True belief is reflected in one’s actions, mere talk is no belief. Many of us say that we believe in God but that is more of a talk than belief. We say that because our father, mother and many others say that. We don’t really believe in it, if we believed in God, our actions would reflect that in our daily lives.
If we believe that there is one God who created this universe then there should be no confusion and nothing much to worry about. We simply need to obey whatever He says, whether we understand it or not. We need to please Him because He only can please us. If we believe in God then everything is easy to understand, how this world was created, how we were created and how this universal system works.
There is much emphasis on the oneness of God because it has many implications on our lives. If God is one, we would not fear anyone else in this universe. If God is one we would only ask Him for help, that would save us begging everyone in the world. If there is one God, no one else can save us from His wrath when we commit crimes. Similarly He can reward us however He may like, for our good deeds.
Oneness of God is not only logical but it is actually a synonym for God. Multiple gods would cause conflict of interest and power among them. False gods include our phobias, fears and wishes too which make our lives miserable. Shah Lateef Says:
تُون ڪا ڪانِي پاءِ، وَنِنِ ۾ وِصالَ جِي؛
دُوبِينائِي دُورِ ڪَري، مَعۡرِفَتَ مَلهاءِ؛
سُپيرِيان جِي سُونهَن ۾، رُخنو ڪونَ رِهاءِ؛
اَکِ اَشَهَد چاءِ، ته مُسَلِمانِي ماڻِئين
January 5, 2009 at 10:57 am |
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Epicurus Paradox.
January 5, 2009 at 9:34 pm |
God of course is all in all, He has given us temporarily some powers and it is upto us how we use it, that’s how we will be judged for this life.
January 7, 2009 at 5:54 am |
Dear Bhittai you have to read the paradox again…. I think it has deeper meaning inside it… I will tell you another one…
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
- Bertrand Russell
January 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
Dear,
If you are talking about science and philosophy, you are essentially talking about nothing but what human mind knows or can can know. Can you tell me how much human brain is capable of knowing and how much it knows. Certainly it knows a little or nothing, given its structure, dimensions and capability. Even you really cannot give me exact answer for that because you will use your mind to question about your mind, you can only judge things properly when you are out of the frame of reference. Can you authentically say any thing about universe and its creation using your mind? Surely not, science keeps changing as human brain keeps progressing and is very limited. At max science/philosophy is another religion which is based on some assumptions as is any other religion. Science and philosophy is what you can know, religion is what your brain is uncapable to know. Scientific mind agrees that we don’t know much rather hardly know anything, see encyclepaedia of ignorance.
January 9, 2009 at 11:36 am |
1. Science is different from religion as it is based on observable proven facts rather than faith. In religion faith is essential without any shred of proof. This proves that science is not another religion.
2. Give me an example of a thing which we are incapable of knowing and which religion teaches.
3. If you stick to your claim that religion says there is a god I would argue on that the onus is on you to either give the proof or leave the issue as you will never be able to prove it.
4. Surely you can tell many things about universe and we learn more and more everyday about it. Science is an evolutionary process in itself so it improves with time as you gather more and more proofs.
5. Rather if we would have been stuck in religion we would have been living in dark ages till now. See example of Galileo.
Better see this flowchart to explain it to you further.
http://www.bspcn.com/2007/12/29/science-vs-faith-flowchart/
In short science is the process of knowing the truth. Religion is based on faith without any tradition into questioning it.
January 9, 2009 at 11:39 am |
Read somewhere
“The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones).
Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.
All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiiting case in which the theory does not work).
Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it’s proof. It is also unprovable.
if something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don’t want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.
Science is for people that realize that in order to aquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT oif work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!
Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY (“God created the world”, for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don’t have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobovy can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.
What a comfortable position! “
January 9, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
First of all, true religion does not reject science because it is knowledge and all knowledge is great. In fact true religion emphasises on seeking knowledge and pondering upon the universe. Religion wants you to find God within you by looking into yourself and thinking how wonderfully God have made you!
You can say it is faith or myth to say that there is God but computer was a myth too some time ago when human brain had not developed so high. No one could think of it as it was not conceivable by mind at that time. Similarly if we say how God created this world, it is not possible, you could be wrong because mind has to progress and be able to understand that how this universe was created by God. If a computer cannot showup by itself then how come this limitless universe?
Some time ago we did not know if there were waves crossing us but now we know that there are many kids of rays and waves which are there. I dont no how much we know if God is always with us do we have capability in scientific terms to explain everything around us, if so how much it is right?
Actually religion says that what we know is very little so that we cannot make right decisions about ourselves and the universe. It’s like a kid who says he knows everything. Science is partial truth and religion is complete truth. We can talk about corruption in religion made by people but God is the central part which is not controversial. Moreover you have to think on your own, how God created this universe and us. That’s what matters.
I am not talking about any particular religion. Basically the question is that whether God created this universe or it was an accident? These are the actually two religions. In my view if we say it was accident then the equation does not fit well but if we say God created this universe then everything comes up clean. I don’t wanna write on this more as I have written other articles on this blog.
January 15, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
Wow! Some atheists and agnostics on this little blog. Wonder where ye all are from?
Let me admit in the beginning; very little I’m going to say here is “original thought”; most of it is available elsewhere for the researcher. But then, nothing being said here is “original” anyway. Just the same old hackneyed ideas – even the words and the sentences are worn-out from all the cut/past work. It would be something if you could write a few sentences of your own in criticizing our friend Bhittai’s genuine effort.
Let’s first deal with the so-called Epicurean Paradox (not “Epicurus Paradox”, BTW), and then we’ll come to the Galilean troubles with his religion.
The simple way to unravel such casuistries is to consider closely the meaning of the technical sounding terms in the accepted aphorisms. For example, in this case, let’s consider the term “Omnipotent” more closely. Does it mean that “God can do anything” as the Bible would tell us (e.g. Luke 1:37, Mat 19:26, Mark 10:27 etc) or does it mean, “God has power over everything”; an expression that Qur’an instead repeatedly uses (e.g. 2:20, 2:148, 3:29, 5:17, 8:41, 59:6 etc). On the surface, you would think it’s saying the same thing, but it is not. The difference is chalk and cheese. So much so, that it amazed and forced the early orientalists of the 19th century to call Prophet Mohammed a “genius imposter”. Because, they correctly noted, that by avoiding such biblical expression, Mohammed “very cunningly” avoided the logical traps of their age-old theology (their presupposition being that Mohammad, and not God, was the author of the Qur’an). How so?
Saying “God can do anything” raises the question; can God create a stone so big that He can’t lift? Or, can God do stupid things? Or, as the particularly injudicious atheists would say; can God pee on Himself?
The answer to all the above and similar questions is no; God cannot do these things! Does that prove that God is not all-powerful? No – as the Qur’an says, “God has power over everything”; but He cannot do illogical things. We are quickly reaching the limit of human expression and language, so I’m choosing my vocabulary very carefully. God can do supra logical things but not illogical things. To this, my agnostic friends ask; is your God bound by the earthly logic? And my answer is, no, not Him; but I certainly am. With my extremely limited five senses, I can know only a minuscule part of His creation; much less of His essence. Except for the tiny part of His essence that He has revealed onto me, I know no more – nay, I cannot know more. And the part that I do understand is Logical, just as it is Compassionate, Wise, Truthful, Artistic, Beautiful, Loving, Guiding, etc (i.e. His 99+ most beautiful adjective names or attributes).
Just as a circle cannot have corners, by definition, God is all-Wise and cannot do silly things. And by the similar token, if He wants you to love Him, or be friends with Him, He cannot force you or program you to love Him, because forced love, by definition, is not love at all. Similarly, if He wants to love you, He cannot, if you are uncompassionate, unwise, untruthful, etc, because love, by definition, cannot exist between such opposites. For love to grow, you need common ground in two personalities. Can God make you truthful; force you or program you into being truthful? The answer again is no, He cannot. Because, by definition, to be truthful, you have to choose to speak the truth freely, otherwise, you’ll merely be accurate; never truthful. As Dr. Lang says, “My computer always tells me the truth, never lies; but I don’t call it ‘a very truthful computer’”. Thus we conclude that God cannot do just any arbitrary thing. Just as He cannot die, or commit suicide for that matter, because He, by definition, is ever-living, He cannot likewise force you into a compassionate, loving, truthful creature.
Now we come to the last part of the paradox; whence cometh evil? Unlike Zoroastrianism where evil is a necessary consequence of an eternal conflict between good God and bad Spirit (i.e. Ahura Mazda vs. Ahirman); and unlike Hinduism (and some perverted Muslim Sufism) where it’s a necessary consequence of our separation from God (as a privation of good); and unlike Christianity, where evil is the consequence of “The Fall” or “Adam’s sin against God”; and finally, unlike Buddhism, that doesn’t even address the question directly but counsels us to follow the path of meditation in order to make our bodies impervious of the pain and suffering of this evil-world, it calls dukha; Qur’an says that evil is a necessary part of God’s plan. Good people, including prophets, suffered both natural and human evil. Consider for a moment, whose life was more difficult than that of Prophet Mohammed, who saw all his children, except one, die in front of his very eyes.
There’s a slight problem here though; Qur’an, literally translated, seems to be saying that the evil in this world is for our test (e.g. 67:2). Since the purpose behind test giving and taking is to increase the knowledge of the examiner. Based on your performance in a test, an examiner can grade you objectively and accurately. To this you might rationally ask, if this life is a test, whose knowledge it’s supposed to increase? Can’t be God – He’s already all-knowing. The confusion dissipates when you ask yourself the next rational question; what else happens when you take a test? I know from personal experience that I learn. And what if such test is repeated frequently, say, every hour; slightly modified, but reinforced with positive and corrective instructions in between? This self-improvement based dynamic learning academy is our world.
Suddenly, the high-sounding ancient Epicurean Paradox runs out of steam once its fallaciousness is exposed in a few simple lines. We’ll get back to the science vs. religion issue some other day.