universe would have been reduced to inexplicable and unintelligible.

 

              Cosmological-b

Existence of physical/material universe; logically demands for a being, which is not just possible but “Necessary” to provide a ground and basis for its being—-That necessary being is God. (Contingency Doctrine)

 

First cosmological argument establishes that chronologically God pre-existed the universe as its “efficient Cause” Second argument established that God is Logically-prior reason of which universe is a “consequent” (popular philosophical arguments)

 

Both arguments put together compel us to acknowledge the God’s existence.

                   2) Teleological

Teleological argument or the design argument lays emphasis on Order, Harmony leading to Beauty and then moving onto Meaning and Purpose in creation. This sequential inter-dependent order in the creation demands of a conscious and intelligent being whose thoughts are being actualized with such a fine perfection.

 

Alternatively, if forms are analyzed from graduated or hierarchical scale of excellence, it would also demand a highest form/degree of perfection on the top to permeate to lesser degrees/forms to exist. Since everything is caused by the First cause, it must be par excellence (immaterial & uncaused).

 

 

        3) Ontological

Ontological argument proves the existence of God from the very basis of “perfection”

Since non existence is a sort of imperfection, therefore the “perfect Being—God” must necessarily exist.

 

Few more avenues are explored, which unwaveringly, leading to God’s Existence.

                           

                   

                    4) Law of causality

Universe was created in time. Time therefore, was created before the universe. The law of causality demands that what is created must, by necessity, have its Cause/Creator.

In Islamic parlance creation of time is crucial. It bifurcate the process in different categories. TAKWEEN (before the creation of time) –All the rules, physical, metaphysical were set and documented in Sacred Preserved Tablet (with God). This mode of Creation is sparingly used.  CREATION (after the creation of time)—this mode is continuous.

 

  •             5) Principle of Determination

Prior to the existence of the universe it was equally possible that it started existing (in the mind of its Creator-as “thought”) as Non-Entity. God being it’s determining principle—with respect to when to actualize it into form and with what governing rules.

 

  •                6) Priori Knowledge of God

I would consider belief in God as priori, and non empirical idea. Because I think experience here refers to the idea of measurement, and so the capacity of meditation as posteriori source, dependents on the idea that consciousness acts as a receptacle for information that cannot be taken in with any form through the senses—which is a priori claim. Therefore necessarily the proposition of God coming from mind must be founded on priori and non empirical statement. (Some may argue, this is true of all knowledge. maybe. But the case is more direct here).

  •                   7) Posteriori knowledge of God

Existence of God, I have had one of those experiences, which could also be classified as “God feelings” instead of knowledge of existence of God. (Depending on how the knowledge of “God” is defined) In any case, I think the term “Belief” is more appropriate here than the “knowledge” if we accept this, then this is a straightforward example of a posteriori belief. The belief has been predicated upon the experience. We can keep the term knowledge if we simplify the initial claim to be knowledge of profound and ineffable spiritual feelings rather than knowledge of the existence of God. The latter is a little dodgy, but no one will deny that the former constitute truly valid knowledge, albeit of the subjective kind. So here too we have a posteriori, in this case posteriori knowledge of spiritual experience. No one knows what the spiritual experience truly is until,–one experiences it—a clear cut example of a posteriori knowledge.

 

 

  •                             8) Public (reasoning) Justification for knowledge of God

Existence of God could also be demonstrated through public (reasoning for cognition of the knowledge of God). The justification will be presented on the lines of established “CONSENT   THEORIES” of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; who developed “Consent theories of legitimacy”, but these three theorists seemed to oscillate between an empirical standard of consent and something deeper, a normative standard of consent. On the empirical account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God which an individual experiences and actually believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on a consistent basis) cementing further his conviction for the knowledge (existence) of God. On the normative account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God Which an individual experiences and ideally believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on consistent basis) Cementing further his conviction for the Knowledge (existence) of God. In the latter case, they sometimes speak of hypothetical consent (For familial or community reasons) One reason these theorists may have had for transitioning from actual to hypothetical consent is that they hoped to identify a rational justification of a “religious order” consequent upon “knowledge of existence of God” which, in the absence of an absolute and all encompassing acceptance by any given community, is hoped to enjoy widespread support within the relevant community — imagining public possessing superior information and cognitive abilities (delineated above) despite their diverse interests and reasons, still have conviction to comply with revealed knowledge of God even if this adherence did not permit them to act as they would like to.

 

(Note: The mechanism of “CONSENT THEORY” developed by the named scholars has been adapted and applied to religious institution–consequent upon Knowledge of God—instead-Author).

 

 

  •                                    9) Empirical evidence

Evidence——Everything is evidence which the historian can use as evidence. But what can he so use? It must be something here and now perceptible  empirical connotation that ‘reason to believe’ lacks: it sounds more natural, at least to some ears, to describe a priori philosophical considerations as reasons to believe some philosophical thesis.

               

Charles Sanders Peirce—Mixed empiricism and rationalism.

 

Whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently present in sense.

Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today’s empirical scientific method Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes’ peculiar brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism under the “data-driven” strict-empiricist view.

 

As a result of greater familiarity with scientific and empirical deduction, the human mind tends naturally to shy away somewhat from purely intellectual deduction, particularly if the matter under investigation is non-material and insensible

 

Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception. One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one’s thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. This alienation, this distance from non-sensory matters, this extraordinary trust in the data yielded by the empirical sciences, reaches such a point that testing and experimentation forms the whole mental structure and world view of such specialists. They regard experimentation as the only acceptable tool and means of cognition, as the sole criterion. They expect it to solve every problem.

The function of the sciences is to explain the relationships between phenomena; their aim is to establish the connection between events, not between God and events. In the experimental sciences, man is not at all concerned with God. One should not expect to be able to perceive supra-sensory realities by means of sensory criteria, or to see God in a laboratory. The sciences cannot carry out a laboratory experiment on the existence of God and then reach the verdict that if a thing is not physically observable and it cannot be established by means of laboratory experiment and mathematical calculation, it does not exist.

 

                      10) Denying God, Denying Reality

Does God exist? This is the question being constantly raised by Atheist. The question is often put forward in different guises but the premise is always the same; does God exist and what evidence (PROOF) is there to support this belief? In fact, I would argue that we don’t need any evidence of His existence. So the question itself needs debating.  It shouldn’t actually be “does God exist?”, but rather “what reasons do you have to reject His existence?”

God is an axiomatic belief. In other words, God’s existence is self-evidently true. In the language of philosophy it is also known as “Basic-Belief”. The idea of self-evident truths is accepted by all. Take science for example: science takes the world’s reality as a self-evident truth; it believes that the world is real. In other words, the physical world is separate and external from our minds and our thoughts.

An Innate Belief: Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer.  For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God’s existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island. Self-evident truths do not have to be universal: Self-evident truths, basic beliefs or axioms can be individualized and do not have to have universal appeal.

 

 

  •                                          11) Principle of Oneness

There are two kinds of Oneness we are conversant with (a) Number one and also (b) reference to characteristic of Simplicity.  In the first case it applies to the worldly objects as well as to God, whereas in the later it applies ONLY to God; since any singularity (oneness) referred to, other than that of God, would be composite until reduced to an absolute singular.  It could, therefore, logically be argued that that “ONENESS” is inevitable for the creation of the universe. Hence that inevitably indivisible ONENESS is GOD.

 

There are numerous Muslims scholars who have expounded on the subject. Few most prominent ones are; Al kindi, Ibn Tufail, Ibn Sina, Abu Rushd, and Farabi..

 

Abu Rushd was an eminent Spanish Muslim scholar known in the West as (Averroes) mostly for his Islamic-legal work, He also tried to establish the belief in the existence of God and His attributes, through Qura’anic approach, by presenting various point of views within Islam. Few are presented here in brief.

 

Asha’rites.

Thought God is known through reason. Abu Rushd agreed but did not agree with their dialectical approach rather than philosophical. Asha’rites based this on several presuppositions. —world is temporal, bodies are composite of atoms, God neither eternal nor temporal and so on.

 

 

According to Abu Rushd

Qura’an recommends two rational philosophical ways to God.

 

Teleologicalthrough proof of providence everything in the universe has been created for the benefit and service to human being. Therefore the way universe has been organized and planned necessitates that there be a willful planner/designer of this universe, with a purpose of service to human being. That designer/planner is God.

 

CosmologicalThrough proof of Creation If something comes to life out of nothing or something lifeless is endowed with life suddenly that would necessitate a Creator i.e God.

 

Sufi, on the other hand, hold that mystical experience is the only method through which God can be recognized. This experience however, needs an extensive exercise in self discipline for its eventualization. It also draws heavily on the grace of almighty God. Thus it becomes the prerogatives of the selected few. Qura’an being the book of guidance for all would not therefore, recommend Sufi way for the understanding of divine existence in general.

 

 

The belief in God is universal: In spite of the number of atheists in the world, the belief in God is universal. A universal belief does not mean every single person on the planet must believe in it. A cross cultural consensus is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that God’s existence is a universal claim. Evidently there are more theists than atheists in the world, and this has always been the case from the beginning of recorded history and most likely will always be.

 

Atheistic fallacy proven by Godel’s incompleteness theorem

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed. Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally to everything, to all branches of science, logic, math, language, philosophy and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies.In fact, the exact opposite is true. One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
  • It cannot be PROVED that gravity will always be consistent at all times. It can only be observed that it’s consistently true every time. It cannot be proved that the universe is rational. It can only be observed that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does. It also can’t be proved that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either. It literally has to be taken on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that could not be scientifically proven. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, but only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
  • Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe.(If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too) There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but can not prove) will give you the right answer every time.)
  • The universe(all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it. If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information,some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial
  • The information appears to have come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
  • All codes we know the origin of are designedby conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
  • In breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design and exploring the question of origin of information in depth, we add the information to the equation, we therefore conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite, immaterial but also conscious.
  • Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
  • So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
  • The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
  • That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
  • Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
  • Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved
  • Godels two theorem acknowledges another concept of “Dualism” in the Creation. It is confirmed in Qura’an that everything has been created in pairs Even Muslim Article of faith starts by confirming this concept—“There is God but no god” Likewise matter and anti matter, However since matter is fractionally more than the anti-matter, therefore pervades.(adapted by the author as addendum to Godel’s theorem).
  • No time in the history of mankind has faith in “God” been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
  • Assumption to the contrary?

The mainstream secularization thesis states that as societies become more modernized, the authority and influence of religious beliefs and institutions will eventually disappear from public life and will only be relevant to individuals on a private level, if at all. As William Swatos, Jr and Kevin Christiano (2) argue.* (adapted as addendum to the Godel’s theore by the author)

Conclusion

Faith in the “unseen” is man’s conviction that there is an order of existence beyond the visible order which we confront here and now, a metaphysical, supernatural order that is seriously to be reckoned with.

Qura’an recognizes iman bil ghaib (Faith in the Unseen) as the source and ground of man’s conviction in the Ultimate Existence. In order to achieve the awareness of metaphysical realities Faith in the Unseen must preside over all recognized sources of knowledge although they are relevant in their own ways and capacities.

Mystics, as a consequence of their efforts towards the purification of soul and concentration on the Might and Majesty of God achieve an “I- Thou” encounter with Him. This is living assurance of His existence leaving absolutely no room for doubt or misgiving. This “I-Thou” experience becomes objectivized  “I” subsumes “Thou” and “Thou”— Yazid Bastami (famous mystic)  declares— “I am the Reality”  Since God sys  “I become his (the seeker’s) hearing, his seeing, his hands, his feet—so much so whatever he does, does through me. ( Hadith Qudsi)


%d bloggers like this: