Problem of evil [temp. split from TEOG thread]

  • Thread starter Thread starter czgibson
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 43
  • Views Views 17K
Re: The existence of God

Hi Ansar,
Then why did you claim that the advancement of science resulted in less claims of miracles? :confused:

I believe it's true. Many things which used to be attributed to supernatural forces have now been explained in scientific terms. I'm thinking of things like the changing of the seasons, the sun rising and setting, rain falling, and other natural processes.

All through the Bible human beings are called to worship God, do good deeds and eradicate evil. So this is not a new idea that I came up with at all. It has explicit basis in not only the Qur'an, but the scriptures of many theistic religions as well.

True, and I'm not suggesting you invented this idea. I believe it was created by people in order to make their idea of god more credible to people who objected to it using the problem of evil.

I know this is what you believe, but the problem for you occurs when there are facts contradicting your belief. Quite clearly, this is the case with Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

I think you may be confusing facts with beliefs here. It is not a fact, for example, that the Prophet (pbuh) recieved messages from god - that is a belief.

There are a couple of points to be noted here. First of all, there wasn't a double standard established in the religion as the limit on the number of wives was revealed after the Prophet's marriages indicating that from now on Muslims should not exceed this limit. Secondly, the claim that the Prophet pbuh was inventing revelation to suit his own desires is an extremely weak argument once compared with the fact that the Prophet lead a life of self-denial.

Thanks for the link - I'll have to respond to this point later on, once I've read the article and hopefully learned a bit more about the situation.

But then you only bring in a greater problem of explaining how the Prophet knew that a band of tortured slaves in Makkah could arise to become a global superpower, capable of bringing good. From a purely human perspective, all he would have known is that he was fasely causing the suffering of other people.

True - I'm not suggesting that he knew how successful his religion would become, simply that that is the result he hoped for. It turns out he was right, and his hopes were justified.

Peace
 
Re: The existence of God

Hello Callum,
I believe it's true. Many things which used to be attributed to supernatural forces have now been explained in scientific terms. I'm thinking of things like the changing of the seasons, the sun rising and setting, rain falling, and other natural processes.
The examples you gave were never considered miracles by Jews, Christians or Muslims. All the examples of miracles given by the arbrahamic faiths are the kind which still are inexplicable from a scientific perspective. So that is why I would disagree with your claim. Which religious groups considered those natural processes to be miracles in the pure sense of the word?

True, and I'm not suggesting you invented this idea. I believe it was created by people in order to make their idea of god more credible to people who objected to it using the problem of evil.
The idea goes hand-in-hand with the concept of God in all the major theistic religions, so the argument that it was just made up in response to the problem of evil is very weak, if not all together baseless since it is built upon pure conjecture.

But this is all a red-herring. I am still waiting for your answer to whether or not I have resolved your objections to God (the Islamic concept). It is a simple and straightforward question. Either you still have objections to God, or you do not.

I think you may be confusing facts with beliefs here. It is not a fact, for example, that the Prophet (pbuh) recieved messages from god - that is a belief.
You're right it is a belief. But it is the only belief that is in agreement with established historical facts. As I have demonstrated logically, there is no other reasonable position with regard to Prophet Muhammad saws except that he was telling the truth. To say otherwise is to distort fact to support one's pre-conceived conclusions. The life of the Prophet Muhammad saws remains one of the biggest challenges to atheism - and so far that challenge has remained unanswered.

True - I'm not suggesting that he knew how successful his religion would become, simply that that is the result he hoped for. It turns out he was right, and his hopes were justified.
You still haven't answered my objections though. No reasonable human being could have predicted such a massive turn of events. To inflict so much suffering on innocent trusting people, solely on the basis of a highly improbable gamble, is one of the greatest evils imaginable. Keep in mind that many people died as a result of the torture.

And if he was really seeking a moral change he could have done so in a much simpler manner. He could have just left the issue of god alone and focused solely on kindness, compassion, good character, and morality, while claiming to recieve his message from Allah. Why did he persist in negating the divinity of the Quraysh gods? He could have just called to devotion to the gods they were already worshipping.

Peace
 
Re: The existence of God

Hi Ansar,
The examples you gave were never considered miracles by Jews, Christians or Muslims. All the examples of miracles given by the arbrahamic faiths are the kind which still are inexplicable from a scientific perspective. So that is why I would disagree with your claim. Which religious groups considered those natural processes to be miracles in the pure sense of the word?

They were considered to be actions performed by god (or other supernatural forces in different cultures), whereas now there are scientific explanations for these natural occurrences that have no need of supernatural forces. In previous times people could be made to believe that god had acted to perform all sorts of things; if the event was at that time inexplicable by any other reason, so much the better. Who is to say that the same is not true of the miraculous events you speak of? Just because many people in the past believed them to be true miracles does not mean we should too.

The idea goes hand-in-hand with the concept of God in all the major theistic religions, so the argument that it was just made up in response to the problem of evil is very weak, if not all together baseless since it is built upon pure conjecture.

It is conjecture, but after all, the idea of god is the biggest conjecture of all time.

But this is all a red-herring. I am still waiting for your answer to whether or not I have resolved your objections to God (the Islamic concept). It is a simple and straightforward question. Either you still have objections to God, or you do not.

I do not believe you have resolved my objection regarding the problem of evil because of the view I've stated (the one which you call conjecture above).

As I have demonstrated logically, there is no other reasonable position with regard to Prophet Muhammad saws except that he was telling the truth.

Once you bring god into the equation, you have moved beyond logic, so you cannot claim to have demonstrated this logically.

To say otherwise is to distort fact to support one's pre-conceived conclusions. The life of the Prophet Muhammad saws remains one of the biggest challenges to atheism - and so far that challenge has remained unanswered.

Why is it a challenge to atheism?

You still haven't answered my objections though. No reasonable human being could have predicted such a massive turn of events.

I don't see how this is relevant.

To inflict so much suffering on innocent trusting people, solely on the basis of a highly improbable gamble, is one of the greatest evils imaginable.

Why do you call it higly improbable that a new religion would gain support? People are credulous.

Keep in mind that many people died as a result of the torture.

I'm not forgetting that for a moment.

And if he was really seeking a moral change he could have done so in a much simpler manner. He could have just left the issue of god alone and focused solely on kindness, compassion, good character, and morality, while claiming to recieve his message from Allah.

Is that a contradiction? How could he leave the issue of god alone while claiming to have received his message from Allah?

Why did he persist in negating the divinity of the Quraysh gods? He could have just called to devotion to the gods they were already worshipping.

Maybe he wanted to rid the Quraysh clans of the rivalries that their polytheistic culture had helped to bring about, and to work towards peace through monotheism. You know more about these matters than me, but is that not conceivable?

Peace
 
Re: The existence of God

Why do you call it higly improbable that a new religion would gain support? People are credulous.
You mean Scientology?

26-cruise-inside%5B1%5D.jpg


'I'm not crazy!'
 
Re: The existence of God

Hello Callum,
Unfortunately, it seems that you have not paid close attention to my points and consequently I'm going to have to repeat much of what I said in previous posts.
They were considered to be actions performed by god (or other supernatural forces in different cultures), whereas now there are scientific explanations for these natural occurrences that have no need of supernatural forces.
As I already asked, who considered these natural processes to be miracles? It certainly wasn't the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Therefore, saying that science provides explanations to things previously considered miracles is false, since all the things that Muslims consider miracles have still not been explained by science. Therefore, to use this argument in a debate with a Muslim is a strawman.
Who is to say that the same is not true of the miraculous events you speak of?
If you can provide a scientific explanation for miracles like raising the dead to life, causing the sea to split, feeding thousands of people from one meal, etc. then I will gladly accept your argument. If you cannot, then your argument fails.

I do not believe you have resolved my objection regarding the problem of evil because of the view I've stated (the one which you call conjecture above).
The view you stated was:
I believe it was created by people in order to make their idea of god more credible to people who objected to it using the problem of evil.
So are you saying that even though I resolved your objection to God, your objection is still not resolved because my answer was probably made-up?!

As I already pointed out in my last post, this is a red-herring. Even if I, or someone else, did make up the answer, it would still resolve your objection! You can believe that the answer is made-up but you cannot claim that the objection remains unresolved.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are only two options:
a. Your objection was against a non-muslim concept of God which did not include the idea that God entrusts His creation with the task of removing evil and promoting good. If this is the case then your argument is a strawman since I do not subscribe to that concept of God against which you are arguing. If that is the case, then you must admit that the problem of evil fails as an objection against the Islamic concept of God.

b. Your objection was against the Islamic concept of God, in which case I resolved the objection by eexplaining the concept to you.​
Either way, your objection is resolved and you need to find a new objection against the existence of Allah. In order to disprove your objection all I have to do is point out the misunderstanding or flaw in the argument, I don't have to validate the Islamic concept of God since that was the supposition in your objection.

This is exactly like your rock-objection to God's omnipotence. When I resolved that objection you didn't claim that the objection was unresolved because I had probably made up the answer. So why the fuss now? It is quite obvious that I have completely resolved your objection by using the understanding of God directly given in the Qur'an. You need to be honest with yourself and be able to admit that your argument has been disproven. If you want to believe that my answer was invented, that's entirely up to you and you can believe that. But you cannot logically state that your objection is not resolved because my answer was invented. You half-admitted that I resolved your objection here:
OK, you have resolved the objection by making assertions about what kind of being you believe god to be, and saying that you believe god entrusted humans with freedom and responsibility
The latter part of the statement is irrelevant. All I did was explain exactly what the Qur'anic concept of God is, and that explanation removed the misunderstanding upon which your objection was built.

Your refusal to admit that I have resolved your objection has been the most illogical part of the debate here. If your objection was not resolved as you claim, then it would mean that there had to be some flaw in my explanation which could not provide a rational answer to your objection. but you didn't point out any flaw, instead you continued to deny that your objection was unresolved.

Once you bring god into the equation, you have moved beyond logic, so you cannot claim to have demonstrated this logically.
If someone thinks like this they will never believe in God! If I demonstrate the existence of God logically, then it means that He is not beyond logic. He is only beyond logic if no one can demonstrate His existence logically. But I clearly have by pointing out to you that there is no logical response to Muhammad's claim to Prophethood except that he was telling the truth. He could neither have been insane nor a liar.

Why is it a challenge to atheism?
Because atheists cannot provide a logical answer to Muhammad's claim to Prophethood. Every position they take on him is irrational and ludicrous. The challenge to atheists is to provide a ratioanl explanation for why Muhammad pbuh would have gone through all that suffering if he was not the Prophet of God, and so far atheists have failed to answer this challenge.

I don't see how this is relevant.
It is relevant because if he was just calling to morality, then he took a path that would lead to certain doom and suffering for him and his followers. Why would he claim to be a Prophet of God if he sincerely only desired to make things better for those around him? He and his tribe were socially boycotted and driven to the outskirts of Makkah, forced to starve. His uncle, Abu Talib, who had cared for him all his life died as a result of this as did his wife Khadija, whom he loved so dearly and lived alone with for all her life. Why would he bring death upon his beloved family members for a lie? When the Makkans offered to make him a chief amongst them, why didn't he take that option instead? Surely, a chief would have been able to have a tremendous influence in society and bring about a positive change. But the fact that he clung to his message despite immense suffering and hardship and in the face of overwhelming odds, demonstrates to me that he believed that what he was preaching was the truth.

Why do you call it higly improbable that a new religion would gain support? People are credulous.
See above. It is highly improbably that a small band of consisting of slaves, beggars and the persecuted, who fled their homes leaving behind all their wealth and family, would later emerge as the greatetst power on the continent.

Is that a contradiction? How could he leave the issue of god alone while claiming to have received his message from Allah?
The Makkans already believed in the existence of Allah, they were not atheists. But in addition to Allah, they believed in many lesser gods. Prophet Muhammad pbuh not only called to the worship of Allah, but condemned the worship of others gods whom he called false - an act which would surely bring his destruction in a polytheistic land. If he sought to only bring a moral change, he could have done that by becoming a chief amongst them. He had a very promising future because of his noble lineage and upstanding character, but he forsook all of that for his call. Even if he wanted to claim to be a Prophet of Allah, why did he have to persist in negating the other gods of the arabs?

Maybe he wanted to rid the Quraysh clans of the rivalries that their polytheistic culture had helped to bring about, and to work towards peace through monotheism. You know more about these matters than me, but is that not conceivable?
Polytheism does not necessitate immorality or violence, etc. It is easily conceivable that he could have affirm their polytheistic deities while still calling people to morality, and he might have had more support from the Makkans if he did so. He could have used the tribal system already in place to inspire positive competition. There's no reason why he would risk everything and claim that their religion was entirely false.

Regards
 
Re: The existence of God

Hello Ansar,
As I already asked, who considered these natural processes to be miracles?

Jews, Christians and Muslims believed them to be direct interventions by the deity in nature. So they're not miracles, but they're similar, since in a miracle, the deity is held to have intervened in such a way as to break the laws of nature.

If you can provide a scientific explanation for miracles like raising the dead to life, causing the sea to split, feeding thousands of people from one meal, etc. then I will gladly accept your argument. If you cannot, then your argument fails.

The increased scientific knowledge humanity has amassed indicates that if someone has been "raised from the dead", then they were not in fact dead. Drugs can be given to people that can slow the pulse and breathing to give the appearance of death, before they are revitalised to great applause. This is how the "zombies" of voodoo culture in Haiti are brought about.

There are natural processes that can explain the parting of the Red Sea - here's a Russian scientist giving his view of events:

Parting of the Red Sea

As for feeding thousands of people with one meal - the evidence I've seen for that is so flimsy that it's more likely that the event never actually happened.

So are you saying that even though I resolved your objection to God, your objection is still not resolved because my answer was probably made-up?!

The objection is resolved according to your understanding of god, and I apologise if I've seemed reluctant to accept this. There are two concepts of god at work here: that including the free will bestowed on humanity, which you have espoused, and the classical sense, which assumes that god is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and which assumes nothing else. I've been getting confused between the two - sorry.

However, I do not believe the objection is resolved in the terms of the classical assumptions about god. You still need to resolve the objection relating to that concept before you can legitimately add other assumptions about free will and moral responsibility being given to humans by god. This is the point I've been trying to get across - not very well, it appears.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are only two options:
a. Your objection was against a non-muslim concept of God which did not include the idea that God entrusts His creation with the task of removing evil and promoting good. If this is the case then your argument is a strawman since I do not subscribe to that concept of God against which you are arguing. If that is the case, then you must admit that the problem of evil fails as an objection against the Islamic concept of God.​


But your understanding of god is built upon that concept! It is an augmentation of it; if an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect being is incompatible with the existence of evil, then how could a being exist which has those qualities and more?

The latter part of the statement is irrelevant.

I disagree, as my comments above should indicate.

Your refusal to admit that I have resolved your objection has been the most illogical part of the debate here.

True - I blame myself for being unclear.

If someone thinks like this they will never believe in God!

You're absolutely right!

If I demonstrate the existence of God logically, then it means that He is not beyond logic. He is only beyond logic if no one can demonstrate His existence logically.

It is not possible to demonstrate the existence of god logically. If it were, then there would be no need for faith, and everyone would believe in god without exception.

But I clearly have by pointing out to you that there is no logical response to Muhammad's claim to Prophethood except that he was telling the truth. He could neither have been insane nor a liar.

I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this part of the discussion.

Because atheists cannot provide a logical answer to Muhammad's claim to Prophethood. Every position they take on him is irrational and ludicrous. The challenge to atheists is to provide a ratioanl explanation for why Muhammad pbuh would have gone through all that suffering if he was not the Prophet of God, and so far atheists have failed to answer this challenge.

Why would he go through all that suffering even if he was the Prophet of god? He believed what he was doing was right: you draw your interpretation and I draw mine. I think that's all that can be said.

See above. It is highly improbably that a small band of consisting of slaves, beggars and the persecuted, who fled their homes leaving behind all their wealth and family, would later emerge as the greatetst power on the continent.

Yes, much later. Many organisations have had humble beginnings.

Polytheism does not necessitate immorality or violence, etc. It is easily conceivable that he could have affirm their polytheistic deities while still calling people to morality, and he might have had more support from the Makkans if he did so. He could have used the tribal system already in place to inspire positive competition. There's no reason why he would risk everything and claim that their religion was entirely false.

Did he claim it was entirely false? My understanding was that he retained Allah as the "top god", and simply did away with the others, keeping certain pre-Islamic traditions in order to make the transition easier. Is this not the case?

Peace​
 
Last edited:
Re: The existence of God

Hello Callum,
Jews, Christians and Muslims believed them to be direct interventions by the deity in nature. So they're not miracles, but they're similar, since in a miracle, the deity is held to have intervened in such a way as to break the laws of nature.
If they're not miracles then you just ruined your own claim that science explains events previously considered miracles! The events you cite as examples were never considered miracles by anyone!

The increased scientific knowledge humanity has amassed indicates that if someone has been "raised from the dead", then they were not in fact dead. Drugs can be given to people that can slow the pulse and breathing to give the appearance of death, before they are revitalised to great applause. This is how the "zombies" of voodoo culture in Haiti are brought about.
I'm well aware of this, however I am referring to events where, for example, birds were ground into meat and then placed on different mountains - when they were called they were brought back to life by the permission of God. I know that you believe this never happened but if that is the case, then why claim that miracles have been explained by science since you never believed those miracles happened in the first place!

The same goes for the other events as well.

The objection is resolved according to your understanding of god
Was your objection targeted against the Islamic understanding of God or some other understanding? If it is the former, your objection is resolved period, and if it is the latter, then it is a strawman.
There are two concepts of god at work here: that including the free will bestowed on humanity, which you have espoused, and the classical sense, which assumes that god is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and which assumes nothing else. I've been getting confused between the two - sorry.
The latter concept is not the Islamic concept, so if you were objecting to that then it is a strawman, and the objection is dismissed regardless.

You still need to resolve the objection relating to that concept before you can legitimately add other assumptions about free will and moral responsibility being given to humans by god.
No, I don't need to resolve an objection against a concept to which I do not subscribe. I believe that God entrusted human beings with the duty to eradicate evil and created evil to allow us to fulfill this purpose. Why would I change my belief?

But your understanding of god is built upon that concept!
No, that's just one aspect of our concept. But each aspect works together in explaining the universe. It’s like asking a chemist to explain the existence of charges without using electrons in his explanation! Since charges are the outward manifestation of electrons, we need to use electrons to explain charges. Similarly, we use the idea of God entrusting humans with a duty in order to explain the presence of evil.

You mentioned in your post to Silver Pearl:
I believe we have free will, but I don't believe there is a god. I don't understand how such a being could exist.
This is what I am getting at! What is it about the Islamic concept of God that you find illogical or difficult to understand?

It is not possible to demonstrate the existence of god logically. If it were, then there would be no need for faith, and everyone would believe in god without exception.
The notion of faith (eemaan) in Islam is different from the Christian notion of faith. It does not denote blindly accepting a concept which has no rational basis. On the contrary it refers to striving upon the path that one has logically recognized to be the truth. Only when one is prepared to put aside their personal biases and desires and open their heart in full submission to God, then will they be able to strive on that path. I can show someone the path of truth and explain away all their objections to it, but I cannot make them walk that path. I believe this was clarified at the beginning of the discussion.

I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this part of the discussion.
From my point of view, the reason why we’re not getting anywhere is because I’ve proposed a clear challenge with regard to explain the Prophet’s life, and you haven’t taken it seriously and examined it in order to come up with an answer, you’ve sort of dismissed it.

Why would he go through all that suffering even if he was the Prophet of god?
Simply because he had a mission to complete and He had the assurance from God of victory in the end.

He believed what he was doing was right: you draw your interpretation and I draw mine. I think that's all that can be said.
I think that we should cross-examine each other’s interpretation in order to see which one is more rational and in concordance with the historical facts.

Did he claim it was entirely false? My understanding was that he retained Allah as the "top god", and simply did away with the others, keeping certain pre-Islamic traditions in order to make the transition easier. Is this not the case?
Not at all. He persistently opposed the practices and idolatry of the Quraysh to the point where he was a public enemy whom all visitors to the city were warned of. He removed all their idols from the Kaaba.

Don't you feel that your answers with regard to Prophet Muhamamd pbuh are a little deficient and you'll have to study this area more in order to formulate a rational position?
Regards
 
Re: The existence of God

Hello Ansar,
If they're not miracles then you just ruined your own claim that science explains events previously considered miracles! The events you cite as examples were never considered miracles by anyone!

True, they weren't, but the point is that natural events like these are often given as arguments for god's existence - see one of the more recent posts on this thread for an example. My view is that they are not interventions by god, but natural events with explicable causes.

I'm well aware of this, however I am referring to events where, for example, birds were ground into meat and then placed on different mountains - when they were called they were brought back to life by the permission of God.

Now you're thinking of a different example. I've looked at the issue of raising the dead, and given the current scientific understanding on that; I've looked at the parting of the Red Sea, and given one oceanographer's view on that; the example of feeding thousands of people with one meal is barely worth considering since there's a lack of evidence for it - what else would you like me to do?!

I know that you believe this never happened but if that is the case, then why claim that miracles have been explained by science since you never believed those miracles happened in the first place!

The scientific explanations show that these events were not in fact miracles, therefore I don't believe that those "miracles" occurred.

No, I don't need to resolve an objection against a concept to which I do not subscribe. I believe that God entrusted human beings with the duty to eradicate evil and created evil to allow us to fulfill this purpose. Why would I change my belief?

The basis of your understanding of god is shown to be illogical by the problem of evil - as for god giving the responsibility to humans not to commit evil, of course you are free to believe that if you wish, I just don't see what evidence there is for this. Surely you need to show that an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being is possible and/or existent before you can start describing what this being has supposedly done?

This is what I am getting at! What is it about the Islamic concept of God that you find illogical or difficult to understand?

1. The lack of anything comparable to god.
2. The problem of evil.
3. The assumption that humanity is god's "special" creation, in spite of the vast unknown parts of the universe.
4. The abrogations in the Qur'an, which seem to show that god changed his mind.
5. The fact that the assertion of god's existence, together with everything that follows from it, is such a huge hypothesis, and needs similarly extensive evidence.
6. The fact that so many events which used to be explained by reference to god can now be explained by science, with no need for god.

There are more, but those are all I can think of just now.

The notion of faith (eemaan) in Islam is different from the Christian notion of faith. It does not denote blindly accepting a concept which has no rational basis. On the contrary it refers to striving upon the path that one has logically recognized to be the truth. Only when one is prepared to put aside their personal biases and desires and open their heart in full submission to God, then will they be able to strive on that path. I can show someone the path of truth and explain away all their objections to it, but I cannot make them walk that path. I believe this was clarified at the beginning of the discussion.

Yes, you mentioned this right at the start. However, making the choice to follow the path is clearly not a logical decision. All consideration before that may well be logical, but the choice is made for reasons that are beyond logic. This is still part of faith, therefore I stand by my judgment that faith is inherently beyond logic.

From my point of view, the reason why we’re not getting anywhere is because I’ve proposed a clear challenge with regard to explain the Prophet’s life, and you haven’t taken it seriously and examined it in order to come up with an answer, you’ve sort of dismissed it.

In a sense you're right. I don't really have time to read up on the Prophet's (pbuh) life as much as I'd like to, which is why my answers in this regard have been feeble. I'm trying, though, and your posts are very helpful.

Simply because he had a mission to complete and He had the assurance from God of victory in the end.

Or because he was deluded into thinking he had a mission from god, but we've been over that before...

Not at all. He persistently opposed the practices and idolatry of the Quraysh to the point where he was a public enemy whom all visitors to the city were warned of. He removed all their idols from the Kaaba.

I read somewhere that the Hajj and some other Muslim practices are remnants from pre-Islamic times - is that incorrect?

I also read that the chief god of the polytheists was retained as Allah while the rest were disregarded - is that incorrect?

Don't you feel that your answers with regard to Prophet Muhamamd pbuh are a little deficient and you'll have to study this area more in order to formulate a rational position?

Absolutely.

Peace
 
Re: The existence of God

Hello Ansar,
True, they weren't, but the point is that natural events like these are often given as arguments for god's existence - see one of the more recent posts on this thread for an example. My view is that they are not interventions by god, but natural events with explicable causes.
Why not just say that you don't believe they ever happened, and make the matter a whole lot simpler?

As for the raising of the dead, every example I was thinking of is not explained by the information you've provided. I don't know which example you were thinking. As for the red sea, the explanation given is problematic when one considers that the striking of Moses's stick on the sea caused an observable effect in splitting the sea - and the army of Pharoah drowned when they attempted to follow. As for the feeding of a thousand, I'm referring to Prophet Muhammad pbuh here and I think you were referring to some other event.

So with regard to all these events, you can definitely say that you don't believe they ever happened. But to argue that scientific knowledge in the future will explain more of them, is not a good argument.

The basis of your understanding of god is shown to be illogical by the problem of evil
Clearly the discussion is not progressing on this point so why don't we shift focus and discuss the problem of evil only?

1. The lack of anything comparable to god.
If there was something comparable to Him, He wouldn't be god.

2. The problem of evil.
Resolved according to me, but we'll discuss it further.
3. The assumption that humanity is god's "special" creation, in spite of the vast unknown parts of the universe.
No one said that humanity was God's special creation. (Qur'an 40:57)
4. The abrogations in the Qur'an, which seem to show that god changed his mind.
This is addressed in detail in my recent article:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/Abrogation_and_the_Unalterable_Word_of_God/
See pt. 2.

5. The fact that the assertion of god's existence, together with everything that follows from it, is such a huge hypothesis, and needs similarly extensive evidence.
We need to decide what is acceptable evidence in order to move on, on this point.
6. The fact that so many events which used to be explained by reference to god can now be explained by science, with no need for god.
That isn't a problem with the concept of God. Besides, science still doesn't answer the original "who" and "why" but only has extended our knowledge of the "how".

Yes, you mentioned this right at the start. However, making the choice to follow the path is clearly not a logical decision. All consideration before that may well be logical, but the choice is made for reasons that are beyond logic. This is still part of faith, therefore I stand by my judgment that faith is inherently beyond logic.
I'll agree to this idea if it would mean that faith is still built upon logic.

I read somewhere that the Hajj and some other Muslim practices are remnants from pre-Islamic times - is that incorrect?
The pre-islamic arabs used to visit the Ka'aba, as it had been a tradition since Abraham. But the practices associated with their pilgrimage were largely polythesitic. Either way, Prophet Muhammad pbuh still attacked a larger portion of their lifestyle than he affirmed.

I also read that the chief god of the polytheists was retained as Allah while the rest were disregarded - is that incorrect?
It is true - as I mentioned - that the polytheists always recognized Allah as the chief god.

Regards
 
Hello Callum,
This [temporary] thread contains our posts relating to the discussion on the problem of evil. When we reach a conclusion we can place them back in the original thread.

Let's start at the beginning and look at this logically. Two questions:
1. Is your 'problem of evil' an objection towards the Islamic concept of God or a Non-Muslim concept of God?
2. Kindly re-state the problem of evil and point out as briefly and concisely as possible, what is the logical contradiction that the problem exposes.

Regards
 
Hello Ansar,

Sorry for the delay - I didn't see this thread until you pointed it out!
Let's start at the beginning and look at this logically. Two questions:
1. Is your 'problem of evil' an objection towards the Islamic concept of God or a Non-Muslim concept of God?

The problem of evil is an objection to any god that is reputed to be omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, so this would include the Muslim conception of god.

2. Kindly re-state the problem of evil and point out as briefly and concisely as possible, what is the logical contradiction that the problem exposes.

I should start by explaining what I mean by evil. There is a disctinction between evil acts carried out by humans, like theft, murder and rape, and natural evils, such as hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes.

We've discussed natural evils, which you believe to be a test or punishment from god. At the moment, I'd like to focus on moral (or human) evil, although I believe the problem also applies to natural evil too. Here is a version of the moral argument with three propositions and a conclusion:

(1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
(2) If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.

The contradiction is simply that a god with those listed attributes appears to be incompatible with the existence of moral evil.

The most common response to this argument is the free will defence, i.e. god gave humans free will, which implies that they are able to commit evil actions should they choose.

This defence attempts to distance god from the evil carried out by humans. However, since god must presumably have known that creating humans with free will they would be able to commit evil, god must surely carry some of the blame for it, even though god has not directly committed human evil.

Another problem with the free will defence is that it would not be a very good defence for a person trying to justify his failure to intervene to prevent a crime from taking place. If the person was able to prevent the crime, but did not do so because they wanted to protect the free will of the criminal, they would be judged to have acted wrongly. If this defence is not valid for a human, why should it be valid for god?

The final difficulty with the idea that god has granted humans free will is that god, apparently, knows all of our actions before we commit them. If this is the case, then surely we are not truly free?

Peace
 
Thanks for your post, Callum.
The problem of evil is an objection to any god that is reputed to be omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, so this would include the Muslim conception of god.
Good. In other words, I do not need to prove or validate the Islamic concept of God in order to disprove your objection. All I have to do is expose the faulty reasoning in your objection.

Here is a version of the moral argument with three propositions and a conclusion:

(1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
(2) If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
Of course, my answer is that your second point is flawed, in fact it is an example of a Non sequitur logical fallacy because there are other possible reasons behind the existence of evil. The existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God does not necessitate the absence of moral evil. What we percieve as moral 'evil' has a purpose in life as I have pointed out. God has given us the task to remove evil because as we strive to do so it builds our character and makes us better human beings. It allows us to grow. God has allowed injustice to exist in the world, even though He is Most Just, in order to allow human beings to achieve the nobility that comes from striving to establish justice. For you to refute this point, you would have to show me how the purpose I have ascribed to evil is not sufficient to explain its existence.

I'll point out the flaw in point 2 by using an analogy as well. A Mathematics teacher assigns his students pages of long division to do for homework, which could easily have been done with a calculator. One may suggest that calculators don't exist because if they did, these students would not have to go through such agony of working out all the solutions themselves. Either calculators don't exist, or they are broken, or they are unavailable to the students (very similar to the claim that either God does not exist or He is incapable or unwilling to remove evil). The answer of course is that calculators do exist and they are able to solve the long division questions, but this is a temporary task given by the Math teacher which the students are to complete on their own.

This answer sufficiently exposes the flaw in your reasoning. By exposing this single non sequitur, the entire argument collapses as invalid.

The contradiction is simply that a god with those listed attributes appears to be incompatible with the existence of moral evil.
No, because they are so many other factors you haven't taken into account. The existence of moral evil is not attached to God's existence, it is attached to our existence. Your argument is like that of Parents who argue that if their child's teacher was truly competent, their child would have understood the material properly. Since their child hasn't, therefore the teacher must be a bad teacher. This logic is flawed because there are a number of factors tied in with the child's academic success such as paying attention in class, asking questions, taking notes, etc. Although it is possible that a bad teacher will cause a student to perform badly, just because the student performs badly does not necessitate that the teacher must be bad!

The most common response to this argument is the free will defence, i.e. god gave humans free will, which implies that they are able to commit evil actions should they choose.

This defence attempts to distance god from the evil carried out by humans. However, since god must presumably have known that creating humans with free will they would be able to commit evil, god must surely carry some of the blame for it, even though god has not directly committed human evil.
There is no blame on God because the 'evil' was created for the purpose of bringing about greater good. When a Martial Arts instructor gives his students weapons for them to use in their training along with clear instructions how to use them and how not to misuse them, if a student misuses them even after this, the blame rests on the student, not the Instructor who gave him the weapons.

Another problem with the free will defence is that it would not be a very good defence for a person trying to justify his failure to intervene to prevent a crime from taking place. If the person was able to prevent the crime, but did not do so because they wanted to protect the free will of the criminal, they would be judged to have acted wrongly. If this defence is not valid for a human, why should it be valid for god?
Because God is the Creator who is testing us, humans aren't. Human beings are obligated in Islam to enjoin what is good and to forbid what is evil, hence if they see a crime taking place they must stop it. Yet there is no such obligation on God who created the evil by way of testing our capacity to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil.

The final difficulty with the idea that god has granted humans free will is that god, apparently, knows all of our actions before we commit them. If this is the case, then surely we are not truly free?
This is the issue of predestination, which I was anticipating since the beginning of the debate. It is another objection atheists commonly raise with regard to God. I don't mind answering it, but it is a seperate objection from the problem of evil, and I would like to deal with the latter first.

Regards
 
Hello Ansar,
Of course, my answer is that your second point is flawed, in fact it is an example of a Non sequitur logical fallacy because there are other possible reasons behind the existence of evil.

You're right to point out that the second proposition is the crucial one. You call it a non sequitur (as most logical fallacies can be named), but let's examine your "other possible reasons":

The existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God does not necessitate the absence of moral evil.

Perhaps (and it's a big perhaps) it's not a necessary condition, but could it not be a sufficient condition? Since there are (presumably) free humans who always act morally, surely god could have created a world consisting entirely of free agents who only acted in a good way? Would this not be a preferable situation in the view of a morally perfect being?

What we percieve as moral 'evil' has a purpose in life as I have pointed out. God has given us the task to remove evil because as we strive to do so it builds our character and makes us better human beings. It allows us to grow. God has allowed injustice to exist in the world, even though He is Most Just, in order to allow human beings to achieve the nobility that comes from striving to establish justice. For you to refute this point, you would have to show me how the purpose I have ascribed to evil is not sufficient to explain its existence.

That's what I propose to do. What you've done here is to bring in subjective terms like "better", "nobility" and "justice". We all have a vague idea of what these words mean, but they fall far short of being able to explain the existence of evil.

You say that god has given us the task of removing evil. Is this something that we can reasonably be expected to accomplish?

Also, "God has allowed injustice to exist in the world". Does this not imply that evil has been somehow permitted by god, and therefore morality is meaningless?

I'll point out the flaw in point 2 by using an analogy as well. A Mathematics teacher assigns his students pages of long division to do for homework, which could easily have been done with a calculator. One may suggest that calculators don't exist because if they did, these students would not have to go through such agony of working out all the solutions themselves. Either calculators don't exist, or they are broken, or they are unavailable to the students (very similar to the claim that either God does not exist or He is incapable or unwilling to remove evil). The answer of course is that calculators do exist and they are able to solve the long division questions, but this is a temporary task given by the Math teacher which the students are to complete on their own.

I don't fully understand this analogy. What does the maths teacher represent?

No, because they are so many other factors you haven't taken into account. The existence of moral evil is not attached to God's existence, it is attached to our existence.

But you would claim that our existence is intimately connected with god's existence!

Your argument is like that of Parents who argue that if their child's teacher was truly competent, their child would have understood the material properly. Since their child hasn't, therefore the teacher must be a bad teacher. This logic is flawed because there are a number of factors tied in with the child's academic success such as paying attention in class, asking questions, taking notes, etc. Although it is possible that a bad teacher will cause a student to perform badly, just because the student performs badly does not necessitate that the teacher must be bad!

I understand the situation you describe (believe me!), but I don't see the relevance of it to this discussion unless you're making a very general point about non sequiturs.

There is no blame on God because the 'evil' was created for the purpose of bringing about greater good.

Some people would argue that evil is more prevalent than good in the world. In fact, some would say that there is no such thing as free will; that human nature is essentially evil and we have to make special efforts to counteract that and behave in a manner we would call 'good'. For myself, I'm not sure this is actually the case, but sometimes I have doubts; I'd be interested to see how you'd approach this line of argument.

When a Martial Arts instructor gives his students weapons for them to use in their training along with clear instructions how to use them and how not to misuse them, if a student misuses them even after this, the blame rests on the student, not the Instructor who gave him the weapons.

Linked to the last point, some might say that the Martial Arts instructor was being irresponsible by introducing weapons to his students. After all, telling a young person that something is forbidden only makes it that much more tempting!

Because God is the Creator who is testing us, humans aren't.

This is your belief. Could we just stick to the basic conception of god outlined in the argument I've given, before adding other attributes that may or may not logically follow from that?

This is the issue of predestination, which I was anticipating since the beginning of the debate. It is another objection atheists commonly raise with regard to God. I don't mind answering it, but it is a seperate objection from the problem of evil, and I would like to deal with the latter first.

OK, sorry for going off-topic!

Peace
 
Hi Callum,
Perhaps (and it's a big perhaps) it's not a necessary condition, but could it not be a sufficient condition? Since there are (presumably) free humans who always act morally, surely god could have created a world consisting entirely of free agents who only acted in a good way? Would this not be a preferable situation in the view of a morally perfect being?
The reason is because, as I mentioned previously, only in the presence of evil can one strive to overcome it. Generosity is amongst the greatest virtues, yet how could one be generous if there were no poor people? Likewise, how could one struggle to bring peace if there was no violence? How could one perform the heroic act of standing up for justice, when it was already established? How could one be extremely forgiving if there was no harm done in the first place? Justice, Peace, Forgiveness and Generosity also happen to be attributes of God, and when we strive to bring them within ourselves we come closer to God. This is the purpose of what we percieve as 'evil'.

Those free agents who only act in a good way are the angels; but because of that the angels never experience the virtue of repenting to God after committing sin, nor any of the other virtues I mentioned before.

That's what I propose to do. What you've done here is to bring in subjective terms like "better", "nobility" and "justice".
They're only as subjective as the word 'evil', which is what we are discussing to begin with. If you want to discuss 'evil', you have to be prepared to hear 'good' in the answer. :)

You say that god has given us the task of removing evil. Is this something that we can reasonably be expected to accomplish?
God judges human beings based on their effort and intentions that they have. It isn't expected that human beings would so easily be able to overcome evil. There is some striving and struggling that is necessary.

Also, "God has allowed injustice to exist in the world". Does this not imply that evil has been somehow permitted by god, and therefore morality is meaningless?
Why would morality be meaningless?

I don't fully understand this analogy. What does the maths teacher represent?
Okay, let's adjust the analogy a little bit more. The Mathematics teacher owns the stash of calculators and the students are writing the test in class. He could easily give them the calculators or just answer all the problems himself, but he doesn't because he wants to train them. So just because the mathematics teacher has the ability to help the students but doesn't, does not mean that he is malevolent. I hope that helps a little bit. The point of the analogy is that sometimes a purpose is achieved by not using the capabilites available.

But you would claim that our existence is intimately connected with god's existence!
Yes, that's true. But the point here is that if there were no humans or beings with free-will, there wouldn't be 'evil'. The only purpose of this percieved 'evil' is for our striving to attain piety and closeness to God.

I understand the situation you describe (believe me!), but I don't see the relevance of it to this discussion unless you're making a very general point about non sequiturs.
The point of the child-teacher analogy was that it is theoretically possible that the presence of evil could be linked to a malevolent super-power. But there are a number of other factors linked with it as well. You have to consider all the factors.

Some people would argue that evil is more prevalent than good in the world. In fact, some would say that there is no such thing as free will; that human nature is essentially evil and we have to make special efforts to counteract that and behave in a manner we would call 'good'. For myself, I'm not sure this is actually the case, but sometimes I have doubts; I'd be interested to see how you'd approach this line of argument.
Even if there was more evil than good in the world, it still doesn't refute my point because the more evil there is, the more beautiful the actions of one who is good.

Linked to the last point, some might say that the Martial Arts instructor was being irresponsible by introducing weapons to his students. After all, telling a young person that something is forbidden only makes it that much more tempting!
The students don't necessarily have to be young people, in fact weapons are usually given by the instructor to students that have spent years in training and are much more skilled, but the possibility still remains that there may be misuse of the weapons. Do you think the instructor is blameworthy for that? If he has instructed them properly, then I don't think he is.

This is your belief. Could we just stick to the basic conception of god outlined in the argument I've given, before adding other attributes that may or may not logically follow from that?
I don't mind, but since you did say that the objection was against the Islamic concept of God, this means the full concept not just part of it, and consequently if there is one principle of the concept that helps in the explanation, there is no reason for me to leave it out.

Regards :)
 
Hi Ansar,

Sorry for the lateness of my reply.

The reason is because, as I mentioned previously, only in the presence of evil can one strive to overcome it.

I take your point, but this still leaves difficulties. Many evils are never overcome, and many are excessive. I find the idea that a perfectly good god would permit such events as the rape of a child, or the Holocaust, to occur contradictory in the extreme.

Those free agents who only act in a good way are the angels; but because of that the angels never experience the virtue of repenting to God after committing sin, nor any of the other virtues I mentioned before.

What about people who always act in a good way? I can assure you I wasn't thinking of angels in my initial comment.

They're only as subjective as the word 'evil', which is what we are discussing to begin with. If you want to discuss 'evil', you have to be prepared to hear 'good' in the answer. :)

I take your point for the word 'better' - you're quite right - but I'm not sure I agree when it comes to the others. We've decided on examples of what we mean by 'evil', and 'good' can be understood as a corollary to that, but words like 'justice' and 'nobility' seem to me to be much more uncertain in their meaning.

God judges human beings based on their effort and intentions that they have. It isn't expected that human beings would so easily be able to overcome evil. There is some striving and struggling that is necessary.

It looks very much like you're saying that in the long run, evil will triumph, sine it will never be fully eradicated. I don't understand why a perfectly good god would design the universe like this.

Why would morality be meaningless?

If evil is, in a sense, permitted by god, then why be good? If all things that come from god are good (as I think Muslims believe - correct me if I'm wrong), then that includes evil - so evil is good. These are two aspects of the moral confusion that I think follows from what you say.

Okay, let's adjust the analogy a little bit more. The Mathematics teacher owns the stash of calculators and the students are writing the test in class. He could easily give them the calculators or just answer all the problems himself, but he doesn't because he wants to train them. So just because the mathematics teacher has the ability to help the students but doesn't, does not mean that he is malevolent. I hope that helps a little bit. The point of the analogy is that sometimes a purpose is achieved by not using the capabilites available.

I understand this analogy - the idea of the test once again. It's an idea I still have difficulty getting to grips with, so I'd like to explore it a little further. Why, in your belief, does god want to test his creation?

Also, the issue of pre-destination comes into play again, but if you would rather discuss that later, that's fine.

Yes, that's true. But the point here is that if there were no humans or beings with free-will, there wouldn't be 'evil'. The only purpose of this percieved 'evil' is for our striving to attain piety and closeness to God.

So god created evil as a kind of obstacle in our journey towards him? I don't know anything about the supposed motives god could have had for doing this (maybe no-one claims to know), but it just seems to me to be a very odd thing to do. This is linked to my earlier question - why do you think god chooses to test his creation?

The point of the child-teacher analogy was that it is theoretically possible that the presence of evil could be linked to a malevolent super-power. But there are a number of other factors linked with it as well. You have to consider all the factors.

But, from a religious point of view, surely it is impossible for god to be malevolent? How does this tie in with what you say here?

The students don't necessarily have to be young people, in fact weapons are usually given by the instructor to students that have spent years in training and are much more skilled, but the possibility still remains that there may be misuse of the weapons. Do you think the instructor is blameworthy for that? If he has instructed them properly, then I don't think he is.

Fair enough - I just think there are grey areas here.

I don't mind, but since you did say that the objection was against the Islamic concept of God, this means the full concept not just part of it, and consequently if there is one principle of the concept that helps in the explanation, there is no reason for me to leave it out.

True, but the Islamic concept of god is based on the simpler concept I'm referring to here.

Peace
 
Hello Callum,
Sorry for the lateness of my reply.
[pie]Ditto. :D[/pie]

I take your point, but this still leaves difficulties. Many evils are never overcome, and many are excessive. I find the idea that a perfectly good god would permit such events as the rape of a child, or the Holocaust, to occur contradictory in the extreme.
The answer to all instances of violence and evil in the world reduces to the same explanation, no matter how great the evil. Even if the evils were half as great as they are, wouldn't we still find them just as excessive? Dr. Jeffrey Lang comments:
Acts of mass genocide or collective human violence, like the Holocaust or the slaughter of the native Americans or the brutal enslavement of Africans in America, provide, of course, the most glaring stumbling blocks to faith, but when I thought about the issue of human suffering more deeply, I realized that for me the accumulation of even individual instances of human brutality and misery throughout time and place was equally provocative. By this I mean, why would God allow for the millions of cases of human calamity that occur each year scattered around the globe? Why would he make us so utterly vulnerable and allow for such massive cumulative violence and suffering. Even if God had made it possible for only one half or one fourth of the violence that has occurred throughout time, would I have been any less offended?

Would I not have found, from my relative vantage point, the maximum level of violence and tragedy existing in the world to be too much, whatever that upper limit is? Would I not have been perplexed by whatever level of violence God tolerated and would I not have found whatever extremes of human cruelty he allowed too extreme? What I am trying to convey here, and I truly don’t mean to downplay any of the cruelest cases of man’s inhumanity that have occurred, is that for me the problem reduced to the general existence of human violence and suffering in this world. Why is it necessary? Why is it an essential—and I assumed if there were a singular, all-powerful, all wise, creator, then it would have to be so—ingredient of our lives on earth?
If you think about it, all these instances of violence result when a human being, or a group of human beings, are entrusted with free-will and the responsibility that goes along with it, yet they fail to fulfill that responsibility and misuse the powers entrusted to them. We are not talking about instances where God sends an army of demons to fight humanity; these are all cases where simple human beings like you and I had the opportunity and the responsibility to act justly, yet they failed. Their failure is visible in the destruction that they wreaked on others.

Now suppose for a moment, that God gave human beings the choice to act freely, but He controlled their actions so that no evil could be done to others. In such an instance, we would no longer be able to appreciate the significance of good or evil.

Because of the holocaust, nations realized the extent of the dammage that evil people could do if they were left unchecked. Consequently, nations bonded together and formed international alliances for peace, not just because God wanted them to, but because they truly understood why it was necessary to do so.

If we understand that the potential of humanity is to achieve a level of virtue that is beyond even that of angels, then we can better understand the existence of evil. If we consider all those human beings in past history who sacrificed everything they owned and gave up their lives to bring peace and justice into the lives of others, we would all agree that such acts were truly noble and virtuous. Yet, in order for people to make noble sacrifice, their must be an evil force to strive against.

That evil force must be truly evil. In other words, it must have characteristics or display actions that are so abhorrent to humanity such as to galvanize righteous people into action. If this 'evil force' did nothing more than petty crimes, then why would people strive against them? The force would have to be truly evil.

The rape of a child is another example of a horrific crime, but it is no different from the other terrible calamities that befall people except that in this case there is an individual who is to be blamed. The crime results from the evil of someone else and the idea of such a crime taking place should be a sufficient threat for society to reform itself and promote morality. As an aside, I find it interesting that you support the legalization of drugs and alcohol as an individual's choice, yet these are often the major factors which lead to crime. For example, see the statistics on alcohol and rape.

If we think of all the horrific crimes that have and can take place, we can imagine all of these as a threat to society. i.e. "If you don't act righteously and promote morality and order, this is what can happen; destruction will befall innocent people". This is a threat against people. But if this was just an empty threat and couldn't happen, then it would have no meaning. It would be useless. People would see no reason to act righteously if there was no negative consequence for not doing so.

What about people who always act in a good way? I can assure you I wasn't thinking of angels in my initial comment.
What is more virtuous - to be good only to someone who is extremely kind and loving towards you or to be good to even someone who abuses you? The latter is far more difficult and more virtuous, and I'm sure you would agree.

If people only acted good, then there would be no struggle, and consequently no striving closer to God. How could we experience God's attribute of forgiving if there was no one to forgive?

I take your point for the word 'better' - you're quite right - but I'm not sure I agree when it comes to the others. We've decided on examples of what we mean by 'evil', and 'good' can be understood as a corollary to that, but words like 'justice' and 'nobility' seem to me to be much more uncertain in their meaning.
Where do you find ambiguity in these words? By justice I mean the opposite of injustice and oppression, and by nobility I mean the elevated status of the one who strives against evil and sacrifices much in order to bring about good.

It looks very much like you're saying that in the long run, evil will triumph, sine it will never be fully eradicated. I don't understand why a perfectly good god would design the universe like this.
I don't believe that evil will triumph but I'm saying that the conflict between good and evil will continue till the day of judgement. And that is, of course, the best possible design.

If evil is, in a sense, permitted by god, then why be good? If all things that come from god are good (as I think Muslims believe - correct me if I'm wrong), then that includes evil - so evil is good. These are two aspects of the moral confusion that I think follows from what you say.
Just because evil is permitted by God, it does not mean that it is good. Evil is permitted by God, not because He sees nothing wrong with it, but in order that His servants may be tested in order to display greater good and draw closer to Him.

By analogy, we often here people who love eachother ask, "Would you risk your life to save me?" And although someone could easily respond "yes", if they actually had the opportunity to demonstrate that, it would seperate those who are truthful from those who aren't.

I understand this analogy - the idea of the test once again. It's an idea I still have difficulty getting to grips with, so I'd like to explore it a little further. Why, in your belief, does god want to test his creation?
When we are faced with such tests and trials, it requires striving and struggle in order to prevail. It is this struggling which brings us closer to God.

But, from a religious point of view, surely it is impossible for god to be malevolent? How does this tie in with what you say here?
I'm simply referring to all the theoretical possibilites. Theoretically, a malevolent god could be the source of evil (which was actually the reason why some religious communities arose with two gods, like the Zoroastrians). But while this is a theoretical possibility, it is not necessarily the case, and once we establish that, the entire 'problem' of evil collapses, because the existence of evil does not necessitate either an evil God or no God as atheists claim.

Lastly, I found the following info from Dr. Lang's book relevant, so I'll just add it here at the end:
In the Qur’an, the story of Adam begins with the announcement that God is about to place a vicegerent (khaleefah) on earth, one who will represent Him and act on His behalf (2:30). It is presented as a momentous delegation, as a commission announced to the angels. It is an honorable election for which each of us is created. When I first read this passage I was as dumbfounded as the angels were, for how could man, this most rebellious and destructive creature, represent God on earth? I, like the angels, saw only one side of humanity, the inclination to do evil, to “spread corruption and shed much blood.” Of course many men and women do not represent God very well. But our ability to do and grow in evil comes with the reciprocal ability to do and grow in goodness, and on the whole it seems that there must be more good than evil in the world, otherwise our race would have destroyed itself long ago. There have also always been persons who are great exemplars of goodness, who humbly dedicate themselves to helping others for love of God. This is the vicegerency to which the Qur’an calls us. More than just communicating a message or implementing a command, it means becoming an agent of God on earth through which others experience His attributes. Such individuals become filters, as it were, of the divine light, as God’s goodness reaches others through them. The more they grow in goodness, through their dedication, self-sacrifice, and learning, the greater becomes their ability to receive, experience, and represent God’s most beautiful names, and their experience of God’s presence in this life is only a small foreshadowing of what awaits them in the next.

Retreat

When I had reached the age of twenty-eight, I thought I had constructed an impregnable fortress of arguments against the existence of God, but as I made my way through the Qur’an, I saw them fall one by one, brick by brick. By the time I had finished the Scripture, I was left with one main objection, and this was that I could not perceive a nexus between doing good and growing closer to God. When I finally discovered this essential link through contemplation of the divine names, its simplicity was such that I was amazed that I could not have formulated it on my own. Yet, reading the Qur’an helped me to illuminate, organize, prioritize, and analyze my thoughts. The Qur’an had done what it promised it would do; it guided me through my questions --provided I was willing to face the answers-- but I was no longer certain what the experience meant, for the Scripture and I had very different outlooks on what we sought to achieve. I was trying to win an argument, but it was trying to win a soul as it continually warned of the terrible consequences of rejecting God’s signs.
I had felt throughout most of my encounter with the Qur’an that I had been the aggressor, boldly making my case against the Scripture. I always felt that I had at least one ace in the hole. Now I felt like I was on the defensive. Perhaps I had been all along, and, like George Custer, I had been lured into facing overwhelming odds. The reality of my predicament came to me in that single moment of epiphany when I recalled the divine names. It was then that I sensed that the tide was against me. Yet even though I was now in retreat, I was not about to surrender. I needed to gather my thoughts, review my position, and reconsider some questions.
The Qur’an seemed to me to have a comprehensive vision of life. One of the most striking points it makes is that life on earth is not a punishment for anyone’s sin or sinfulness, but a developmental stage in our creation. Human beings did not fall from grace; they may have at one time in the past been more primitive and had not yet attained the intellectual maturity to differentiate and choose between right and wrong, but the Qur’an does not present this as a preferred state. What distinguishes human beings from other creatures is their intellect, making them preeminent learners, and it is this characteristic that makes them potentially superior to other created beings. The Qur’an informs us from the outset in the story of Adam that humans will be capable of representing God on earth. First they needed to develop the ability to discern good and evil—they needed to become moral agents—and it was not until men and women acquired the ability to choose between the two, that they were ready to take on the responsibility of vicegerency.
To serve as God’s representative on earth is a demanding task. It requires humility, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. It means striving to become an instrument of God through which He communicates His goodness to others. It requires growing in the virtues that have their origin and perfection in Him, and sharing of all the good that we possess with all those we can. The Qur’an assures that this will not be easy—it describes it as an uphill climb—but it promises that the rewards will be great. Not only will the righteous attain inner peace and well-being, they will also grow in their capacity to experience God’s infinite love. For the more we come to experience and hence to know of the beauty of God, the greater becomes our ability to relate to Him, both in this life and the next.
This conception of the purpose of life has definite rational appeal, but does it explain our earthly existence? Could not we have been created good, programmed to be merciful, compassionate, kind, just, and truthful without having to live through the pains and hardships of worldly struggle?
Time is not the issue here. I am not questioning the duration of this stage of our creation, because, as the Qur’an informs us, time is illusory and God transcends the space –time environment we live in. For God, all time is one—a single eternal instant outside of time—so whether our creation occurs over several centuries or in a split second is irrelevant, since for God it is but a single command: “Be! And then it is.”74 Although I had no argument against time, I questioned the necessity of certain other aspects of creation, especially human suffering.
One of the most interesting ideas the Qur’an presents is that God creates continuously and in stages. Objects do not just appear in final form out of nothing; they go through a continuous course of development.
It is He who begins the process of creation, and repeats it (10:4; 27:64).

Then certainly We created man of an extract of clay, then We placed him as a small quantity in a safe place firmly established, then We made the small quantity into a tiny thing that clings, then We made the tiny thing that clings into a chewed lump of flesh, then We fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and clothed the bones with intact flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation. So blessed be God, the best of creators! Then after that you certainly die. Then on the Day of Resurrection you will surely be raised up (23:12-16).

Do they not see how God originates creation then repeats it; truly that is easy for God. Say: “Travel through the earth and see how God did originate creation; so will God produce another creation, for God has power over all things” (29:19-20).

He created you from one soul and then made from it its mate, and He provides for you of cattle eight kinds. He created you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, in threefold darkness. Such is God, your Lord. His is the sovereignty. There is no God but He. How then are you turned away? (39:6).

Does man think that he will be left aimless? Was he not a small quantity (of sperm) emitted? Then he was a tiny thing that clings (in the womb), and then He created (him), and then made him perfect (75:36-38).

He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and on earth glorifies Him and He is exalted in Might, The Wise (59:23-24).

Surely he thought that he would never return. But surely his Lord is ever Seer of him. But no, I call to witness the sunset redness, and the night and that which it drives on, and the moon when it grows full, you will certainly travel stage after stage. But what is the matter with them that they believe not? (84:14-20).​
Over and above bringing entities into existence, God’s creating includes His guiding and nurturing their evolution. Thus a creature becomes continuously; it is an ever-changing entity. The entire phenomenal world is subject to flux and change. Only God is absolute.
In its many references to the workings of nature, the Qur’an demonstrates how God provides every living thing with an environment and constitution well suited to its existence and growth. A tree is provided with the soil, the sun, the rain, the air, the genetic code, and all else that it needs to live and grow. The same can be said of every other creature, including man. However, the Qur’an reminds us that our primary growth in this life is not physical but spiritual; we are here to grow in the virtues that reflect God’s attributes of perfection. The question must then become: Are we provided with an environment and constitution well suited to our spiritual growth, and if so, would it be as well suited if suffering were removed from it?
The key to getting at a truth is to find the right questions, ones that isolate key issues. When we start our investigations our questions are usually general and contain many sub-questions within them, but if successful, we are then able to dissect our search into a number of more or less irreducible questions and then answer them one by one. This is what the Qur’an helped me to do. It did not always provide me with explicit answers, but it guided me through the questioning process.
When I reached the above question, I had no need to search hard for an answer. It is quite obvious that we are provided with an environment and constitution well suited to our growth in virtue. There are a multitude of examples about us and throughout history of people who attained to high levels of goodness. There are even many dramatic cases of criminals who eventually turned their lives around and became exemplars of virtue. In my own life I had countless opportunities to choose between right and wrong from which I learned of the ruinous effects of evil as well as the positive benefits of good. I had come to know through observation and experience that both wrong and right behavior can become habitual and pervade one’s personality.
It was also now clear to me that suffering is essential to our development of virtue. The same could be said of human intellect and volition. Suffering, intelligence, and choice, each of which the Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes, all have fundamental roles in our spiritual evolution. To learn and grow in compassion, for example, is inconceivable without the presence of suffering. It also requires choice --the ability to reach out to someone in need or to ignore him. Intellect is necessary so that one can estimate how much of oneself will be invested in showing compassion to the sufferer. Similarly, to be truthful involves the choice not to lie and is heightened when honesty may lead to personal loss and suffering, which can be predicted through the use of one’s reason. The famous wedding vow that asks a couple to remain committed to each other in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, until death when they part, acknowledges the roles of choice, suffering, and reason in love. For the vow requires the couple to choose to stay by each other, regardless of the suffering they may face, knowing full well what that may entail. To forgive is a choice to excuse another’s wrong doing even though we understand the evil of what they have done. The same could be said of all the virtues; intelligence, volition, and suffering are vital to our experience of them.
Although virtues are abstractions and difficult to analyze, it is nearly impossible to imagine them programmed, that they could exist in a creature at very high levels without its possessing choice, intelligence, and some knowledge of suffering. An act of virtue is more than an action; it has intent, understanding, and a benefactor conjoined to it. A computer could be programmed to be always correct, but we would not describe it as either truthful or wise. A stethoscope aids the sick, but we do not consider it merciful. The Qur’an depicts angels as not possessing free will, but men and women are capable of rising above them.
What makes an act virtuous is the will to do it and an appreciation of the need it addresses. If I toss a banana peel in the road, and several hours later a thief on his way to rob an elderly person trips on it and is prevented from committing a crime, my throwing the peel in the street is not an act of justice or compassion on my part. My prevention of the crime is totally inadvertent; it lacks both will and apprehension. If I mail five dollars anonymously to a known billionaire, it is hardly an act of charity, for it is directed toward one who is not in financial need. This is not to say that will, intellect, and perceived vulnerability are the only components of a virtuous deed—it is more complex and profound than this—but these three elements must be present to some degree before virtue can be realized.
My high school football coach hung a placard in the locker room that read, “No pain, no gain,” meaning that to improve athletically, we had to be willing to suffer. My teachers used to say that learning demands hard work and perseverance. A mathematics professor once told me that the difficult problems were the ones from which we learn the most. I never doubted any of these truisms, as they seemed both evident and natural. The Qur’an indicates that the same natural law applies to our spiritual development. Human beings are creatures of superior intellect that grow through learning, but learning also necessitates being tested, a point the Qur’an makes repeatedly. Moral and spiritual growth involves the discipline of one’s will, the use and development of one’s mind and the experience of adversity.
The exercise of moral choice also necessitates a cognizance of the rightness and wrongfulness of our options, which explains our exposure to angelic and satanic inspiration. These act on us simultaneously to pinpoint and heighten the morality of many of our decisions, and together provide a stimulus and catalysts for spiritual development. Revelation has a complementary role as it describes righteous and evil behavior and lights the way to spiritual growth.
I was starting to see how all of the elements introduced by the Qur’an in the story of Adam (2:30-39) were in accord with what it has to say about the purpose of life. I was also quickly running out of arguments against the existence of God. That in itself does not prove anything, but I used to think I had good reason not to believe.
Regards
 
It seems we no longer have great threads like this?..
I'll bump it, with the desire that folks amongst other things should learn the art of a debate..

the last thing I want however is to wake up and see it panned with a quip by the regulars who deem it fit to bless every post with nonsense...

This is what I miss about LI

:w:
 
I can make collection of these articles and discussion and archive it on one site.
 
I can make collection of these articles and discussion and archive it on one site.

:sl:
that would be really great.. these are the sort of articles I find by mere chance.. I think br. Ansar, has adequately answered all the questions that could possibly come up.. instead of sitting here wasting hours doing research, replying back, most of which falls on strict blind eyes, as I see it, most folks that come are the likes of Ranma1/2 and it is all a big joke to them...

khyer al'kalama ma qal wa dal!

a Muslim shouldn't waste much time on vain discourse.. so I'd personally really appreciate it..

:w:
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top