by Imam Ibn ul Qayyim al Jawziyyah
Men & The Universe - Reflections of Ibn Al-Qayyem
Who was it who managed all that, perfected it, directed it and controlled it in the best way?
Someone might, if he were one of the depraved, say: "it is the work of nature; there are wonderful things in nature." To such a debater we say: if Allah had let your heart, you would yourself have refuted such a statement by replying: "Tell me about this nature, is it self-sustained, having knowledge, and having the ability to contrive those wonders? Or is it not? Is it not rather just an abstract quality and a display of the visible things around?" If the answer occurs to you: It is an independent entity with full knowledge, ability, will and wisdom," say: What you describe is the Creator, the Author and Shaper, so why do you call Him nature? Forget about what he naturalists dictate and turn to what Allah has taught humans to call Him in the words of His messengers, and if you do you will be one of the happy and wise folk. Why attribute to nature the attributes that belong to Allah?
If, on the other hand, the adversary says: "Nature is an abstract quality, a display in need of an agent, and all that we witness of its accomplishments s brought about without nature having knowledge, will, ability, or even the mere consciousness of what it is producing. All that we see is evidence of nature's achievements;" then the reply should be that no sane person would accept this reasoning. Do you really believe that the amazing actions and subtle contrivances that we see in this world, that no mind can fathom o fully appreciate, are made by an agent that itself has no thinking, ability, wisdom or feeling? Would anyone believe such reasoning but a madman or an animal?
You may further add: "If what you claim were true, I would be clear that such an abstract quality cannot have created itself or originated itself, so who is its Lord, Maker and Originator? Who enabled it to do all that? This logic is a most decisive piece of evidence in favor of believing in the Originator and Maker of nature, in the infinity of His ability, knowledge and wisdom. Indeed, this group has gained nothing by denying the Lord and His Attributes and Actions. They merely abolish the intellect and innate intuition. Nature itself would discredit such logic: it in fact contradicts mind, innate intuition, nature and even humanity, and it has caused the most ignorant and deluded attitudes that one can cause. If one does concede what the mind dictates and admits that it is not possible to have wise effects without the agency of a wise, able and knowing entity; that it is not possible to have well-controlled effects without here being a maker who is able, autonomous, in control of things, aware of what he is doing, not frustrated or overwhelmed by what he is doing - if one concedes that much then the right answer to such a person would be: What is the matter with you? When you accept the necessity of a great Creator beside whom no other god exists, and no other lord, stop calling Him nature or the 'self-active mind' or such appellations. Say instead: What I describe is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, Lord of the Worlds, Sustainer of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the east and the west, He who made excellent all that He created, and perfected what He crafted. Do not deny His Names and Attributes and Self and attribute His making to another and His creation to someone else. You have to concede His existence, and attribute to Him authorship, creation, lordship and control. There is no other way, praised is Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
The Meaning of Nature
By reconsidering the word 'nature' in this context, you will be led directly to the Creator, the Originator, as the common mind understands the word. That is because this word 'nature' (Arabic: tabee`ah) means that something was made by someone to behave according to a preset plan, and there is no other meaning at all. He word 'nature' is of the same class of words as 'instinct', 'disposition', 'temperament', 'an animal's or a human's nature', and the like. An animal has been made to react to stimuli, a reaction which is ingrained in it. It is self-evident that a 'nature' without a 'nature-maker' is impossibility: The very word, then, points to the Maker, the Almighty, just as its meaning indicates. Muslims believe that nature is one of Allah's creations, that it is under control, tamed and that this is part of His law operative among His creations; that He manages it the way He wills, and when He wills, so that He may deny it any aspect of its power when He wills, and reverse any of its effects when He wills, so that His servants may see that He alone is the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, and that He creates whatever He wills, and in the way He wills. This is the meaning of the following verse from the Qur'an:
"But His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says unto it: Be! and it is." (36:82)
Nature, which his the utmost that those short-sighted lot can perceive, is no more than a creature of the Lord, equal in that to any of His creations. Considering this, how would a human, with the least bit of humanity or thinking, be blind to its being made to behave as it behaves, and how would he attribute to it making and originating! Time and again Allah halts its power, alters it and reverses it, so that it does the opposite of what it originally did, all to illustrate to His servants that it is His creation and making, that it is controlled by Him. That much can be supported by this verse from the Qur'an:
"His verily is all creation and commandment; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds" (7:54)
I think the point you're missing is that none of us know. I agree, it does seem more likely, from a common-sense point of view, that the universe had a beginning. However, it's perfectly possible to argue that the universe is eternal, and many have done so.
Your argument from causality is fine if you have a rigidly deterministic view of things, but try to apply it to some of the findings of quantum mechanics and it breaks down.
Another response would be to say, once again: 'if what you say is true, and every effect needs a cause, what caused god?'
Exactly the point - every effect needs a cause, but this cannot go back infinitely, and this is why there has to be an original cause. It's the same way one views dominoes falling. Someone has to set the design, someone has to tip those dominoes.
I love Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzii's books(Rahimahullah) especially Za'aad Al-Maad Its awesome love it and hukm-un-nisaa, my uncle bought that book.loved that too.just like his teacher, ibn taymia(rahimhullah).sigh.........
This is getting tiresome. As usual, you've ignored all the arguments and just resorted to insults. Do you have any other strategy?
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Maybe you can list all 7% of them, so I can retract my opinion in the face of such heavy weights?
Hang on, I'm telling you nobody holds the 'naturalist' position described by the author, and you want me to tell you who all these people are that don't hold this view? OK, the entire population of the world.
Send me a ticket to your town of mutants.. I'd love to see how things run under no control!
Utterly irrelevant (and pretty baffling, too).
Eh old habits die hard.. I believe the same condition afflicts you?
Sure, I may be a bit harsh with people sometimes (especially if they're spouting mind-shrinking nonsense), but I don't use ad hominem as the main structure of my arguments, like you do. What you fail to realise is that an insult does nothing to push the debate forwards, and if everything else you post is irrelevant then your case amounts to nothing.
Why is it that most atheists can't discuss the contents therein with any dexterity? do tell?a piece that I think knocks yours on its A** here although I can still articulate its content..
How do you know I can't discuss the contents of what I've posted? If I had as much time on my hands as you seem to have, I'd be happy to do so.
By the way, the article you've posted addresses a totally different question to the one we're discussing. It's about the origin of life, whereas the article I've posted is about common descent. So, once again, irrelevant.
Pls discuss its fatal flaws from the article presented above, given to us indeed by the 'scientific community' instead of just being redundant ey?
The article you've posted doesn't discuss the argument from design. Once again, irrelevant.
indeed not clear! and doesn't reconcile well with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders, in which 'natural selection' isn't only laughable but in fact the opposite of all it stands for actually happens. Bad genes get passed down and get progressively worst with each generation, no favoring better qualities here.. when I come up with a theory, I'd like to cover all my grounds so that people won't be poking holes in it every day ey?
It wouldn't be a very good scientific theory then. As I'm sure you know, evolution isn't perfect - no scientific theory is. It is the best theory for explaining the diversity of life that we currently have, though.
When people speak of 'mother nature' they usually mean it as a force that controls things. It is only fair he starts from a certain agreed upon point. Otherwise in your mind what do you think people take 'mother nature' to denote?
The article in the OP doesn't use the phrase 'mother nature'. Again, irrelevant.
Sure you have... I have a photographic memory.. we were discussing the bees and Henry the IV etc etc and you bragged well I shouldn't say bragged, humbly pointed out that you are a lingual expert!
It must have let you down in this case, then, as I never use the word 'lingual', due to the obvious innuendo that arises from its primary meaning. That's what I was alluding to earlier, although, as with most other things, you missed it.
Perhaps it is an insufficiency in the English language that renders words so sterile?
So you're attacking the world's undisputed global language now, simply because you have no sensible response? The point is that philosophical naturalism has nothing to with what a particular word means in Arabic.
And I am here merely to point out that your counter argument didn't hold itself to higher grounds...I too am convinced of it..
But you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've put forward, as usual. To be honest, I would have expected some progress in your standard of debate by this time. C'mon, PA, you're not entirely dim - why can't you even make an effort to discuss things in a civilised or productive way?
Exactly the point - every effect needs a cause, but this cannot go back infinitely, and this is why there has to be an original cause. It's the same way one views dominoes falling. Someone has to set the design, someone has to tip those dominoes.
This is getting tiresome. As usual, you've ignored all the arguments and just resorted to insults. Do you have any other strategy?
Is this some sort of psychological issue with you? or do you just enjoy biting into folks who won't bite back? I found no insults in my post toward you, if anything, not of the same caliber you have addressed the OP and the writer of the argument.
Hang on, I'm telling you nobody holds the 'naturalist' position described by the author, and you want me to tell you who all these people are that don't hold this view? OK, the entire population of the world.
You are just being silly aren't you? You are telling me..lol
Utterly irrelevant (and pretty baffling, too).
Which part was hard for you to understand?
Sure, I may be a bit harsh with people sometimes (especially if they're spouting mind-shrinking nonsense), but I don't use ad hominem as the main structure of my arguments, like you do. What you fail to realise is that an insult does nothing to push the debate forwards, and if everything else you post is irrelevant then your case amounts to nothing.
..so when you do it, it isn't 'ad hominem' just harsh because they are 'stupid' but you get oh so offended when you get a taste of the same? You must be too good to be true?
How do you know I can't discuss the contents of what I've posted? If I had as much time on my hands as you seem to have, I'd be happy to do so.
Don't be referencing us to web pages then if you don't have 'time on your hand' especially if you can't provide other than your glib responses to complex questions!
By the way, the article you've posted addresses a totally different question to the one we're discussing. It's about the origin of life, whereas the article I've posted is about common descent. So, once again, irrelevant.
If you had actually bothered read all 47 pages you'd have seen that all points are addressed evolution, common descent, and how it fits in the scheme of the life span of this earth in terms of probabilities using known mutations!
The article you've posted doesn't discuss the argument from design. Once again, irrelevant.
Who said I want to discuss argument from design? You seem to never be satisfied, argument from design irrelevant argument not from design irrelevant.. what would please your highness?
It wouldn't be a very good scientific theory then. As I'm sure you know, evolution isn't perfect - no scientific theory is. It is the best theory for explaining the diversity of life that we currently have, though.
I disagree with that, frankly it hasn't explained diversity in any acceptable fashion, at least for those of us familiar with molecular biology and known mutations!.. many scientific theories can be applied and be near perfect, the stuff you quote and then run citing how busy you are, 'isn't'!..
The article in the OP doesn't use the phrase 'mother nature'. Again, irrelevant.
Ah, he used the term nature.. which you seem to find elusive, again perhaps you can define the term for us in a level that would be satisfactory to a person of your apparent accolades?
It must have let you down in this case, then, as I never use the word 'lingual', due to the obvious innuendo that arises from its primary meaning. That's what I was alluding to earlier, although, as with most other things, you missed it.
then pls let me share with you one of many incidents where you were more a cognoscente of Arabic text than the rest of..
Originally Posted by czgibson
Oh, hang on a minute. One way to make your argument worse would be if the verses you've talked about in the Qur'an don't actually say what you say they do:
The Qur'an does not say in these verses that the bee is female, or leaves its house to gather food:
Why have you misrepresented you holy book? Are these translations all inaccurate? .
to which I replied
I didn't misrepresent it. Just goes to show you how presumptuous you are if not down right arrogant! So before you get that spring back in your step, let me explain; .... ... In Arabic .. You can for instance use the term "moe'mneen" to denote both faithful men and women... or you can use "mo'emnat" to denote just faithful women... generally the masculine form is used to denote both and it is what is used often in all literature. To be specific as to use the feminine form is to exclude the masculine period!.. in this particular verse G-D says to the bee أَنِ اتَّخِذِي which the feminine form --if you were addressing a male bee it would be "itakhizh" not "itakhizhi" anyone with elementary level knowledge of Arabic would have picked that up.....If that is in fact lost to you in the translation it is because your language is deficient.. not that the Quran is imperfect or that, the translators have robbed you of text. They can only work limited by vocabulary available in the English language! So NO I haven't misrepresented my holy book! but you have misrepresented yourself as a cognoscenti of "poetic" texts!
So you're attacking the world's undisputed global language now, simply because you have no sensible response? The point is that philosophical naturalism has nothing to with what a particular word means in Arabic.
No, I do so because frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about half the time, and I wasn't blessed with immaculate clemency as to look the other way!
But you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've put forward, as usual. To be honest, I would have expected some progress in your standard of debate by this time. C'mon, PA, you're not entirely dim - why can't you even make an effort to discuss things in a civilised or productive way?
Peace
Show me where your argument is dear sir and we'll discuss it. Referencing me to a website because your grace 'doesn't have the time' hardly qualifies as the making of a debate, neither is apealing to my sense of intelligence.. You are not qualified to use psychology on me.. Go ahead and read your first response to the original and come back with quotes of where your argument is, in which case I'll offer my humble apologies! whining doesn't become you.. I find it an abhorrent trait, especially in a man!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 11-30-2007 at 07:44 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
A Refutation of Naturalists (OP)
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks