Scientific method to reject "proof" of Allah being not almighty
Nima Rezai
once ago someone told me that he could easily bring a
hypothetical/theoretical "proof" that Allah is not almighty.
He asked: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"
He then said, he could ask many similar questions, where the answer "no"
would reject the notion that Allah is almighty.
I think there must be a scientific approach to disqualify this proof, but I
need your help.
One idea may be to define "almighty" in a legitimate way that rules out the
validity of any such questions as above.
For example, in mathematics we have formulas f(x), where the input of
certain x-values is not "allowed" right from the beginning. This is for
example the case for f(x)=1/x, where x=0 is not defined.
Another method would be to try all such questions like the one above with
"yes" and then see whether this "yes" would rule out being almighty. If both
answers yes and no lead to the same result, namely that Allah is not
almighty, the question itself has a systematic error.
What do you think?
Greetings
Nima
peter
against quite rationally. I think that to ask him to make a stone that
he can't lift is to set him a task that is in some sense meaningless.
The problem is usually extended to say that any human could make
something that they couldn't lift and that it's therefore reasonable to
expect Allah to be able to do the same. However, in the above sentence
one could easily replace "that they couldn't lift" with, e.g. "weighing
10 tons" and make the sentence true. If it's true that Allah can lift
any stone then there is no size of stone that he can't lift and you
therefore couldn't replace the words "that he can't lift" with any
specific weight. This fact suggests to me that the task itself is
invalid. If the question can't be worded more specifically then it's
certainly worth asking why.
(But I'm not a scientist.)
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> once ago someone told me that he could easily bring a
> hypothetical/theoretical "proof" that Allah is not almighty.
In that case the person has not read the Qur'an properly.
> He asked: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"
> He then said, he could ask many similar questions, where the answer "no"
> would reject the notion that Allah is almighty.
One of the oft-repeated phrases in the Qur'an is "inn-allaha `ala kulli
shayin qadeer" meaning Allah has power over all things. The inference
which one draw from this statement is that nothing in Allah creation
exceeds His Power for Allah has power over all things. This is what
Almighty in its truest sense means. The question that Allah can create a
stone which He can't lift does not even arise as nothing escapes the Power
of Allah.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Altway
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote
> once ago someone told me that he could easily bring a
hypothetical/theoretical "proof" that Allah is not almighty.
> He asked: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"
He then said, he could ask many similar questions, where the answer "no"
would reject the notion that Allah is almighty.
Comment:-
This has been answered before several times.
This is an example of false Logical thinking. It is purely verbal.
It is meaningless - gobledigook.
It is like asking what will happen if an immovable object meets an
irresistable force.
The answer is that the terms are relative.
"Immovable" has meaning only with respect to some force and
"irresistable force" has meaning only with respect to some object.
Weight is a relative notion.
Another way of refuting the argument is
that when we deal with Absolutes
then the rules that apply to things that are relative
(the rules having restricted the object)
do not apply.
We can say: Anything Allah creates He can lift.
There is nothing real (created by Allah) that He cannot lift.
It is an illusion.
Apart from this what possible use is such an idea to anyone.
It is similar to the argument:-
"The terrorist bombers appeared innocent until they killed many people."
"This person (put someone's name here whom you dislike) appears innocent."
Therefore...........
Hamid S. Aziz
ahlulbayt786
When we say that Allah is Omnipotent it means that it is
impossible for Him to "be unable to do something".
Is that clear?
Weakness is not attributable to Him.
Yes strangely the atheist considers that in itself aas a
weakness!
When we say that He can do anything it means that there is
nothing He can't do.
So the atheist says, then if He can't not do something then
that means that there IS something that He can't do because
to "can't do something" is a thing therefore He is not
Allmighty.
Do you see how stupid this is now?
Likewise some atheists ask, "Can God make a problem so
complicated that He himself can not solve it?"
Again this is the same silly question but with a different
attribute.
When we say that Allah is Omnicient it means that it is
impossible for Him to not know something.
Is that clear?
Ignorance is not attributable to Him.
Yes strangely the atheist considers that in itself aas a
weakness!
When we say that He knows everything it means that there is
nothing He can't know.
So the atheist says, then if He can't "not know something"
then that means that there is something that He can't do
because to "not know something" is a thing therefore He is
not Allmighty.
Don't waste your time with such people. They are only
looking for an excuse to disbelieve so they can sin all they
want but the truth is that eventually all their
disobediences to God will come back an haunt them forever at
the end.
Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Lo! the death from which ye
shrink will surely meet you, and afterward ye will be
returned unto the Knower of the Invisible and the Visible,
and He will tell you what ye used to do. 62:8
And the Book is placed, and thou seest the guilty fearful of
that which is therein, and they say: What kind of a Book is
this that leaveth not a small thing nor a great thing but
hath counted it! And they find all that they did confronting
them, and thy Lord wrongeth no-one. 18:49
AM
hajj abujamal
peter wrote:
> I think you have to be careful of assuming that anyone who
> questions the parameters of a god's attributes must be an
> atheist. The idea that a god should be omnipotent is a
> rational idea which, I suspect, we have introduced so that
> nobody can question his power. It's a rational step and it
> therefore should be defended rationally. There is nothing
> atheist about investigating whether this understanding of
> a god makes sense.
It seems clear to me that you do not perceive how your paragraph
above is seen by people whose faith is rooted in reason. Your words
really say a lot about the way you think, making it clear that you do
not have a belief in God ~ the "scientific method" approach is not,
for you, a quest for truth, but a barrier from the implications of a
truth that others tell you they perceive.
"Proof" and how it compels (or does not compel) a conclusion
concerning what it "proves" is very much in the eye of the beholder,
and what some accept as "proof" of a contention may or may not be
accepted by others. You have chosen a set of standards for cognizable
"proof" based on reason, which is what you believe in ~ you believe
logic and reason capable of establishing truth, and do not place equal
reliance on your conscious perceptions that you would regard them as
"proof" against what you consider logical and reasonable. This is not
uncommon, but it is inadequate for discussions that apply logic and
reason to perception differently than in the manner you have
considered reliable.
Modern scientific method has evolved a theoretical construct
postulating omnipotence ~ a "unified field theory" which explains all
observable phenomena as the inexorable and determinant operation of a
single, all-powerful, fundamental law. I believe the current
postulation is "M Theory" which is believed to reconcile the various
"string theories" which arose mathematically from provable premises.
Pursuing "M Theory," a group of scientists in Europe intend to attempt
to create a universe, with the understanding from their mathematics
that such a creation will have no impact on existing universes that
they postulate as existent. This, they believe, will conclusively
"prove" what they call "M Theory," even though there is no way to
observe the success or failure of their attempt to create said universe.
At least, that's what I glean from the recent television series
"The Elegant Universe" and similar productions and writings, which I
agree are at least mathematically elegant. Personally, I tend to
think of observable proofs and also of unintended consequences, but
then I'm not a European theoretical scientist, I'm another kind of
scientist.
"The idea that a god should be omnipotent" avoids entirely what we
contend. The beginning of our discussion is what you would call a
postulation, of an omnipotent God ~ One, only, by whatever name He
might be called, Existent of necessity, all phenomena being completely
sufficient proof of that. Anything else is simply not God, the term
"gods" is by definition oxymoronic, there are no such things, there is
no "a god" to "should" anything, there is only The One God Who Is ~
among other definitional attributes ~ Omnipotent.
Your approach to the discussion is a departure from it. We do not
"theorize" or speculate any "should" concerning His attributes, His
attributes are included of necessity in the very limited human
understanding of the word "God," so limited that many people know Him
only through completely inarticulable perceptions that are not
perceptions of any of the five physical senses. Phenomena, that is,
which are not accessible to the predispositional means of the
phenomenological sciences.
We, along with "western science," agree that there is a single
operant "law" ~ an incontrovertible Fact ~ underlying all observable
phenomena and from which all phenomena inexorably proceed and cannot
do otherwise. In other words, omnipotence is a reality that western
science should be able, ultimately, to prove conclusively, because it
is phenomenological and ultimately observable.
People of faith go a step beyond phenomenological science and
declare, quite often on the basis of direct personal knowledge, that
this Omnipotence is conscious and aware, also omniscient and
encompassing all awareness over the entire span of time in all
universes and beyond. Phenomenological science has yet to grapple
with the nature of consciousness, "The Origins of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" notwithstanding, and is presently
helpless to even begin to say what it is or how it works ~ thus we do
not expect to see any tenderable "proofs" that God ~ Aware and Knowing
~ exists, other than the testimony of those who know Him.
For me, concluding that "I exist" compels the conclusion that, of
necessity, God exists, against the illogical, untenable, unreasonable,
imaginative and disprovable conclusion that I created myself or am
self-existent. I am, therefore God Is. "What" He is, in terms of
attributes, follows of necessity ~ there is no "should be" to any of it.
> It's a shame that you say "Don't waste your time with
> such people". Why don't you try to convince them?
Convictions arise from personal imperatives that shape individual
conceptions of logicality and reasonableness. You rely on what you
consider logical and reasonable ~ how logical and reasonable would it
be for someone to try to talk you out of that? My experience in
trying to help people transcend themselves has not been terrifically
successful.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:
> One of the oft-repeated phrases in the Qur'an is "inn-allaha
> `ala kulli shayin qadeer" meaning Allah has power over all
> things. The inference which one draw from this statement is
> that nothing in Allah creation exceeds His Power for Allah
> has power over all things. This is what Almighty in its
> truest sense means. The question that Allah can create a
> stone which He can't lift does not even arise as nothing
> escapes the Power of Allah.
So this raises some other questions, some of which you've been roughly
asked before (and, in my opinion, did not answer satisfactorily). First
would be if Allah created logic. If so, does this mean he is not
subject to logic or as power over logic? If so, is it possible for
Allah to create a contradiction? I'm sure this rings a bell, because it
came up in one of our old Trinity threads in SRI, where it was noted
that if Allah is limited or bound by logic, then He cannot transcend
it. However, if he is not limited or bound by logic, then he can
transcend them. Interpret these as biconditional propositions.
Most people argue that the heavy stone question is meaningless. It is
not meaningless. On the contrary it has a very clear meaning. These are
difficult questions about about notions of omnipotence (another one is
the bit about omnipotence vis a vis omniscience, i.e. does Allah know
what he is going to do, and can he change that decision, and which is
subject to which?). Admittedly, I don't know the answers to these
questions.
peter
the parameters of a god's attributes must be an atheist. The idea that
a god should be omnipotent is a rational idea which, I suspect, we have
introduced so that nobody can question his power. It's a rational step
and it therefore should be defended rationally. There is nothing
atheist about investigating whether this understanding of a god makes
sense.
It's a shame that you say "Don't waste your time with such people". Why
Zuiko Azumazi
news:3k9ahqF...@individual.net...
<snip> ...
> He asked: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"
Comment:-
Paradoxically, doesn't the whole basis of this 'unscientific riddle' rest on
the anthropomorphic connotations surrounding the word "he"? Doesn't it only
'scientifically' apply if one, Muslim or otherwise, considers God to be a
man? Is there any "proof" of this?
Why are we spending our time in trying to 'scientifically' answer a typical
pseudo-riddle of the classic 'verbal dispute' kind? Ah! The tyranny of
words, once more.
But, then again, rejecting the recalcitrant pundits viewpoint, some of us
might logically believe that metaphysical "stones" are real objects? Now,
there's another negative thought method!
--
Peace
--
Negative findings are sometimes as important as positive ones,
since they cut down the total universe of ignorance. [F. N. Kerlinger]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Nima Rezai
> Most people argue that the heavy stone question is meaningless. It is
> not meaningless. On the contrary it has a very clear meaning. These
> are difficult questions about about notions of omnipotence (another
> one is the bit about omnipotence vis a vis omniscience, i.e. does
> Allah know what he is going to do, and can he change that decision,
> and which is subject to which?).
Though I started the thread myself I try to give an opinion which holds some
ground:
The question was: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"
There are two and only two possible answers:
a) Yes.
This means that Allah is not almighty because he cannot lift a particular
stone.
b) No.
This means Allah is not almighty because there is something he cannot
create.
Even throwing a coin has a theoretical chance that the coin lands on its
edge, but there is no way, the question above could have a third answer.
In my opinion a question, of which both diametrally opposed potential
answers lead to one and the same conclusion has a systematical error and is
not valid. Just think about the mathematical function f(x)=1/x which I
mentioned in my first posting.
The question is NOT what happens when we insert x=0 into the function,
because x=0 is not allowed for this function. It is undefined for this
specific function.
I think almightyness is a state of condition or a concept beyond the borders
of any man-made/man-defined science.
I think it is nothing provable by the available means of logic.
Nima
peter
according to the timings on our posts!
I didn't mean to say anything about what I believe and I'm not sure how
close you are. I was simply warning somebody else who used the word
"atheist" to describe anybody who rationally investigates (a) god.
The reason I used the term "a god" rather than "God" or "Allah" or
who/whatever else is that there is more than one religion in the world
and I meant to encompass them all (and not everyone thinks that all
religions worship the same god).
When I say that we have a rational idea that god "should be" omnipotent
I mean that we try to make sensible our concept of god and we use words
like "omnipotent" and "omniscient" to describe the general impression
that he/she/it has no bounds, etc. It then seems to me a reasonable
activity to dig into our use of these words and see whether they make
sense. When you say 'His attributes are included of necessity in the
very limited human understanding of the word "God,"' what can you
possibly mean? That god told us what he is like, using our languages?
Surely not? We use the words to describe and explain what we see and
believe. There can be no "limited human understanding" of words because
words are human - they have no outside understanding that we can fail
to grasp. On the other hand, individuals can use words inaccurately or
loosely; and one can misunderstand another's words. I fail to see how
god can have any "definitional attributes". If he/she/it exists then
he/she/it has some attributes. "Definitional" attributes only apply to
concepts and words. He is the definition of the word "god".
Uncle_Sinbad
Hello Denis,
Long time man!!!
The apparent problem is known nowadays also in physics, especially
quantum physics.
Can a thing be both wave and particle? No, a particle exclused a wave
and vice versa.
But we need both models (that exclude eachother) to explain the
bahavior of an electron. The apparent contradiction is transcended in a
higher model that contains contradicting models.
Now we have to Transcend logic and that's what we call supra-logic, a
third category next to the logical and illogical, to describe things
that transcend the relative world.
I don't think God created logic by the way. Logic is just a human,
relative view and instrument to approach Truth. But only God is
Absolute Truth.
But then can God be a selfcontradicting being (for eg Trinity)?
I think there's a difference between how God "acts" and what God "is".
The first can be decribed by symbols (supra-logical) but the latter is
an existenential question. Since God is Absolute, He simply "is", or
Being and doesnt share things or aspects of the relative world like
multyplicity of "beings".
Peace
Kamal
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1122248170....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Most people argue that the heavy stone question is meaningless. It is
> not meaningless. On the contrary it has a very clear meaning. These are
> ... Admittedly, I don't know the answers to these questions.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I agree that "it is not meaningless", as some 'infallible' commentators
would have us believe. But have you considered the 'futile' mistake is using
means-end language in writing about God's omnipotence? Impressively, God
could bring about the end without undertaking the means to do it.
Accordingly, means towards ends have to be taken only by beings who are not
omnipotent (ref. my anthropomorphic comment - in this thread).
Is the reason that we, Muslim or otherwise, don't know the answers because
we are mere or meaningless mortals?