Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A number of objections are made upon the Existence of Deity. Some time they are
considered as Proofs of Non Existence of Deity. It has been tried to response some
of the objections one Deity. The Deity is a Per Se Subsistent Essence that is Per Se
Eternal ,Necessary Existent , Self Existent and Omnificent. It is tried to answer some
of the most repeated arguments /proofs against Divine Essence. Divine Essence Is
Itself In Itself. Any thing That is in the Divine Esseince is Divine Essence Itself and
Absolutelu Identical to It. Deity is the Divine Essence and Divine Essence is the
Deity. That is the reason the technical term for Deity that is Supreme Existent is
Divine Essence. Any thing that is Per Se Subsistent is Essence. Essence of a
Suppositum is Identical to the Supossitum. Time and Space what so ever they are
are Contingent Existent and are Created By Divine Essence. Existence/Vuju:d/Esse
of Divine Essence [ADH:DH:A:T AL -LU:HIAH] is ABSOLUTELY Identical to It.
A Number of Objections are borrowed from Weki Paedia and are responded . The
Approach is Asharian in Principle and it is for every one To Whom It May
Concern. Not Necessary Muslims , All those who agree with this approach whether
inside Isla:m or Outside it may use this approach if they agree with it.
Atheism
Concepts
History
[show]
Types[show]
Arguments for atheism[hide]
Against God's existence
Atheist's Wager
Free will
1
2
Hitchens's razor
Incompatible properties
Inconsistent revelation
Nonbelief
Omnipotence paradox
Poor design
Problem of evil
Problem of Hell
Russell's teapot
Theological noncognitivism
People[show]
Related stances[show]
Atheism portal
WikiProject
Part of a series on
2
3
Irreligion
Irreligion[show]
Atheism[hide]
History
Demographics
Discrimination/Persecution
Criticism
Lists of atheists
New
State
Christian
Hindu
Jewish
Aspects
Anti-clericalism
Antireligion
3
4
Antitheism
Existence of God
Agnosticism[show]
Nontheism[show]
Naturalism[show]
People[show]
Books[show]
Secularist organizations[show]
Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not existby
demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific
or historical factsor that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.
Empirical arguments
The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God
as described in scripturessuch as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian
Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdasby identifying
apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between
scripture and known facts.
ANSWER:=
The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and
omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or
suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
ANSWER
(a)
If it is supposed that both Good and Evil are Created by Deity even
then Deity is not disproved. It is supposed that if Deity Existeth , If
Deity is Omnipotent and Omniscient but not Omnibenevolent Deity
continueth to Exist. It is just the disprove of an alleged Attribute of
Deity. So Divine Existence cannot be disproved by disproving that
Omnibenevolence is an Attribute Of Deity.The problem of Evil is based
upon the Relative and Moral Attributes of Deity. Epicurus made a
famous argument Against the Supreme Existent which is presented
with some modifications: It is said that :If Deity is Omnipotent and Hath
Power to Annihilate Evil but does not Willeth to Annihilate Evil then
Deity is Malevolent and Not Omni-benevolent. If Deity is not Willing to
Annihilate Evil and Doeth Not Hath Power to Annihilate Evil then Deity
is neither Omnipotent nor Omnibenevilent nor Omnivolent but
Melavolent. 5
6
(b)
It is said that Deity does not shew high moral Attributes so Deity is not a Perfect Existent.
Discussion:
A number of attempted proofs against the Existence of Deity , state that Deity doeth not shew
high moral Attributes and if Deity lacketh atleast one of them or possesseth atleast one of
them in inferfect type Deity Ceaseth to be Deity.
But there is a difference between the two types of Divine Attributes. Moral
Attributes are Relative Attributes and are relations between an Essential
Attribute Of Deity and Divine Acts Of Deity. All the Relative Attributes of
Deity are Separate and Distinct From Divine Essence [i.e Deity] ; they are
Finite, Limited , Not Eternal and Not Absolute.
Divine Essence Hath the Power to Annihilate Evils but Deity is Not Willing to
Annihilate it. This implieth that Deity is Not Omnibenevolent. Since Deity is
Benevolent but not Omnibenevolent. Since Benevolence of Divine Essence is
not Omnibenevolence ; Since Benevolence is a Relative Attribute and It
cannot be Absolute Infinite, Unlimited and Eternal.
6
7
So this is just like to chose the Greatest Finite Number from the Set of
All Real Numbers . This is Per Se Impossible . So Omnibenevolence is
Is Not an Essential Attribute of Divine Essence.
7
8
Note: If an Agent hath Right to do an act then the acts is not Immporal
for the Agent. Say if it is the right for the Divine Essence to Speak a
False Sentence then to speak a false sentence is not Immoral even if
Divine Essence never Speaketh Falshood.
There are some types of Acts which are Immoral on Human Level but are Per
Se Absurd Upon Divine Essence,like Acts Of Fornication,
Raping,Homosextuality, Heterosextuality, Intercourse, Catabolism,
Stealing,,Robbing, etc., They constitute a different case from the acts which
are Immoral on Human Level but are In Power of the Divine Essence like
Punishing some one for an Act which the Person Hath not Committed. The
Necessary and Sufficient condition for the Per Se Possibility of these acts is to
be converted into a Body or to become a Finite Existent or to become Non
Absolute. Such act which require Human Organs are all Per Se Absurd and
None of them is Per Se Contingent. So these acts and acts which are not
immoral on human level but have the condition stated above are Per Se
Absurd Upon Divine Essence like Urination, Womitting ,Tasting, Smelling
,touching, etc.
Speaking falsehood is different from this type since Divine Essence Doeth not
Require Material Organs to Speak. If the Act of Speaking requireth them the
Act of Speaking would have been as Per Se Absurd Upon Divine Essence as
the Sexual Acts. Whether Moral or Immoral since they do require Organs for
8 Condition for Its Per Se Contingency
their Agents as Necessary and Sufficient
9
for the Agents and the Dooers. So it is clear that the difference between
Divine Essence and Human Essences is in regard to some Acts are clear.
ANSWER
The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that
lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants
humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering
believers.
The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-
supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,
[53]
the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed
unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
Ad Ignorantium
The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God
lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell's teapot analogy can be considered
an extension of Occam's Razor.
Logical Forms:
Its complex form is to confuse the Burden of proof and the Second form of Ad
Ignorantium with one another and this is done in attempt to prove the Non
Existence of Divine Essence.
and wrong. If Deity Doeth not Existeth then these theories are
the Theories of Absurds. So based on a theory the Very Existence
of the Deity cnnot be disproved.If it is claimed that Gravity or La
of Gravity is sufficient to explain the Creation of The Universe
then the Question is either this Gravity or Law of Gravity is Hath
a Beginning or It is With out a Beginning. It it is Not Without a
Beginning i.e it is with a Beginning then the the question is Who
did Create this Law Of Gravity or Very Gravity or both???? The
question once again is a Problematic. But if the Latter is true that
this Gravity or Law of Gravity is With Out a Beginning then Either
It is Per Se Subsistent [Qa:im Bi Nafsihi:] or it is not. In the case
if It is then it is an Essence since one that Existeth and is
Per Se Subsistent [Qa:im Bi Nafsihi:] is an Essence [Dh:a:t] . In
this case it is nothing but a Divine Essence. At best a Non Living
Divine Essence. This is an Imperfect Concept of Divine Essence,
If it is not Per Se Subsistent then it Must Subsist in Some thing
that Existeth [Mauju:d] and is Per Se Subsistent. If it Existeth in
some thing that Existeth and is Per Se Sibsistent Essence then it
is an Existing Essence. This implieth that this Per Se Subsistent is
The Divine Essence . In this case It is at most an Imperfect Divine
Essence [Deity] . The Only Difference is that it is Imperfect ,Non
Living,With out a Will and Infinitely inferior to the Perfect Divine
Essence. So inferior that it can be studied in Science of Physics.
So this is to bring Divine Essence in the Domain of Physics not to
Deny The Divine Essence...
Deductive arguments
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true
premises.
BOEING ARGUMENT
The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The
argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed.
However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as
complicated as the universe that it creates.
ANSWER :This is not implied. Since All the Theologists believe that
Deity is Infinitely and Absolutely Simple.
12
13
Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also,
ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with or
without the use of special pleading.
747 GAMBIT
The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it
simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account
for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
ANSWER: It must be noted that such things are Per S e Absurd and are
discussed above.
The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite
existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.
Since if this is True then it is implied that Divine Essence Also Doeth
Not Know Its Truth. If it is false then its Negation is ~N which is Some
Do Know that N is True. The Negation of the statement implieth that
The Original Statement is logically true. Since it is true under all
values. If true then it is not known to Divine Essence.
An answer to this argument is that: All the Human beings who know
this statement if know that this is a logically true statement then to say
Divine Essence cannot Know it s truth is incorrect and wrong. If this
statement is true then no logician would have known that it is logically
true. But may logicians know it. So why to exclude Divine Essence
when Human do know its truth. This shews that it is not a Pure Truth
but it is a Paradox. It is just a theorital truth which is actually false
since if all the logicians who accept this statement as true know its
truth poving that this is false.If a single human logician knoweth that it
is logically true hence true then it is false on both sides. Also it is a
complex fallacy like the statement as follows:
ANSWER: This objection is one that compelled some of the theists like
Qadriah, Mu:su:viah, Jahmiah and Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal to deny that
15
16
Will Chose A or not Chose A , AND Similarly for B.. That is Does Divine
Omniscient Know His Will Can Chose A and Chose B equally when It is
Known to the Omniscient that the Will/ Intention Shall Chose A and
Shall not Chose B. The answer is in affirmation. That is It is Kown by the
Omniscient that The Will can chose B even if It is known that the free
Will shall not chose B. So if the Will chose the opposite then it is not
the freedom of the Will/Intention that is lost but the Omniscience it
Lost. But an Omniscience is Perfect and Pure so it is Per Se Absurd for it
to be Incorrect Insound and Erroneous . So neither they two
Contradict each other not the two are mutually exclusive Attributes.
. CHICKEN ARGUMENT
A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its
assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an
infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God,
who is claimed to be the first cause).
ANSWER:=The word Deity is once again is incorrectly used by the Anti God
Objection Makers. Since Deity meaneth A Per Se Subsistent Essence that Is
Eternal, Necessary Existent and Omnific and Omnificient. As Omnificience
[AL Kh:aliq Al Mut:l-q] and Self Existence are the Necessary Attributes of
Deity then it cannot be applied to the Deity. Now either ther is a Deity that is
Eternal, Necessary Existing, Self Existing and Omnificen or there is no such
Exitent. Yet in any case (whether there is such a Divine Existent or there is
no such Divine Existent (Deity)) this assumption cannot be applied to the
Uncreated Omnificent [Creator]...
PROBLEM OF MORALITY
The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect,
He would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans.
17
18
Inductive arguments
EXISTENTIAL ARGUMENT
The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states
that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a
sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in
Being and Nothingness.
ANSWER: Existence [Vuj:d] is not the Divine Attribute but the very
Essence Itself. So if they are Absolutely Identical [ or Essentially
Identical] , not even Relatively Identical then none can precede they
other. As this argument is based on the supposition If Then, and it is
shewn that If Part is not True the second part if it is true cannot be
accepted with out a proof. It is a fallacy to attempt to disprove a claim
by saying something that is either wong or incorrect or unproved or
disproved .
ALLEGED CONTRADICTION IN
DIVINE ESSENCE
Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness]
who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The
argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is
also dead."
For and the Thing that is Posterior to the word For. But the second type
implieth a Distinction between the two.The word For in the second
meaning doeth imply a contradiction with the Divine Inness in Itself but this
Inness doeth not Contradict the Intrinsic Forness . That is the reason that this
objection is made. It is based upon a confusion between the two types of
Forness/Forhood , one that is Intrinsic and one that is Extrinsic. The meaning
of the word For. If it is said that A is for B then this meaneth that If B is
Annihilated then it is implied that A is Annihilated , It is Per Se Absurd for A
to Exist With Out the Existence Of B, All the Perfections of A are only for B,
and A is Imperfect With Out B. In case of Divine Essence If Divine Essence
Annihilateth (Let it be supposed for sake of an Argument the Very Essence it
self Ceaseth,It is Per Se Absurd for Divine Essence to Exist With Out Itself, All
Perfections of Divine Essence is for The Very Divine Essence Itself, and
Divine Essence is Imperfect without Itself since It is Per Se Implied that it
violateth the first principle of the Principles [Laws] of Thought and any thing
that doeth so even in supposition is Imperfect. How ever if it is supposed that
it is Per Se Absurd for Any Thing That is Itself In Itself to be Itself for Itself IN
any Positive meaning of the Word For then it is in the Negative Meaning for
the word for that is it is not for Any thing that is Separate or Distinct From
It. The next claim that One That is Complete is dead or Non Living is just a
claim and is based on the incorrect meaning of Life and Death. Completion
neither implith death not is implied by death. It is used in the meaning One
that Posseseth All the Essential Perfections and one that does not lack any
one of the Essential Perfection, having or all Essential Attributes of
Perfections .It does not mean Cessation or Terminus. That is one that Ceaseth
no Continue to Exit. The word In is not used in the meaning that it is a
container and it containeth it self such that the Container is Distinct from the
Container ot at least Container is not the Contained One. This is not the
meaning. It means that It is some thing that is Self Of Itself and it is Per Se
Subsistent for any thing other then It Self to be In It. The terms In and for are
not used in spetial meanings as incorrectly assumed. .
. It is not used in the meaning of something which is near to be
finished. So this objection is based upon the incorrect meaning of the
word Complete.[Mukammal], Coerrect meaning is Ka:mil [Perfect with
out need of any Attribute of Perfection ].
19
20
ALLEGED HISTORICAL
ARGUMENT
The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions
throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods
ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including
20
21
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you
understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
Subjective arguments
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the
supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a
revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the
past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to
what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct,
many if not all religions must be incorrect.
The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from
God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God.
ANSWER: This is not a prove that Deity Existeth Not. Deity is a Free
Agent and To Help and Not to Help both are equally Per Se Contingent.
So If there is a Deity then It depends Upon the Will of Deity whether He
Helpeth or Helpeth Not. Implying that this is not a disprove of Deity.
Also not to believe in some thing is one thing and to disprove a thing is
another thing. This is not a disproved of Deity.
Hindu arguments
Atheistic Hindu doctrines cite various arguments for rejecting a creator God or Ishvara. The
Skhyapravacana Stra of the Samkhya school states that there is no philosophical place for a
creator God in this system. It is also argued in this text that the existence of Ishvara (God) cannot
21
22
be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.[56] Classical Samkhya argues against the
existence of God on metaphysical grounds.
This is Ad Igno
2] The Sutras of Samkhya endeavor to prove that the idea of God is inconceivable and self-
contradictory, and some[which?] commentaries speak plainly on this subject. The Sankhya- tattva-
kaumudi, commenting on Karika 57, argues that a perfect God can have no need to create a
world, and if God's motive is kindness, Samkhya questions whether it is reasonable to call into
existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering. Samkhya postulates that a benevolent
deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like the real world.[58]
3]Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy, decided that
the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God is insufficient. They argue that there is no
need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there is no need for an author to compose the
Vedas or a god to validate the rituals.[59] Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have
no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the
mantras is what is seen as the power of gods.[60]
Theism
Atheism
Atheism 22
23
Answer :=
Some[who?] strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating
that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence,
omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory,
incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false.
Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism.
ANSWER:=
ANSWER:.
ANSWER
ANSWER:
ANSWER:= Mutazilite , Karramites believe that Divine Will is finite ,limited , not Eternal
and Not Absolute due to this objection.
Negative atheism
Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is any type of atheism other
than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not
explicitly assert there to be none.[66][67][68]
Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the
existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or
unknowable.[69] Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in
gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.[70]
Strong agnosticism
Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any
deities exist.
Weak agnosticism
Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not
necessarily unknowable.
Agnostic theism
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. For
theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition
26 at least one deity exists is true, but, per
27
agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The
agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they
believe in.[71]
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheism is the view of those who do not claim to know the existence of any deity but do
not believe in any.[70]
If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly
natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist,
although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging
of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human
knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to
believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist,
an agnostic-atheistan atheist because an agnostic."[72]
Apatheism
An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist
or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without
reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary
or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this
view.[73]
Ignosticism
The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence
is usually not worth discussing because concepts like "God" are usually not sufficiently clearly
defined.
28