Logical Problem of God : Paradox of Free Will

Also known as argument from free will or theological fatalism, or what I would like to call “the pointless life problem”, this conundrum is one that I should think many people undergo through a particularly vexing period of life called the existential crisis, and specifically to those who has belief in God. I myself am still grappling with the problem and trying to find the solution to this problem, of which hitherto I’m still not able to figure out. I’ve formulated this paradox as such :

1. God is omniscient, that is, knowing of all things that were, are and will be.
2. God created everything.
3. Logically from this, it follows that everything is pre-determined from God’s all-encompassing knowledge.
4. The question of destiny to hell or to heaven is then, pointless.
5. Life is then all a pointless exercise.

It is a problem because if we grant the proposition that God is omniscient, then everything must assent to that pre-set (and infinite) knowledge of God, and necessarily all of life is determined. I mean, that’s the reason why it’s called the paradox of free will, because free will is incompatible with the idea of omniscience.

It may be argued that God can dictate our course as we meander through our journey of life, but I’d argue that that change itself is necessarily included within the all-encompassing knowledge that God possesses, which means that nothing’s really change – it could not be, for otherwise God is not omniscient because he didn’t foresee the alteration that God Himself made of our voyage towards destiny. Let’s say that we are riding along a highway. Now, let’s say that one of two things may take place : either we return home unscathed or we will be involved in a life-changing car crash. So, can God determine which event will occur? In my eyes, if we were to accept God’s omniscience and omnipotence (of course), then this question is completely nullified because there will be no change, and that is because there can be no change. Whether I’m about to be thrown into which timeline is necessarily determined. Everything’s preordained and predetermined by God’s boundless knowledge. It has to be, right? So, there’s no redirection of any sort because God necessarily knows what is God going to change in the future, as that is also contained within God’s knowledge. This paradox negates one of the central ideas of a religion or of life, that is, as a means to hereafter because it eliminates free will, that is, our ability for choices in life which will entirely affect our destiny. If free will is invalidated; then the idea of destiny, heaven, and hell will be problematic owing to the contradictory nature of omniscience and free will.

Some might propose a thought experiment to refute my point with regards to choice. Let’s say, we create a robot. That robot can only perform tasks which will produce result that is either A, B, C, or D. If I’m the creator, it is within my knowledge about which outcome will eventually transpire. So, I have complete knowledge of every possible permutation. People parallel this to God. However here’s the problem, it’s not about knowing what can happen, it’s about what will happen. If I know what the outcome of the robot’s task will be, then I have necessarily preconditioned it in such a way that it will come out in a certain way.that’s owing to the fact that I know for sure what will happen, and not what can happen. In other words, the robot does not have any choice, and this, I parallel to human destiny. If I don’t know what will happen, then, I do not possess omniscience. So if God created everything and God knows ahead of time everything that’s ever going to rise, fall, shatter, form, bloom, die in the future; well then, that means that choice is absent and everything is determined, like clockwork. For this reason, I do not think that this thought experiment works.

In some way, I think the logical argument is kind of flawed but the error isn’t in the premises and/or conclusion themselves, as I think that they are perfectly logical. The problem here is that I tried to apply logical reasoning to criticise an aspect of God, and since God, if we go by the standard definition, is outside of existence as we know it, then logic no longer works. I know that might seem like a cop out, or an escape argument, but that’s the only kind of blunder I can think of. I also understand that the universal clearest method by which we appraise and evaluate God and God’s attributes is by logical reasoning, but I tried to apply logical reasoning, which has its foundation in this existence, to something that is outside of this existence, so to speak; so that is problematic because it wouldn’t work.

Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

Hostility Flows Across The Sky

        It is of no popular belief that any kind of bigotry is repugnant. Whilst disagreements may stem from this variance of belief, culture or philosophy, it is outright wrong to be intolerant to people different from our own standpoints, be it in cases where the justification is quite solid. I’m certainly not implying that cultural relativism is the way to live and breathe, but diversity amongst human life is something that we should learn from and take notice at. Our lives become meaningful the moment diversity reigns but it must be in the midst of an understanding and harmonious society. Differences are what endow meaning to our lives, because otherwise the interactions between dissimilar worldviews, cultures and human beings wouldn’t take place and there would be nothing we would learn, fight for, live for and enjoy for.

        For the simple reason that differences beget meaning throughout the course of everyone’s life, really, I can’t simply comprehend the nature of hostility towards others of different cultural, religious, societal backgrounds ; incomes, jobs, family, interests and all of the other aspects of a human being. For what other reason have you to harbor hate against another human being if not for his/her vice? You are able to see this kind of inhospitality and it shatters ubiquitously across the walls of the worlds. In Islam, there exists sectarian segregation between the two denominations, Sunni and Shia, which are in constant dispute, at least in Malaysia where I live. In Malaysia, still, I’ve witnessed horrendous attitudes towards people of different ethnicity just because of that aspect. Malays, Chinese, Indians throw diatribes at each other while forgetting the basis for a good life. You are still able to see racial disharmony and how some races execrate others without basis and just end up fueling the flames of discrimination. Just why? Why would anyone hate people just because they are different? Aren’t we all longing and yearning for world peace?

It’s fine if there are disagreements between sects or races, and I ought to think that many people would consider this problem a rather no-brainer, but it’s staggering to think that that kind of hostility which flows across the sky that which our civilizations live under. Pluralism is good in a sense that information about one’s culture, religion, society gets transferred across others and in that process, dialogues which crosses all imaginary and concrete boundaries take place. Isn’t life so much more beautiful that way?

The Great Art of Balance

In one salubrious evening, I rested my head on a rusty tilted low metal table (it resembled a table, I don’t exactly know what it was), averted my eyes from the earth and gazing into the mellow blue sky. In a period of about 15-30 minutes of fairly intensified but unruffled thinking, I have conceived an idea about nature, that is, Balance (the capital B is crucial) and how it’s seated on the throne of life. Now, as uninspired and cliched as that may look, being blessed with the chance of perceiving an imperative idea as a result of one’s rumination, rather than a read, is much more beneficial as I can pierce a little bit into it. Balance, especially in nature, evokes great admiration and it is the very fundamental part of life, as I think of it.

Balance, in a superficial purview, is a state of two or more things in harmony. For example, the balance between your time to work and your time with family. The balance of objects’ weights on scales. The balance of your savings and expenditure. To go deeper, symbiosis of animals and their continual reciprocal actions on other living things such as trees and fruits among other things is also an example of balance. These are all perfectly legitimate examples of what balance is, but probing deeper, balance can be discerned and appreciated thoroughly in many other essential processes of life. To me, balance seems to be the ideal state of existence, rather than a perfect utopian, flawless and unblemished life. No societal issues, no crime and no conflicts; I regard that as a erroneous mode of thinking. The arrival of conflicts, clashing interests, wicked wrongdoings are definitely not the things that I endorse, but their existence is necessary to “battle out” with the kindness, pleasures and good forces that dwell in our society. It may seem odd that I suggest such ideas, but when I really think about it, it’s quite logical.

Again, bear in mind that I advocate no iniquity, but rather my point being that this dualistic nature of human life; that is the subsistence of both good and evil is as close to perfection that we can attain. If we are constantly fed and catered with good things, then eventually we will drift into a state of naiveness and perilous tranquility, for somebody will seize the chance to act upon our state of carelessness. Evilness exists and thrive off goodness. When we trust unwarily, there will be a point in time where we’ll be deceived. When we act too gentle or too nice, our head will be stepped upon. It’s just the way things work. While those images may not beget pleasure in our souls, the concreteness of reality shall make us realize that pleasure and beauty are not always on the top.

As aforementioned, to my eyes, the state of perfection is one where persistent offsetting of various elements occur. That means that the “good” force and the “evil” force are countervailing each other incessantly

Probably, to the knowledge of everyone, the concept of yin yang illustrates the duality at which all of life hinges upon; complementary contrasting things that beget harmony and are in constant need of each other. Commonplace examples include male and female, light and dark, sadness and happiness, etc. Albeit we have an inbuilt hatred for “negative forces” such as loathsome crimes and dejecting events, that very hatred is the basis for the continuing effect of rising and falling as human beings. It seems paradoxical; no humans have any desire for wickedness to exist at all, but it’s because of this intrinsic hatred for wrongdoings and their recurrence that advancements can be achieved, whether materially or immaterially.

Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

Upon Returning : Philosophical Scrutinising of the TAG Argument

I have, upon returning, fresher and greener thought processes than before. May be minuscule, but it’s an increment nonetheless. Laziness, a rather prevalent trait of mine, has cumbered me in writing/typing any more posts, but I shall overcome it for I have a somewhat interesting argument for the existence of God. I’m all for the existence of God, albeit a nebulous and a non-superficial one is may what I perceive as God. Anyway…

Some time ago (recently as in this year or late last year, I should think), I stumbled across this argument called the TAG argument, an abbreviation for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. As I recall, I watched five videos, each video comprising about 10 minutes of discussion between two gentlemen, Matt Slick (the originator of the TAG argument) and Matt Dillahunty. I highly suggest people watch these videos and attempt to generate a logical conclusion of your own concerning this argument. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I disagree with this argument, failing to see the heart of the argument as being valid or strong. I derive a lot of my disagreements from Matt Dillahunty, however. To people who see this argument as outlandish, I should prefer checking it up, as I have neither to articulacy nor the time(or actually the desire) to properly represent this argument, so go to this website | carm.org/transcendental-argument | and you should imbibe the information yourself, and no travesty shall occur.

Basically, TAG takes this form : Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.  They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.  Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute.  But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.  This mind is called God.  Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview. — The actual structured and articulated argument is much longer and is sectioned (9 segments) with clarity.

My (short?) scrutinisation may lean towards a refutation, but let’s take a gander anyway. Our journey shall be akin to taking steps upon stairs; one-by-one we engage in this argument (although if nothing of importance is to be said, or no objections are to be raised, I shall leave it be).

Segment 1 – Logical Absolutes

— This segment simply lays out what the logical absolutes are: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. No comment on this one.

Segment 2 – Logical Absolutes are truth statements such as…

— He outlined several types: That which exists has attribute and a nature, e.g. a cloud having the attributes of whiteness, vapour and the nature of water and air. That which is not self-contradictory. That which is not subjective and with no predilection is involved; hence, logical “absolutes”. Certainly no objections here.

Segment 3 – Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourses

— This segment explains several things, those being that the logical absolutes must be absolute, or else no rational discourse could take place, for the purpose of those discourses are to find objective truth, otherwise nonsensical should we perceive the logical absolutes as contingent. The logical absolutes are absolute, because should we assume they aren’t, then the truth cannot be known or error cannot be identified since that which governs what we concur as true is not objective. Again, I have nothing to object to.

Segment 4 – Logical Absolutes are Transcendant

— What this means is that the logical absolutes escape the capture of time, the seizure of space or the webbing thoughts of humankind. A million years ago, the logical absolutes wouldn’t be remotely different. A million light years across the universe, and the logical absolutes will exhibit no change. In fact, they do not ever alter their nature, because their essence is that they have no variance depending upon space, time or human thoughts. Their verity is invariably indubitable. I have to say, again, nothing is to be raised.

Segment 5 – The Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world

— This segment is inextricably linked with the previous one, since it elucidates the nature of the logical absolutes. Howsoever, the next point also does the same thing, so who am I to complain. This segment clarifies that the logical absolutes are not found in material objects, or that which exist in the material world, are incalculable, are not the products of any material/physical existence. In other words, they are semi-notional, as I apprehend it. Since they aren’t dependent on the physical world, should the universe cease to exist, the logical absolutes would abide by its nature and still dwell in their realm; meaning that A=A would be true forever (I’m aware of this inapposite word, but I think you’d catch my drift). The only thing that should happen is that they are no longer effectuated in this universe. The conditions of the universe don’t, in any way, shape or form, impinge on the intrinsic properties of them. He concluded by saying the aforementioned title of this segment.

Segment 6 – The Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature

— This is the segment which is inharmonious with my lines of reasoning upon this matter. Hitherto, the segments have not been, as I see, faulty or wonky. But it seems to me that it has a glitch here to bug me. It started by saying that logic is the process of the mind, which I agree with. He then continued by saying that Logical Absolutes provide the framework by which deduce truth or infer prospects, which is true, also. This next statement, however, sort of wreaked havoc to the splendiferously guarded trains of thoughts: ” Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things. ” All is fine up until this very point. The Logical Absolutes are not conceptual, because “conceptual” signifies that it is a concept, that is, a creation of the human mind. Since patently, logical frameworks are subject to the logical absolutes, and the Logical Absolutes can be without the presence of a mind. The logical absolutes are not conceptual, but rather, a more exact word would be “abstract”. “Conceptual” and “abstract”, I should think, are the words that incur this muddle. To say that the logical absolutes are conceptual is simply a prevarication, since it perverts the nature of the logical absolutes, that is, they are transcendent. You can’t say they are transcendent and do not depend upon the human mind but later claim that they are conceptual by nature. Things that are conceptual are so because they come from a human mind (or minds) and they are dependent upon the human mind. Concepts are created (the product of human thinking). The logical absolutes do not dabble or meddle with concepts, ideas, evaluations, etc; but rather the structure by which we identify the truth of things, including concepts. The logical absolutes are not concepts, again I reiterate, but they are abstract.

My justification shall be consolidated by this : the logical absolutes are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, which entail the structure of logic, or the method by which we judge veracity. They are Truth (a bit oversimplified statement, to be frank). These are absolute; they cannot be concepts or conceptual (concept=creation, ergo it’s contingent, or at least subjective), they had or have to be abstract and transcendent. Their subsistence is entirely independent of anything. These weren’t created, but identified. We do not create Truth, rather, we unearth it. He then presents this dichotomy: | If they are not conceptual, then what are they? We cannot deny these two states -> they are either conceptual or non-conceptual. So what are they? | He immediately proceeded by saying that how can we logically assert that the logical absolutes are not conceptual realities since logic is the process of the mind and logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the mind? ~~ Well, I already refuted the “non-conceptual” part (they’re non-conceptual, but abstract), so here’s the next refutation. Logic is the process of the mind, yes. Logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the mind, no. Our minds apprehend and become cognizant of these absolutes through statements; but that, in no way at all, indicate that they are statements in their essence. Maybe, we grasp their nature by conceptual means but their existence is not exclusive to the mind, rather, they potentially exist in the mind. They are true regardless of whether there is a mind or not. They are not the product of the mind, or any thinking for that matter. They simply are. They would exist despite our non-existence. That’s what we mean when use the world “absolute”, they depend upon nothing. The aren’t the product of anything. Everything, ever, that can possibly meet your thoughts, is subject to the logical absolutes. They are the essences of reality. The statement ” A is equal to A and A is not equal to ~A” is not dependent or the product of any thinking, it’s just the Truth. Sure, that is a statement, but the essence of this statement is still whatever it is, but certainly it’s not a contingent “concept” linked to our language. The very intrinsic nature of them defy that they are conceptual. Bluntly put. Why is this so? Is it because a greater Mind authors the rules? No (frankly, I don’t know). It’s because there could be no other way, they-just-are. If we ask why is the logical absolutes are what they are, we can either mean why as in a cause, or as in an intention for an effect ( why did it happen?). In both case, we can attain naught. The logical absolutes have no cause (or at least I think so), because causality is necessarily temporal, which would nullify the point that they are transcendent. The notion of cause and effect applies in this world; I wouldn’t know if it applies to abstract things identically or at least similarly. I say this because the logical absolutes are truths in the absolute, unequivocal, non-contingent sense; in that, they are eternal. In the case of intention, we wouldn’t know (or at least I’m oblivious to a way of knowing it) because it lies beyond the realm of experience and reason.

Ergo, if we are seeking the nature of the logical absolutes, we ought to get rectify the spurious framework in viewing the logical absolutes, such as asserting that they are conceptual, when, establishing terminological issues, it’s much more accurate and precise of us to label them as “abstract” entities.

Segment 7 – Thoughts reflect the mind

— He stated that rational minds produce rational thoughts, and irrational minds inevitably produce irrational thoughts. As a corollary; perfect, consistent, transcendent and absolute “thoughts” (obviously referring to the Logical Absolutes) logically reflect a perfect mind, that is, God. Hereby I refute this (it is to be hoped that it’s not erroneous) by “emending” the choice of word there. As is illustrated above, the word “conceptual” is an inapt word to delineate the exact nature of the logical absolutes. Nothing much different is to be argued about here; it’s that the word “thoughts” are an erroneous one to depict the logical absolutes. While they exist to us as thoughts, their pure existence is not thought-based or conceptual, but is of a metaphysical one. Hence, why I tag (heh) the logical absolutes as semi-notional.

Segment 8 – Objections answered

— Nil

Segment 9 – Only two options

— Ditto

So that’s more or less my inspection upon this TAG argument, and as to why this argument seems, to me, a bit wobbly stemming from clashing elements, imperative elements mind you, but that’s my reasoning which is perchance fallacious. Thanks for reading, and what do you think?

Is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?

The frequently reiterated phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is, upon my measly anatomization, a skewed idea. While I concur the absence of evidence doesn’t confer absolute certitude that a certain “thing” doesn’t exist, the phrase’s impact is feeble. Why? Well, here is the problems that I contend with regarding this phrase.

Evidence beget justification, and without justification, the assertion is useless. That is indicatory of the absence of something.

Every claim of knowledge which affirms an idea or a thing’s presence is either true or false. To acquire knowledge of that “idea” or “thing” require data and facts for that thing’s existence. In other words, one who postulates something ought to furnish evidence in favour of his/her idea. It’s quite weird that a person seeks evidence for the non-existence of something before someone establishes the contrary. So, questing for evidence, at least to the best of my knowledge, is corroborating a positive claim. After searching for evidence and finding absolutely nothing or at least finding insufficient evidence for a propounded “idea” or “thing”, that necessarily implies unjustified reason for believing in something. Therefore, absence of evidence is highly indicative of that thing’s non-existence. Does that guarantee that it’s non-existence in reality? No, but absolute certainty won’t be attained, ergo we must believe in something with the highest degree of certainty possible. What do we need in order to infer the existence of something? I’ve mentioned three criteria by which to determine something’s existence. It must physically manifests itself, it must affect other things, and it’s existence must be logical, or more appropriately, our inference of it’s existence must be sound and valid. Should these criteria not be present in an “idea” or a “thing”, we can, almost to the highest point of certainty, believe that the existence is invalidated.

So with this, I conclude that absence of evidence is a strong indication of evidence of absence.

Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

Reductio Ad Absurdum: One Example And Its Importance

From now on if I am to discuss philosophy or anything, I will be sure to use reductio ad absurdum, given the appropriate opportunity. Now, this shouldn’t be confused with a straw man argument, which is a fallacy. The reductio ad absurdum can actually be legitimate, as I will present here:

Student : I smoke because my friends smoke too.
Teacher: If your friends were to eat poops for a lark would you behave identically?

This is a proper application of reductio ad absurdum, as it literally reduce the student’s reason to absurdity, hence the name of the argument. Eating doo doo is at least universally or hugely locally recognized to be disease-inducing and repugnant, so this argument has that fact in its favour. If the only justification for that student’s act is his friends regarding a particular deed salutary, then he hadn’t made a conscious decision. That doesn’t make it wrong (he could follow others’ virtuous act without realization of it), but that also doesn’t make it right (above example). An external judgement is required. By that fact, his untenable position could be compared to that of one that follows others eat poopy.

What significance does this carry?

Well, not invariably, but on some occasions, teenager(s) who smoke or consume drugs without any strong reasons (are there?) are really difficult to be “cured”. Most, if not all of the time, ridiculing also fails. If you don’t believe me, find a teenage smoker or drug user and just attempt to advise him/her nicely. If that doesn’t work, dissuade him/her strongly while providing facts. If that fails too, chances are subjecting his/her acts to ridicule also doesn’t work, but just hope that affects him/her much better than using non-ridiculing arguments. Those people doesn’t give a damn about facts anymore, so you might as well make their deeds seem absurd.

Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

My Polemic: The Holy Book Argument

Here’s a vital clarification. I can guarantee no certainty in my inferences. I concede that I can possibly err, but my hope is that my arguments are substantial. I apologize in advance for any potential blunders in my conclusions. With that in mind, here’s my polemic against the “holy book argument”. You’ll see what it is, and why am I vehement about this.

I coined the term “holy book argument” myself because that’s the bluntest way (in accordance to my eyes) I am able to put it. This is an argument which intends to detract science, its methods and its attained successes by making the holy scripture(s) as its ultimate incontestable reference point. Howsoever, it quite doesn’t follow reason or science. Two cases in point:

1) Young Earth Creationism.
2) Rejection of Evolution

Now, I’ll turn off my pleasant and polite demeanor.

Young Earth Creationism or YEC is a religious belief that every single of existing things is created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period of time, about 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This evident contradiction between the modern scientific consensus and the accounts of literal interpretation of the Bible has become what I think is the second most heated disputes in the field of religion and science. Some Christians reject that the Bible alluded or explicitly mentions about the age of this earth or universe, but I’m referring to those who do. This perfectly exemplifies the act of turning the blind eye to evidences.

One of the mistakes (that ought to be quickly rectified) that some or most young earth creationists made is using the Bible as a framework for determining the conclusions of evidences. Biblical inerrancy is assumed (maybe with evidence, but my point remains) and every evidence is fitted to be apposite with said framework. That’s obviously backwards and patently absurd! You cannot assume something, then work from that assumption (unless it’s a necessary axiom). You work something out, then make an inference from that result. The proper method is going where the evidence leads. Let’s try simple mathematical logic.

Let the “Bible” be X, “evidence” be Y and “earth is young” be Z.

1. Assume X is true.
2. X mentions Z.
3. Ergo, we view Y as supporting Z.

That’s a flat out erroneous method. Why assume the Biblical claims to be true? They might be exist no verities in all of that claims! In almost the same manner, I could criticize the Qur’an too, but the Qur’an makes no allusion of the age of earth. So, just because the Bible is a “holy book”, people entirely reject all of the observed, tested and reviewed  evidence outweighing the young earth idea. Isn’t that a little daft? Okay, now, let’s not stray off. Let’s return to the logic. It is also improper of me if I assume the earth is old. I must look at the evidence, and then make an assumption, not make the assumption that the earth is old and work from there. What’s correct is this:

1. I don’t know about Z or not-Z.
2. Let’s see where Y leads.

See? That’s correct! We do not wish to do any misconceiving. That’s one strike against YEC. Another strike against YEC is the rather easy-to-grasp fact that every or most evidences point to an earth that is comparatively much older than 6,000 years old, that is around 4.54 billion years old. Any gap or small contradiction likely mean that the scientific understanding haven’t yet achieved the task of comprehending the problem, but that doesn’t change much. Now, there might be some who criticizes the reliability of all the methods in determining the age of the earth, and for that I suggest, do a reading on Wikipedia, or Rationalwiki, or Talkorigins.org or any peer-reviewed books, articles or journals concerning the subject. Any inconsistency about radiometric dating or radiocarbon dating or any other methods is likely to be addressed there, and for couch potatoes out there, just do a reading on a lot of websites. Especially Talkorigins.org and Wikipedia. I think it’s pretty reliable, but I digress. There are plenty of evidences which rebut a young earth idea (the existence of corals, the method of dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, erosions, helioseismology, ice layering etc). While there’s no certitude, the modern scientific calculations, in all likelihood, true or greatly accurate. So, that’s all I have to say about YEC.

Another one, truly contentious and an invitation to disputations and debates among religious literalists and scientists. The theory of evolution. Evolution is a process whereby species diverge and diversified. I believe it can also be referred to as descent with modifications. That’s an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains aforementioned fact. For example, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf species. The grey wolf species is ancestral to dogs, this is confirmed by DNA testing. Look it up and read. So, that is a fact. What is the underlying mechanism behind those transformations and changes?

The theory of evolution explains those mechanisms (Mutation, migration, genetic drift as mechanisms of change. How the fit and survivable species are selected by nature etc). There are evidences that bolster this theory and if you wish inquire, read it up on Wikipedia or Talkorigins.org.

So, it elucidates the processes by which life follows different lineages and different changes overtime will occur. What’s the controversial part? Well, in the identical manner wherewith species evolves, like the dogs, our species naturally coincide with the said mechanism, since we are a part of nature. Notwithstanding the flabbergasting fact that we are able to understand all of these, we inevitably fall under the same natural processes. To put in basic terms, we share a common ancestor with all of the great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas) and our species have descended from that which other apes have evolved from. This is supported by fossil, molecular biological and genetic evidences. Alright, I’m finished rambling about science, let me commence my second portion of this polemic.

Many believers (especially Muslims) object to human evolution, by reiterating that if humans did indeed evolve from earlier species, then the truth of Adam’s special creation is reduced. I would like to quote this from Shaikh Keller.

“As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to “nature,” because it negates the truth of Adam’s special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur’an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma’rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.”

I have criticisms of this. Does there exist any evidence that would prove otherwise? Could you demonstrate the falsity of evidences supporting human evolution? Why, verses in the Qur’an or the Bible mentions the creation processes which contradict that of the scientific understanding one! So, every evidence which has been rigorously tested that is pointing towards that direction is confuted by verses in a holy book. Allow me to counter-argue: Refutation by scriptural accounts of human creation does not, in any way, prove the scientific understanding wrong. How should it? Biblical or Qur’anic accounts do not diminish the credibility and veracity of scientific evidences. Appropriately, attempting to disprove scientific explanations necessarily requires a superior scientific explanation, not a non-scientific explanation. Illogicality against logicality doesn’t work. Look at the evidences in the appropriate lens and manner. Verily, the holy book argument doesn’t work. If Allah bestow upon humans the singular characteristics and aptitudes, that wouldn’t undermine evolution, that would make this grand nature more majestic then ever. If a species that is able to have consciousness, to make music, to produce arts, to understand natural laws and to influence it at a very high degree, then yeah, our species is special. Does this mean that mankind is of special origin? I do not know, nor do I claim to know anything.

I suppose that the “divine secret” within man refers to mysticism and inexplicable transcendental sensation, but that wouldn’t falsify human evolution. Are you not proud that we’ve come about by natural processes (and possibly a divine intervention) and we are a remarkable species? Man is something else, I concur to that, but to say that that’s the sole reason you reject human evolution, to me is asinine, unless you’re capable of attesting to that. Just because we don’t know how or why consciousness and mystical experiences come about (that gap), we ought to not cancel human evolution.

Another rather easy-to-grasp point is that you aren’t obligated (to me) to literally interpret the holy book(s). Adam comprised clay or sand? Talking animals? World wide flood? Logically impossible miracles? You can believe that (I do), but you don’t have to construe the holy books’ tales in a literal way, the truer my point is if there exists evidence to the contrary, regarding the possibility of the stories, of which are narrated in the holy book(s).

So this is my philosophical and/or scientific polemic against the holy book argument. Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

Evasive Argument in the Case of Religion

This is an argument in which the point of the opponent(s) is not analyzed or evaluated but rather eluding or evading it. To be frank, I don’t think people use this type of argument too much, only on rare occasions do I see them. So to be fair, this is more like me saying what type of argument that shouldn’t be used in a religious-science debate.

This argument appears beyond the boundaries of religion, but I’ll confer religion VS science debates a superior degree, to alleviate my difficulty, for I’ve experienced it. It is rather prevalent in the whole evolution of man and creation of man controversy. I can identify three types of evasion, which aren’t necessarily conjugated but are equally shirking to logically counter-argue against the opponents. Whenever I mention “they”, it means people who potentially make use of this argument.

1. The holy book is literal, inerrant and incontrovertible, full stop.

Two rather contentious questions that I may ask is, “Am I justified in believing in the holy book’s innerancy and incontestability? Should the holy book be proven true in some aspects, should I take some other passages literally or metaphorically?” Even with all the evidences pointing to evolution as being the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth(especially human evolution), they’re all repudiated by presenting the holy book and interpreting its (human [Adam]) creation processes literally. As in, Adam literally comprised clay (hydrated silicates of aluminium, and used to make bricks and pots) or soil (mixture of rocks, minerals, decaying plants and animals, plus water and air). Some may say don’t, in any circumstances, query about the truthfulness of the Qur’an. That’s another argument, but I’ll give them that. That still doesn’t mean you can’t interpret the creation process metaphorically. Why wouldn’t you? Because there are scientific explanations of our species. Maybe those explanations are wrong, but they’re the best explanations so far, notwithstanding an intervention could have occurred.

2. Imposing threats or using satanic explanations.

I’m not exactly certain if this argument is a common one, but when I see it, I cease to continue arguing. It’s pointless and impossible to argue against this one. For example, when I say ” I think the theory of evolution is likely to be true.”, they’ll retort by either saying ” You know that theory is wrong. You want an eternal punishment in hell? Do you want to defy the words of God/Allah? Do you?” or by saying ” The theory is made by unbelievers and supported by infidels! Can’t you see? All of these are Satan’s work! Look in the holy Qur’an/Bible!”. Their claims contain no disprovability, and such I must relinquish. I can’t refute the Satanic claim, and it’s unavailing for me to present evidences. The problem with this argument is that when they use it, the argument doesn’t, in any way, confute the idea or the theory of the opponents. What’s the point then? If you want to argue against science, use science. In a similar manner, if I disagree with you on the subject of soul or spirit or whatever, use religion and theological knowledge to dispute the matter. Imposing threats or using satanic explanations don’t prove anything (at least scientifically) wrong.

3. Willful ignorance.

Oh boy, this is an exasperating one. Disregarding an idea or a theory on purpose. Basically, turning a deaf ear to arguments and turning a blind eye to evidences. Some people (one whom I know) outright avoided speaking about the subject and stick to what their believe without reasonable thoughts to at least examine the subject. “Nope, I’m adhering to this holy book, I don’t want to discuss.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being neutral or acknowledging ignorance about the subject of, for example, evolution or other scientific theory, but just because you feel more comfortable with your beliefs, or doesn’t intend to inquire more on the subject, that doesn’t make you right, or doesn’t make the opponent’s idea erroneous. This kind of argument, again, doesn’t deal with the point, but instead just shunning the opponent’s arguments.

Now, I’m not saying the theory of evolution is right, and albeit I believe it’s right, that’s not to say religion is wrong. Also, evolution might be wrong, but I think it’s the best explanation so far. My intention right here is to cause awareness about this type of arguments and avoid using it (unless there are justifications) in a discussion or a debate. Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

Qualities of Material Existence

Existence has always been existence. It hasn’t differ much throughout the history of our reality, and in all likelihood, the reason remains identical. The semantics in our speech that we apply in our daily life simply don’t allow for the original referred thing to alter or change, it just adds to the complexity of the meaning of the words. Then there are philosophers or logicians who substitute statements with symbols such as A or B, and replace words like “implies” and “if and only if” with other symbols such as ⇒, → and ⊃. This is why reading some logician’s works or proofs or formulations can bemuse you, especially when it’s very long and contains many logic symbols. Reasoning seems simple enough at first glance, but well, I guess writing just takes too much time.

The core here is existence. Since there are two types of existence (material and immaterial), I ought to clarify that in this article, I’ll only be speaking of material existence. Every word and symbol revolves around “objects” that exist. We don’t invent words that which means nothing. That is because concepts can only be derived from what we perceive through our senses. Here is the question, what are the qualities of material existence? What do we mean when we say any (material) object “exists”?

1. It can be perceived via empirical senses, but have been tested.

Perhaps one of the most obvious quality is that our cognizance of it (the object) is identified by observing our senses. For example, chocolate biscuits. We can see it, feel it, taste it, hear it (cracks), smell it’s chocolate scent. Although we can only use one sense to know of it’s existence (but not necessarily it’s identity), we should always try to test or examine it so we know we’re not imagining things. Now, we shouldn’t misconstrue this as if that something isn’t perceivable by senses, that it doesn’t exist. Why? Well, it’s because…

2. It affects other objects.

If a “thing” is imperceptible or deprived of human senses, it’s too late to say that it has no place in reality. For example, gravitation. Gravitation is a natural phenomena in which physical bodies attract each other. An example of this example is the Earth. Literally everything on Earth is attracted to it’s strong gravitational pull. It is quite an impossibility for living things with eyes to visualize gravity, because our eyes aren’t sensitive to gravitons. On a similar note, magnetic fields function in pretty much the same way. It’s a force, much like gravity, and it can’t be seen. If so, then why do we intuitively believe in their (magnetic fields and gravitons) existence? Well, because of their manifest effects. Their evident potent influences become the ground for our knowledge of them. But let’s say there is an “object” which is corporeal, but too far out for mankind’s technology to even gain any information of it, and it doesn’t significantly have any impact upon any of human affairs. What then? It exists, but it seems like it doesn’t to us. Well, we must….

3. Have reason(s) or justification(s) for our belief in it.

If there is such an object, it becomes a necessity for us to have at least one justification to expound a theory or an idea which pertains to the object. We are required to fulfill this obligation for it’s unreachability cumber any (potential) experiential knowledge of it. Now, because “reason = probable existence”, does that make “no reason = improbable existence”? Why yes. The aforementioned quality is vital because if it’s invisible, has no physical body, too far, doesn’t have any effect and no reason to believe in it, then it pretty much doesn’t exist to us. One great example is the “Dragon in my Garage” by Carl Sagan, if I’m not mistaken.

So those three are the main qualities of material existence which I can gather so far. With regards to immaterial existence, certainty escapes me whether one could come up with a similar list but exposing qualities of the contrasted type of existence. Thank you for reading, and what do you think?

A “Lecture” on Philosophical Aspects of God and Science: Rebuttal and/or Response

I’ve witnessed some good arguments for/against the existence of God, or the reliability and coherence of science. Howsoever, exceptions exist, and I’m going to analytically rebut some arguments from Ahmad (that’s what written) because they don’t make sense.

1. You seem to think that because you can ‘see’ the sun it therefore must exist. You evidently have not heard of solipsism. How can you prove that anything except your own mind exists?? How do you know everything you see, hear, smell, taste or otherwise perceive are not just conjured in your mind? You don’t, do you? Go look up solipsism if you are still unsure as to what I’m talking about.

Rebuttal: I think solipsism is just a reality check on, well, reality. It is, by no means, practical, and its framework is rather a bizarre one. I would go to an extent to say that, solipsism… is pretty useless. Of course you can’t prove anything other than your mind exists, but that wouldn’t negate the existence of an external world. Besides, solipsism is empty, being the non-falsifiable philosophy it is. Everything I say will be fitted through “one own’s mind” or something, ergo it doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying reality is a dream, reality is a simulation, reality is an illusion etc. Technically, you could create arguments for it, but you won’t get anywhere. It’s useless and non-falsifiable, that’s my point. Here is a hand. Can you feel it? Here is another one. Can you feel that one, too? Therefore, an external world exists. Oh, but I forgot, you can just say, it’s the products of the mind. See my point? It’s useless to state a skeptical hypothesis about reality at this point. And yes, we can empirically identify the sun, it is painfully obvious that we and other living things are affected by it, so it exists. Sort of simple logic right there.

2. Okay, let me help you out here. The correct answer is NO you cannot ‘prove ‘ that anything you see around you exists. You cannot ‘prove’ that your own body exists. So you see, according to your limited concept of proof NOTHING around you exists. So why do you restrict your disbelief to God? Why not disbelieve in EVERYTHING you see, hear, smell or taste. According to your limited concept of proof, you cannot prove the existence of ANY of these things.

So essentially what you have done is created a model of proof that necessitates that nothing can be proven, therefore you have defined God out of existence, which means that your disbelief in him is based upon fallacious circular reasoning. Until you re-evaluate your methodology for understanding the universe around you, you will never find proof for the existence of anything, whether Creator or creation. For the believer, every single thing constitutes proof of an Almighty transcendent power who has created us all. You have not arisen out of chaos and been transformed into a being with consciousness for no purpose or by no cause. Contemplate that.

Rebuttal: Again, you can’t prove anything exists (beyond the shadow of a doubt), but that statement is useless and unmeaningful. I can’t prove my own body exist? Useless. Even if I chop off your hand or decapitate you, I can’t prove either one exists “externally”. I really do hope you can see the ludicrosity and the indisputability of solipsism as having no impact on any philosophical or scientific principles. Whether or not the reality is the products of our image, or a simulation or a dream, it doesn’t change that an apple that I’m holding right now exist. There’s no realistic reason to assume such a hypothesis about reality. Why don’t I disbelieve everything? Well, why would I, things do exist. You can experience and reason about it consistently means that it exist. About the proof; even by applying the scientific method, you cannot give proof. It’s not science’s or philosophy’s job to yield proofs, that’s mathematics’s jobs. Even with the aforementioned stance on proof or knowledge, you are still able to know existence. Refer to the hand argument.

No one has created a model that necessitates that nothing can be proven, we (I’m guessing he’s referring to scientists or rationalists) only restrict existing things to that which can be experienced or reasoned about. We haven’t defined God out of existence, because God is inexplicably existent. I’m not sure about re-evaluating the scientific method or philosophical rational arguments, because those are the clearest ways to acquire knowledge. Let me give you an example. We can see, taste and feel plants. Plants that are watered live. Plants that are not watered will wilt or die. With the countless experiments testing this hypothesis, and innumerable observations about it (I’m pretty sure you have seen it, too), we can give evidence of the existence of the necessary agent for said plants. I could give evidence for the existence of something using the framework of science. In fact, a plethora of incidents could be explained or be showed evidence for the existence of any objects or causes about them through scientific reasoning. I can’t see a  “model that brings God out of existence” in this one. Whether it’s external or internal, it is at this point irrelevant. It would be tremendously beneficial if you were to pick up a science textbook.

“For the believer, every single thing constitutes proof of an Almighty transcendent power who has created us all.” Oh, really? Where did you gain that knowledge? Why not apply solipsism to that? I have not arisen from and “transformed” into a being with consciousness out of chaos. What do you mean by chaos? Evolution wasn’t and isn’t chaotic. And what is consciousness, anyway? Perhaps the greatest sign of God.

3. It’s called reasoning and logic, ultimately science is based upon this, nor core facts (trust me, I’m studying medicine, and everything we learn is just a ‘theory’ which is then taken to be proof). For example, we remained for hundreds of years following newtons first law,until Einstein came along and said we cant go faster than the speed of light, they are all theories, not ‘solid proof’. Therefore, if you see a picture, for example a Van Gogh, whether it is a dog,cat,landscape,portrait, you look at it and tell me, its a van Gogh, because he has a certain style. Similarly, why when we look at this world we don’t say, well these humans,animals plants etc… they are all by the same artist. On the contrary, what your saying is, they all look the same, but i think it makes more sense to assume that the the picture painted itself, with paint and a paintbrush that came from nowhere. Not logic. If you think that we are made by evolution, then again, fine believe we came from animals, but that doesn’t negate the point that animals were created by God.

Rebuttal: Again, pick up a science text book. Read up on terminologies of science and their contexts and usage. A theory in colloquial usage is not the same as a scientific theory. And you can never say “just” a theory. A scientific theory is in the highest tier of scientific knowledge. Not “just a theory”, but “gloriously and triumphantly a theory!” There is never a solid proof, as I said, because it’s not a scientist’s job to provide proofs. I’m not sure if I fully grasp your second point. I think this the argument. Like, if all paintings of Van Gogh are put side to side, you know for sure they’re his paintings, because the recurring style and manner of the drawings are identical or similar. But why when we look at this world, we don’t say they’re all by the same artist, or the same “creator”, if you will. Does it make sense to say that all these amazing and splendid creatures and plants are “made” by something that came out of nowhere? So I think his point is, even if evolution is true, it’s illogical to say that the animals and us weren’t created by God. This can be true, however it’s hard to make an analogy of creator and creation in the same sense that life itself was created because God fits Himself in everything, so really, you have to know what’s God. You have to lucidly state what relation to nature that God has. Even if we undoubtedly comprehend the order and structure of the universe, to say that something has caused it will inevitably refer to the unknowable, for the cause must reside and exist outside of the universe, thus rendering impossible empirical knowledge and rational understanding. At least currently. And again, what is God?

4. If we are simply mere chance, and we began from the Big-bang, then why is it that despite billions of KNOWN planets, universes,solar systems..the lot. We are the only planet to have obvious human life. In other words, we all started from the big-bang,randomly,noone caused it. Why didnt everything evolve in the same way, so that every planet, or at least 1/100000000000000000000000 planets ended up with a human being, or even an amoeba (one celled organism). Yes, we havent explored that far out, however we can still trace millions of planets, and not one has similar life to us. Hence why NASA are going crazy trying to find water somewhere, to show that life exists. The reason why we turned out different, or why we evolved differently if you may, is because something interfered in that, and im not saying believe in the Muslim God, but rather, that thing/person which caused that change and for us to be in existance must, in my opinion, exist.

To give u a scientific example once again, Newtons first law states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an external resultant force. If no external force acts, then everything will remain uniform, apply the same to the universe, we are expanding at a constant speed, yet, why the huge differences in planets, and so on…

Rebuttal or Response: We were NOT mere chance. I can’t stress that enough. Why didn’t everything evolve in the same way? Well, obviously because no other planets are able to sustain life like us. But even if that’s the case, that question is irrelevant. That’s like asking why is there little life? It doesn’t mean anything. So why are there no other intelligent or just any life outside of the earth? Plenty of explanations. Maybe they are very far, maybe there aren’t any life at all, maybe intelligent living things outside of the earth declared war against themselves or others, thus destructing life on that particular planet or neighbor planets. Maybe life is periodically annihilated by nature itself (gamma ray bursts, meteor, asteroids etc), maybe the earth is rare, maybe the evidence isn’t susceptible to us. There are other reasons, but I’ll put an end there. So his point is because humans are special (I agree), an interference, or a divine intervention, if you will, must have occurred. I don’t know. You don’t know too. Nobody knows. But just because I don’t know what caused consciousness or mystical experiences, doesn’t mean I can fill in the blanks though. That’s another important point, just because I don’t know something doesn’t mean I can pretend like I know it. Albeit God is the best explanation for these kind of qualia. Like you said, the reason that this planet has life is because an interference must have exist. Well, yes, but it would be absurd to attribute it to anything that we can’t prove. But, just because we do exist, that doesn’t make our existence necessary. Life exist on rare earth =/= necessary existence. When life began on earth about 3 billion plus years ago, we don’t know WHY it’s there, and even if we’ll never know, so what? Don’t claim anything.

So, if there is no external force (that is to say, God), then why does everything move? Why does variations exist? I’ll tell you why. Because you DON”T apply the same to the universe, like how you said. When we say external force, we meant external force INSIDE of the universe. Like an external force pushing leaves (wind) for example. The natural working processes of the universe are always viewed in an immanent manner. You can say external in the sense that it refers to the outside of the universe, but then we WILL be stepping outside our boundaries and try fitting in words in a sphere where it cannot mean anything as the truth. You can’t apply human concepts to outside of the macrocosm. Why are the planets different? I guess they comprise different atoms.

5. If we were created by chance, and this world has no point to it, why dont we just go and kill ourselves. We complain about this life so so much, and we started by chance, so when your drowning in the swimming pool, why scream for help, why dont u jst let yourself drown, what have you got to live for? I dont intend any insult by this point, but in life, we only work for something when there is a point, or outcome. E.G i worked my ass off to get into med-school, i wanted to get into med-school so i could have a good career and a good job, i want a good rewarding job because i want to raise a family, etc etc…(simplified view of my life.lool)If there is no point to our existance its only logical for there to be no point to us living either, however your instinctive action to stay alive shows me that God exists. Again, scientific point. DNA has loads of parts, and some parts, we dont know what they do, they are just there, they dont code for anything, theyre useless. yet i asked a professor the reason for there presense and he said that we dont know yet. he didnt say that there was no point to them! Things in nature/science arent created for ‘no reason’, everything has a purpose. So we must have been created for a purpose, by someon/thing that actualy knew what it was doing, not some random process.

Rebuttal or Response: We did NOT come about by chance. Read about natural selection. Even if we have purposes, that doesn’t mean the word “purpose” itself carries intrinsic or inherent value and is of divine origin. From biological aspects, maybe the “purpose” is to balance your body’s intake of food or to replicate. From philosophical/religious aspects, it’s to do good deeds and avoid vices and wicked crimes. To seek happiness. To become one with God. To realize one’s potential. That’s the closest thing to a meaning of purpose we can have. Why don’t we just kill ourselves? Well, why would we? Maybe there’s no life after death, so make the best of your existence. Be moderate, do moral things. Why is it that when life has no ultimate or divine destiny (heaven/hell) to which we can believe in, we must either “kill ourselves” or “do immoral things”? Why not do good things? We’ll never understand the profound meaning of our existence, so just do things that accord to order in this universe, such as morality. Species have evolved in that way and we can universalize what can be considered “good” and “bad”, so follow it. It’s the order of the universe. I’m not sure if your instinct to stay alive is related directly to God, we’ve evolved in a way that we want to survive. That’s the aim of living things. We don’t know why, life just does that. About the DNA, maybe we can’t be sure of what role is play, maybe we’ll find out sooner. Or maybe it doesn’t have any purpose, it’s just there. Everything has a purpose, but the word “purpose” must be circumscribed within the human values. Because to say inherent value or purpose exist implies the thing is inherent in itself, which is impossible for us to know. There is order in this universe, but we can’t say there is a “meaning” in this universe. The universe does not owe you any sense of real purpose or meaning.

4. This is a vague point, and kinda ties in with the previous ones, but ive got an early start tomorrow, and need to get some sleep! Basically, the very fact that you question the existance of God, is more or less showing you that a God out there exists. For e.g you wouldnt go hungry if there was no food, or you wouldnt become thirsty if there was no water! Most of the time, we dont question something that is soo remotely unbelievable, and distant….

Response: This is the only argument that I sort of agree with.

5. Lastly, i doubt ive convinced you of the existance of God, and to be honest i hardly expected it when writing this. Thinking about this stuff makes me more firm in my belief and just higlights to me that the path i am on is the true one in my eyes. The way your question was posed shows you are looking for a challenge as opposed to wanting to actually find an answer. You probably already ahd your mind made before you read this either way. Thing is? In science, proof never refutes a theory it only backs one up. In other words, when i carry out a scientific experiment, irrespective of the outcome, it can never ‘prove’ that a theory is wrong, it can only prove a theory is right…if that makes sense. For e.g is light a wave or a particle, there are theories to SUPPORT both only, and none to REFUTE. Point being, if we want to do everything the scientific way, you have to prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way round.

Rebuttal or Response: I understand what you just said. That is the case because a theory stands after multiple experiments. A scientific theory IS FALSIFIABLE. Meaning, you could refute something about it. However, the theory will try to explain any gaps by incorporating new ideas, or if that doesn’t work, scientists will attempt to come out with new theories. They will test their hypothesis and hopefully produce better theories. A scientific theory is supported by most observations because it stems from those observations. About your second point though, I can’t bring myself to say that I agree. You can’t prove God doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative, if you’re talking about philosophy or reason. Science is a little different, because it’s empirical-based, which basically means it’s contingent. And with your saying that “Point being, if we want to do everything the scientific way, you have to prove that god doesnt exist, not the other way round.” No, that’s not true, at least in accordance to my possibly flimsy reality’s view. You have to PROVE your claim, NOT waiting for disproof of your claim. The default position is the neutral one. If I claim there is a dragon in the sky, the veracity of my assertion depends on evidences for it’s existence, not of other people’s ability to refute it. I have to prove my claim in order to make it substantial.

Thank you, this is just what I think, and what do you think?