Disturbing Questions

[Star]

Salam all

While going through a philosophy discussion in a certain class, a few rather disconcerting points were brought up. I don't personally agree with any of these arguments and I consider a few of them to be utterly ridiculous, but I thought I should show these to you all, to see if there's any way to logically refute them. (All of the following points are paraphrased since I don't remember exactly what was said, but the gist of the argument is there.) The red is my thoughts.

1) The only reason something is considered good is because it is in accordance with God's will. Agreed. However, what if God's will is to do injustice and cruelty to His creation? Such a what-if contention is unsupported and wholly hypothetical, but I can't find a way to logically refute its possibility. If such behavior could potentially be God's will, then there is no reason to believe in a loving, kind God. OK. I am genuinely disturbed now.

2) Let's say that God's traits are kindness and mercy. If these traits are essentially deterministic, then why should we worship and admire God for having them? It's like admiring a Kardashian just because they're beautiful, isn't it? This comparison is unwarranted, but the question still stands.

3) If God is perfectly loving, then He should love evil people too, right? Apparently the Bible says God loves everyone unconditionally, but the Quran says He does not love evildoers. In my opinion, the Quranic representation of God's love just shows that He is fair, but others may disagree.

I would very much appreciate the opinions of other forum members on these arguments, especially #1, which seems to be the most difficult to logically refute. Note that quoting scripture doesn't work as a defense in this case, since the argument is not based on scripture.

Thanks!

[Star]

Again, I do not support the contentions raised in #1-3. However, I'm finding it hard to prove them absolutely wrong.

[Hassan A]

Salaam mia666,

I would like to take a crack at the questions you raised.

You also asked:

what if God's will is to do injustice and cruelty to His creation?

If God had willed injustice and cruelty on His subjects then why hasn't said will taken its full course? In other words, why isn't there complete injustice and cruelty reigning supreme in the world? Sure there exists pockets of injustice and cruelty here and there, but are they more common than the opposite (i.e. good and justice)? Furthermore, if God's will was to inflict injustice and cruelty on His subjects, then to what do were attribute the good and justice to? If God had willed injustice and cruelty, then why does good and justice exist? Would not the very idea of good and justice existing suggest that God has not willed injustice and cruelty? If we are to accept the argument that God has willed injustice and cruelty, then would not the very idea of good existing suggest that God has failed to implement his "will", thereby by making Him seem weak and unable to implement His will?

Some may argument: well...there exists some pockets of injustice and cruelty in the world and that is enough to entertain the idea that God may have, indeed, willed injustice and cruelty on His subjects. To which one (a deist and theist) would respond: the reason evil/injustice and cruelty exist is not because it's what God has will, but rather they exist as a result of man's own doing/selfishness and cruelty towards his fellow man.


Not sure I the above response I gave answered question #1 or raises more question.....

As for your remaining questions, as well as the last question on #1, I will take a crack at it in the morning, God-willing.

Peace.

[Star]

Thank you for your answer. It's a pretty good refutation, and I have one thing to add to it:

(This uses conventional definitions of good and evil)

God is better than everyone else by definition. If He has a certain attribute, He must have more of it than everyone else. So if He is evil, then He must be more evil than Satan (I can imagine Him getting mad at me right now for typing this. Sorry, God). However, He always commands justice in His scripture, and most people are decent. So He can't possibly be more evil than Satan. By this deduction, God must be good. He must be better than everyone else in the universe. Otherwise He couldn't be God.

I would have to put this much more eloquently in a philosophy paper, but I think it's alright for now.

What are your ideas on the other two points?

Mariyah

[Hamzeh]

Salamu Alykum Mia

I remember you asked similar questions a while back.

From what i'm understanding from what your saying(although you don't believe that), is that your thinking that the Creator may be not what He is telling us, thus telling people to be good while, really at the end it turns out that being good was for nothing. In other words from what you mentioned in another thread lying to us. (I seek refuge with my Lord). And I understand its not what you believe.

It is a very scary thought indeed. That the One who is the Owner of everything and the Creator of everything at the end can Indeed do what He wants. I do agree with what Br. Hassan has said in his last post.

If God had willed injustice and cruelty on His subjects then why hasn't said will taken its full course? In other words, why isn't there complete injustice and cruelty reigning supreme in the world?

Also I also do not compare God to us in anyway. By that I mean, God created the emotions and feelings. He created the Good and the Bad. He is the Creator of such attributes, we cannot simply say He is subject to them. However He has inscribed for HIMSELF MERCY.

6:12 Say: "To whom belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth?" Say: "To Allah. He hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy. That He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt whatever. It is they who have lost their own souls, that will not believe.

Yusuf Ali: 6:54 When those come to thee who believe in Our signs, Say: "Peace be on you: Your Lord hath inscribed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: verily, if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and amend (his conduct), lo! He is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

The good the bad, life and death, etc, He has Created all those. The Lord of all this is greater than anything we can ever imagine. He gave us a playing field and the Truth.

089.003
And the EVEN and the ODD (wa-shaf'i wal-watri)

036.036
“Glory be to Him who created IN PAIRS all whatever the earth produces and in themselves AND IN THAT OF WHICH THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE[/b]


Both verses (89:3 and 36:36) deal with the polarity in all creation whether it is animate or inanimate which is correspondingly expressed in the prevalence of diametrically opposed yet complimentary forces. From the sexuality within the human and animal kingdom (in the widest sense possible), down to the very nature of cell division, Mitosis and Meiosis. Further still within the chemical DNA, containing genetic information vital for all living organisms which consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides. These two strands which form the very crux of living organisms straddle in opposite directions to one other. From male and female (4:1), to sweet and bitter water (25:53), light and darkness (2:257), hot and cold, endothermic and exothermic, positive and negative magnetism in electricity, positive and negative charges to protons and electrons within the atom. In thought, the power of subjective and objective reasoning, the good the bad, life and death. Within the realms of technology, an electrical impulse or the absence thereof. To this very webpage and how it has been transmitted - binary: 1s and Os (zeros). In medicine, from toxins to its antidote; health and sickness to the finite and the infinite. From rest and motion to one-many; right-left; east-west; backwards-forwards; north-south; straight-crooked and the open and the closed. From truth to falsehood, we are inevitably led to the pinnacle of realisation:
The Created and the Uncreated (God Himself).
Yet a moment to recite the words 'wa-shaf'i wal-watri' (and the even and the odd), would render a whole lifetime insufficient to fully comprehend it. [1]


May God be with us

Peace

[1] THE INTENSITY OF GOD'S OATHS - THE EVEN AND THE ODD
http://quransmessage.com/articles/oath%20FM3.htm

[Hassan A]

Salaam mia666,

I would now like to address your last question (question #3), since it's the easier of the two.

You asked:

If God is perfectly loving, then He should love evil people too, right?

The answer depends much on who you ask, and that persons perception of God, as all theists have a different perception of God. I am not sure about Christians and Jews, but if you were to ask a Muslim, his/her response would be: Indeed God is all loving, but His love is exclusively for the righteous folks; His love does not extend to the wrongdoer/s, as you've alluded to, except if they repent with sincerity and amend their ways.

As for question #2, I am going to need time to develop my thoughts on it.

Peace.

[Wakas]

With regard to 1, and what was mentioned above, you may find this interesting:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600952.msg254216#msg254216

[A.H.A]

Note that quoting scripture doesn't work as a defense in this case, since the argument is not based on scripture.

I disagree for the following reasons:

The only reason something is considered good is because it is in accordance with God's will.

Where the above premise came from, if not from a Scripture, namely the Bible?

there is no reason to believe in a loving, kind God.

How would you know if God is loving and kind or cruel and unjust? Where did you get these "loving" and "kind" attributes for God, if not from a Scripture, namely the Bible?

Let's say that God's traits are kindness and mercy. If these traits are essentially deterministic....

Again, Christian understanding of why we should worship God, thus based on the Scripture.

If God is perfectly loving, then He should love evil people too, right?

God is perfectly loving? does it ring any bells? yes, Jesus, Bible and Christian understanding of God's love.

This is obvious that the person who brought up these question/arguments lived in a Christian environment and questioning religious beliefs of his/her surrounding people.

If those questions and what they are based on are not from any scripture, then they are no different than saying: "If cats have wings, then what would become of birds in the sky". If no one believes in the winged cats, then why would anyone care about fate of the birds?

[Star]

Salam everyone

Hassan: I agree. Part of God's justice is only loving those who deserve it. The lack of love for sinners could be seen as a punishment, I suppose.

Wakas: Thank you for the link. It was interesting

Hamzeh: I want to say this again--I myself understand that the arguments I transmitted are absolutely baseless. I didn't come up with them. I mean, God is obviously good, and we worship him because He's God, period...and I see no reason why He should love wrongdoers. However, I asked for the opinions of other forum members on these arguments in order to gain a better understanding of how to refute them.

The verses you cited are quite thought-provoking. The intensity of the oaths in these verses is something most people don't notice the first time, but when they go through it again, they realize that these verses have much deeper meanings.

A.H.A.: You said:

"'The only reason something is considered good is because it is in accordance with God's will.' Where the above premise came from, if not from a Scripture, namely the Bible?"

I didn't get that from the Bible. I got it from my own reasoning and the reasoning of others. I haven't even read the Bible beyond Genesis.

You also said:

"'Let's say that God's traits are kindness and mercy. If these traits are essentially deterministic....'

Again, Christian understanding of why we should worship God, thus based on the Scripture.

If God is perfectly loving, then He should love evil people too, right?

God is perfectly loving? does it ring any bells? yes, Jesus, Bible and Christian understanding of God's love."

Yes, well, God IS perfectly loving. This understanding didn't come from the Bible. Again, I've only read Genesis. The idea that God is perfectly loving is simply the general understanding of this issue, and the fact that He does not love wrongdoers, doesn't mean His love is imperfect. It simply means that His love is reserved for those who deserve it. This, I think, is a better definition of perfect love.

Thank you all for your replies

Mia

[A.H.A]

I didn't get that from the Bible. I got it from my own reasoning and the reasoning of others. I haven't even read the Bible beyond Genesis.
Yes, well, God IS perfectly loving. This understanding didn't come from the Bible. Again, I've only read Genesis. The idea that God is perfectly loving is simply the general understanding of this issue, and the fact that He does not love wrongdoers, doesn't mean His love is imperfect. It simply means that His love is reserved for those who deserve it. This, I think, is a better definition of perfect love.

By "you" I didn't mean you, rather the one (philosopher) who came up with these questions for the first time, and he/she got all of it from the Bible.

[Star]

Salam all

I found an interesting answer for question #2. It's weird that I'm answering my own challenges, but as I said I didn't come up with them, and we're in this together.

So the Quran says that before the advent of this life, all souls took a pledge that God was their only Lord, so that they would have no excuse on Judgement Day. I think Joseph mentioned this in one of his articles. Thus, all babies are born with the knowledge and love of their Lord. So Allah loves them by default.

It is only when they turn away from God and consciously disbelieve that He stops loving them. Allah only casts off those who cast Him off, if that makes sense.

The idea that all children are born as believers is not readily apparent unless you pay attention to the fact that every soul took a pledge before birth. This fact, along with the fact that God is essentially loving and caring, led me to the above conclusion. All verses about God not liking disbelievers have to be viewed through the lens of His natural love, which is only revoked when we shirk our duties.

Bye!

Mia

[Star]

And God knows best btw, that was just my understanding

[samson]

Salam all

I found an interesting answer for question #2. It's weird that I'm answering my own challenges, but as I said I didn't come up with them, and we're in this together.

So the Quran says that before the advent of this life, all souls took a pledge that God was their only Lord, so that they would have no excuse on Judgement Day. I think Joseph mentioned this in one of his articles. Thus, all babies are born with the knowledge and love of their Lord. So Allah loves them by default.

It is only when they turn away from God and consciously disbelieve that He stops loving them. Allah only casts off those who cast Him off, if that makes sense.

The idea that all children are born as believers is not readily apparent unless you pay attention to the fact that every soul took a pledge before birth. This fact, along with the fact that God is essentially loving and caring, led me to the above conclusion. All verses about God not liking disbelievers have to be viewed through the lens of His natural love, which is only revoked when we shirk our duties.

Bye!

Mia

The quran doesn't say that every soul took a pledge. It's referring to the children of Adam's children not all of mankind.

[Truth Seeker]

Salaam Samson,

I just want to correct you on your statement:
The quran doesn't say that every soul took a pledge. It's referring to the children of Adam's children not all of mankind.

"And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, (saying to them), "Am I not your Lord?"- They said: "Yes! We have testified!" (This), less you should say on the Day of Judgment: "Indeed, of this we were never aware" (7:172)

The above is referring to mankind as throughout the Quran, 'Bani Adam' (Children of Adam) denotes mankind. Also by referring to 'their descendants' it means the entirety of the human race

[samson]

Salaam Samson,

I just want to correct you on your statement:
The quran doesn't say that every soul took a pledge. It's referring to the children of Adam's children not all of mankind.

"And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, (saying to them), "Am I not your Lord?"- They said: "Yes! We have testified!" (This), less you should say on the Day of Judgment: "Indeed, of this we were never aware" (7:172)

The above is referring to mankind as throughout the Quran, 'Bani Adam' (Children of Adam) denotes mankind. Also by referring to 'their descendants' it means the entirety of the human race

Sorry TruthSeeker but I have to disagree. Your interpretation, which I think is common, is both illogical and doesn't make sense in the context of the other verses surrounding it. The interpretation is illogical because it doesn't make sense to make entire mankind to testify to something which now they no longer remember.

Also the verse clearly says God "took from the children of Adam" their descendants. If we substitute 'Bani Adam'/mankind in the above verse then it will mean God took the descendants from 'mankind' which doesn't make sense.

Optimist explains it well.

Related to the topic, let me give you some more points to think about.  There are certain verses which are normally taken to mean we had a previous life, verses like, 3:81 (taking a pledge from all prophets);  and 7:172 (taking pledge from all human being), etc.  I liked Muhammed Asad transaltion for the said verses;

(7:172) AND WHENEVER thy Sustainer brings forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam, He [thus] calls upon them to bear witness about themselves: "Am I not your Sustainer?" - to which they answer: "Yea, indeed, we do bear witness thereto!"139 [Of this We remind you,] lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; (7:173) or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?"

 139 In the original, this passage is in the past tense ("He brought forth", "He asked them", etc.), thus stressing the continuous recurrence of the above metaphorical "question" and "answer": a continuity which is more clearly brought out in translation by the use of the present tense. According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before God. As so often in the Qur'an, God's "speaking" and man's "answering" is a metonym for the creative act of God and of man's existential response to it.

Well, according to me, if  we accept the traditional transalation to mean that this was an incident that took place before the advent of human being,  we will find it difficult to explain  the meaning of the subsequent verse that follows "lest you say on the Day of resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?"    BECAUSE, since NOT ONE human being remembers such a ‘promise’ made before Allah and it does not make any sense to hold anyone responsible for violating the promise.  As per the traditional understanding it would mean that there is no need to send warners and prophets because according to the verse this pledge was sufficient enough NOT TO come up with any excuses like being unaware of the fact or being mislead by forefathers!!  However, Quran says in 17:16 that  Allah will NOT GIVE any punishment to any people or nation or towns UNLESS Allah has sent or appointed a messenger and they are sufficiently warned.

Also, the following is the translation given by Muhammed Asad for 3:81 (normally translated by classical translators to mean an incident that took place when Allah gathered all the prophets at a particular moment of time before the advent of human being).

"AND, LO, God accepted, through the prophets, this solemn pledge [from the followers of earlier revelation]: "If, after all the revelation and the wisdom which I have vouchsafed unto you, there comes to you an apostle confirming the truth already in your possession, you must believe in him and succour him. Do you" – said He – "acknowledge and accept My bond on this condition?" They answered: "We do acknowledge it."Said He: "Then bear witness [thereto], and I shall be your witness." (3:81)

This covenant was that when any subsequent prophet comes validating the claims and promises made in their scriptures, they should accept him and also aid him.  The Quran described the issue in this way to show the unity of prophethood, and uniformity of their teachings.  In fact this verse is simply stating that  this solemn pledge was associated with prophethood of each and every prophet.