Imagine a nation where every hospital is free of cost irrespective to your status, caste, gender, religion, nationality. A multi-speciality hospital providing you a clothes, well furnished wards, delicious food, specialized doctors, that too free of cost. Not just this even giving the patient money and food as a compensation for being out of work during his hospital stay. Isn't it mind-blowing?? This is what hospitals were in the Islamic Civilization. In early medieval where Europe belief that illness is supernatural, uncontrollable, incurable. Muslims took completely different approach because of the saying of prophet Muhammadï·º, “God has sent down the disease and he has appointed cure for every disease, so treat yourself medically”(¹) Mobile Dispensaries The first known Islamic care center was set up in a tent by Rufaydah al-Aslamiyah r.a during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammadï·º. Famously, during the Ghazwah Khandaq, she treated the wounded in a separ...
Rationality, sound intellect and the existence of 'god' | Chapter 1 | al Jawab as Saheeh liman yunkir al Waheeh
The question if there exists a higher being that has supposedly created all there is, and doubts in it are perfectly valid and encouraged for any person entering the stage of consciousness. It is via doubts and criticisms that one arrives at the truth, and humbles himself towards it. By "humbles" himself we mean that the truth is not derived by approval of a person's preferences, emotions, and whims rather the truth is always objective regardless of how one feels about it. Take for example the sun and it's hot nature, if the entire world were to deny the sun is hot until it is taught in schools that it is actually made up of ice, the sun regardless of anyone's realisation or denial will remain objectively hot. Summers will be equally as hot, and it will burn on equally as high temperatures. In such a case denial or stupidity won't be of any merit and one will have to 'submit' or 'humble' themselves before the truth. This is not a dent on any person's self worth rather it serves as an explanation and proof of their sound intellect.
Moving on we look at our existence as objectively true. It is without a doubt that we do exist, if one has doubts in that then perhaps for him will be another article but this one is for those of us that have confirmed their existence via the simple act of existing. There are multiple ways of looking at it and we will choose the most logical one. Once we establish that we do exist and that we are a “thing” in the universe, and/or the universe itself is a thing or that it exists too, we cannot then say that we are things that came out of nothing. Does something come out of nothing? Can nothing produce something? If one says No then he has sound proof via his own existence that there is “something” that originated all that exists. If one answers Yes then he has concluded that he doesn’t exist which if he is ready to affirm then there is no point in answering his criticisms, for who cares about that which doesn’t exist.
As for those of us that believed that something is behind all this then we go further. We said that something cannot come out nothing, and hence something exists that originated all of us. However a natural doubt to arise is “if the fact that something doesn’t come out of nothing proves that there is an originator of the universe then by the same principle the originator himself came out of something”
A very valid question to ask, it does however create an infinite loop. How is that? if the originator has an originator then the originator of that originator also has an originator who also needs to have an originator because something cannot come out of nothing. The list of these originators hence becomes infinite. However, we have to understand that if the universe and all there is in it has an originator then the laws of his own creation does not apply on him. The proof of which again is our own existence. To understand how first we have to affirm that the prior argument does not negate the existence of a creator, as we still do exist and something does not come out of nothing, now if the creator was to also have a creator and that creator had yet another one it would be an infinite chain. Which simply means we wouldn’t exist. If we are a creation, and our creator a creation too then as per the laws of infinity we would never be created because an infinite numbers of creators would have to be created an infinite number of times before we could be created. Think of it this way, you stand in a queue to submit a document or buy a ticket. In the queue before you, are 5 people so naturally after 5 people get their tickets you would have your turn. Now let’s assume there are 100 people, the wait this time would be slightly more but eventually your turn will arrive. Now assume there are 1000 people, the wait will be very long but logically your turn will arrive. Now assume there are an infinite number of people, and logically your turn will never arrive until an infinite number of people buy an infinite amount of tickets. Such is infinite regression, if the creator had a creator which led to an infinite chain our turn to be created would never arrive. This answers the weak argument of Prof. Dawkins about there being a creator of the creator.
While answering this argument I would also like to point out that there can only be one creator of all there is.
How one? As per laws of creation itself the creator of a thing is superior to it. In order for one to create an automobile engine one must know exactly what an engine is, to it’s most minute details, apart from that he must have the strength to assemble every piece of hardware necessary for an engine. In such a case he would be having complete power over the engine intellectually and physically. Now take this example on a larger scale, the creator of the universe or all there is must have the information and knowledge of all there is and must be more powerful than all there is. To frame it properly he must be all knowing and all powerful. The creator can logically be only one, if he is one he is logically all powerful. Let us assume there were two creators, then which one is all powerful? If one of them is not all powerful he can’t be god while the other all powerful one exists. If both are “all powerful” then both aren’t god as none is more powerful than the other thereby not being “all” powerful. If they are both not all powerful how did they create “all”. We did logically establish that the creator has to be superior to the creation. By not being all powerful both do not qualify towards the true logical understanding of a creator. It is not that it’s impossible for two beings superior to the creation to exist. However only one of the said two beings could be the creator of all. When one is the creator of all as we previously established it will logically be the following.
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. One
We have established the existence of a superior being, which perfectly fits the logical definition of god. In the upcoming series of articles we will talk about the existence of ‘evil’ despite of god and moral laws and their position in relation to god.
A very valid question to ask, it does however create an infinite loop. How is that? if the originator has an originator then the originator of that originator also has an originator who also needs to have an originator because something cannot come out of nothing. The list of these originators hence becomes infinite. However, we have to understand that if the universe and all there is in it has an originator then the laws of his own creation does not apply on him. The proof of which again is our own existence. To understand how first we have to affirm that the prior argument does not negate the existence of a creator, as we still do exist and something does not come out of nothing, now if the creator was to also have a creator and that creator had yet another one it would be an infinite chain. Which simply means we wouldn’t exist. If we are a creation, and our creator a creation too then as per the laws of infinity we would never be created because an infinite numbers of creators would have to be created an infinite number of times before we could be created. Think of it this way, you stand in a queue to submit a document or buy a ticket. In the queue before you, are 5 people so naturally after 5 people get their tickets you would have your turn. Now let’s assume there are 100 people, the wait this time would be slightly more but eventually your turn will arrive. Now assume there are 1000 people, the wait will be very long but logically your turn will arrive. Now assume there are an infinite number of people, and logically your turn will never arrive until an infinite number of people buy an infinite amount of tickets. Such is infinite regression, if the creator had a creator which led to an infinite chain our turn to be created would never arrive. This answers the weak argument of Prof. Dawkins about there being a creator of the creator.
While answering this argument I would also like to point out that there can only be one creator of all there is.
How one? As per laws of creation itself the creator of a thing is superior to it. In order for one to create an automobile engine one must know exactly what an engine is, to it’s most minute details, apart from that he must have the strength to assemble every piece of hardware necessary for an engine. In such a case he would be having complete power over the engine intellectually and physically. Now take this example on a larger scale, the creator of the universe or all there is must have the information and knowledge of all there is and must be more powerful than all there is. To frame it properly he must be all knowing and all powerful. The creator can logically be only one, if he is one he is logically all powerful. Let us assume there were two creators, then which one is all powerful? If one of them is not all powerful he can’t be god while the other all powerful one exists. If both are “all powerful” then both aren’t god as none is more powerful than the other thereby not being “all” powerful. If they are both not all powerful how did they create “all”. We did logically establish that the creator has to be superior to the creation. By not being all powerful both do not qualify towards the true logical understanding of a creator. It is not that it’s impossible for two beings superior to the creation to exist. However only one of the said two beings could be the creator of all. When one is the creator of all as we previously established it will logically be the following.
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. One
We have established the existence of a superior being, which perfectly fits the logical definition of god. In the upcoming series of articles we will talk about the existence of ‘evil’ despite of god and moral laws and their position in relation to god.
@author
Fahad Salim Mom
Pursuing honors in philosophy and major
in
English,
student of islamic
psychology, Youtuber, social worker.
fahadmom94@gmail.com
Youtube
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting!