2012
| 18 May 2011
This section deals with the Concept of God (or Concept of Gods – later we’ll make things more evident) in Protestant Hinduism (so-called Ārya Samāj), the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism is grossly and totally incoherent. In fact it’s also doubted whether this could be called as concept of “God” or not. It seems, the very definition of God was not fathomed by Moolshankar. The conception of God in Protestant Hinduism itself is sufficient to prove the false nature of this cult.
It’s quite amazing to see how Moolshankar describes his god (Ishwar), he extensively stresses on his gods omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, formlessness and shapelessness. Nowadays we see fanatical zealots, hate-monger’s like Agniveer, propagating his works, as these (Mahendra Pāl, Agniveer -now claims to be a ‘Movement’) being a blind-followers of Moolshankar like other protestant Hindus. Here we’ll try to demystify the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism and show how rational and coherent it is.
The protestant Hindus propagandise, their cult to be “Monotheistic” in nature and claim their scriptures teach worship of One God exclusively, this is what people are usually informed by the protagonists, but the reality of their belief will be evident in the following passages.Vedas only teach polytheism not monotheism.
We read, Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)writing in his book (Satyarth Prakāsh), that the Vedas strictly preach and teach Monotheism and this was his belief [delusion] too. In fact the translator Durgā Prasād writes in the book (Satyarth Prakāsh’s translation, pg. 60) that “Satyarth Prakash – an exposition of the monotheism and civilization of the ancient Aryans.” It seems that his (Moolshankar’s) blind -followers truly believe that this book (Satyarth Prakāsh) deals with monotheism, nonetheless this so-called monotheism of protestant Hinduism will be scrutinized to truth.
a.1) Is Ishwar the Creator?
Protestant Hindus go around talking of so-called one god “Ishwar” who is the creator. But what they really mean by the “Creator”? Let’s see.
First, Moolshankar wrote that God is the creator of all, then contradicts himself, by stating that Paramātmā [God], Ātmā [Human Souls] and Prakriti [Primordial matter], are beginning-less and uncreated! So how come God is (Ishwar) “creator of all”? We shall probe into this case, and expose some amazingly incoherent beliefs of protestant Hindus.
Mooshankar wrote (quotes Yajurveda 36:3) –
“…Omniscient, Sustainer and Ruler of the Universe, Creator of all, Eternal…”
- [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 3, pg.33 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
It wasn’t slip of pen that Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote “Creator of all” but this has been stated in other parts of Satyarth Prakāsh too. For instance, Moolshankar quotes Rigveda -
“…I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all…”
-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 7 ,pg.205 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
Similarly, stated by Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) on pg. 207(Tr.Chiranjiva),
“…If He were localized to some particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward Regular of all, Universal Controller, Creator of all, Sustainer of all and the Cause for resolution….”
So we read, at first Moolshankar states that “Ishwar (God) is Creator of all”and later he goes on to state that there are 3 entities which are Uncreated, Eternal, Beginning-less.
The three entities which are uncreated eternal, beginning-less – here Moolshakar (Dayānanda Saraswati)quotes “SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5”and states:
"The prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated. They are the cause of the whole universe.”
– [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.244 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
As he (Moolshankar) states in Satyarth Prakash-
“How many entities are eternal or beginningless?
A-Three – God, the soul, and the prakriti (matter). -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8 ,pg.243 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
According to Moolshankar’s (and protestant Hindu) theology there are 3 beginning less, uncreated ,immortal entities –
1) Paramātmā (Ishwar/God)
2) Prakriti (Primordial matter)
3) Ātmā (Human Souls,note -we’ll be using plural i.e. Human Souls for clarity)
This philosopher’s stance (uncreated primordial matter) adopted by Moolshankar is self-contradictory in many areas, for instance Moolshankar seem to claim in monotheistic Vedas, but this stance of co-eternal prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls) explicitly disqualifies prostestant Hindusim from the claim of monotheism, as this undermines and infringes the absolute monotheistic nature of God and reduces Him (God) to an position of an artificer –a Demiurge.
Now, if this is the case (co-eternal, uncreated Prakriti and Ātmā) then, why did Moolshankar write God is the “creator of all”? This is an explicit contradiction, which is easily noticeable. It’s understood that God is uncreated but what of “Prakriti” (Primordial matter) and “Ātmā” (human souls)? Who created them?[their being eternal,uncreated is not possible, rationally and logically especially for those who claim to be ‘monotheistic’] And if God isn’t their creator – as these 2 things are uncreated (as per protestant hindu belief), then why is God or in protestant Hindu terminology “Ishwar” “Parameshawar” called “Creator of all”. This is quite contradictory and absurd. In fact this is a white lie.
Agniveer, the fanatic hate-monger wrote –
Q: Who created the world? Ishwar or someone else?
A: Ishwar created the world in same manner as an engineer creates a machine. He is thus the ‘engineer’ of the world. But like engineer, He used existing ‘raw material’ or Nature (matter/ energy approximately) to create the world.
Q: Did Ishwar not create Nature as well?
A: No, Nature or ‘raw material’ is eternal (beginningless and endless) like Ishwar. Being eternal, there is no cause for origin or destruction of Ishwar or Nature.”
- [Source - http://agniveer.com/2775/creation/]
We learn that Protestant Hindu God ‘Ishwar’ is the ‘engineer of the world’, who uses ‘raw material’ to create the world, this stance of protestant Hindu’s is quite fanciful, and irrational as it insults the concept of God itself in its entirety. I wonder why, don’t these protestant Hindus call Ishwar, an ‘engineer’ when they believe so?
So, this incapability of Ishwar is also affirmed and stated by the hate-monger Agniveer, I wonder how a rational person (assuming Agniveer is rational- I know it’s very farfetched, but let’s give him benefit of doubt and assume) can accept such gibberish, incoherent theological views!
In fact this absurdity is also supported by Vedas -
“God, the Lord of final emancipation is in truth the creator of all that hath been and what yet shall be; and what grows on earth.” - [Yajurveda Ch. 31, verse 2, pg. 302 Tr. Devi Chand]
“Worship Him, Whose beautiful sacrifice, wealth, strength, and mighty glory are enjoyed by the Heaven and Earth; Who is the creator of all beings, the Embodiment of great happiness, All-pervading and Supplier of food.” - [Yajurveda Ch. 33, verse 23, pg. 312 Tr. Devi Chand]
It’s to be noted that, the second verse states in an interrogative way “Who is the creator of all beings… All-pervading” Here again this statement is contradictory to the belief’s of Protestant Hindus, in order to prove this lets first define “beings”. And “being”means -
being noun [ C or U ]
a person or thing that exists or the state of existing
- [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, © Cambridge University Press 2008]
So ‘being’ means – a person or thing that exists or the state of existing. So we ask doesn’t ‘Prakriti’ (Primordial Matter) exist? Doesn’t ‘Ātmā’ (Human Souls) exist? Yes of course they do, as stated by Moolshankar. Then how can ‘Ishwar’ be the ‘creator of all beings’ when Prakriti and Ātmā are uncreated? Then is ‘Ishwar’ creator of them? No, as stated by Moolshankar, then why is it stated in the above quoted verse of Yajurveda that the “All-prevading” (i.e Ishwar) is the “Creator of all beings”? This is nothing but pure contradiction which is repeated in many of the Vedic verses.Later, in the article we’ll see that Ishwar is not the creator of ‘time’…etc
Questions which mavericks like us would like to ask –
a) How can ‘Ishwar’ be ‘creator of all’ (or ‘creator of all beings’) as claimed by protestant Hindus when, they themselves believe (state) in uncreated-ness of ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Ātmā’?
b) Who created ‘prakriti’, if ‘Ishwar’ – the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t? [Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness of Prakriti , especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]
c) Who created ‘Ātmā’, if ‘Ishwar’ – the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t? [Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness of Ātmā, especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]
This ameliorates exposure of the reality of protestant Hindu theology in the eyes of Truth-Seeker’s. Now coming to some amazing facts, which will really expose the distortions (of meanings) from the protestant Hindu cult.
Moolshankar wrote in Satyarth Prakāsh Ch.1 pg. 5 (quoting Kaivalya Upanishad) –
“He is called Brahma - the Creator of the Universe…”
And, in the footnotes the translator Dr. Chiranjiva comments“The word Creator used in the sense of Maker as according to Vedic Philosophy there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing.”
Also we find Agniveer the Hate-Monger, Islāmophobe confessing and admitting the fact that –
“GOD NEVER CREATED US.
And because God never created us, He also never destroys us. Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God. Thus, just as God is beginningless and endless, so are we. We have existed along with God always and shall continue to do so.”
– [Source - http://agniveer.com/1985/why-did-god-create-us/]
Now astonishingly, we learn, that in the so-called “Vedic Philosophy” there’s nothing like “Creation out of nothing” and that the word “Creator” is used in “Sense of Maker”. One would be tempted to question, Why not simply use the word ‘Maker’ why use the word ‘Creator’? The answer to it is simple, to fool people and blind-followers (protestant Hindus).As how can one believe in a ‘God’ who is not the Creator but just the Maker or Fashioner of it.
So we are left with the philosophical excreta of philosopher’s brains that’s “there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing.”
And we also see how the hate-monger Agniveer tries to get his incoherent, unintelligible belief, explained with few nonsensical words like “Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”, we wonder ‘What’s the Scope of God’? Does scope even apply on GOD?Is God something like created beings that ‘Scope’ applies to him, or is Agniveer trying to anthropomorphise God and apply Human-related characteristics/attributes to Him? By the way, is God(according to Agniveer) some sought of professional , for instance an Accountant , who’s been asked to handle Software engineers post , and cries out saying “It’s out of my scope of work!!” It’s pretty disgusting to see people insulting God by using such vernacular (like “Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”). We do not think that such a statement needs a refutation (still we shall expose such irrationalities for those people seeking truth); such obscurely illogical statement arises out of pure ignorance of monotheism and pure blind following (as in case of Agniveer). We will be dealing with the reasons and causes of such irrational statement in our next subsection, wherein those reasons and causes shall be refuted and debunked.
It will be worthwhile and of immense benefit to state one verse from the Holy, Noble Qur’ān wherein Allāh Azz wa Jall (the alone worthy of worship, One true Almighty God) says which means –
“Do they attribute as partners to Allāh those who created nothing” - [Surah al-A'raaf, Ayat 191]
So true! See the misery and state of these Protestant Hindus, how they worship those who create not! These poor protestant Hindus set up partners (by worshipping Ishwar who creates nothing) with Allāh who alone is the true Almighty God, the creator of Al -'Alamîn [Total Creation]. We would ask our reader’s and especially the truth seeker’s to see[and learn a lesson, so that you may not fall into the same dark pit] how these protestant Hindus have wronged themselves by worshipping false God , who is unable to create anything.
For now we’ll leave the reader’s and truth-seeker’s with this verse and let them ponder upon it and contemplate whether they are on truth or falsehood, now coming back -
So this only proves that Ishwar (Protestant Hindu God) is Incapable of –
1) Creating Prakriti (Primordial Matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls).
2) Destroying, Annihilating Prakriti and Ātmā.
This sufficiently proves that Incapability is an attribute (characteristic) of ‘Ishwar’. This also proves that ‘Ishwar’ isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful. But Moolshankar seems to state something opposite to it, he states (quoting Rigveda) –
“…Mayest thou (Vishnu) O Omnipresent and (Urukrama) Omnipotent Being, shower Thy blessings all around us…” -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 1,pg.2 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
So what does “Omnipotence” mean? Let’s have it defined –
Omnipotent adjective formal
having unlimited power; able to do anything
- [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, © Cambridge University Press 2008]
All the words, like Omnipotent, All-Powerful, creator are just empty words used by Moolshankar & Co. for deluding people and poor blind-followers of his (Moolshankar). As we read earlier that , if Ishwar isn’t able to create “Prakriti” and “Ātmā” then this inability of creating things renders him free of the title “Creator” and also this raises questions on Ishwar’s “Omnipotence”. These questions will be dealt, in the later part of the section, for now let’s see whether Moolshankar , believed in “Omnipotence” of “Ishwar”?(We’ve seen a quote above , now let’s see his belief in detail).
Moolshankar was and ardent believer of “Ishwar’s” Omnipotence (at least he made it seem so), we read in various places in Satyarth Prakāsh, where he claims God to be Omnipotent, All-Powerful.
“Vayu: the Omnipotent Being,” – (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.71 Tr. Durga Prasad)
“The verso means: May (bhavatu) the Infinite Spirit (Parmatma) who is Omnipotent” – (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.77 Tr. Durga Prasad)
"O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art Omnipotent, Omnipresent…”
-(Satyarth Prakash Ch. 10,pg.368 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja )
Hence, we learn that Moolshankar did believe in Omnipotence of his Ishwar, but was this Omnipotence true? Or what did Moolshankar mean by Omnipotence? As stated earlier “Omnipotence”, “All-Powerful” et al. are just empty words for Moolshankar, this will be evident below. In fact, Moolshankar goes on to distort the meanings of words like “All-Powerful” and “Omnipotence” to fit his beliefs, for instance “Omnipotence” according to him does not mean “having unlimited power; able to do anything”.
Agniveer the fanatical Protestant Hindu-extremist, hate-monger also affirms and believes in the so-called All-Powerful Ishwar, he wrote –
“Finally, Yajurveda 40.8 lists the properties of Ishwar as follows:
Paryagat – Omnipresent,
Shukram – All-powerful,”
Shukram – All-powerful,”
- [Source - http://agniveer.com/1566/eternity-of-vedas/]
Elsewhere too, with vigor same is stated by this mere hate- monger –
“But Vedic Ishwar is truly all-Powerful…”
- [Source -http://agniveer.com/2728/more-on-vedic-god/ ]
But according to him (Moolshankar) it’s (omnipotence’s meaning) something different, this is what he answered when a questioned, regarding Ishwar’s inability of creating “prakriti”.
Q – God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti – the primordial matter – and the soul. If He cannot, He cannot be called Omnipotent.
A. – We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before. But does Omnipotent mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them. Omnipotence, therefore, only means that He possesses the power of doing all His works without any help. -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.251 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
Primarily, it’s to be noted that Moolshankar states he has explained the meaning of word Omnipotence, earlier in the book, on which we’ll expound soon. Secondarily, we learn that according to Moolshankar omnipotence isn’t the ability to do anything but only means “the power of doing all His works without any help.”(This is moolshankar’s proposed definition). We see Moolshankar, distorting the meaning of Omnipotence in order to hide the fact that Ishawar isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful and this factuality is impossible to grasp for any believer (theist) in God, hence in order to delude people and his own self Moolshankar indulges in namely two things – Distortion of meaning and Sophistry.
a.2) Is Ishwar Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and what does Omnipotence mean to protestant Hinduism?
Now coming to the “explanation” of the meaning of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, which he stated to have explained earlier, wherein he uses sophistry in order prove his beliefs, which is quite amusing(hilarious) to read.
In order to, prove that his (Moolshankar) meaning (‘proposed definition’) of ‘Omnipotence’ and conception of God is correct, Moolshankar disgustingly, indulges in sophistry. These question explain the situation to us –
Is God All-powerful or not?
A. – Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word All- powerful is not right. It really means that God does not require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite power. - [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]
But we believe that God can do whatever He likes. There is no one above Him.
A. - What does He like? If you say that he likes and can do all things, we ask – "Can God kill Himself?" Or "can He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like? Or can He be unhappy?" Your answer can only be in the negative, as these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God; hence your contention, that God can do all things, does not hold good. Our meaning only, therefore, of the word All-powerful is true. - [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]
We would also like to quote the hate monger, Islāmophobe Agniveer, so as to expose his ignorance, this Islāmophobe wrote -
Q: Is Ishwar Omnipotent or All-Powerful?
A: Yes, He is omnipotent. But that does not mean He can do whatever He wants. Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined. Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need help of any other entity to conduct His duties – creation, management, destruction of universe. He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties. But He would act only as per His duties. For example,He will not kill Himself to create another Ishwar. He cannot make Himself an idiot. He cannot do theft or dacoity etc.
- [Source - http://agniveer.com/2708/understanding-vedic-god/ ]
These (above) emphasized (by us) interrogative questions were asked by Moolshankar (& Agniveer) to prove that his god (Ishwar) is not omnipotent (as per the meaning of the word) in true sense but has limited omnipotence. Moolshankar (so does Agniveer) seems very eager and zealous to prove that his god (Ishwar) is not at all omnipotent in true sense, but merely is called so. Moolshankar seems to be trying pretty hard, to prove his definition of “Omnipotence” to be true, but drastically fails at it, as will be evident. Now coming to his silly, hilarious questions:
Firstly it’s to be noted that Moolshankar, states (assumes) that the answers to the questions will be in negative, I wonder why didn’t the questioner reply or why wasn’t his reply (in detail or were these questions and answers made-up by himself, that’s the case most probably) stated in Satyarth Prakash . Now replying to the insinuations and irrationality of Moolshankar and Agniveer.
We would be pleasured to ask –
Do these attributes or qualities/characteristics (Killing, ignorance, theft, adultery…etc.) befit Almighty God or belong to him? Of course not, Moolshankar also agrees by writing “these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God”. Now, we would like to question, how come these things are applied to God? Also, it’s should be noted that these are qualities of humans and not of God, so how can these be applied to God or how could one judge God’s capability in terms of these [human] acts? Same deviant principle of judging and understanding God in human context and human attributes is followed by Agniveer , our readers need not get surprised after all Agniveer is a mere blind-follower of Moolshankar .We read Agniveer stating “Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined” What a show of irrationality and illogicalness! This statement of Agniveer show’s us his ‘conceptualization’ of God. What Agniveer states here is pure irrationality, God the Almighty is the creator of Discipline and hence he is not subjected to it , we wonder how could Agniveer even think of such a thing , he judges God in the light of human attributes and behavior!
Hence the so-called argument that doing whatever one wants is a sign of indiscipline is only applied to humans and not to God Almighty. Also, another aspect should be pointed out is that God Almighty by nature and definition is the Most-Perfect or All-Perfect, hence the one who’s perfect by nature needs no discipline at all, on contrary it’s only those who have the tendency to get deviated (like humans, animals…etc) and indulge in non-disciplinary acts and behavior need discipline and are subjected to it or judged by it.
This understanding of God in scales of human attributes and behavior, only show the anthropomorphic tendencies of Agniveer and his gross incoherency. To enlighten Agniveer we would present here, what Allāh Azz wa Jall (the only One True Almighty God) says which means:
“There is nothing like Him(Allāh)”
- [Surah Ash- Shura Ayat 11]
This verse proves and shows the obligation of rejection and negation of resembling God the Most Perfect, with His creation or anything else. This is what we Muslims believe, in fact this is the most basic and fundamental principle which we Muslims are taught at first, hence as stated above, there is no similitude, resembling, likeness of God [There is nothing like Him], so are his attributes [His attributes are perfectly Unique , and have no resembling, Similitude], hence we ask Protestant Hindus, to ponder upon it and we think and Agniveer too comes under Protestant Hinduism, so we would also ask him to humbly ponder upon this truly, great and glorious principle which every theist should believe in. This principle will help Agniveer get rid of his anthropomorphic tendencies – understanding God in light of Human attributes/context/behavior, as this verse makes clear that there is nothing like unto God.
We’ve also read what Moolshankar wrote; in fact both Agniveer and Moolshankar suffer from same disease of sophism, and irrationality [moreover both have the anthropomorphic tendency of understanding God and judging him in Human behavioral patterns, attributes]. Questions (like ‘Can God Kill Himself ’…et al.) asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are similar [like both ask whether God can kill himself and create gods…etc], hence we would refute and debunk the questions (insinuations) asked by Moolshankar, and indirectly Agniveer’s questions will be debunked too.
Now coming back to the ‘questions’ of Moolshankar –
And we would now again like to ask “Why would God need to steal something, when he is the creator of that thing and can create it?” Yeah, only the Protestant Hindu god (Ishwar) would need to steal things as he is not the Creator but only the efficient cause (acc. to Protestant Hindu Theology), as prakriti (Primordial Matter) is eternal and uncreated like God , so it is possible that he could steal a bit from prakriti (Primordial Matter).So why would God Almighty need to steal? It’s ridiculous of Moolshankar to ask such hilarious and incoherent questions and this only adds up to his ignorance.
Now scrutinizing a bit more, Moolshankar also questions ‘can He[God] become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like’ this is really hilarious and irrational. By scrutinizing and observing questions similar and those asked by him we, learn a lot of Moolshankar’s state of mind and the basis of his belief system. We’ll see questions similar to Moolshankar’s first to show the real problem in his approach and then refute his questions.
Basically what Moolshankar is trying to ask “If God can do anything, can He make it impossible for him-self to do something [like adultery, theft…etc]?”
Such question’s becomes even clearer when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God. The answer to the question (Can God kill Himself?) of Moolshankar is-. Well, killing (death) isn’t ability; it’s the inability to live moreover death is a creation (death is created and God’s uncreated) of God, so it’s quite irrational to ask such questions as creation can never overcome the creator in any sense. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist, not because He is incapable.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.
The question also reminds us of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.
Similar is the question (of Moolshankar) “can He make other Gods like Himself” .In fact the phrase “can He make other Gods like Himself” is explicit sophism or false/invalid argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created (‘can He make’) means that it cannot be a God. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god?” It is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of God has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power and might of God has nothing to do with irrationalities.
In fact all the questions asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are just instances of sophism and are self-contradiction –
- "Can God kill Himself?"
- "Can He (God) make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like?
- “Can He (God) be unhappy?"
God is eternal and uncreated[in fact even Moolshankar attest to this , that his god Ishwar is eternal and uncreated] by nature and definition hence God killing himself is irrational and contradictory in terms , also Killing (or dying) is a human’s act or attribute, like Humans kill humans, Humans die. So what we see is Moolshankar first defining God to be uncreated and eternal then posing a sophistic questions which are purely contradictory and irrational , Moolshankar is only contradicting himself.
As for creating God then again God is Uncreated and eternal, hence what is created cannot be god so it’s irrational and spurious even to think of such absurdities.
Same for questions like, ‘can God become Ignorant’, God by nature is All-wise and All-Knowledgeable hence again its contradiction and irrational, also things like ignorance, adultery sins, theft are all instances of human behaviors, attributes or actions and in no way can they ever be applied to God or used to judge God. Same with being “Unhappy”, being happy and unhappy are human attributes/characteristics and traits, not of God ,also these things contradict God’s attribute of Perfection(All-Perfect) hence God by nature being perfect is not subject to such things and state, such queries are but contradiction. As God exists hence all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence. Also the Power, Majesty and Might of Almighty God have nothing to do with Irrationalities.
Hence we see Moolshankar using sophistry (false-invalid arguments) to prove that “Omnipotence” in fact means “the power of doing all His works without any help.” And not “able to do anything” which in fact, is the true and right definition of being Omnipotent.
Concluding, it will be beneficial to note, how Moolshankar uses his irrationality and Sophistry to prove things. Like first he defines Ishwar as uncreated and beginning-less and then questions whether “God can kill himself?” that’s so self-contradictory and irrational of him. Again and again he repeats his irrational questions like “can He(God) make other Gods like Himself” , same here he as defined and stated God to be “Uncreated” , then ask can God makeother Gods? This is what happens when you swallow the excreta of philosopher’s brain. This is pure irrationality and this will be evident, even to novice or amateur, let’s see what a mathematician opines about such ridiculous questions.
Mathematician’s Opinion –
Summing up the section, I would like to present a short quote from a revert to Islām – Dr. Jeffrey Lang, a mathematician [Professor of Mathematics at University of Kansas, US] (an ex-atheist)] –
“If God is all-powerful, can He become a man, terminate His existence, tell a lie, be unjust, or create a stone too heavy for even Him to move? These somewhat silly riddles most often arise from imposing unnecessary and contradictory assumptions on certain attributes of God or by assigning unwarranted additional attributes to Him.”
- [“Even Angels Ask”, Dr. Jeffrey Lang, pg. 69, Beltsville, 1997]
We are pretty sure that every intelligent, sane and unbiased person will believe such ‘questions’ to be silly, and illogical.
It would also be beneficial (concisely) to state the reasons why Moolshankar delved into such absurdities which are totally untenable. It’s necessary to note that Moolshankar was reluctant enough to apply (judge and understand) human attributes to God in order to prove his point; also his conception of God in his mind was somewhat anthropomorphic in essence. This also shows how Moolshankar swallowed the excreta of philosophers and atheists’ (in fact, sophistry was chiefly used by atheist to disprove God and his existence) brain in order to forward his claims, delude people from the straight path and malign and corrupt monotheism.
Islāmic Stance –
To enlighten people about Islām and present a true picture of Islām (which the Hate-monger’s and quacks like Mahendra Pāl, Agniveer cowardly and hypocritically don’t do, due to their bias, prejudice and hate for Islām.) we’ll shortly and very briefly present Islāmic point of view here, very concisely for our readers and truth Seekers –
Who’s the Creator?
Allāh the Most-Merciful says which means,
“That is Allāh, your Lord, the Creator of all things, Lā ilāha illā Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). How then are you turning away (from Allāh, by worshipping others instead of Him)?” – [Surah Al-Mu’min , Ayat 62]
See you O, protestant Hindus your only One True Almighty God (Allāh) states that He is the Creator of all things; still you turn away from Him and worship false-god?
And in another verse of the Noble, Holy Qur’ān, Allāh Azz wa Jall says which means,
“Such is Allāh, your Lord! Lā ilāha illā Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Creator of all things. So worship Him (Alone), and He is the Wakîl (Trustee, Disposer of affairs or Guardian) over all things.” - [Surah, Al-An’aam, Ayat 102]
Again theonly One True Almighty God (Allāh) states that He alone is the Creator of all things and calls every of his creation to worship Him alone.
Is God (Allāh) Omnipotent or All-Powerful?
Allāh the Most-Merciful says which means,
“Truly, Allāh is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise.” - [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 56]
“Verily, Allāh is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful.” - [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 149]
“Truly, Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.” - [Surah An-Nahl, Ayat 70]
“Verily, Allāh is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.” - [Surah Al-Mujaadilah, Ayat 21]
We think the above quoted verses speak for themselves; we need not re-write what the verses make so explicitly evident. We learn that Allāh Azz wa Jall is Omnipotent unlike the protestant Hindu god Ishwar who isn’t, moreover he (Ishwar) is dependent over other to ‘engineer’ hence is not even the creator- we’ll expound on this issue later in the article.
We all know that Al-Qur’ān al-Kareem cannot be translated, it’s a well known fact attested by approximately every Arabic scholar be it Muslim or non-Muslim, Al-Qur’ān is perfectly unique and hence there is no question that it’s glory and perfection can be conveyed in any other language except that in which it was revealed (we can only try and convey interpretation of its meanings), and even the famous briton ‘translator’ of the Qur’an Marmaduke Pickthall(An famous English literati who reverted to Islām)confessed saying -
“The Koran cannot be translated… It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Koran and peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.”
- [The Meanings of the Glorious Koran, pg. vii, Alfred A. Knopp Inc., 1930]
What we can do, is somehow show and translate the interpretation of meanings of Glorious, Noble Qur’ān, in different languages. Hence it’s to be understood that all the Qur’ānic verse quoted here in the article are mere interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’ān.
Strengthen your Understanding –
Summarizing this sub-section (i.e. ‘A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?’), we would like to review what we’ve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus –
1) Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isn’t the ‘Creator’ but simply the ‘Maker’ , ‘Engineer’ ,‘Fashioner’ of the world , as he didn’t create Prakriti (Primordial matter) nor Ātmā (Human Souls) as per Protestant Hindu Theology. What does this necessitate?
- This belief itself proves protestant Hinduism to be non-Monotheistic, as in Monotheistic belief everything is dependent on God, but here 2 entities namely Prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā are independent. Where as God is dependent on Prakriti (Primordial matter) for ‘Making’ ‘engineering’ ‘Fashioning’ Universe …etc things out of it.
- This belief rips God of his one main and very important attribute that’s Uniqueness , Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isn’t unique as he share’s the very same attribute with Prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā , that is attributes like ‘Uncreated’ , ‘Beginning less’ .This make’s Vedic God (Ishwar) a mere artificer and Demiurge , which results to pure Polytheism.
- This belief also , entitlesPrakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls) to be Partners of God, in being ‘Uncreated’ and in ‘Making’ and ‘engineering’ of Universe as the Protestant Hindu God(Ishwar) is dependent on both Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter) to bring about this Universe. This in Islām is known as Shirk or Associationism, which is in fact polytheism. Hence Protestant Hinduism by nature is Polytheistic.
- We’ve also proved that protestant Hinduism doesn’t regard its God to be ‘Omnipotent’ or All-Powerful and their use of these words is totally futile as these are used just used in empty sense without affirming the meanings of these words.
2) We’ve also learnt and seen how Moolshankar and his blind-follower Agniveer use Sophistry to prove their point.
There are many other points and proofs which expose the falsity of the protestant Hinduism being Monotheistic, these points and proofs shall be discussed and stated in the next sub-section.
Don't forget to share this post
Similar articles
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (35)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Surya, August 08, 2011
Hello Mr. Al Muhsin Al Hindy,
Let's talk about the concept of God in Vedic and Islamic religion -
Mr. Hindy what do understand by monotheistic? Ishwar, soul and primordial matter all three are eternal. Yes this is true and most logical in all available options from different religions. Iswar has neither created human soul nor he can create it. Ishwar has neither created primordial matter nor he can create it. Ishwar has the control over these two that's why Vedic religion is called monotheistic without any doubt. When we accept that there is only one God having power to control all without anybody's help, called monotheistic. By the word creator of this universe you are catching wrong message. Creator word here used for making this universe visible and working as Ishwar has taken it out from the dead stage. Now Let's examine what will be the problems if he can create these two -
1. The Soul: soul takes birth in this world to work and to get the result for his work and this flow of birth and death is eternal and endless excepting some long gap of Moksha between this birth and death process. Now suppose when there was no soul present in this world, suddenly the idea came into Allah's mind to create human soul. What does Allah do before this event? At this stage all Muslims are helpless to provide the sufficient reason that why Allah implemented this idea of creating human soul. Why was he not happy to live alone and enjoy his loneliness.
2. The Primordial Matter(Prakriti): Allah created this primordial matter too? Absolutely not!! If he created, following flaws came in to picture -
i. He broken the rule of science - "Law of conservation of mass and energy" which states that the total mass and energy of this universe is constant. It can be converted from one form to another but can not destroyed permanently.
ii. Now the same question arises here that why Allah created this primordial matter and what was in universe before he created matter. He must be happy without doing any such task. Followers of Allah should come with an acceptable reason for this.
Regard,
Surya Singh.
Let's talk about the concept of God in Vedic and Islamic religion -
Mr. Hindy what do understand by monotheistic? Ishwar, soul and primordial matter all three are eternal. Yes this is true and most logical in all available options from different religions. Iswar has neither created human soul nor he can create it. Ishwar has neither created primordial matter nor he can create it. Ishwar has the control over these two that's why Vedic religion is called monotheistic without any doubt. When we accept that there is only one God having power to control all without anybody's help, called monotheistic. By the word creator of this universe you are catching wrong message. Creator word here used for making this universe visible and working as Ishwar has taken it out from the dead stage. Now Let's examine what will be the problems if he can create these two -
1. The Soul: soul takes birth in this world to work and to get the result for his work and this flow of birth and death is eternal and endless excepting some long gap of Moksha between this birth and death process. Now suppose when there was no soul present in this world, suddenly the idea came into Allah's mind to create human soul. What does Allah do before this event? At this stage all Muslims are helpless to provide the sufficient reason that why Allah implemented this idea of creating human soul. Why was he not happy to live alone and enjoy his loneliness.
2. The Primordial Matter(Prakriti): Allah created this primordial matter too? Absolutely not!! If he created, following flaws came in to picture -
i. He broken the rule of science - "Law of conservation of mass and energy" which states that the total mass and energy of this universe is constant. It can be converted from one form to another but can not destroyed permanently.
ii. Now the same question arises here that why Allah created this primordial matter and what was in universe before he created matter. He must be happy without doing any such task. Followers of Allah should come with an acceptable reason for this.
Regard,
Surya Singh.
written by KalBhairav, August 09, 2011
Great questions Surya! I wanna watch this one so here I am subscribing to this thread.
My guess is that Muslims here will say Allah created everything from nothing. Then we will have to point out ex nihilo nihilo fit. They will not agree to this but state that Allah can do anything.
Lets see if I am proven right on this one.
My guess is that Muslims here will say Allah created everything from nothing. Then we will have to point out ex nihilo nihilo fit. They will not agree to this but state that Allah can do anything.
Lets see if I am proven right on this one.
written by Apolloreach, August 09, 2011
@ KB: Your wait could be futile. Based on the trend in the recent past pertaining to similar discussions, a logical response for the questions by Surya may be hard to see. Let us see...
written by Shaik, December 17, 2011
@ surya
I do not know whether you believe in sifaat ( Attributes ) of God or not. As i have seen you consider god did not created us ,then it means you deny the creators
capability, plz don't keep boundaries for god, as boundaries are only for humans. i will come straight to point , we believe in facts,One of the attribute (Sifat) of god is SUBHAN, if you can understand SUBHAN Sifat of our Lord Almighty ,then you will find answer for your Question why did he created us.
plz tell me Attributes of god which you believe as per vedas , so that i can help you in understanding the SUBHAN sifat and how it is linked to creation of the world.
I do not know whether you believe in sifaat ( Attributes ) of God or not. As i have seen you consider god did not created us ,then it means you deny the creators
capability, plz don't keep boundaries for god, as boundaries are only for humans. i will come straight to point , we believe in facts,One of the attribute (Sifat) of god is SUBHAN, if you can understand SUBHAN Sifat of our Lord Almighty ,then you will find answer for your Question why did he created us.
plz tell me Attributes of god which you believe as per vedas , so that i can help you in understanding the SUBHAN sifat and how it is linked to creation of the world.
written by swayambhuv manu, January 18, 2012
what a confusing article.......and written in absence of understanding.....just to counter you questions , i ask you some question
now tell me one thing....
only allah is eternal says quran...........if u agree it ...i step forward
where was allah before creation of universe?
now the place where allah resided....must be as preasent from that time from which allah exist.....but as all is eternal....that place must be eternal.....dosent it??????
now here breaks the law of quran......not only allah but the place where allah resides is also eternal
now the story dosent ends here....
tell me from which substance allah created universe..........
if the substance was not present before...then allah might have created it from his part.............but if allah creates something from his part....then that part becomes eternal..........and we know allah dont create anything from its part..
so it is sure that there are atleat two things eternal in this universe....
1)allah 2)the place where allah resided........
now if we say that allah created universe from something that pre-existed...then there are three eternal thing
1 )allah 2)thewhere allah resided 3)raw material for universe
now,
if allah created man from eternal raw material---then man becomes eternal
............or..............
if allah created universe from its part.......then everything in universe becomes eternal..............again human becomes eternal...
now by above logic ....i have prooved that not only allah but atleast four things are eternal i.e.
1)allah 2)thewhere allah resided 3)raw material for universe 4) the creatures created from eternal material.........
now if we consider that the place where allah resided consist of the raw material of then again we have atleat three things which are eternal.....
1)allah
2) place and substance where allah resided before universe
3) things created from eternal material
now iam eager to find that what islamic scholars answer to this question.
now tell me one thing....
only allah is eternal says quran...........if u agree it ...i step forward
where was allah before creation of universe?
now the place where allah resided....must be as preasent from that time from which allah exist.....but as all is eternal....that place must be eternal.....dosent it??????
now here breaks the law of quran......not only allah but the place where allah resides is also eternal
now the story dosent ends here....
tell me from which substance allah created universe..........
if the substance was not present before...then allah might have created it from his part.............but if allah creates something from his part....then that part becomes eternal..........and we know allah dont create anything from its part..
so it is sure that there are atleat two things eternal in this universe....
1)allah 2)the place where allah resided........
now if we say that allah created universe from something that pre-existed...then there are three eternal thing
1 )allah 2)thewhere allah resided 3)raw material for universe
now,
if allah created man from eternal raw material---then man becomes eternal
............or..............
if allah created universe from its part.......then everything in universe becomes eternal..............again human becomes eternal...
now by above logic ....i have prooved that not only allah but atleast four things are eternal i.e.
1)allah 2)thewhere allah resided 3)raw material for universe 4) the creatures created from eternal material.........
now if we consider that the place where allah resided consist of the raw material of then again we have atleat three things which are eternal.....
1)allah
2) place and substance where allah resided before universe
3) things created from eternal material
now iam eager to find that what islamic scholars answer to this question.
written by pseudo, January 19, 2012
hmmm.. the author dodges a very basic question that Dayanand picks up when defining omnipotence. He can answer here in Yes or No:
1. Can Allah annihilate himself?
1. Can Allah annihilate himself?
written by Satyaarthi, January 19, 2012
@ Manu
I found this comment interesting so I hope one minds me replying to the few points raised.
So you are limiting God to space , so how come this entity is God in the first place?I don't think that you know about the philosophical implications of the statement you made had you know you wouldn't have made such and absurd statement.
So are you implying that God is in NEED of some substance for creation? If so explain how can such an entity be God?I think author has already replied quite rationally to this.
Using the same analogy , then in Arya Samaj's theology everything is eternal isn't it? As everything was created from prakriti which is eternal? So , now this only points that Sun, Moon, my car , my watch...etc are all eternal.
After saying "i have prooved that not only allah but atleast four things are eternal" you cut it down to 3 ? Why ?
I think you didn't read the entire article(read both part 1 and part 2) , as I think each and every point you raised was refuted rationally in the article, what you did was just rephrase the same refuted arguments.
@ pseudo
I think you are unaware of philosophical underpinnings of the statements made by the author .If you see , as very well exposed by the author the definition of 'omnipotence' by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi itself is wrong and absurd, so the stance of Swami itself loses credibility.
Another point, is that I don't find the author dodging any questions on the contrary Swami Saraswathi has quite wittly fooled(and dodged the questions pertaining to this topic) people with his sophistry anyone who's aware of philosophical history would only be amazed how Swami tries to fool his reader with such an explanation which was exposed centuries ago.
Now, this is called Dodging! Instead of refuting the arguments of the author you choose to re-question with imposing some 'rules'(or constraints) so that it you could aid you.This 'yes' & 'no' ploy is quite old and very well-known to be irrational.Your statment 'Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
Moreover, your 'yes' and 'no' contraint , is interesting, but logically flawed.Have you ever read basic logic or taken any course? Please answer this sentence of mine in 'Yes'(true) or 'No'(false):
Can you? Above sentence proves the irrationality of your implied constraint.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
I found this comment interesting so I hope one minds me replying to the few points raised.
now the place where allah resided....must be as preasent from that time from which allah exist.....but as all is eternal....that place must be eternal.....dosent it
So you are limiting God to space , so how come this entity is God in the first place?I don't think that you know about the philosophical implications of the statement you made had you know you wouldn't have made such and absurd statement.
tell me from which substance allah created universe
So are you implying that God is in NEED of some substance for creation? If so explain how can such an entity be God?I think author has already replied quite rationally to this.
but if allah creates something from his part....then that part becomes eternal..........and we know allah dont create anything from its part..
Using the same analogy , then in Arya Samaj's theology everything is eternal isn't it? As everything was created from prakriti which is eternal? So , now this only points that Sun, Moon, my car , my watch...etc are all eternal.
now if we consider that the place where allah resided consist of the raw material of then again we have atleat three things which are eternal.....
After saying "i have prooved that not only allah but atleast four things are eternal" you cut it down to 3 ? Why ?
now iam eager to find that what islamic scholars answer to this question.
I think you didn't read the entire article(read both part 1 and part 2) , as I think each and every point you raised was refuted rationally in the article, what you did was just rephrase the same refuted arguments.
@ pseudo
hmmm.. the author dodges a very basic question that Dayanand picks up when defining omnipotence.
I think you are unaware of philosophical underpinnings of the statements made by the author .If you see , as very well exposed by the author the definition of 'omnipotence' by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi itself is wrong and absurd, so the stance of Swami itself loses credibility.
Another point, is that I don't find the author dodging any questions on the contrary Swami Saraswathi has quite wittly fooled(and dodged the questions pertaining to this topic) people with his sophistry anyone who's aware of philosophical history would only be amazed how Swami tries to fool his reader with such an explanation which was exposed centuries ago.
He can answer here in Yes or No:
1. Can Allah annihilate himself?
Now, this is called Dodging! Instead of refuting the arguments of the author you choose to re-question with imposing some 'rules'(or constraints) so that it you could aid you.This 'yes' & 'no' ploy is quite old and very well-known to be irrational.Your statment 'Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
Moreover, your 'yes' and 'no' contraint , is interesting, but logically flawed.Have you ever read basic logic or taken any course? Please answer this sentence of mine in 'Yes'(true) or 'No'(false):
"This statement is false"
Can you? Above sentence proves the irrationality of your implied constraint.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 20, 2012
@Satyaarthi
Hmmm.. so you dodge too. I have read the article, the aithor has simply restated what Dayanand Saraswati has said about omnipotence. Do you want me to extract the lines from this article (the author's attempts?
You can simply say 'Yes' or 'No' or 'I don't know' and that settles it, doesn't it? By calling somebody fool or indulging in sophistry is mere rhetoric.
The question may or may not be absurd. In fact lets assume it is absurd. The answer could still be plain and simple binary (or termary if you include 'I don't know' as a valid answer).
Hmmm.. so you dodge too. I have read the article, the aithor has simply restated what Dayanand Saraswati has said about omnipotence. Do you want me to extract the lines from this article (the author's attempts?
You can simply say 'Yes' or 'No' or 'I don't know' and that settles it, doesn't it? By calling somebody fool or indulging in sophistry is mere rhetoric.
The question may or may not be absurd. In fact lets assume it is absurd. The answer could still be plain and simple binary (or termary if you include 'I don't know' as a valid answer).
written by pseudo, January 20, 2012
@Satyarthi,
Don't pass comment on me. Whether or not I have taken a course of logic proves nothing.
Satyem Jayate.
Don't pass comment on me. Whether or not I have taken a course of logic proves nothing.
This statement is false.. this is your failed attempt at trying the Liar's paradox on me. Now statements don't have answer and exactly that's why what you have stated need not be answered. Questions have answers. What I have asked is a question and unlike Liar's paradox I don't have a pre-statement or proposition on which I am asking a question. I guess, you indeed have taken a 'course' on logic.
Satyem Jayate.
written by pseudo, January 20, 2012
@Satyarthi
Really? Would you say the same if I ask you 'Is there a God?', 'Was Hitler born to a female?' or 'Does Satyamev jayate?' ?
Moreover, your 'yes' and 'no' contraint , is interesting, but logically flawed.
Really? Would you say the same if I ask you 'Is there a God?', 'Was Hitler born to a female?' or 'Does Satyamev jayate?' ?
written by Satyaarthi, January 20, 2012
@ pseudo,
Dodging! Well, I think I clearly proved how irrational your 'question' was! Now if this is called dodging then be it so! Yeah , go ahead and show the so called 'attempts' that will help me expose your blunt excuses.
I think you in haste read a bit wrongly , I never called anyone a 'fool' this is what I wrote :
"Swami Saraswathi has quite wittly fooled (and dodged the questions pertaining to this topic) people with his sophistry..." and
"Swami tries to fool his reader"
So, I would suggest that you don't indulge in hurling allegations at me.
And, I think you didn't read the short example(sentence) I gave which prooved Swami's sophisstry, I think the author has better than me proved it already. And , if you know this is the famous sophist question utilized by various atheist to ultimately prove that God didn't exist.Go and read any book on philosophy and you'll find what I said,and I known none who said that this wasn't sophistry, thus this wasn't mere rhetoric but is a fact which I told.
I think instead of refuting me and my arguments you are just reiterating your statements again and again.I showed you the illogicality of the 'question' here :
So don't assume it be absurd that's fact, and if you see in the article a Mathematician is quoted saying the same(that's what all mathematicians say).
You also said :
Your 'yes' or 'no' ploy won't help you here that's a quite old trick pal , go get some other ploy or at least a trick.Now can you answer this in 'Yes' or 'No' , please do:
Now , I'm asking questions and these are pure questions , as you said :
As you see above I've asked questions please answer with 'Yes' or 'No' , can you? And by the way the so-called 'Liar's Paradox' is more accurately called 'Semantic Paradox'. Also(just a side note), this contention of yours is utterly wrong:
"Canada is a country"
This is a perfect statement , and it does have a answer ,'Yes'.Which is also called 'truth value',(This was just for extra-information or General knowledge).
So now please answer my questions by 'Yes' or 'No', as you said 'Questions have answers'.I think my questions show how your 'Yes' or 'No' ploy is not good at all and will simultaneously prove my point.
Re-read my post, I didn't pass a comment or belittle you what I did was asked a simple and sincere question, here's what I asked :
"Have you ever read basic logic or taken any course?"
Now, if asking simple question is passing comments then I have nothing to say.The reason I asked the question is that if you haven't read any book or took any course then I would talk non-philosophically(without formal-logic),easily understood by everyone.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
Hmmm.. so you dodge too. I have read the article, the aithor has simply restated what Dayanand Saraswati has said about omnipotence. Do you want me to extract the lines from this article (the author's attempts?
Dodging! Well, I think I clearly proved how irrational your 'question' was! Now if this is called dodging then be it so! Yeah , go ahead and show the so called 'attempts' that will help me expose your blunt excuses.
By calling somebody fool or indulging in sophistry is mere rhetoric.
I think you in haste read a bit wrongly , I never called anyone a 'fool' this is what I wrote :
"Swami Saraswathi has quite wittly fooled (and dodged the questions pertaining to this topic) people with his sophistry..." and
"Swami tries to fool his reader"
So, I would suggest that you don't indulge in hurling allegations at me.
And, I think you didn't read the short example(sentence) I gave which prooved Swami's sophisstry, I think the author has better than me proved it already. And , if you know this is the famous sophist question utilized by various atheist to ultimately prove that God didn't exist.Go and read any book on philosophy and you'll find what I said,and I known none who said that this wasn't sophistry, thus this wasn't mere rhetoric but is a fact which I told.
The question may or may not be absurd. In fact lets assume it is absurd. The answer could still be plain and simple binary (or termary if you include 'I don't know' as a valid answer).
I think instead of refuting me and my arguments you are just reiterating your statements again and again.I showed you the illogicality of the 'question' here :
Now, this is called Dodging! Instead of refuting the arguments of the author you choose to re-question with imposing some 'rules'(or constraints) so that it you could aid you.This 'yes' & 'no' ploy is quite old and very well-known to be irrational.Your statment 'Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
So don't assume it be absurd that's fact, and if you see in the article a Mathematician is quoted saying the same(that's what all mathematicians say).
You also said :
Really? Would you say the same if I ask you 'Is there a God?', 'Was Hitler born to a female?' or 'Does Satyamev jayate?' ?
Your 'yes' or 'no' ploy won't help you here that's a quite old trick pal , go get some other ploy or at least a trick.Now can you answer this in 'Yes' or 'No' , please do:
"What's your age?"
"What's your hair colour?"
Now , I'm asking questions and these are pure questions , as you said :
Now statements don't have answer and exactly that's why what you have stated need not be answered. Questions have answers. What I have asked is a question and unlike Liar's paradox I don't have a pre-statement or proposition on which I am asking a question.
As you see above I've asked questions please answer with 'Yes' or 'No' , can you? And by the way the so-called 'Liar's Paradox' is more accurately called 'Semantic Paradox'. Also(just a side note), this contention of yours is utterly wrong:
Now statements don't have answer and exactly that's why what you have stated need not be answered
"Canada is a country"
This is a perfect statement , and it does have a answer ,'Yes'.Which is also called 'truth value',(This was just for extra-information or General knowledge).
So now please answer my questions by 'Yes' or 'No', as you said 'Questions have answers'.I think my questions show how your 'Yes' or 'No' ploy is not good at all and will simultaneously prove my point.
Don't pass comment on me. Whether or not I have taken a course of logic proves nothing.
Re-read my post, I didn't pass a comment or belittle you what I did was asked a simple and sincere question, here's what I asked :
"Have you ever read basic logic or taken any course?"
Now, if asking simple question is passing comments then I have nothing to say.The reason I asked the question is that if you haven't read any book or took any course then I would talk non-philosophically(without formal-logic),easily understood by everyone.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 20, 2012
@Satyarthi
You know what this is...this is exactly what is called Sophism.
Your initial stand was questions can't have 'yes' or 'no' answers and that stand is logically flawed, now when I present you some such questions you simply step aside and present a different class of questions. Good job done, keep it up but you fool nobody.
Yes it is a statement. No, it doesn't have a answer. The statement has a truth value. The following is a question "Is Canada a country?" and it can have an answer yes, No or I don't know. I thought this is pretty elementary, but yes I understand the Liar's paradox and Semantic Paradox perfectly well. Thanks anyway for the little nugget of GK.
The advantage of writing something, against speaking it, is that you can circumvent the meaning since I can never know with what emotions you were writing it. Thats all right. However if it was a question, as you now clarify, the answer is 'Yes'. See here again we have a question that can be answered in binary. And you weren't 'logically flawed' in asking it.
Rhetoric can only take you so far.
And despite all the rhetoric, the question still stands "Can God annihilate himself or herself or 'itself'?". As I said you and the author can simply say "I don't know".
If you can't answer it and point it as a version of Liar's paradox (No, it is not) then you are missing a very basic philosophical point. And to resolve it you will very minimally (but not limited to saying only this) say that the question is absurd ( I agree it is). But then your answer will have to redefine the word Omnipotent, in other word you can't consistently use the definition as "Power to do anything". It has to be, atleast, within the bounds of 1. Logic, 2. God's own Laws (whatever these are, we needn't know them all). I think this is the definition that Dayanand Saraswati is using. And that's why I think the author and Dayanand Saraswati are not basically and logically differing from each other. The author merely plays with the words ( perhaps Dayanand Saraswati was too).
Your 'yes' or 'no' ploy won't help you here that's a quite old trick pal , go get some other ploy or at least a trick.Now can you answer this in 'Yes' or 'No' , please do:
You know what this is...this is exactly what is called Sophism.
Your initial stand was questions can't have 'yes' or 'no' answers and that stand is logically flawed, now when I present you some such questions you simply step aside and present a different class of questions. Good job done, keep it up but you fool nobody.
Canada is a country
Yes it is a statement. No, it doesn't have a answer. The statement has a truth value. The following is a question "Is Canada a country?" and it can have an answer yes, No or I don't know. I thought this is pretty elementary, but yes I understand the Liar's paradox and Semantic Paradox perfectly well. Thanks anyway for the little nugget of GK.
Now, if asking simple question is passing comments then I have nothing to say.
The advantage of writing something, against speaking it, is that you can circumvent the meaning since I can never know with what emotions you were writing it. Thats all right. However if it was a question, as you now clarify, the answer is 'Yes'. See here again we have a question that can be answered in binary. And you weren't 'logically flawed' in asking it.
Your 'yes' or 'no' ploy won't help you here that's a quite old trick pal , go get some other ploy or at least a trick....
I think instead of refuting me and my arguments you are just reiterating your statements again and again.I showed you the illogicality of the 'question' here
Rhetoric can only take you so far.
And despite all the rhetoric, the question still stands "Can God annihilate himself or herself or 'itself'?". As I said you and the author can simply say "I don't know".
If you can't answer it and point it as a version of Liar's paradox (No, it is not) then you are missing a very basic philosophical point. And to resolve it you will very minimally (but not limited to saying only this) say that the question is absurd ( I agree it is). But then your answer will have to redefine the word Omnipotent, in other word you can't consistently use the definition as "Power to do anything". It has to be, atleast, within the bounds of 1. Logic, 2. God's own Laws (whatever these are, we needn't know them all). I think this is the definition that Dayanand Saraswati is using. And that's why I think the author and Dayanand Saraswati are not basically and logically differing from each other. The author merely plays with the words ( perhaps Dayanand Saraswati was too).
written by pseudo, January 20, 2012
@Satyarthi,
I seriously mean you to go through the Omnipotence paradox (Not exactly Liar's paradox) if you havn't.
I seriously mean you to go through the Omnipotence paradox (Not exactly Liar's paradox) if you havn't.
written by Satyaarthi, January 21, 2012
@ pseudo,
Ah! Hurling-allegations won't help you, I hope you like Swami Dayananda Saraswathi don't invent your own definition of Sophism, and even a person with cursory knowledge of Sophistry will find your allegation leveled at me , hard to believe.
My initial stand? Please pin-point the place where in my so-called initial stand(in my posts) I've stated that "questions can't have answers like 'Yes' or 'No'" even an illiterate knows that certain questions do have 'Yes' or 'No' answers(Now don't tell me you thought that I hold that questions cannot be answered with 'Yes' or 'No', that would be hilarious I wonder how can anyone think so).
You are doing a great job by simply avoiding and skipping my arguments,simultaneously leveling allegations at me, but it won't aid you at all.I think you need to re-read my posts my arguing was clear, there are certain(like yours annihilation one) questions which cannot be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No' this is what I was arguing for and still hold to it.
Great, you've admitted it at last "different class of questions" ! so I think you agree that these "different class of questions" cannot be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No'(You failed to do so).Similar, is your question "1. Can Allah annihilate himself?"thus you've proven my point that your question cannot be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' as its from "different class of questions"which ultimately disproves your allegation that the author was dodging the 'basic question' and so was I as you claimed in your first and second posts!Thus your initial objection is refuted by your own words.
Now coming to your other musings :
Well, now you've erred pathetically that too in elementary Logic and Mathematical Logic! The above was a statement with an answer 'Yes'. You say "The statement has a truth value" simultaneously holding that statements don't have answer! Well, that's a contradiction! Truth values are answers of statements as per Logic and Mathematical Logic , dear!If you want I can recommend you books where it has been explicitly stated .And you are always welcome.
You've all the right and liberty to doubt my intentions('emotions') and meanings related to that question of mine, I don't have a problem.But,had you taken the apparent meaning(which I actually meant) of my question you wouldn't have alleged me with passing comments.Great, so you've as you say taken a course or studied books pertaining to logic , then I would request you to use standard terms and not otherwise (Liar's Paradox!).
Now that's grossly far-fetched.Let me show it to you - very briefly.You in your first post wrote :
To which I replied with (here's the excerpt):
And while simultaneously asking you to reply to the Semantic Paradox with 'Yes' or 'No'.Which you failed to do and thus stated that :
Which is totally wrong as proved above.And you also stated :
So, I asked you pure questions as you held that statements don't have answer while questions can be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' :
To which you replied with "different class of questions"which proved point.So if you see you didn't REFUTE anything written by the author nor my arguments what you did was just reiterate the same question of annihilation asking it to be answered in so-called binary or ternary! Now, if all this was rhetoric then what can a rational man say?
Cont...
You know what this is...this is exactly what is called Sophism.
Ah! Hurling-allegations won't help you, I hope you like Swami Dayananda Saraswathi don't invent your own definition of Sophism, and even a person with cursory knowledge of Sophistry will find your allegation leveled at me , hard to believe.
Your initial stand was questions can't have 'yes' or 'no' answers and that stand is logically flawed, now when I present you some such questions you simply step aside and present a different class of questions. Good job done, keep it up but you fool nobody.
My initial stand? Please pin-point the place where in my so-called initial stand(in my posts) I've stated that "questions can't have answers like 'Yes' or 'No'" even an illiterate knows that certain questions do have 'Yes' or 'No' answers(Now don't tell me you thought that I hold that questions cannot be answered with 'Yes' or 'No', that would be hilarious I wonder how can anyone think so).
You are doing a great job by simply avoiding and skipping my arguments,simultaneously leveling allegations at me, but it won't aid you at all.I think you need to re-read my posts my arguing was clear, there are certain(like yours annihilation one) questions which cannot be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No' this is what I was arguing for and still hold to it.
Great, you've admitted it at last "different class of questions" ! so I think you agree that these "different class of questions" cannot be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No'(You failed to do so).Similar, is your question "1. Can Allah annihilate himself?"thus you've proven my point that your question cannot be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' as its from "different class of questions"which ultimately disproves your allegation that the author was dodging the 'basic question' and so was I as you claimed in your first and second posts!Thus your initial objection is refuted by your own words.
Now coming to your other musings :
Yes it is a statement. No, it doesn't have a answer. The statement has a truth value. The following is a question "Is Canada a country?" and it can have an answer yes, No or I don't know. I thought this is pretty elementary, but yes I understand the Liar's paradox and Semantic Paradox perfectly well. Thanks anyway for the little nugget of GK.
Well, now you've erred pathetically that too in elementary Logic and Mathematical Logic! The above was a statement with an answer 'Yes'. You say "The statement has a truth value" simultaneously holding that statements don't have answer! Well, that's a contradiction! Truth values are answers of statements as per Logic and Mathematical Logic , dear!If you want I can recommend you books where it has been explicitly stated .And you are always welcome.
The advantage of writing something, against speaking it, is that you can circumvent the meaning since I can never know with what emotions you were writing it. Thats all right. However if it was a question, as you now clarify, the answer is 'Yes'. See here again we have a question that can be answered in binary. And you weren't 'logically flawed' in asking it.
You've all the right and liberty to doubt my intentions('emotions') and meanings related to that question of mine, I don't have a problem.But,had you taken the apparent meaning(which I actually meant) of my question you wouldn't have alleged me with passing comments.Great, so you've as you say taken a course or studied books pertaining to logic , then I would request you to use standard terms and not otherwise (Liar's Paradox!).
Rhetoric can only take you so far.
Now that's grossly far-fetched.Let me show it to you - very briefly.You in your first post wrote :
He can answer here in Yes or No:
1. Can Allah annihilate himself?
To which I replied with (here's the excerpt):
Now, this is called Dodging! Instead of refuting the arguments of the author you choose to re-question with imposing some 'rules'(or constraints) so that it you could aid you.This 'yes' & 'no' ploy is quite old and very well-known to be irrational.Your statment 'Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
And while simultaneously asking you to reply to the Semantic Paradox with 'Yes' or 'No'.Which you failed to do and thus stated that :
Now statements don't have answer and exactly that's why what you have stated need not be answered. Questions
Which is totally wrong as proved above.And you also stated :
Questions have answers. What I have asked is a question...
So, I asked you pure questions as you held that statements don't have answer while questions can be answered with 'Yes' or 'No' :
"What's your age?"
"What's your hair colour?"
To which you replied with "different class of questions"which proved point.So if you see you didn't REFUTE anything written by the author nor my arguments what you did was just reiterate the same question of annihilation asking it to be answered in so-called binary or ternary! Now, if all this was rhetoric then what can a rational man say?
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 21, 2012
@ pseudo
Your 'rhetoric' allegation has already been disprove, I think above in this same post I've proven that your question is from "different class of questions" thus cannot answered in 'binary' or 'ternary'.So the question of answering it in binary or ternary does not arise at all!
This is also answered in this same post earlier.Great , so you've accepted that the question is irrational and absurd , good for you that you from assuming(The question may or may not be absurd. In fact lets assume it is absurd.) it to be a absurd now 'agree' that it is in fact absurd.
Well, I think here's your "different class of questions" answer.
I think the author has already proven that the question itself is irrational and you agree too so there's no need to re-define anything, as the author says :
Moreover, if you re-define Omnipotence then that won't be Omnipotence at all!
Nope, you are wrong here Swami Dayananda Saraswathi(SDS) doesn't anywhere state that its God's own Laws thus God cannot annihilate himself or similarly while answering about it.For SDS there's nothing like true Omnipotence, while I think the author holds to the true definition of Omnipotence.I don't think that author has played with words on the contrary it was SDS who using Sophistry played with words.
I seriously mean you to go through the Omnipotence paradox (Not exactly Liar's paradox) if you havn't.
Thank you, but I've already years ago! Imaam Ibn Rushd al-Andalusi the Aristotelian philosopher or well-known as the Second-teacher, who's pictures are even found in Church's tainted glass-work(due to his fame).He deals with it in detail in his Tahafut at-Tahafut.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
And despite all the rhetoric, the question still stands "Can God annihilate himself or herself or 'itself'?". As I said you and the author can simply say "I don't know".
Your 'rhetoric' allegation has already been disprove, I think above in this same post I've proven that your question is from "different class of questions" thus cannot answered in 'binary' or 'ternary'.So the question of answering it in binary or ternary does not arise at all!
If you can't answer it and point it as a version of Liar's paradox (No, it is not) then you are missing a very basic philosophical point. And to resolve it you will very minimally (but not limited to saying only this) say that the question is absurd ( I agree it is).
This is also answered in this same post earlier.Great , so you've accepted that the question is irrational and absurd , good for you that you from assuming(The question may or may not be absurd. In fact lets assume it is absurd.) it to be a absurd now 'agree' that it is in fact absurd.
Well, I think here's your "different class of questions" answer.
But then your answer will have to redefine the word Omnipotent, in other word you can't consistently use the definition as "Power to do anything". It has to be, atleast, within the bounds of 1
I think the author has already proven that the question itself is irrational and you agree too so there's no need to re-define anything, as the author says :
As God exists hence all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence. Also the Power, Majesty and Might of Almighty God have nothing to do with Irrationalities.
Moreover, if you re-define Omnipotence then that won't be Omnipotence at all!
Logic, 2. God's own Laws (whatever these are, we needn't know them all). I think this is the definition that Dayanand Saraswati is using. And that's why I think the author and Dayanand Saraswati are not basically and logically differing from each other. The author merely plays with the words ( perhaps Dayanand Saraswati was too).
Nope, you are wrong here Swami Dayananda Saraswathi(SDS) doesn't anywhere state that its God's own Laws thus God cannot annihilate himself or similarly while answering about it.For SDS there's nothing like true Omnipotence, while I think the author holds to the true definition of Omnipotence.I don't think that author has played with words on the contrary it was SDS who using Sophistry played with words.
I seriously mean you to go through the Omnipotence paradox (Not exactly Liar's paradox) if you havn't.
Thank you, but I've already years ago! Imaam Ibn Rushd al-Andalusi the Aristotelian philosopher or well-known as the Second-teacher, who's pictures are even found in Church's tainted glass-work(due to his fame).He deals with it in detail in his Tahafut at-Tahafut.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 21, 2012
@Satyarthi
Another whole lot of rhetoric. Where have you or the author 'proved' that that question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'? You/The author have simply moved over to say that it is absurd to ask the question by saying that it amounts to ask another question, namely:
Just the dictionary meanings will do for your confusion regarding truth values and 'answers', so much for your advanced knowledge of logic:
Definition of ANSWER (only the relevant portion from meriam webster)
1a : something spoken or written in reply to a question
1b : something done in response or reaction
Definition of TRUTH-VALUE
: the truth or falsity of a proposition or statement
You think these are same. I don't think so.
Go back to my first post, I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox. There was no proposition at all regarding God or his capability to annihiltate anything.
Now why so much of rhetoric from you, that is explained by the dictionary meaning of Sophism:
Definition of SOPHISTRY
1: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
You are simply side-stepping the answering of a question in Dialectic by branding it something that it is not (Liar's paradox) and then harping on Liar's paradox. That is clearly sophism.
Quoting from the article:
This was Dayanand's Saraswati's explanation for Omnipotence and this is in response to your following comment:
Hmmm, the Tahafut, so do you ascribe to Averroism?
Another whole lot of rhetoric. Where have you or the author 'proved' that that question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'? You/The author have simply moved over to say that it is absurd to ask the question by saying that it amounts to ask another question, namely:
is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time.
Just the dictionary meanings will do for your confusion regarding truth values and 'answers', so much for your advanced knowledge of logic:
Definition of ANSWER (only the relevant portion from meriam webster)
1a : something spoken or written in reply to a question
1b : something done in response or reaction
Definition of TRUTH-VALUE
: the truth or falsity of a proposition or statement
You think these are same. I don't think so.
Go back to my first post, I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox. There was no proposition at all regarding God or his capability to annihiltate anything.
Now why so much of rhetoric from you, that is explained by the dictionary meaning of Sophism:
Definition of SOPHISTRY
1: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
You are simply side-stepping the answering of a question in Dialectic by branding it something that it is not (Liar's paradox) and then harping on Liar's paradox. That is clearly sophism.
Quoting from the article:
But does Omnipotent mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them.
This was Dayanand's Saraswati's explanation for Omnipotence and this is in response to your following comment:
Nope, you are wrong here Swami Dayananda Saraswathi(SDS) doesn't anywhere state that its God's own Laws thus God cannot annihilate himself or similarly while answering about it.
Hmmm, the Tahafut, so do you ascribe to Averroism?
written by Satyaarthi, January 21, 2012
@ pseudo
Now don't tell me that just like Swami Dayananda Saraswathi, you've your own definitions, like of rhetoric, as I in my last post I've refuted your allegation and as earlier said what can a rational man say when you are hell-bent to skip my arguments and hurl allegations after allegations.
I didn't expect this from a person who has taken a course of logic! See my last post where I satisfactorily did it with your admitting of "different class of questions" didn't you read it? I hope you don't want me to entirely reproduce it here! Why are you skipping my proven points and simultaneously stating that I "have simply moved over to say that it is absurd to ask the question by saying that it amounts to ask another question" and then to prove your false-allegation you bring a quote from first post, when I've proven in the subsequent posts that the "question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'" using your admission i.e."different class of questions".Now that's quite unethical that you skip my proven points and then state that I never proved my point!
And when did I say that the author has "'proved' that that question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'"? It's really hilarious to say so! To remind you here's what I said :
I hope you don't put words in my mouth!What I understand from the article is that the author has proved the objections of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi to be irrational, and the reason why author needed not to refute the 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy because he wasn't asked to do so! Swami nowhere asks anyone to answer in 'binary' or 'ternary' as its not possible to do so!It was you who wanted it to be so and I refuted you, see my earlier post, as you seemingly have skipped it.
Great you bring up dictionaries in your in defense! I think you missed the essence of my refutation(its bold out below) :
Now you get it don't you? And really I didn't expect this from you, every student of mathematical logic or logic knows it very well! And incidentally just on a side-note even dictionaries corroborate to standards of mathematical logic and accept the fact (in a sense) :
Truth-values are solutions and answers of statements! Anyways,whether you accept it or not but in terms of logic that's a fact.
You couldn't answer mine! I asked you questions(later ones) expecting answers and they too weren't a paradox or proposition ? Question have answers as you said ,so Where are the answers?
Ah! it won't work here ! So you are calling my arguments sophistry and even rhetoric ! while you label your 'points and arguments' as 'question'! Your question :
Can Allah annihilate himself
Is sophistry, which atheist and other materialists have all along have used! In fact your so-called question is as example(instance) of 'Sophism' given in many books dealing with philosophy and logic! And by the way please pin-point my so-called "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation", can you? You call my simple questions like "What's your age?" and "What's your hair colour?" as sophistry , quite amazing!
Cont...
Another whole lot of rhetoric
Now don't tell me that just like Swami Dayananda Saraswathi, you've your own definitions, like of rhetoric, as I in my last post I've refuted your allegation and as earlier said what can a rational man say when you are hell-bent to skip my arguments and hurl allegations after allegations.
Where have you or the author 'proved' that that question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'? You/The author have simply moved over to say that it is absurd to ask the question by saying that it amounts to ask another question, namely:
I didn't expect this from a person who has taken a course of logic! See my last post where I satisfactorily did it with your admitting of "different class of questions" didn't you read it? I hope you don't want me to entirely reproduce it here! Why are you skipping my proven points and simultaneously stating that I "have simply moved over to say that it is absurd to ask the question by saying that it amounts to ask another question" and then to prove your false-allegation you bring a quote from first post, when I've proven in the subsequent posts that the "question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'" using your admission i.e."different class of questions".Now that's quite unethical that you skip my proven points and then state that I never proved my point!
And when did I say that the author has "'proved' that that question can't be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'"? It's really hilarious to say so! To remind you here's what I said :
I think the author has already proven that the question itself is irrational and you agree too so there's no need to re-define anything, as the author says
I hope you don't put words in my mouth!What I understand from the article is that the author has proved the objections of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi to be irrational, and the reason why author needed not to refute the 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy because he wasn't asked to do so! Swami nowhere asks anyone to answer in 'binary' or 'ternary' as its not possible to do so!It was you who wanted it to be so and I refuted you, see my earlier post, as you seemingly have skipped it.
Just the dictionary meanings will do for your confusion regarding truth values and 'answers', so much for your advanced knowledge of logic:
Definition of ANSWER (only the relevant portion from meriam webster)
1a : something spoken or written in reply to a question
1b : something done in response or reaction
Definition of TRUTH-VALUE
: the truth or falsity of a proposition or statement
You think these are same. I don't think so.
Great you bring up dictionaries in your in defense! I think you missed the essence of my refutation(its bold out below) :
Well, now you've erred pathetically that too in elementary Logic and Mathematical Logic! The above was a statement with an answer 'Yes'. You say "The statement has a truth value" simultaneously holding that statements don't have answer! Well, that's a contradiction! Truth values are answers of statements as per Logic and Mathematical Logic , dear!
Now you get it don't you? And really I didn't expect this from you, every student of mathematical logic or logic knows it very well! And incidentally just on a side-note even dictionaries corroborate to standards of mathematical logic and accept the fact (in a sense) :
answer [ˈɑːnsə]
an·swer (nsr)
b. A correct solution.
a solution, esp of a mathematical problem
-[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/answer](relevant parts quoted visit site for more)
Truth-values are solutions and answers of statements! Anyways,whether you accept it or not but in terms of logic that's a fact.
Go back to my first post, I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox. There was no proposition at all regarding God or his capability to annihiltate anything.
You couldn't answer mine! I asked you questions(later ones) expecting answers and they too weren't a paradox or proposition ? Question have answers as you said ,so Where are the answers?
Now why so much of rhetoric from you, that is explained by the dictionary meaning of Sophism:
Definition of SOPHISTRY
1: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
You are simply side-stepping the answering of a question in Dialectic by branding it something that it is not (Liar's paradox) and then harping on Liar's paradox. That is clearly sophism.
Ah! it won't work here ! So you are calling my arguments sophistry and even rhetoric ! while you label your 'points and arguments' as 'question'! Your question :
Can Allah annihilate himself
Is sophistry, which atheist and other materialists have all along have used! In fact your so-called question is as example(instance) of 'Sophism' given in many books dealing with philosophy and logic! And by the way please pin-point my so-called "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation", can you? You call my simple questions like "What's your age?" and "What's your hair colour?" as sophistry , quite amazing!
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 21, 2012
Is sophistry, which atheist and other materialists have all along have used! In fact your so-called question is as example(instance) of 'Sophism' given in many books dealing with philosophy and logic! And by the way please pin-point my so-called "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation", can you? You call my simple questions like "What's your age?" and "What's your hair colour?" as sophistry , quite amazing!
Another allegation! Dear, until now I did not call your question a 'Sematic Paradox'(yours liar's paradox),as I did not want to forward my argument from that angle? To remind you here's what I said in my very first post also re-read later posts(until this one) I nowhere in my earlier post said so, (in-fact it is Omnipotence Paradox stemming from Semantic paradox, see end part of the post):
Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
And then I posed you with Semantic Paradox to prove that not all questions can be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No' which you've admitted by not answering my questions(the ones after paradox) .Well my so-called 'harping' on Semantic Paradox, is not true I already mentioned that it was to be 'side-noted'.
This is what I stated and is in-fact true:
Nowhere does Swami Dayananda Sarawathi explicitly state that it's a law of God that God cannot annihilate himself!In addition, the author and Swami are "basically and logically differing from each other". Because even if I agree that according to swami this are his own(God) laws still , question of Omnipotence remains and Swami still holds on to his invented definition.As how can God be Omnipotent when he cannot surpass his own Laws? God's Laws are from his own Will and He does what He Will's.While the author seemingly believes in true-Omnipotence and that God can Surpass his own Will as prerogative rests with Him alone.Also, if these are laws according to Arya Samajis then it could be quite problematic for them.
Cont...
You are simply side-stepping the answering of a question in Dialectic by branding it something that it is not (Liar's paradox) and then harping on Liar's paradox. That is clearly sophism.
Another allegation! Dear, until now I did not call your question a 'Sematic Paradox'(yours liar's paradox),as I did not want to forward my argument from that angle? To remind you here's what I said in my very first post also re-read later posts(until this one) I nowhere in my earlier post said so, (in-fact it is Omnipotence Paradox stemming from Semantic paradox, see end part of the post):
Can Allah annihilate himself?' is similar to asking can Allaah be Allaah at the same time not be Allaah at same time? Now, would anyone need a proof for the invalidity and irrationality of the question?
And then I posed you with Semantic Paradox to prove that not all questions can be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No' which you've admitted by not answering my questions(the ones after paradox) .Well my so-called 'harping' on Semantic Paradox, is not true I already mentioned that it was to be 'side-noted'.
This was Dayanand's Saraswati's explanation for Omnipotence and this is in response to your following comment:
This is what I stated and is in-fact true:
Nope, you are wrong here Swami Dayananda Saraswathi(SDS) doesn't anywhere state that its God's own Laws thus God cannot annihilate himself or similarly while answering about it.
Nowhere does Swami Dayananda Sarawathi explicitly state that it's a law of God that God cannot annihilate himself!In addition, the author and Swami are "basically and logically differing from each other". Because even if I agree that according to swami this are his own(God) laws still , question of Omnipotence remains and Swami still holds on to his invented definition.As how can God be Omnipotent when he cannot surpass his own Laws? God's Laws are from his own Will and He does what He Will's.While the author seemingly believes in true-Omnipotence and that God can Surpass his own Will as prerogative rests with Him alone.Also, if these are laws according to Arya Samajis then it could be quite problematic for them.
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 21, 2012
Hmmm, the Tahafut, so do you ascribe to Averroism?
If it's a sincere question like the one I asked then answer is , No.And by the way if just by reading Tahafut at-Tahafut you thought of me to be a believer in Averroes-ism then I've even read Satyarth Prakash, so would you ask that "do you ascribe to Arya Samaj?"
Your Core argument for your ploy :
I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox. There was no proposition at all regarding God or his capability to annihiltate anything.
What I understand from this and your earlier claims is that you believe that except :
1) Paradoxes and,
2) Statements
all questions can be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No'- thus you keep asking to answer your annihilation question in binary or ternary.I've proved it to be false(that all questions can be answered with binary/ternary),can you answer this question which is not a paradox nor a proposition : 'What's your height' with Yes or No?
Obviously not, even previously you failed to do so, similar is your question of annihilation.Now as you cannot answer it(in binary/ternary) which ultimately proves my point that not all questions can be answered in binary/ternary similar is the case with your annihilation question which is from "different class of questions" which cannot be answered in binary/ternary so this ultimately proves my point and forces you to quit the 'Yes' or 'No' ploy.
Now withoutthe ploy your question is already answered by the author! Now the only thing you can try is refute, the true-definition of Omnipotence or prove that the question isn't irrational/absurd(but you've accepted it to be so)which you cannot possibly do.I hope you don't want me to repeat my proven points again and again.
I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox.
Are you serious? The questions we are discussing are of 'Omnipotence Paradox'in nature!And your question is a version of Omniptence paradox , as Omnipotence Paradox (here's the definition from Wikipedia):
"states that: if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
Annihilation of own-self is an "action" or "task" which according to you God is unable to perform, which means God "cannot perform all actions", thus God is not Omnipotent(according to you and Swami hence he devises new defn.).Your question is an Omnipotence Paradox, its quite hilarious of you to deny it!And if you see even the author knew of this thus he classes and answers famous omnipotence paradox of circle with 4 sides(square circle)with death/annihilation of God's - Omnipotence paradox!
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Ethan Allen both address your version of Omnipotence paradox!Can you prove it isn't?It's a Omnipotence paradox now what?
P.S - Overlook if a para or two are repeated twice this is due to the post being long.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 21, 2012
@Satyarthi
I never said that all questions can be answered in binary or ternary. Show me where I have claimed that.
Secondly the question is still not a paradox, unless you define Omnipotence as: "Can do anything.". So the basic aspersion is the definition of Omnipotence or what you call 'Absolute Omnipotence' for the sake of clarity. I have never denied that with that definition you won't end in a paradox (and again it is not Liar's Paradox in the sense that you seemingly wanted to project it out as initially). But you seem to be denying it.
Sophism again?
I don't want to repeat it, but you haven't yet proved anything.
I didn't say you subscribe to Averroism, ascribe is not same as subscribe, perhaps 'ascribe to' should have been 'ascribe of' , my bad off-course. Apologies anyway.
No I don't get it. Truth Values and Answers are not same, the definitions were for you to understand the difference. And the idea of giving dictionary meanings were perfectly in line with the author here, I hope you don't think he had resorted to dictionary in 'defense'. The rest is rhetoric. I think you can keep the name calling part aside.
Ludwig tries. But does he resolve it? If you are referring to Ethan Allen's 'Reason' he doesn't even come near this problem. However it could be some other Ethan Allen, who off-course then I don't know off.
all questions can be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No'- thus you keep asking to answer your annihilation question in binary or ternary.I've proved it to be false(that all questions can be answered with binary/ternary),can you answer this question which is not a paradox nor a proposition : 'What's your height' with Yes or No?
I never said that all questions can be answered in binary or ternary. Show me where I have claimed that.
Secondly the question is still not a paradox, unless you define Omnipotence as: "Can do anything.". So the basic aspersion is the definition of Omnipotence or what you call 'Absolute Omnipotence' for the sake of clarity. I have never denied that with that definition you won't end in a paradox (and again it is not Liar's Paradox in the sense that you seemingly wanted to project it out as initially). But you seem to be denying it.
What I understand from this and your earlier claims is that you believe that except :
1) Paradoxes and,
2) Statements
Sophism again?
Now that's quite unethical that you skip my proven points
I don't want to repeat it, but you haven't yet proved anything.
No.And by the way if just by reading Tahafut at-Tahafut you thought of me to be a believer in Averroes-ism then I've even read Satyarth Prakash
I didn't say you subscribe to Averroism, ascribe is not same as subscribe, perhaps 'ascribe to' should have been 'ascribe of' , my bad off-course. Apologies anyway.
Now you get it don't you? And really I didn't expect this from you, every student of mathematical logic or logic knows it very well!
No I don't get it. Truth Values and Answers are not same, the definitions were for you to understand the difference. And the idea of giving dictionary meanings were perfectly in line with the author here, I hope you don't think he had resorted to dictionary in 'defense'. The rest is rhetoric. I think you can keep the name calling part aside.
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Ethan Allen both address your version of Omnipotence paradox
Ludwig tries. But does he resolve it? If you are referring to Ethan Allen's 'Reason' he doesn't even come near this problem. However it could be some other Ethan Allen, who off-course then I don't know off.
written by pseudo, January 21, 2012
@Satyarthi,
I do concede however that you have proved that there are classes of problem that can't have a 'Yes' or 'No' solution ( They still might have 'I don't know' as a valid answer). But that doesn't prove that The question falls in any of these classes.
What I have (tried to)prove by setting that question ( and something generations of philospher's and logicians before me have) is that the generalised view of Omnipotence (absolute) has logical pitfalls. The semantics are not out of this world, they are the harvest of human mind (and hence an Absolutely Omnipotent God could have stopped the semantics to have come in the first place). That definition can't handle logically inconsistent situations. So either that definition or the axiomatic framework of logic has to be abandoned. Off-course you can say that God is illogical(or super-logical) or his works are beyond human logic (But that will lead to another paradox, think about it), refer Descartes and his critics.
In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies.
I do concede however that you have proved that there are classes of problem that can't have a 'Yes' or 'No' solution ( They still might have 'I don't know' as a valid answer). But that doesn't prove that The question falls in any of these classes.
What I have (tried to)prove by setting that question ( and something generations of philospher's and logicians before me have) is that the generalised view of Omnipotence (absolute) has logical pitfalls. The semantics are not out of this world, they are the harvest of human mind (and hence an Absolutely Omnipotent God could have stopped the semantics to have come in the first place). That definition can't handle logically inconsistent situations. So either that definition or the axiomatic framework of logic has to be abandoned. Off-course you can say that God is illogical(or super-logical) or his works are beyond human logic (But that will lead to another paradox, think about it), refer Descartes and his critics.
In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies.
written by pseudo, January 21, 2012
@Satyarthi,
And off-course there is another circumventing 'logical' conclusion that would say that God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief. You may say that.
And off-course there is another circumventing 'logical' conclusion that would say that God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief. You may say that.
written by Satyaarthi, January 22, 2012
@ pseudo
You should have clarified this earlier, anyways good you did it now , it's never late.
The question is undoubtedly a paradox and you say 'unless you define Omnipotence as: "Can do anything."' I think you should before commeting (at least by now) know that which Omnipotence the author and I were arguing for (i.e true-Omnipotence)! And ,I think this was very clear as you talk of “the generalised view of Omnipotence (absolute) “, so I find it hard to believe that you didn’t knew that the author and I were talking of this “ generalized” ,‘Absolute Omnipotence’.
If you see the author has already stated the ‘genralised’ meaning of Omnipotence and argued for it:
having unlimited power; able to do anything
-[Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary]
And this definition is usually followed by almost all theists- genralised.Terms like 'Absolute Omnipotence' or 'essential Omnipotence' …etc are result of works on the Omnipotence paradox by various philosophers! These terms came about in course of either refuting or analyzing the Omnipotence paradox. Another point I never used the 'Semantic Paradox'(your liar's paradox) to prove that your initial question was an instance of it! I think I've more than once clarified the reason why I did so! Please point out where did I label your initial question as "Liar's paradox"? Had I needed to refute you through paradoxes(that angle)! I would have directly done so through Omnipotence Paradox! Thus your imagination that I initially labeled your question as "Liar's paradox" is false.
And, interestingly you first say:
When I prove that your question is an instance of Omnipotence paradox. You say:
Well, that's absurd ! I think all this time I was arguing for 'true-Omnipotence' which is labeled by philosophers as 'Absolute Omnipotence' and so is the author arguing for it! Didn't you read the article? So this statement of your is purely a way to save yourself from conceding that your question is an instance paradox when you never knew about it. Anyways, so as you now know that I and similarly the author have all along been arguing for true-Omnipotence as many theists do, so what now?
Cont..
I never said that all questions can be answered in binary or ternary. Show me where I have claimed that.
You should have clarified this earlier, anyways good you did it now , it's never late.
Secondly the question is still not a paradox, unless you define Omnipotence as: "Can do anything.". So the basic aspersion is the definition of Omnipotence or what you call 'Absolute Omnipotence' for the sake of clarity. I have never denied that with that definition you won't end in a paradox (and again it is not Liar's Paradox in the sense that you seemingly wanted to project it out as initially). But you seem to be denying it.
The question is undoubtedly a paradox and you say 'unless you define Omnipotence as: "Can do anything."' I think you should before commeting (at least by now) know that which Omnipotence the author and I were arguing for (i.e true-Omnipotence)! And ,I think this was very clear as you talk of “the generalised view of Omnipotence (absolute) “, so I find it hard to believe that you didn’t knew that the author and I were talking of this “ generalized” ,‘Absolute Omnipotence’.
If you see the author has already stated the ‘genralised’ meaning of Omnipotence and argued for it:
having unlimited power; able to do anything
-[Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary]
And this definition is usually followed by almost all theists- genralised.Terms like 'Absolute Omnipotence' or 'essential Omnipotence' …etc are result of works on the Omnipotence paradox by various philosophers! These terms came about in course of either refuting or analyzing the Omnipotence paradox. Another point I never used the 'Semantic Paradox'(your liar's paradox) to prove that your initial question was an instance of it! I think I've more than once clarified the reason why I did so! Please point out where did I label your initial question as "Liar's paradox"? Had I needed to refute you through paradoxes(that angle)! I would have directly done so through Omnipotence Paradox! Thus your imagination that I initially labeled your question as "Liar's paradox" is false.
And, interestingly you first say:
I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox.
When I prove that your question is an instance of Omnipotence paradox. You say:
I have never denied that with that definition you won't end in a paradox
Well, that's absurd ! I think all this time I was arguing for 'true-Omnipotence' which is labeled by philosophers as 'Absolute Omnipotence' and so is the author arguing for it! Didn't you read the article? So this statement of your is purely a way to save yourself from conceding that your question is an instance paradox when you never knew about it. Anyways, so as you now know that I and similarly the author have all along been arguing for true-Omnipotence as many theists do, so what now?
Cont..
written by Satyaarthi, January 22, 2012
Sophism again?
Well, I've proved your question to be an instance of Sophism you too prove that this,
What I understand from this and your earlier claims is that you believe that except :
1) Paradoxes and,
2) Statements
understanding of mine of your post is false and is SOPHISM. Isn’t it you who said:
I have asked a question, expecting an answer and it is not even a paradox. There was no proposition at all regarding God or his capability to annihiltate anything....
Now statements don't have answer
So what does anyone apparently understand of it? Thus your claim of Sophism is nothing but another allegation-hurled, instead of proving this to be sophistry you just label it and move ahead. Anyways, doesn't matter my points are already proven.
I don't want to repeat it, but you haven't yet proved anything.
Now that's the height of unethical-ness. Had I not proven anything why would you from "assuming" your question to be absurd go on to "agree" that it is in-fact "absurd"? Why would you "concede" that are "different class of questions"? I can go on showing...
The rest is rhetoric
Good from sophism to rhetoric...you are surely progressing in hurling-allegations at me.
Ludwig tries. But does he resolve it?
Are you really reading my posts? I wrote(see the bold text):
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Ethan Allen both address your version of Omnipotence paradox!
I think my words were clear-cut, neither apparently nor implicitly have I stated that he ‘resolved it! I used this to show that your question is an instance of Paradox (i.e. Omnipotence) which back-then you denied saying "it is not even a paradox" It was to show you that your question is in-fact a paradox addressed by philosophers so there should be no doubt that it wasn't a paradox, now I am amazed how can you conclude from my words that Ludwig resolves it?
I do concede however that you have proved that there are classes of problem that can't have a 'Yes' or 'No' solution ( They still might have 'I don't know' as a valid answer). But that doesn't prove that The question falls in any of these classes.
Good that you've at-last conceded that your question is of Omnipotence-paradox, another tactic - so now resort to 'I don't know' but dear, Logic does not recognize it. Logic consist of "True"(1) and "False"(0). And by the way 'I don't know' is not a "Solution"!
As of this statement of yours "But doesn't prove that The question falls in any of these classes" then that's quite ridiculous. I asked you whether you can answer my questions in 'Yes' or 'No' you say No(didn't answer them). Similarly I say your question cannot be answered with 'Yes' Or 'No'.
Now these questions of mine were proofs to prove that your question is similar to your question as both cannot be answered in ‘binary’ and thus of the same class i.e. from "different class of questions". Now either you answer my questions in 'Yes' Or 'No' or you prove that your question isn't from "different class of questions".Else repeal your ploy! Also don't you now agree that your question is a paradox? So do you think it’s valid? (See the end part)
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 22, 2012
What I have (tried to)prove by setting that question ( and something generations of philospher's and logicians before me have) is that the generalised view of Omnipotence (absolute) has logical pitfalls.
Now you come to it, what you and those few philosophers couldn't understand is that Omnipotence is and attribute of God tied to his Essence, by definition(by essence) God is truly-Omnipotent(Absolute Omnipotent) Eternal, Un-created, and Immortal !All these are attributes of God tied to His Essence.
So now the philosophers using sophistry question:
Can God annihilate himself?
Forgetting that God is Immortal and Eternal ! So the question is irrational and paradoxical (asking the annihilation question while knowing of His Immortality attribute!). To have a complete understanding of the issue let’s see what you say next:
The semantics are not out of this world, they are the harvest of human mind (and hence an Absolutely Omnipotent God could have stopped the semantics to have come in the first place). That definition can't handle logically inconsistent situations. So either that definition or the axiomatic framework of logic has to be abandoned.
Not indulging into the meaning/nature of 'Semantics' , I say if you see the question is not of semantics it is about God and His attributes(Omnipotence).The problem isn't semantics but irrationalities and illogicality.
You say the true-Omnipotence/Absollute Omnipotence's "definition can't handle logically inconsistent situations" thus either this absolute Omnipotence "definition" or "the axiomatic framework of logic has to be abandoned" All these statements are based on your misunderstanding of the entire problem. Firstly , the definition (or say Absolute Omnipotence of God) has nothing to do with irrationality, as you agree(can't handle). Now similarly, have you ever seen Logic has anything to do with illogicality?
So, if as per you the "definition" is to be abandoned on the account , so must entire discipline of "Logic" to be abandoned as Logic has nothing to do with Illogicality nor can Logic "handle logically inconsistent" things!
So your both contentions are purely absurd, if I were to accept that the "definition" cannot handle logical inconsistent things THUS needs to be abandoned then we'll need to abandon a lot of things , like mathematics as mathematics cannot answer why is not 1 1 = 11(logical inconsistent things), or cannot minus be plus and plus be minus…etc.!
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 22, 2012
Off-course you can say that God is illogical(or super-logical) or his works are beyond human logic (But that will lead to another paradox, think about it), refer Descartes and his critics.
On this note you can't say so. It's ludicrous to say that 'God is illogical' here when your question is that only that is illogical and a paradox. If here we can say that He's is illogical due to this point then we will also have to say that 'Logic is Illogical'(as Logic has nothing to do will Illogicality) which again is Illogical! Thus the only thing illogical is the Sophist , paradoxical question.
In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies.
If you use irrationality and paradoxes! Now if you start with inconsistency you'll be end up with inconsistency, hardly anything deals with inconsistencies. For example in computer science there is a phrase "GiGO" (Garbage in, garbage out)if you input nonsensical/irrational data("garbage in") the computer will produce nonsensical/irrational output ("garbage out"). So does the Computer become "Garbage or Irrational" Or will you say that Computer cannot perform logical things? Similarly, if you don't use paradoxes, sophistry and irrationality you won't end-up with "inconsistencies", simple principle which many fail to understand. Computer too has nothing to do with irrationality , so should we abandon it too?
And off-course there is another circumventing 'logical' conclusion that would say that God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief. You may say that.
There also those who believe that God or a Creator cannot be empirically proven! Now here's what the Noble-laureate, Erwin Schrodinger -the German physicist says:
"The scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient…It [science] cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously" -[Schrodinger Erwin (2001) Why Not Talk Physics?]
So will people say that, nothing like good or bad exists....etc.?
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 22, 2012
@Satyarthi,
Don't take this as a attack on you the person, but a whole lot of your argument is indeed rhetoric and sophistry the way the words are defined. For example, your line goes like this,
1. Ask a question => Devise another question of another class => If the second class of questions can't have answers in a particular sense, then it proves that there are questions which can't be answered in a particular manner => The first question can't be answered in that particular manner.
This final implication is just a leap of logic.
2. You say somebody addresses a problem, on being questioned you say they only 'address' and you never apparently or implicitly meant they resolved it. So why bring them in the first places, generations of philosophers, logicians, theologist have done just that.. addressed!! That is irrelevant, another attribute of sophistry.
3. Somebody says that there is a 'circumventing' logical conclusion about "God's Omnipotence being Absolute" not being empirically proven but should be taken as a belief only. You refer to Schrodinger's opinion about scientific limits. It is beside the point isn't it. Should we then dwell onto what Russell says on the same subject? This line is actually a variant of point 1 mentioned above.
These are just 3 examples.
So, anyway I apologise if I mistook your honest dealings as sophism.
Back to your arguments:
Unfortunately it does. The law of the excluded middle is just an example.
Perhaps a little mistake in framing the sentence, the intent however is clear. The true-Omnipotence/Absollute Omnipotence's definition leads to logically inconsistent situations. And this intent is clear from the last line in my comment:
"In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies".
And again you bring in GIGO, a digression. The example is not apt in more ways than one. Just briefly, Computers can produce garbage even from non-"nonsensical" inputs.
It is not a case of forgetting. You have just come to the logical end of things. It is just restating that God can't defy his own attributes and laws, same as what Dayanand Saraswati says in the excerpt I have quoted earlier. Each of God's classical attribute limits 'attributally' ( if you understand what I mean), in absolute terms, the other attribute. Dayanand Saraswati and you are therefore saying the same thing. Please also understand that this limits are not human but 'Godly' so there is no questioning him being 'Sarvasaktiman'. This Hindi/Sanskrit word is seemingly more apt than Omnipotence, the English word would be 'almighty'.
Don't take this as a attack on you the person, but a whole lot of your argument is indeed rhetoric and sophistry the way the words are defined. For example, your line goes like this,
1. Ask a question => Devise another question of another class => If the second class of questions can't have answers in a particular sense, then it proves that there are questions which can't be answered in a particular manner => The first question can't be answered in that particular manner.
This final implication is just a leap of logic.
2. You say somebody addresses a problem, on being questioned you say they only 'address' and you never apparently or implicitly meant they resolved it. So why bring them in the first places, generations of philosophers, logicians, theologist have done just that.. addressed!! That is irrelevant, another attribute of sophistry.
3. Somebody says that there is a 'circumventing' logical conclusion about "God's Omnipotence being Absolute" not being empirically proven but should be taken as a belief only. You refer to Schrodinger's opinion about scientific limits. It is beside the point isn't it. Should we then dwell onto what Russell says on the same subject? This line is actually a variant of point 1 mentioned above.
These are just 3 examples.
So, anyway I apologise if I mistook your honest dealings as sophism.
Back to your arguments:
Good that you've at-last conceded that your question is of Omnipotence-paradox, another tactic - so now resort to 'I don't know' but dear, Logic does not recognize it.
Unfortunately it does. The law of the excluded middle is just an example.
You say the true-Omnipotence/Absollute Omnipotence's "definition can't handle logically inconsistent situations"
Perhaps a little mistake in framing the sentence, the intent however is clear. The true-Omnipotence/Absollute Omnipotence's definition leads to logically inconsistent situations. And this intent is clear from the last line in my comment:
"In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies".
And again you bring in GIGO, a digression. The example is not apt in more ways than one. Just briefly, Computers can produce garbage even from non-"nonsensical" inputs.
So now the philosophers using sophistry question:
Can God annihilate himself?
Forgetting that God is Immortal and Eternal !
It is not a case of forgetting. You have just come to the logical end of things. It is just restating that God can't defy his own attributes and laws, same as what Dayanand Saraswati says in the excerpt I have quoted earlier. Each of God's classical attribute limits 'attributally' ( if you understand what I mean), in absolute terms, the other attribute. Dayanand Saraswati and you are therefore saying the same thing. Please also understand that this limits are not human but 'Godly' so there is no questioning him being 'Sarvasaktiman'. This Hindi/Sanskrit word is seemingly more apt than Omnipotence, the English word would be 'almighty'.
written by Satyaarthi, January 23, 2012
@ pseudo
Go ahead, I hope this time you prove that my arguments are 'sophistry' just like I did with yours.
You wittingly tried to wrongly portray the line! Though I made it clear in the last post, let's scrutinize, which will show your misdoings.
(1) First question was yours(annihilation one)not mine.
(2) I in my reply asked you to answer 'Semantic Paradox'. - You objected...etc.
(3) Then came my questions, which you didn't answer.
(4) But you reply with 'different class of question'.
(5) Then I said that your first question(1) is from these same 'different class of question'(4).
(6) You say no it is not.
(7) I say prove that it is not or else admit it.
So, I ask you to prove that that my questions (3), are not from 'different class of question'(4), which you do not do instead label it with sophistry! The final implication is that my questions (3) are of the same 'different class of question'(4). I never knew that asking someone to prove something is labeled as Sophistry!
I seriously doubt whether or not you read my posts! You 'address' a problem do not mean you resolved it! You ask 'So why bring them in the first places',, which I already answered :
The reason was as simple as stated above. You did not know that your question was an instance of ‘Omnipotence paradox’ so now to prove it to you I showed you the definition from Wikipedia and also stated two names who 'addressed' your version of the paradox as not all philosophers addressed your version of the paradox! I never knew that the synonym for 'address' is 'resolve'! I wonder how can a person really come to such a conclusion!
It was you who said that this to be accurate and here are you exact words:
And off-course there is another circumventing 'logical' conclusion that would say that God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief..Accurately speaking you did not say 'but should be taken as a belief only' rather you said 'God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief'.
My response was perfect to your asking for the 'empirical' validity of 'God's absolute omnipotence'.And yes I did quote Schrodinger to show you that science does has its own limits, which proved that 'empirical observation' cannot be brought into question here as how can one empirically 'OBSERVE' God's attributes ! When Science cannot simply tell us what good and bad is, how can science exactly affirm or negate God's attributes! Is proving the uselessness of science in this question a instance of Sophism?
Cont...
Don't take this as a attack on you the person, but a whole lot of your argument is indeed rhetoric and sophistry the way the words are defined.
Go ahead, I hope this time you prove that my arguments are 'sophistry' just like I did with yours.
For example, your line goes like this,
1. Ask a question => Devise another question of another class => If the second class of questions can't have answers in a particular sense, then it proves that there are questions which can't be answered in a particular manner => The first question can't be answered in that particular manner.This final implication is just a leap of logic.
You wittingly tried to wrongly portray the line! Though I made it clear in the last post, let's scrutinize, which will show your misdoings.
(1) First question was yours(annihilation one)not mine.
(2) I in my reply asked you to answer 'Semantic Paradox'. - You objected...etc.
(3) Then came my questions, which you didn't answer.
(4) But you reply with 'different class of question'.
(5) Then I said that your first question(1) is from these same 'different class of question'(4).
(6) You say no it is not.
(7) I say prove that it is not or else admit it.
So, I ask you to prove that that my questions (3), are not from 'different class of question'(4), which you do not do instead label it with sophistry! The final implication is that my questions (3) are of the same 'different class of question'(4). I never knew that asking someone to prove something is labeled as Sophistry!
2. You say somebody addresses a problem, on being questioned you say they only 'address' and you never apparently or implicitly meant they resolved it. So why bring them in the first places, generations of philosophers, logicians, theologist have done just that.. addressed!! That is irrelevant, another attribute of sophistry.
I seriously doubt whether or not you read my posts! You 'address' a problem do not mean you resolved it! You ask 'So why bring them in the first places',, which I already answered :
I think my words were clear-cut, neither apparently nor implicitly have I stated that he ‘resolved it! I used this to show that your question is an instance of Paradox (i.e. Omnipotence) which back-then you denied saying "it is not even a paradox" It was to show you that your question is in-fact a paradox addressed by philosophers so there should be no doubt that it wasn't a paradox , now I am amazed how can you conclude from my words that Ludwig resolves it?
The reason was as simple as stated above. You did not know that your question was an instance of ‘Omnipotence paradox’ so now to prove it to you I showed you the definition from Wikipedia and also stated two names who 'addressed' your version of the paradox as not all philosophers addressed your version of the paradox! I never knew that the synonym for 'address' is 'resolve'! I wonder how can a person really come to such a conclusion!
3. Somebody says that there is a 'circumventing' logical conclusion about "God's Omnipotence being Absolute" not being empirically proven but should be taken as a belief only. You refer to Schrodinger's opinion about scientific limits. It is beside the point isn't it.
It was you who said that this to be accurate and here are you exact words:
And off-course there is another circumventing 'logical' conclusion that would say that God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief..Accurately speaking you did not say 'but should be taken as a belief only' rather you said 'God's absolute omnipotence is not an 'empirical' observation but a belief'.
My response was perfect to your asking for the 'empirical' validity of 'God's absolute omnipotence'.And yes I did quote Schrodinger to show you that science does has its own limits, which proved that 'empirical observation' cannot be brought into question here as how can one empirically 'OBSERVE' God's attributes ! When Science cannot simply tell us what good and bad is, how can science exactly affirm or negate God's attributes! Is proving the uselessness of science in this question a instance of Sophism?
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 23, 2012
Should we then dwell onto what Russell says on the same subject?
Why not please do. I hope you don’t think that Russell can change the limitations of science or extend them!
Alas, not even one of your paraphrased examples is an instance of Sophistry! I am amazed that you who all along has been arguing for Sophistry(your annihilation question)are alleging me with sophistry and have problem if I allegedly use(I nowhere used it) Sophistry!
So, anyway I apologise if I mistook your honest dealings as sophism.
Yes, you did either mistakenly or on purpose label my arguments with sophistry, and don’t worry I won’t be suing you for this. Anyways as you ‘apologized’ I ‘excused’ it.
Coming to the point:
Unfortunately it does. The law of the excluded middle is just an example.
Standard Logic also called as Classical Logic never recognizes anything except two-valued solutions!And the so-called 'Father of Logic' Aristotle never entirely accepted 'excluded middle'! Just on a side-note, to be precise even many modern logicians and mathematicians have rejected three-valued or multi-valued logic systems. Even Intuitionistic logic which itself in certain aspects disagrees with Standard Logic also denies law of excluded middle. Factually standard logic does not accept anything but two-valued logic system.
Non-Standard or Non-Classical logic systems are modern mostly originating in 19th century. Now, even if it does( and assuming you ascribe to Non-Classical Logic systems even in theological issues) ternary or three-valued logic cannot be applied everywhere, especially not in theological discussion! Also, the last problem with your ternary answer is as said in the earlier post, that ‘I don't know' is not a "Solution"!
Perhaps a little mistake in framing the sentence, the intent however is clear. The true-Omnipotence/Absollute Omnipotence's definition leads to logically inconsistent situations. And this intent is clear from the last line in my comment:
"In fact all the O's in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies".
Quite clever move, in order to avoid 'abandoning' Logic and other disciplines you intelligently move over from "cant' handle" to 'leads to'.Nonetheless , it does not solve the problem for you, as you shall see.
And, you need to rephrase your last sentence from the above quote. It's not O's that lead to inconsistencies as you wrongly believe, this is somewhat more correct:
"In fact all the INCONSISTENCIES in the absolute sense will lead to some logical inconsistencies"
Omnipotence is not an Inconsistency! Your question is inconsistent to which you've already agreed. So if you see what you in true sense are trying to prove is that:
Just because your question(annihilation) is inconsistent that concludes that Absolute Omnipotence is inconsistent!
No sane man can ever believe it.
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 23, 2012
And again you bring in GIGO, a digression. The example is not apt in more ways than one. Just briefly, Computers can produce garbage even from non-"nonsensical" inputs.
Again I bring in GIGO? That was the first time I brought it GIGO. You seem to doubt the accuracy of a computer .A computer usually never outputs any nonsensical data it does so only due to defects (bugs) either in System software or Application Software which again are human-fed inputs! Anyways as you are skeptical of it let me give you another apt example take the primitive stone-grinder, it never outputs/produces (grinded) Garbage if the input was wheat! It will output grinded wheat i.e. flour not Garbage. It will only produce grinded garbage if garbage is inputted. Or take the modern grinder same for it too. GIGO wasn't a digression as visible, it was simple example or case showing the inconsistency of your all O's lead to inconsistencies argument.
It is not a case of forgetting.
It is the case for many yes but you can say not for many Greek philosophers.
Each of God's classical attribute limits 'attributally' ( if you understand what I mean), in absolute terms, the other attribute.
So we are here! This statement of yours is based on pure misunderstanding of the concept ‘Attributes of God'! Going back in history many philosophers held that attributes of God are separate from his essence for example many Greek Philosophers, which led them to hilarious conclusions. But unfortunately this belief of philosophers wasn't logical true on their own criterion (Classical Logic) and many Muslim scholars proved this belief was against the principles of Logic itself. Moreover, according to academics this is considered to be strongest refutation of this belief till today without a counter response received. Anyways I won't talk more in details about it as this isn't the topic. To be specific thus I earlier said:
Omnipotence is and attribute of God tied to his Essence...Eternal, Un-created, and Immortal! All these are attributes of God tied to His Essence.
So 'Omnipotence Paradox' historically results or stems from illogically believing attributes to be 'bodies' and or simply say other than or separate from the essence of God(i.e. God).
Thus your statement "God's classical attribute limits 'attributally'in absolute terms, the other attribute" for me simply means that God's Essence limits God's Essence or God limits God! Now this is absurd and irrational par excellence!
It is just restating that God can't defy his own attributes and laws, same as what Dayanand Saraswati says in the excerpt I have quoted earlier... Dayanand Saraswati and you are therefore saying the same thing.
As I proved in my earlier post that the author and Swami Saraswathi differ basically and logically but you seemingly don't accept it.
Now to prove that SDS’s and I are saying the same thing this time you use ‘attributes’ :
So from your earlier argument of "attribute limits 'attributally' other attribute"I deduct that you hold the same view as of philosophers like many Greek Philosophers (correct me if I'm wrong here).So if you say SDS and the author's view(and mine) are the same 'cause according to you SDS meant that God cannot surpass His own laws and now you say something similar that God cannot surpass His own attributes or the attributes limit other attributes ,then that's quite wrong and problematic.
Without going into details, simply Muslims and nor do I differentiate between God and His attributes (they aren’t separate)! So the question of God overcoming and surpassing His attributes does not occur. While Laws of God are from His Will which again is an attribute but Laws of God themselves aren't attributes thus they aren't the Essence of God/God and hence it’s not illogical to believe that they can be surpassed.This should surely clear your confusion.
Please also understand that this limits are not human but 'Godly' so there is no questioning him being 'Sarvasaktiman'. This Hindi/Sanskrit word is seemingly more apt than Omnipotence, the English word would be 'almighty'.
As stated this limits logical flaw arises from the illogical belief that God and His attributes are other than or separate from His Essence.
Cont...
written by Satyaarthi, January 23, 2012
'Yes' Or 'No' ploy revisited :
You don't believe that 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy falls under "different class of questions".But you surely have proven that my question and your annihilation question are of the same 'different class' both of which cannot be answered in 'binary'.
You believe that my questions are not from "different class of questions" but are 'Sophistry' when your annihilation argument is purely Sophism! Thus you agree that both of our questions are instances of Sophism which proves that both the arguments are Sophistry which ultimately proves that my questions are the same to your question and that both of them cannot be answered in 'Yes' Or 'No'(as you failed to do so).
While I still believe my questions weren't Sophistry but according to you they are, this ultimately proves my point and renders your 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy refute by your own acknowledgement. That's why I've stated that it amazes me that you use Sophism but if I allegedly use it you have a problem!
Your 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy no longer(never was) is valid as you yourself refuted it. So now what remains is your sole question:
Can Allah annihilate himself?
Which has been already answered by the author. However, coming to this question. I wonder how could you could ask anyone to prove anything logical(God is Omnipotent) through illogicality(annihilation question) else abandon Absolute or 'true-Omnipotence'.
Your criterion (annihilation question) used itself is gravely flawed and absurd so how could one end-up with the right answer? It’s simple, for instance take a primitive weight-balance (a scale for weighing) if the weight-balance is broken or been compromised will it ever display correct weight? Never, similarly your irrational “question” take you to answer of whether God is Omnipotent or not. Now if you believe that inconsistencies/irrationalities can end-up with rational answers, so why do not try it with mathematics and ‘observe’ the result.
For instance as earlier stated can anyone prove that mathematics is a false science using 1 1 = 11 ? So how can you even think to prove that using irrationality you could prove God is not omnipotent! That's why I earlier said that your 'leads to' change in your argument won't work as here you are basically asking to prove 'Inconsistency'(your annihilation question), and here's and example.
i.e. like mathematically prove that 1 1=11(mathematically inconsistent) is mathematical, else abandon mathematics or redefine the plus sign!
So, it’s not logical end of things but the end or exposure of irrationality.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
You don't believe that 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy falls under "different class of questions".But you surely have proven that my question and your annihilation question are of the same 'different class' both of which cannot be answered in 'binary'.
You believe that my questions are not from "different class of questions" but are 'Sophistry' when your annihilation argument is purely Sophism! Thus you agree that both of our questions are instances of Sophism which proves that both the arguments are Sophistry which ultimately proves that my questions are the same to your question and that both of them cannot be answered in 'Yes' Or 'No'(as you failed to do so).
While I still believe my questions weren't Sophistry but according to you they are, this ultimately proves my point and renders your 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy refute by your own acknowledgement. That's why I've stated that it amazes me that you use Sophism but if I allegedly use it you have a problem!
Your 'Yes' Or 'No' ploy no longer(never was) is valid as you yourself refuted it. So now what remains is your sole question:
Can Allah annihilate himself?
Which has been already answered by the author. However, coming to this question. I wonder how could you could ask anyone to prove anything logical(God is Omnipotent) through illogicality(annihilation question) else abandon Absolute or 'true-Omnipotence'.
Your criterion (annihilation question) used itself is gravely flawed and absurd so how could one end-up with the right answer? It’s simple, for instance take a primitive weight-balance (a scale for weighing) if the weight-balance is broken or been compromised will it ever display correct weight? Never, similarly your irrational “question” take you to answer of whether God is Omnipotent or not. Now if you believe that inconsistencies/irrationalities can end-up with rational answers, so why do not try it with mathematics and ‘observe’ the result.
For instance as earlier stated can anyone prove that mathematics is a false science using 1 1 = 11 ? So how can you even think to prove that using irrationality you could prove God is not omnipotent! That's why I earlier said that your 'leads to' change in your argument won't work as here you are basically asking to prove 'Inconsistency'(your annihilation question), and here's and example.
i.e. like mathematically prove that 1 1=11(mathematically inconsistent) is mathematical, else abandon mathematics or redefine the plus sign!
So, it’s not logical end of things but the end or exposure of irrationality.
Satyameva Jayate,
Satyaarthi.
written by pseudo, January 23, 2012
@Satyarthi
You said but you didn't prove it. The proof of burden lies with you, not me. Passing the buck is a method in sophistry.
In the same comment I have quoted the line where the essence of my sentence comes out. As I said the framing of the sentence was wrong.
Bringing in anything like GIGO, Liar's paradox, referring names of mathematicians or philosophers or personalities (not for resolution though) and a lot of other arguments(What doesn't fall in Classical Logic - why should I be bothered?? I had just given an example because you categorically denied it) which are neither here nor there and doesn't relate with the question in hand are all marks of verbosity (rhetorics).
When in the first place you should have come to the crux of the argument which is this from your side(perhaps this should have been your first comment):
Lets baseline it here.
I genuinely believed your arguments were Sophism for reasons stated above (It has all the hallmarks...rhetorics, digression, Ignoratio elenchi etc.), but off-course I could be mistaken and thats why I apolozised. Now I know that you generally deal with lots of word in coming to the final statement which I have baselined above.
I didn't get it, what is the question? Are you co-relating it with my initial question? Do you mean to ask (the way I asked) - Can 1 1 = 11? If that is the question, the answer is ' ' in not a known operation (This is logically equivalent to saying that the operation ' ' doesn't fall in the scope of Mathematic). Or if you mean to ask Is 1 plus 1 = 11? ( I guess you somehow forgot to place the plus sign), the answer is 'No, not in decimal arithmatic.'.
If you want to co-relate in any other way let me know I will try answering to the best of my intellect (which though not much has stood me in good stead).
Well it will if you know how to use it well. If you are still a student I will ask you to find out the way, if you are not its never too late.
I have above refuted both your weight balance problem and the little job on Mathematics so your proof based on these examples are inconclusive.
(5) Then I said that your first question(1) is from these same 'different class of question'(4).
You said but you didn't prove it. The proof of burden lies with you, not me. Passing the buck is a method in sophistry.
Quite clever move, in order to avoid 'abandoning' Logic ...
In the same comment I have quoted the line where the essence of my sentence comes out. As I said the framing of the sentence was wrong.
Bringing in anything like GIGO, Liar's paradox, referring names of mathematicians or philosophers or personalities (not for resolution though) and a lot of other arguments(What doesn't fall in Classical Logic - why should I be bothered?? I had just given an example because you categorically denied it) which are neither here nor there and doesn't relate with the question in hand are all marks of verbosity (rhetorics).
When in the first place you should have come to the crux of the argument which is this from your side(perhaps this should have been your first comment):
Can God annihilate himself?
Forgetting that God is Immortal and Eternal
Lets baseline it here.
Yes, you did either mistakenly or on purpose label my arguments with sophistry
I genuinely believed your arguments were Sophism for reasons stated above (It has all the hallmarks...rhetorics, digression, Ignoratio elenchi etc.), but off-course I could be mistaken and thats why I apolozised. Now I know that you generally deal with lots of word in coming to the final statement which I have baselined above.
mathematically prove that 1 1=11(mathematically inconsistent) is mathematical, else abandon mathematics or redefine the plus sign!
So, it’s not logical end of things but the end or exposure of irrationality
I didn't get it, what is the question? Are you co-relating it with my initial question? Do you mean to ask (the way I asked) - Can 1 1 = 11? If that is the question, the answer is ' ' in not a known operation (This is logically equivalent to saying that the operation ' ' doesn't fall in the scope of Mathematic). Or if you mean to ask Is 1 plus 1 = 11? ( I guess you somehow forgot to place the plus sign), the answer is 'No, not in decimal arithmatic.'.
If you want to co-relate in any other way let me know I will try answering to the best of my intellect (which though not much has stood me in good stead).
if the weight-balance is broken or been compromised will it ever display correct weight
Well it will if you know how to use it well. If you are still a student I will ask you to find out the way, if you are not its never too late.
I have above refuted both your weight balance problem and the little job on Mathematics so your proof based on these examples are inconclusive.
Now to prove that SDS’s and I are saying the same thing this time you use ‘attributes’ quote]
Well, you brought in the discussion on attributes (see the baselined argument).
So 'Omnipotence Paradox' historically results or stems from illogically believing attributes to be 'bodies' and or simply say other than or separate from the essence of God(i.e. God).
written by pseudo, January 23, 2012
@Satyarthi
At last some good argument. So are you saying each attribute is God and can you corroborate it? Off-course you can say that it is what you 'believe' to be and in that case I am prepared to give up.
By the way my argument doesn't necessarily imply that the attributes are 'outside' the God. I understand what 'essence' essentially means.
If each attribute is separately identifiable even then the arguments hold ground. If they are to be seen in conjunction even then the argument holds. If you want to check in boolean logic, then say '1' and 'true' are same in essence. Then off-course what isn't '1' isn't 'true'. That is the basis of Idempotence. Hence if somebody asks "Can '1' be not 'true'?" The answer is "No". I won't argue that the question is illogical.
So 'Omnipotence Paradox' historically results or stems from illogically believing attributes to be 'bodies' and or simply say other than or separate from the essence of God(i.e. God).
Thus your statement "God's classical attribute limits 'attributally' in absolute terms, the other attribute" for me simply means that God's Essence limits God's Essence or God limits God! Now this is absurd and irrational par excellence!
At last some good argument. So are you saying each attribute is God and can you corroborate it? Off-course you can say that it is what you 'believe' to be and in that case I am prepared to give up.
By the way my argument doesn't necessarily imply that the attributes are 'outside' the God. I understand what 'essence' essentially means.
If each attribute is separately identifiable even then the arguments hold ground. If they are to be seen in conjunction even then the argument holds. If you want to check in boolean logic, then say '1' and 'true' are same in essence. Then off-course what isn't '1' isn't 'true'. That is the basis of Idempotence. Hence if somebody asks "Can '1' be not 'true'?" The answer is "No". I won't argue that the question is illogical.
Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Excellent stuff