From: www.miraclesofthequran.com

THE SKIES WITH 'WOVEN' ORBITS
THE TSUNAMI EFFECT IN THE PROPHET MOSES (PBUH)'S PARTING OF THE SEA
THE SUN WILL EVENTUALLY EXPIRE 
MODERN-DAY RADAR TECHNOLOGY
THE CONTRACTION MOTION THAT FACILITATES BIRTH
THE SOLIDITY OF THE ATOM AND ELECTRON ORBITS
A RED ROSE IN THE SKY: THE ROSETTE NEBULA
BONE LOSS IN OLD AGE
THE HELIO-CENTRIC SYSTEM
THE OZONE LAYER AT THE POLES AS THE SUN RISES
HEART MASSAGE
THE CLONING OF LIVING THINGS
THE SUN WILL EXPIRE AFTER SOME TIME
THE PULLING MOTION THAT FACILITATES BIRTH
THE EXPANDING EARTH
QUASARS AND THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS EFFECT
SCIENTIFIC FACTS IN THE STORY OF THE FLOOD OF NUH
THE EARTH’S GRAVITATIONAL FORCE
AERODYNAMIC FORCES AND THE FLIGHT PROGRAMMED IN BIRDS
THE MIRACLE OF FIRE AND WOOD, THAT CANNOT BE OBTAINED ARTIFICIALLY
RADIO RECEIVERS ON MOUNTAINS
THE WISDOM BEHIND THE PROHIBITION OF BLOOD IN THE QUR’AN
FOSSILIZATION AND IRON CONTENT
THE MOTHER’S WOMB WITH ITS SECURE PROTECTION
THE SUN’S HYDROGEN AND HELIUM CONTENT
OXIDATION IN THE BLOOD
THE QUIVERING AND SWELLING OF THE EARTH
THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
THE END OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE BIG CRUNCH
CREATION FROM HOT SMOKE
THE SPLITTING ASUNDER OF "THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH"
THE CREATION OF WHAT LIES BETWEEN THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
THE PERFECT EQUILIBRIUM IN THE UNIVERSE
THE FINE TUNING IN THE UNIVERSE
THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SUN, THE MOON AND THE STARS
ORBITS AND THE ROTATING UNIVERSE
THE SUN'S TRAJECTORY
THE MOON'S ORBIT
CALCULATING THE LUNAR YEAR
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY AND ORBITAL MOVEMENTS
THE ROUNDNESS OF THE EARTH
THE EARTH'S DIRECTION OF ROTATION
THE EARTH'S GEOID SHAPE
THE DIAMETERS OF THE EARTH AND SPACE
THE LAYERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE
THE PROTECTED ROOF
THE SKY MADE A DOME
THE RETURNING SKY
THE LAYERS OF THE EARTH
THE EARTH DISGORGES ITS CHARGES
THE FUNCTION OF MOUNTAINS
THE MOVEMENT OF MOUNTAINS
DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE RISING AND SETTING OF THE SUN
LAND LOSS AT THE EXTREMITIES
THE SPLITTING EARTH
THE MIRACLE OF IRON
THE FORMATION OF PETROL
THE RELATIVITY OF TIME
CREATION IN SIX DAYS
THE TRUTH OF DESTINY
DUALITY IN CREATION
SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES
BLACK HOLES
PULSARS: PULSATING STARS
THE STAR SIRIUS
LIGHT AND DARK
COMBUSTION WITHOUT FIRE
THE WEIGHT OF CLOUDS
THE PROPORTION OF RAIN
THE FORMATION OF RAIN
RAINS WHICH BRING A DEAD LAND BACK TO LIFE
THE FORMATION OF HAIL, THUNDER AND LIGHTNING
THE FECUNDATING WINDS
THE STAGES OF WIND FORMATION
HOW THE PROCESS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS BEGINS IN THE MORNING
THE SEAS NOT MINGLING WITH ONE ANOTHER
DARKNESS IN THE SEAS AND INTERNAL WAVES
THE REGION THAT CONTROLS OUR MOVEMENTS
HEARTS FIND PEACE IN THE REMEMBRANCE OF ALLAH
FORGIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE MORALS OF ISLAM AND ITS BENEFITS ON HEALTH
HOW PRAYER ACCELERATES THE TREATMENT OF THE SICK
STRESS AND DEPRESSION: THE RESULTS OF NOT ABIDING BY THE RELIGION
THE BIRTH OF A HUMAN BEING
THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM WATER
CREATION FROM CLAY
THE PROGRAMMING IN GENES
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD
PREGNANCY AND BIRTH
THE SEQUENCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN ORGANS
THE FORMATION OF MILK
MIRACULOUS MIXTURE: MOTHER'S MILK
THE IDENTITY IN THE FINGERPRINT
THE FEMALE HONEY BEE
THE MIRACLE OF HONEY
THE DATE AND ITS USES AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUR'AN
THE FIG: A FRUIT WHOSE PERFECTION HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN REVEALED
FISH: A VALUABLE SOURCE OF NUTRITION
PORK AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS ON HEALTH
THE OLIVE: A HEALTH-GIVING PLANT
CORONARY BY-PASS SURGERY
HEALTH BENEFITS OF MOVEMENT, WASHING AND DRINKING WATER
THE EXISTENCE OF MICROSCOPIC LIFE
THE EXISTENCE OF ANIMAL SOCIETIES
BIOMIMETICS: DRAWING INSPIRATION FROM THE DESIGN IN LIVING THINGS
LOCUSTS MOVING IN SWARMS
ANT COMMUNICATION
THE FOOD CYCLE
THE EARS ARE ACTIVE DURING SLEEP
THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVEMENT IN SLEEP
REDUCED MOVEMENT AT NIGHT
CHEST CONTRACTION WITH INCREASING HEIGHT

Question: When we say that God has knowledge of everything does it mean that He has knowledge of both false and true information? If not, how can we say that He has knowledge of everything?

 

General answer:

God's knowledge of something – be it true or false – does not imply its acceptance.  You know that God’s knowledge is neither acquired through learning nor preceded by ignorance. God’s knowledge encompasses all things, as does His mercy and wisdom. Nothing in the heavens or on Earth escapes His notice. His knowledge is intrinsic to him.

 

Detailed answer:

The discussion concerning God's knowledge of minute details has been raised in the commentaries of the Quran under relevant verses and also in the traditions. As for the nature of God's knowledge and how He has knows the details in a way such that it is not dichotomous with the Divine Essence, it is question that only a few scholars have been able to solve.

For this reason, some theologians consider the viewpoints raised by some philosophers (who refute God's knowledge of minute details) as opposed to the apparent and outward meaning of the verses of the Holy Quran and prophetic traditions. But many theologians have also raised points similar to the philosophers' viewpoint in regards to the nature of God's knowledge of the details.

In our answer to this question, we do not aim to propound and render a detailed discussion about God's knowledge.  Assuming that God knows the minutest of details of all things hidden and manifest and He knows every generality and every particular, from the most abstract of concepts to the most concrete object, we shall now deal with the question:

God's knowledge of something – be it correct or incorrect – does not imply its acceptance.  Same is true with an insightful and knowledgeable individual who has knowledge of both the correct and incorrect viewpoint but he does not accept the incorrect viewpoint and its implications. Moreover, God's judgment about something being true or false does not have anything to do with His knowledge of the details. Knowledge of something does not in any way mean accepting it. God's knowledge is intrinsic to Him; He is never influenced by others' knowledge.

Not only does God's knowledge encompass the correct and incorrect but it also true with the creational matters. We know that knowledge of the existence of something when compared to some other things is "time pass and play" yet, God has granted a kind of existence to these things which become the subject of human knowledge. Therefore, there is no dichotomy in the extension of God's knowledge, sustenance, mercy, creation and other divine attributes to the general and particular; correct and incorrect existents. He has knowledge of every subjective and objective; mental and creational existence. If anything is wrong, it does not change God's knowledge nor does it make His knowledge to become ignorance. The flaw is with the creature not with God. He has granted man the power to think or act either in the right or the wrong way and He sees what he is doing.

Question: How did God come into being and how was he created? Where did he come from? Did he come into existence through means of his own being (meaning he himself created himself)? How can we comprehend his existence and know that he exists? Describe the reasons for God’s existence for me (meaning give me reasons proving that God exists).

  

Answer: God Almighty, is a being which is absolute existence and complete perfection devoid of all deficiencies and imperfections. The concept of God is one which is very simple and clear. Everyone, including those who deny his existence, are able to comprehend and understand it. Even though the understanding of the essence and reality of God is incomprehensible for human beings, yet there are many ways of gaining knowledge of his existence. The ways of gaining knowledge of God can be divided into the mentioned categories below:

1-     The way of logic (for example the proof of possibility and necessity and so on…)

2-     The way of experience (for example the proof of order in creation)

3-     The way of the heart (for example the proof of our innate nature)

The easiest and simplest of ways is that of the proof of our innate nature (knowing God through the heart). Human beings, by returning to their inner self, become needless of all manners of logical or experiential proofs and are able to know God and gain access to Him through the heart. As to the question of how he came into creation or who created him, the answer can be resolved through resorting to philosophy. In philosophy it is said that: “What is the criterion for the need of a cause?” Scholastic theologians, in the matter of the criterion for the need of a cause for something taking place, have placed their finger on the matter of huduth, but in philosophy the original criterion of the need of a cause has been considered to be imkan. From their perspective, they have considered the essence of God as devoid of the characteristic of imkan, thus the question of who His cause is, isn't even applicable to Him and in other words, asking of who created Him and who His cause is, is an illogical question (because this question can only be asked about things that bear the characteristic of imkan).

 

More:

In order to describe the proofs of God’s existence there is a need to first delve into several important points.

1-     The basic concept of God’s existence is a concept which every human being, including those who deny his existence, are able to comprehend and understand. Everyone knows that the concept of God means the existence of a being who is the creator of all of the creation, who is powerful in all ways, aware of all things, all seeing, all hearing, living, alive, and etc… Even people who deny such a being can still imagine Him mentally and comprehend Him.

2-     However much the basic concept of God is the most general of all concepts and easily understandable, gaining an understanding of his essence (Dhaat) and reality is not possible for human beings. This is because his essence is unlimited and infinite, while for us to have knowledge of a thing means to contain and surround it with our minds, and our minds are limited, and the limited cannot contain the unlimited. A verse in the Quran says, (لا يحيطون به علما), which means that they will never be able to encompass God’s knowledge[1], and it may be for this very reason that the Holy Quran introduces God through the characteristics of beauty and majesty such as: the knowledgeable, the wise, the all hearing, the all seeing, the most high, the most merciful, the most gracious, the most great, the creator, the originator, and the self sufficient.[2]

In addition to this, we understand the world around us through our senses, while Allah (swt) is intangible (the Quran mentions: ليس کمثله شي , which means that there is nothing like him)[3] making it is impossible for human beings to completely comprehend him.

3-     Even though gaining access to the reality and essence of God is not possible, still there are many ways of gaining certitude in God’s existence. These ways can be broken down as follows:

A- The way of logic (for example the proof of possibility and necessity and so on…)

B- The way of experience (for example the proof of order in creation)[4]

C- The way of the heart (for example the proof of our innate nature)[5]

4-     The easiest and simplest of ways is that of the proof of our innate nature (knowing God through our inner nature and heart). This means that inside of every person there exists a spiritual side, an understanding, and an inclination towards love of the creator. There always exists a point of connection between the human being and God in the heart of each individual.[6]

5-     Even though the understanding of God and his oneness is something which is built into the inner nature of man, still the various prevailing cultures, superstitions, incorrect ideologies, pride, and deviation (especially in the face of superabundant blessings and health from God) can all act like a curtain and conceal this inner nature. It is only when problems and disasters take place for man, leaving him hopeless of all things and showing him that nothing can save him, that these curtains once again move aside, revealing that luminous part of the soul and allowing him to reconnect with his original nature. These hardships and disasters purify him of the impurities blocking him from turning to the above[7]. For this same reason, the Holy Quran mentions the blessing of man’s inner nature through this matter (of how it is when man suffers from problems and dangers that he turns to Allah (swt)) multiple times throughout its verses.[8]

The Imams (a) would educate those who were in doubt about the existence of God using these same methods. As an example, refer to this historical piece:

A man who was perplexed in the matter of understanding God and was beset with doubts and uncertainties, presented himself to Imam Sadiq (a) and said the following: Oh Son of the Prophet of God (s), guide me towards the concept of God….What is God? People who doubt in his existence have confused me. The Imam (a) said: Oh servant of God! Has it ever occurred where you rode on a ship? The man replied: Yes. Imam (a) said: While you were riding on a ship did it ever occur where your boat began to sink, while there were no other boats to rescue you and you didn’t have the ability to swim to save yourself? The man again replied: Yes, this has happened to me. Imam (a) said: At that time, did your heart feel that there was a being in existence who could save you from that perilous situation? The man again replied: Yes. Imam Sadiq (a) then said: That being, who is able to save you when there is no one else to save you and no one to hear your cries is God!

This shows that every human being is able to use his heart and inner nature to understand and comprehend a God who is powerful, knowledgeable, living, and kind. Even beyond this basic understanding, man will also be able to have a connection and inclination towards this being. Even for those who reject the existence of God, you cannot find a person who, at some time or another, has not been in a precarious situation that made him aware of the existence of God.[9]

6-     Sometimes people, through detailed study and thought, and pondering the relationships between different phenomena, are guided to the characteristics of God (such as knowledge, wisdom, and power). This way of finding and knowing God, since it’s based on the proofs of the natural world and its study, is known as the experiential method of proving God. Due to the advantages of this path, the Holy Quran has given it special considerations, and in many verses, it has encouraged man to ponder over the natural world and its various signs and manifestations. Some Islamic researchers, by pointing to the order in the world’s creation, have used this as a proof for God’s existence and this is called the ‘The Proof of God in the Order of Creation’. Based on this, we can consider this ‘Proof of Order’ to be one of the examples of the experiential method of knowing God.

Understanding through the ‘signs’ pointed to in the Quran and hadiths

All over the Quran, verses can be found that point to different phenomena of this world, which are all considered signs of Allah’s (swt) existence. They encourage people towards reflecting and pondering over these signs. Sometimes this method of proving the existence of God is called the “Understanding of God through signs and ‘horizons’”.[10]

Some groups of verses in the Quran encourage people towards reflecting on the outer signs of the natural world and the order which is present in God’s creation and in our creation; these are used as evidence and guidance for the people who are wise and who use their intellect. For example: “Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding.”[11]

Another verse says: “On the earth are signs for those of assured Faith, as also in your own selves: will ye not then see?”[12]

A large number of the verses from the Quran point specifically to certain natural phenomena and they use these as a sign of the existence of God and of his knowledge and divine power.  These verses are so abundant that to mention even some of them would entail a difficult and comprehensive endeavor.[13] The Imams (a), in following the methods of the Quran, have emphasized the recognition of God’s signs. For example, in a comprehensive tradition by Imam Sadiq (a), which was addressed to one of his companions, it has been narrated that he said: “Oh Mufadhal! The first example and proof for the existence of God (Praised and Glorified) is the life we see in this world and the order in its creation. If we were to ponder deeply over the creation of this world, then you would see that all of the needs of the servants of God have been gathered and made ready for them. The sky is made like a tall ceiling; the earth is spread out like a carpet; the stars are like lights which have been arranged, its treasures have been concealed in it; everything has been arranged in its own appropriate place. This is a home which human beings have been given and everything which they need has been given to them for their use. All manners of plants and animals exist for their use. These are all proofs that the world was created in exact proportions and it was created wisely, with order and harmony, and coordination. Its creator is the one who has given this world shape, order, and coordination.”[14]

7-     The Way of Logic: in this path, the existence of God is proven through the help of premises, principles, and other purely logical methods.[15]

Philosophical evidence and proofs of the existence of God are good examples of how there have been efforts in this field as well. This method, in comparison with the two previously mentioned methods, has certain particularities which we will mention below:

A- Many of the philosophical arguments and logic based explanations are of not much use for people who do not have a familiarity with philosophy.[16]

B- One of the advantages of the logical method is that in debates with atheists or skeptics, it can be used to show the weakness of their arguments in very clear terms. Also for those who do not accept any proofs but logic based ones, this method is again very useful.

C-  The logical method of gaining an understanding of God can be very useful in strengthening faith. Whenever human wisdom and intellect becomes humbled in the face of a reality, the heart becomes stronger. In addition, eliminating doubt through ration and intellectual reasoning plays a great role in the prevention of the weakening of faith.[17]

Taking into consideration the unique function of the intellectual method, and the mind’s natural inclination towards profound intellectual matters and discussions, Islamic scholars have made great efforts regarding understanding God through logic and intellect which have led to new arguments in this field, or the completion of previous ones. One of the most solid logic based reasons for proving the existence of God is the famous proof called “The Argument of Necessity and Possibility” (wujub wa imkan). There are different variations to this argument, but for our purposes we will use the one below. We can summarize this proof of necessity and possibility in this format:  It is certain that there exists a being in the universe. If this being is the necessary existent, then our proof will be at hand. If it is a possible existent, then it has a need for a cause and since it is impossible to have an infinite chain of possible existents, this possible existent is in need of a necessary existent (whose existence is not bestowed by another cause). This existent is that of the Wajibul Wujud, or the necessary existent. To repeat this in other words, there are different kinds of possible existents in the world. They are either necessary existents or possible existents. The necessary existent does not derive its being from another cause or being, but the possible existent came into being due to another cause. All possible existents go back in a chain that must lead to a necessary existent, due to the fact that an infinite chain of existents is impossible.

The other part of the question asked: How did God come into being and who created him? In the quest to answer this, it must be said that there is a false line of reasoning here that sometimes confuses people. In reality, it must be said that everything which exists and has been created needs a creator and in philosophical terms, every possible existent (mumkinul-wujud) needs a necessary existent (wajibul-wujud). God’s essence is not a created phenomenon for us to ask who created it. In philosophical terms we say that God is not a possible existent to need a reason or have a need for a reason behind his existence; God is a necessary existent.

For further explanation, we should refer back to this original question: What is the criterion for needing a reason? Theologians argue that it is the matter of huduth (taking place) that makes something in need of a reason and cause. Therefore, if a phenomenon is something which never took place (ancient) then the question does not apply to it.

Philosophers however, believe that it is imkan (possibility) that makes a thing in need of a cause; since the essence of God is excluded from this term of possibility and is a necessary existent, therefore it is outside of needing a reason for its existence.

As we can see, neither scholastic theologians nor philosophers see the criterion for being in need of a reason as existence itself, meaning that the criterion of the need for a reason is not meant to mean that everything which exists must necessarily have a cause for its existence. They have said that every hadeth being, or mumkin existent, is in need of a reason for existing. Based on this line of thinking it can’t be said that since God exists then he must have a reason for existing. Therefore, the criterion for the need of a reason is a characteristic which does not include God, because He is neither hadeth nor mumkin, so he is in no need of a cause[18]. For more information on this issue of the reasons for existence, please refer to the sources below:

1- The Unity of God, by Murteza Muttahari

2- The World View of the Unity of God, by Murteza Muttahari

3- Explaining the Proofs of God’s Existence, by Ayatollah Javadi Aamoli

 

From: http://islamquest.com

 

 

[1] Surah Taha, Verse 110.

[2] Tafseere Nemoneh, Volume 14, Page 161.

[3] Surah Shura, Verse 11.

[4] Just because this method is named the experimental method, doesn’t meant that it is devoid of ration and reasoning, what the name denotes is that one of the main premises of this argument is based on making observations of natural phenomena in this world.

[5] Ma’arefe Eslami, vol. 1, pg. 41.

[6] Tafseere Nemoneh, Volume 16, Pages 341 and 342.

[7] Ibid, pp. 418-422 and 423.

[8] Like Ankabut:65, Rum:30, Yunus:12, 22 and 23, Isra:67 and Zumar:8 and 49.

[9] Biharul-Anwar, vol. 3, pg. 41.

[10] Let it not be left unsaid that there are different interpretations regarding the “Understanding through signs” that comes from the Quran: Some see it as a preliminary step to a logical argument – similar to what we had in the argument of the order of creation – that proves Allah’s (swt) existence and wisdom. Others believe that when verses of the Quran invite us to ponder natural phenomena, all that is happening is that our innate knowledge and tendency towards Allah (swt) is being revived and awakened; we are being reminded of things we already know of and have. Yet a third group say that verses like these are a form of jidal ahsan (disputing in a good manner) with the mushriks; those who thought their false Gods had some say in the affairs of this world and had a wrong perception of Allah's (swt) tawhid. (See: Al-Mizan, Allamah Tabatabai, vol. 18, pg. 154; Amuzesh Aqa’id, Misbah Yazdi, vols. 1-2, pg. 68; Tabyine Barahine Esbate Khoda (A Commentary On Theistic Arguments), Javadi Amoli, pg. 43).

[11] (Ale Imran:190) “ان فی خلق السماوات والارض و اختلاف اللیل والنهار لآیات لاولی الالباب”.

[12] (Dhariyat:20 and 21. Also see: Baqarah:164; Jathiyah:3-6; Yunus:100 and 101; Ibrahim:10).  “و فی الارض آیات للموقنین. و فی انفسکم، افلا تبصرون”

[13] The verses that emphasize on certain phenomena being signs can be categorized into several general groups. Verses that have to do with the human being have the following categories:

a) The order of the creation of man: Jathiyah:4 and Rum:20.

b) The formation of the sperm in the womb: Ale Imran:6; Infitar:6-7; Taghabon:3; Ghafir:64; Hashr:24; Nuh:13-14

c) The system of knowledge: Nahl:78

d) The diversity of languages and colors: Rum:22; Fatir:27-28;

e) Sustenance: Ghafir:64; Isra:70; Jathiyah: 5 and 20; Fatir:3; Rum:4; Saba’:24; Yunus: 31; Naml:64; Mulk:21; Anfal:26; Baqarah: 22 and 172; Ibrahim:22 and Dhariyat:58

f) Man’s sleep: Rum:23; Naml:86; Rufqan:47; Naba’:9 and Zumar:42

g) Man’s clothing: A’raf: 26 and Nahl:14 and 81

h) Man’s habitation: Nahl:80

i) Marriage: Rum:21; Shura:11; Fatir:11; Najm:45; Qiyamah: 39; Nahl: 72; Leyl:3; Naba’:8 and A’raf:189.

[14] Also see: Nahjul-Balaghah, sermon 186; Al-Tawhid, Sheikh Saduq, chapter 2, hadith 2; Biharul-Anwar, Allamah Majlisi, vol. 3, pp. 61, 82, 130, 152.

[15] Just because this method has been named the intellectual or logical method, doesn’t mean that only the intellect works here, what is meant is that in the premises only intellectual matter have been utilized.

[16] This isn't in conflict with what is said about the way of the mind being universal and general, because what is meant by generality here is relative generality as opposed to being “personal”, meaning that the way of the mind isn't peculiar to one specific person and everyone can use it.

[17] The way of the mind can be especially beneficial to those who don’t bear inner disclosure of Allah (swt) or don’t see Him with the eyes of their hearts.

[18] Shafi’i Mazandarani, Seyyed Mohammad, Mabda’ Shenasi, pp. 146-147.

Question: Can God bring into existence a stone so large that he himself is not able to lift? If he is able to do such a thing, then it shows an imperfection in him and if he can’t, then again it shows an imperfection? How can this issue be explained?

Answer: One of the attributes of God is his unlimited and boundless power and omnipotence. This question has been asked and answered in fields such as philosophy and scholastic theology. It has also been explained multiple times in the Holy Quran. Yet, this belief in the unlimited power of God has brought up, since ancient times, certain issues and questions. One of these, is this very same question which is being asked now. This question has been asked in different forms and arrangements; yet the essence of the question still remains the same and probes the mystery of absolute divine power. In order to answer this question, we must first explore the various types of impossibilities. Impossibilities, from one angle, can be divided into two sections. These are: 1. Logical impossibilities, and 2. Regular impossibilities.

Then, logical impossibilities are themselves divided into 2 sections, which are: A- Things impossible in their essence: These are matters which are impossible in their essence, without having to even come into existence in order to show their impossibility, for example, the co-existence of two contradictions. B- Things which aren't impossible in their essence, but their coming about necessitates something which is impossible in its essence (impossibilities in occurrence). For example, the existence of an effect without having a cause.

Ordinary impossibilities are matters, which are impossible according to natural laws, but they are not impossible logically. For example, the miraculous changing of a staff into a serpent or the curing of the sick without medicine, or various other miracles. None of these are impossible logically, but it is our ignorance about their causes which makes us count them as practical impossibilities.

The power of God, as well as the power which people possess, is related to all things which are possible, while impossibilities are essentially outside of this circle of possibility. Therefore, in answering this question of whether God can create such a rock, which he cannot lift, it must be said that however great someone’s power may be, whether it is a lot or a little, and whether it is finite or infinite, it is a matter which relates to the world of possibilities (regular impossibilities being part of them) and not to impossibilities (the logical impossibilities).

Here, it may be said that if this is the case, then the power of God has become limited or finite and cannot be considered as infinite and limitless. In answering this question, we must keep in mind that God not being able to do an impossibility (in essence or in occurence) does not count as bringing any sort of limitation on the threshold of divine power. This is because these sorts of actions are in essence impossible to enact and don’t bear the potential to come into being. To summarize, these are things which are self limiting, in and of themselves; they are beyond being able to be done or not; power to do them or not isn't even applicable to them and this is because of the deficiency they have in their own essences.

Imam Ali (a) was asked a similar question when someone said: “Can your God put the whole world into an egg, without making the world smaller or making the egg larger?” Imam (a) answered: “Weakness or inability are not characteristics which can be attributed to God, but what you have asked is something which is not possible to come into existence (it does not have the possibility of existence).”

 

MORE:

Power and ability are amongst the characteristics of God. What is meant by these, is his capability in doing actions and his creation of things. Of course, in affairs which relate to the active power of intelligent and intellect possessing creatures (opposite to physics in which it is tantamount to the power of work and energy) we must also pay attention to the will and intention of the doer. So to summarize, in the discussion of comprehending God, we say that He is a being whom, when he wishes, can do an action, and when he wishes, can stop doing that action.

As with His essence and other qualities, Allah’s (swt) power is also limitless and endless. This point has been proven in the intellectual sciences of philosophy and scholastic theology[1] and there are also narrations which support it. The Holy Quran has also testified multiple times to the unlimited nature of the power of God and says: (ان الله علی کل شیء قدیر = Allah hath power over all things)[2], which means in its original Arabic: “…for Allah hath power over all things”. The belief in the limitless power of God is a concept, which has been questioned and pondered over since ancient times. One of the most important of questions has been this very same one mentioned in the article.

This ‘mystery of absolute power’ has been expressed in various forms and shapes; in most cases, the essence of the question is the same. The most complicated of this class of questions are those which, however they end up being answered, seem to limit the power of God directly. For example people have asked: “Can an all powerful God create something which he cannot later destroy?” or, “Can God create another God like himself?” or just like the question that was asked in this article, “Can an all powerful God create a stone so large that he is unable to move it?” In order to begin answering these questions, it is necessary to first break down the various types of ‘impossibilities’. These impossibilities can be divided into two categories: 1- Logical Impossibilities and, 2- Regular Impossibilities.

Logical impossibilities are impossible matters which are completely impossible to even imagine, and these themselves, are divided into two groups: A-  Things impossible in their essence: these are matters which are impossible in their essence, without having to even come into existence in order to show their impossibility. For example, the co-existence of two contradictions (for instance, it is essentially impossible for something to both be and not be at the same time).[3] B- Things which are impossible in their occurrence: These things are not impossible in and of themselves, but their coming about necessitates something which is impossible in its essence. For example, the existence of an effect without having a cause.

Ordinary impossibilities are matters which are impossible according to natural laws, but are not logically impossible (meaning that they are neither impossible in essence, nor impossible in occurrence). For example the changing of a staff into a serpent or the curing of the sick without medicine, or the speaking of inanimate objects are all examples of regular impossibilities. These are matters which are opposed to the ordinary way in which things work, but they are not in essence impossible to occur and may simply be due to our ignorance of their real cause. From this angle, it may be said that regular impossibilities are in reality not impossible or unattainable at all, but our ignorance towards their cause may be the reason we see them as being impossible. Anyways, after explaining this introduction, we will now return to the question at hand.

It must be kept in mind that the power of God does not include the two types of impossibilities (in essence and in occurrence) that were mentioned and these are completely outside the circle of possibility. This is not to say his power is limited, but it is to say that the actions themselves are impossible and therefore outside the circle of what can be done. The problem is that all the questions that are usually presented in the ‘mystery of absolute power’ are ones related to these two impossibilities.

For example, if we were to look at the real meaning of the word creation, which in the science of philosophy is described as causation, then we would see that the Creator (the cause) has power over all aspects and facets of his creation. To explain this in even more precise terms, the essence of creation and all of its characteristics are completely bound to and dependent on the creator. Now imagine a creation whose creator is unable to take out of existence or cause any change in. This will mean that in reality, he isn't its creator, because if he was, he would be able to do all those things. This is nothing but a logical contradiction; because it means that the creator is both creator and not creator at the same time, and this is nothing but the co-existence of contradictions which is impossible.

By paying attention to the previous example, the answer to this question will become clear: the creation of a rock which God, who is its creator, is unable to move is an impossibility. Just as we mentioned previously, God’s power does not concern things which are impossible in themselves (if something is possible in itself, God will have the power to bring it into existence).

It may be said in objection, that the answer to this question is nothing but the limitation of God’s power and the showing of him as incapable. In answering this question, we must pay attention to a very important point, which shows that the absence of the power of God in things which are impossibilities does not at all entail the limiting of divine power. In reality, it simply shows that it is an impossible matter outside of the circle of potential possibility, meaning that it does not bear the potential of happening, if it did, he could do it. In other words, impossibilities (both those in essence and in occurrence) are beyond taking place; they are too low, they aren't qualified for taking place; they don’t bear the potential. On this basis, impossibilities can't even be called “things”, thus not being covered by the Quranic verses which state: (ان الله علی کل شیء قدیر), which means: “He has power over all things”. Anything that exists or can exist can be called a “thing”. To sum this up, God is all powerful and all mighty, and in terms of things which are impossible, these are not even included in the realm of possibility and the lack of them does not entail a lack in the power of God.

In order to make this matter more clear, the following example will prove useful: “Bring into mind a master potter who is able to make the most beautiful pots out of clay. Now if we were to give him water rather than clay and ask him to build us a pot using that base material, it is obvious that he will not be able to make even the most basic of a pot. Yet, we would never say that this lack of ability was because of his inability, weakness, or inexperience and say that he was not a master potter.  What he had in his possession (i.e. the water) did not have the potential of being changed into a pot and the transformation of water into a pot is impossible and inconceivable.”[4]

To conclude, the answer to this ‘enigma of absolute power’ is that, in regards to questions such as, “Can God create a rock which even he cannot lift?”, the reality is that these are in the category of impossibilities.  Due to their nature, they don’t have the possibility of coming into existence. This lack of potential existence is something which relates back to the nature of the affair and does not relate to God’s power and ability (In layman’s terms, it is that impossibility’s fault, not God’s). It is worthwhile to mention that in certain traditions, there are examples of these questions being raised and their answers. For example, in a tradition it has been narrated that an individual asked Imam Ali (a): “Can your God put the world into an egg, without making the world smaller or the egg larger?” Imam Ali (a) answered him by saying: “Certainly God cannot be characterized as unable or incapable, but what you have asked about never comes into existence (does not have the potential of existence).”[5]

According to Imam Ali (a), this matter is impossible but it does not mean that God is unable or limited in his power. What is being asked of cannot happen and is a logical impossibility, not that Allah (swt) has any limits in His power. 2150

 

From: http://islamquest.com

 

[1] See: Shirazi, Sadruddin Muhammad, Al-Asfarul-Arba’ah, vol.6, pp. 307-320; Tusi, Nasruddin, Sharh Tajrid, pp. 390-394 (farsi translation of Allamah Sha’rani); Misbah Yazdi, Mohammad Taqi, Amuzesh Aqa’ed, vol. 1, pp. 99-100.

[2] Surah Baqarah:20, 106, 109, 148 and 259 (and other verses).

[3] What is meant by the co-existence of contradictions is for one thing to both be and not be (under certain conditions that have all been listed in philosophy) at the same time. According to most philosophers, the impossibility of the co-existence of contradictions is one of the most axiomatic intellectual principles which if denied, results in the destruction of the structure of knowledge in man.

[4] Of course this example and other similar ones are significantly different than the matter we have at hand (which is the power and ability of Allah (swt)). In any event though, in order to get an idea of what is going on, because some of the similarities between the two, these examples are still beneficial.

[5]  “ان الله تبارک و تعالی لا ینسب الی العجز و الذی سألتنی لا یکون”, Sheikh Saduq, Al-Tawhid, chapter 9, hadith 5.

Dr Ahmad Ahmadi

 

 

 

Hitherto, some of the proofs of the existence of God were discussed. We shall now examine briefly the attributes of God, an issue which is one of the most important topics of theology, and which, if properly understood, can remove doubts of those who negate His existence and resolve their difficulties.

The attributes (sifat) of God are of two kinds: affirmative (thubu­tiyyah) and negative (salbiyyah). The former kind of attributes are posited for God, and the latter are those which are negated of Him.

Likewise, the affirmative attributes are of two kinds: attributes of Essence, and attributes of Divine Acts.

The attributes of Essence are those which are inherent in His Essence by Itself, without taking into consideration His relation to creation, and, therefore, always qualify It. For example, the attribute of power is an attribute of Divine Essence, because power is an inherent quality of God; it cannot be affirmed of Him at one time and negated at another.

However, the attributes of Acts are those which, with respect to the relation that exists between the Divine Essence and any one of God's creatures, are derived from that relation, and it is obvious that whenever one side of this relation‑here, that particular creature undergoes a change, then the attribute applicable to the other side‑in this case, God‑also changes. For example the attribute represented by the epithet `Provider' (al Razzaq) is derived from the relation between God, as the Provider, and His creatures, who are provided by Him.

Now, whenever a creature (which is one side of the relation) provided and maintained by Him dies, then that relation also ceases, and pro­vidence of God with regard to that creature comes to an end.

It should be remembered that although numerous attributes, affirmative and negative, are mentioned in revealed religion and in theological philosophy, they all are reducible to a single affirmative and a negative attribute. That single affirmative attribute is that God is complete perfection (i.e. every imaginable quality of perfection is attri­butable to Him); and the single negative attribute is that God is devoid of every imaginable defect or shortcoming.

Some of the affirmative attributes of God are as follows.

 

Power

In defining power, it can be said that one is powerful if he can act whenever he wants to and refrain from action. whenever he doesn't. Therefore, `powerful' is one who, firstly, has will (by virtue of this definition, power cannot be attributed to stones, plants, and, in short, all things devoid of will), and, secondly, the freedom to act or not to act, or both. Thirdly, his will only confirms either one of the two alternatives of action or inaction. Therefore, the domain of will is more restricted than that of power. Fourthly, since will is always related to some action of which one who wills has some kind of knowledge­, because one cannot will to do something which is unknown to him‑it could, therefore, be said that knowledge and awareness precedes will.

Moreover, since will has been included in the definition of power, therefore, in accordance with this definition, every `powerful' being, in relation to what it wills, possesses knowledge of it as well.

Now, let us see how we can demonstrate the attribute of power in  relation to God. In the proof of the existence of the Necessary Being, it is shown that the chain of possibilities and causes originates from the First Cause. The existence of all phenomena is ultimately derived from the First Cause and, therefore, they have, in some way or other, a pre‑existence in the First Cause. If the First Cause were totally devoid of them, that is, if It had no power over their creation, they could not have come into existence. Therefore, the coming into existence of a thing is also a sign of the existence of the attribute of power in its creator. The more expansive the domain of creation is, the greater the power of the creator. Accordingly, the proof of the First Cause includes the demonstration of the attribute of power in the First Cause. If the First Cause were devoid of power, no effect could result from It, and thereby It could not have been the First Cause.

On the other hand, it is clearly evident from the proof of order in the universe that the Creator of order must have power‑in the sense as has already been mentioned; that is, power embracing knowledge and will. For, if He lacks knowledge, He cannot shape and arrange the ingredients of an orderly system in such a manner that a network of necessary relationships is established between the ingredients, and some kind of definite purpose is realized within that system.

Moreover, if His power is not accompanied by will (that is, inclina­tion which arises from freedom) but, like the force of gravity, is exer­cised automatically without exercise of will, it necessitates that the system be eternal (qadim) and not created (hadith); because, the First Cause as the fountainhead of power‑and, likewise, power itself, which is Its essential attribute‑is eternal; therefore, the universe, as the order arising from the First Cause, must also be eternal and without beginning. However, we have proved that the entire animate and inanimate worlds are incessantly in the process of creation.

This was a brief discussion about the meaning of power and affirmation of the attribute of power with respect to God. Now let us consider its scope and extent. According to philosophical proofs, Quranic testimony, all revealed Scriptures, and also according to the traditions of the blessed Household (Ahl al Bayt) of the Prophet (S), the power of God is infinite and absolute. That is, God is omnipotent; for Him nothing is impossible. The following statement is recurrently made by the Holy Quran:

 

Indeed God has power over everything.

 

 The Quran also states:

 

His command, when He intends [to create] anything, is only to say to it, Be', and it is. (36:82(

 

 

 

Here, very often, this question is asked: Does God have the power over any and every thing imaginable? Can God, possibly, make two plus two equal to five, or insert a bigger body into a smaller one without the bigger body becoming small or the smaller one becoming larger? Certain philosophers, such as Descartes, have maintained that the meaning of Divine omnipotence is that God's power encompasses everything and that nothing is impossible for Him. Therefore, they say, God can ordain that 2+2 should equal 5 or 7, and so bring about things which to us appear impossible. Of course, in the present world, He deems not to do such things, but if He wills to do so, He can. In order to answer the above question, and to examine the view of Descartes, the meaning of `impossible' in all its various senses must at first be examined; then it must be seen which of these meanings pertains to the power of God.

 

The Meaning of Impossibility

The word `impossible' is used in three different senses:

(a) Inherent impossibility (muhal dhati(

(b) Impossibility of occurrence (muhal wuqu `i)

(c) Habitual impossibility (muhal `adi)

 

 

 

(a) Inherent Impossibility: It applies to a statement which, if assumed to be true, would imply self‑contradiction. It refers to situa­tions which are logically impossible. That is , it necessitates that some­thing should be both existent and non‑existent at the same time. It applies to statements like the above‑mentioned example relating to insertion of a bigger body into a smaller one without the larger one becoming smaller or the ‑smaller one larger; because, if true, it would lead to the conclusion that the bigger body in its state of largeness should not be large, since a larger body can be inserted into a smaller one only if it becomes smaller itself; that is, it should not be large, and this is a contradiction.

Similarly, the proposition 2+2=5 is necessarily self‑contradictory, because if 2 books are added to 2 other books, and if instead of 4 we have 5 books, it means that 2+2 is and also is not 2+2, because when 2+2=5, it means it is not equal to 4. So 2 books plus 2 books makes at the same time 4 and not 4 books.

(b) Impossibility of Occurrence:The mere supposition of this kind of impossibility does not necessarily lead to contradiction as such, but if it occurs in reality, its occurrence necessarily leads to contradiction.

For example, if we know that some effect B must necessarily be an effect of cause A, and that existence of A is necessary for causing the existence of B, now if B comes into existence without A, we are con­fronted with a contradiction between what we know to be true and what we observe (namely existence of B without A). However, there is no self‑contradiction in the supposition itself that B can exist without A. But if A is known with certainty to be a necessary cause of B, emer­gence of B without the presence of A (the necessary cause of B) involves a contradiction. This kind of impossibility refers to situations involving necessary causation.

(c) Habitual Impossibility: Here, an effect B, as a rule, is observed as originating from a particular cause A, but, in fact, occasionally, it might possess another cause C, as well. A case that may be cited as an example is that of the healing of sick by means of miracles. Healing, customarily, has its specific cause like medicine; but when it is caused by a miracle, it is due to the special powers of saintly figures, granted to them by God on account of their piety. This kind of impossibility depends on habitual association between cause and effect.

From among these three kinds of impossibility, the first and second do not apply to Divine power; because the first kind, or inherent impossibility, is something the mere supposition of which involves a self‑contradiction, and occurrence of anything involving a self‑contradiction is also, of necessity, contradictory.

However, the second kind of impossibility, that is impossibility of occurrence, also necessarily involves contradiction like the first kind; since even if the supposition itself is not self‑contradictory, but because if it is known with certainty that emergence of a particular effect B depends on a particular cause A, if B emerges without A, it implies a contradiction; because, the observation that A does not exist is incon­sistent with the deduction that A exists (a deduction derived from the statement known to be true that A is always the cause of B). In these two cases (i.e., the first two kinds of impossibilities), there is no `thing' involved (with reference to the Quranic verse 36:82 quoted above) so that God may command it to be.

The third kind, habitual impossibility, is, strictly speaking, not an impossibility at all; rather it is our ignorance of the actual causes of an event that makes us think so. Therefore, events and effects in this class are subject to the power of God.

 

Knowledge

Knowledge, like power, is another attribute of Divine Essence. On the basis of the proofs forwarded for demonstrating the existence of God, it can be said that God is omniscient. Moreover, it was stated in the discourse on power that it is deduced from the proof of order that God, who confers order and regularity on a system, must, of necessity, be aware of the characteristics of its components, their number, composition, and their connection with the system's purpose. Creation of an orderly system of phenomena without knowledge of the compo­nents of which it consists is something irrational, which the Holy Quran rejects by this interrogative negation:

 

Shall He not know, Who created, and He is All‑subtle, All‑aware? (67:14(

 

 

 

The proof of the Necessary Being demonstrates that God is the First Cause of all creation, and in the discussion of the proof of contin­gent and necessary it was stated that an effect depends on and arises from a cause, or, in other words, the effect is present for the cause. Accordingly, it is impossible that the cause should be unaware of its effect, which itself depends on the cause. Of course, God's knowledge is "knowledge by presence" (`ilm huduri) not acquired knowledge (‘ilm husulli), since in the discussion on the difference between these two kinds of knowledge it was stated that the former kind is directly present for the knower without the need for any intermediary, whilst the latter kind is gained by means of the sense organs.

From an epistemological viewpoint, in `knowledge by presence' (‘ilm huduri) the known object is itself, in its entirety, present in the mind of the knower, not just the idea of its form. However, in acquired knowledge (‘ilm husuli) only the form of the known thing is present in the mind of the knower, not its complete essence‑like our knowledge of sensible objects in the external world acquired by means of the sense organs.

With this brief explanation, we come to know that knowledge possessed by God cannot be the acquired type of knowledge, but is `knowledge by presence'; since the existence of every object and all effects caused by the First Cause depends on Him and is `present' for Him, and this is the same as what we call `knowledge by presence'. Besides, acquired knowledge comes through sense organs, and since God is free of any kind of organs whatsoever, the idea of acquired knowledge is inapplicable to Him. Therefore, we may conclude on the basis of what has been said that God's knowledge is `knowledge by presence', not acquired knowledge.

Some other attributes such as hearing and vision are also related to the attributes of knowledge. When we say that God hears and sees, what is meant is that God is knowledgeable about things that can be heard and seen. He knows the attributes and qualities, perceived by creatures by means of hearing and seeing, by means of His `knowledge by presence'.

However, the knowledge of God encompasses all things‑‑those which can be seen and heard, and all other things as well. The greater emphasis laid on the attributes of vision and hearing of God is apparent­ly due to the fact that these two faculties are more manifest and perfect in creatures endowed with the power of perception; in addition, their relationship with the body and bodily members, like the other faculties, is not as evident and conspicuous. On the other hand, faculties such as taste and touch and their relationship with the body is very intense and their imperfection is more conspicuous. Perhaps it is due to this that in theological parlance, from among the faculties pertaining to the senses, these two faculties of hearing and seeing‑ disregarding the fact of their being senses‑are attributed to God, although God has absolute and unlimited knowledge by presence not only of the visible and the audible but also of taste, touch and all other characteristics posses­sed by things.

 

The Attribute of Free Will

By free will is meant that a conscious and aware creature is able to select one way which is the most expedient from amongst all imagin­able alternatives for accomplishing of something, and in reality the only thing that may compel him to do something is expediency. However, insofar as it pertains to God, the meaning of free will is that no agent outside His Essence can compel Him to do something, since there is no cause above the First Cause which may influence It and cause It to do something. Hence, all the Acts of God originate from His free will, or, in other words, God is a free doer. As opposed to free will is compul­sion and determinism. What it means is that an agency or impetus influences a creature having will, compelling it to do something without exercising its own free will or capacity of choice. In other words, such a creature is divested of the exercise of free will in its action.

 

Divine Unity

One of the attributes of God is Unity, which is stressed by certain  religions, especially Islam. Monotheism and belief in Oneness of God is one of the prominent characteristics of Islam, for which it has been

named the religion of monotheism. Theological philosophers have also always believed in monotheism, and have resorted to following argu­ments to prove the unity of God.

 

1.Necessity of existence leads us to conclude that there must not be more than one Necessary Being; because whenever we talk of two or more things, it is necessary that those two things should possess some points of similarity, on the one hand, and some points of difference, on the other. For example, when we talk of two books, it is necessary that, firstly, they have something in common in that they are both `books', and, secondly, differ in at least one respect; otherwise, if they are similar in colour, appearance, weight, size, author, paper, subject matter, time, place and all other peculiarities, they cannot be consi­dered as two books and can only be one and the same book.

Therefore, every sort of plurality has certain points in common, on the one hand, and differences, on the other. Now if we suppose that two or more gods exist, then they must have at least one aspect in common and one or more aspects of difference. That is, each one of them must have one thing in common with the other and also have a point or points especial to itself. Therefore, each one of them has a compounded being com­posed of at least two aspects or characteristics, and each compound would require its own components on whose existence its own exis­tence depends. It is obvious that a being which is compound is depen­dent for its existence on its parts, and hence is not self‑existing. This is contradictory to the definition of the Necessary Being. Accordingly, the assumption that there can be two or more Necessary Beings leads to a self‑contradiction.

 

2.The orderly state of the universe, of necessity, shows that its creator cannot be more than one; because, if such were the case, there would have been a difference of essence and natures between creators. Moreover, two or more creators of differing essences and natures will necessarily produce different and divergent effects depending on the manner of relationship of these effects with the differing will of the creators.

Further, it is obvious that two or more different entities possessing differing wills would offer differing schemes for the order of the universe‑an order which in reality is an interconnected, integrated unit. Also, their varying wills and plans for creation would necessarily cause disorder, leading to ultimate destruction. The Holy Quran states this point:

 

If there had been in them (heavens and  earth) any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder. (21:22(

 

The late `Allamah Tabataba'i, in his commentary on this verse, writes:

 

“In our commentary on Surat Hud, and also subsequently, we have made it clear that the controversy between the idolaters and the monotheists does not relate to the issue of unity or plurality of the Necessary Being; because, that the Necessary Being is one and without divine associates is not a matter of dispute; rather, the dispute concerns God as the deity worthy of worship. Idolaters contend that administration of the world with its multiple affairs has been delegated to noble beings such as god of the heavens, god of the earth, and god of human beings, all of whom have nearness and access to God; they must be worshipped, so that they may intercede with God on behalf of their worshippers and thus bring them near to God. They are gods of beings inferior and subject to their authority, and Allah, the god of gods, is the creator of everything. As the Quran, in this regard, says: "And if you ask them `who is the creator of the heavens and the earth, they will say `Allah',... and if you ask them who has created the heavens and earth they will say `the Powerful and the Wise has created them'."

 

The verse under discussion negates these gods in this sense, not in the sense of their being creators or makers; for no one had insisted on a belief in plurality of creators.

However, the obvious import of the verse is that if there were more than one God, they would differ as to their essence and nature, and such difference would be tantamount to departure in their schemes, resulting in their mutual destruction and disorder throughout the system of the heavens and the earth. But the existing order of the universe is a unified one, whose parts and components are in coordi­nation and harmony with one another and in conformity with its purposes. Therefore, there cannot be more than one God.

Another verse cited in relation to the proof of the Unity of God, is the following:

 

God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god besides Him; for then each god would have taken off that he created and some of them would have risen up over others; glory be to God, beyond that they ascribe [to Him]. (23:91(

 

The purpose of this verse is apparently to state that if we suppose two gods as existing, some kind of difference between them is inevi­table; for two distinctly separate beings entail that they differ at least in one respect. As stated in connection with the preceding verse, will is also one of the essential characteristics of these two beings. Accordingly, a universe subject to two differing wills, would inevitably result in disorder and discord; because each one of the gods with a separate will of his own would act independently of the other and in accordance with his own will. That is, the verse implies that if there were two gods, each one of them would have governed his creation according to his own will, and, consequently, no order whatsoever could be established in the universe, since the creation of each god would differ from that of the other, and, as a consequence, integration, order and coordination would not exist, or granting that some kind of order could be achieved, sooner or later it would come to naught and would not endure. This is the case if neither of the two or more gods is subordinate to another but each one of them administers a part of the universe independently. But the observable order of the universe is the best witness of the fact that the universe is governed by a single hierarchy of laws; that is, though some sections of the universe are subject to some special laws (such as the plant kingdom and animal kingdom), they, in addition to their particular laws, are governed by the general laws of the universe (the law of gravitation, for example)

Now if we attribute each one of these kingdoms with their special, more general, and most general laws to each of the gods, each one of them would inevitably be subordinate to the superior god, and, as a matter of course, each would become a tool for realization of the actions and objectives of the superior god. However, such beings cannot be called `gods', since they are effects among various effects. This is what is meant when the above verse states `some of them would have risen over others.'

This proof of monotheism, which was obtained from the proof of order, demonstrates the Unity of Divine sovereignty (tawhid rububi); that is, by demonstrating that there is a single unitary order prevailing in the universe, it proves that the universe is administered by one Designer and Sovereign. The unity of the Divine Sovereign, of necessity, leads to monotheism in worship; because worship is directed towards a Divine sovereign, and if He is one, then worship is addressed solely to Him‑not to numerous sovereigns. Accordingly, unity of divinity­, divinity being a necessary counterpart of sovereignty, and sovereign of the universe being the same as its god‑is proved: the universe has one God and one Sovereign.

 

Monotheism and Human Nature

 

In the discussion on the proof of the existence of God, it was said that one of the ways of knowing God is through natural instinct. It was pointed out that just as God is known by means of `ilm huduri, know­ledge of Divine Unity is also obtained by the same means. Because when we, by means of our knowledge by presence, discover that our own existence is a relative one, dependent upon that of a Self‑existing Being, by means of the same knowledge we also find that the Self‑existing Being, who constitutes the other end of this relation, is one and unique.

 

If there were more than one self‑existing beings, then by means of knowledge by presence we would have found them to be multiple, whereas the fact of the matter is that it is not so. In the verse 7:172 it was pointed out that God had obtained humanity's confession in regard to His sovereignty, in a world which preceded this world. The reason for this was that there should be no valid excuses on behalf of poly­theists on the Day of Judgement. Therefore, in this confession, God must have been experienced as the One Sovereign by every human individual through his knowledge by presence; otherwise the confession would not be valid.

 

Divine Speech

We know that human speech derives from the vocal chords causing vibrations in the air and these vibrations are heard as meaningful sounds or `speech'. However, `speaking', in this sense, does not apply to God, because He has no corporeal form that He should have vocal chords to cause vibrations and sound. Therefore, we must find some other mean­ing for Divine speech.

Some contend that Divine speech is through creation of sound impressions in the hearer. This is true in the case of intelligent beings with a physical constitution which enables them to hear sounds. However, in the case of incorporeal beings such as angels or human spirits, the creation of sound is not feasible; that is, it is not possible to convey an audible message to the addressee, since he lacks the auditory equipment. Besides, God has also spoken to inanimate things like the sky, the earth, fire, etc., and has commanded and prohibited them. Can such `speech' be also said to be caused by the agency of sound? Obviously the answer is in the negative.

Therefore, it must be asserted that Divine speech, when addressed to man and other creatures, is in the sense of induction or creation of  meaning resulting from speech. That is, the same meanings that human beings convey to one another by means of speech, God induces similar kind of meanings in the intellect of a human being without the need of a voice, larynx etc. Sometimes the speech of God with creatures is in the sense of an act of creation, as in the verse:

 

His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it Be', and it is.(36:82(

 

Because saying `Be' to something which does not exist, can only mean creation. Apart from the two meanings stated above, other cases of Divine speech are mentioned in the Quran, as God's commanding the sky and the earth: "Come", to which they replied: "We come willing­ly." (41:11)

 

Divine Wisdom

`Allamah Tabataba'i‑may God's mercy be upon him‑in his exposition on Divine Wisdom says:[1]

 

The various movements originating from us can be considered as our actions when they are related to and dependent upon our will in some way. There­fore, health, illness and other involuntary movements cannot be considered as our actions. It is obvious that we will an action only in the event of a pre­ference; that is, when we see that it is better to do something than not to do it, and the benefits accruing thereof exceed the drawbacks, and would be a step towards perfection for us. Therefore, the advantage related to our inten­ded action, which persuades us to prefer action to inaction, is the very good which is the cause of our activity. That good is what is called the end of an action. and it has been demonstrated in philosophical discussions that an action, voluntary or involuntary, is not without purpose. This good proceed­ing from an action, is what is called the `wisdom' of an action by society, and this `wisdom', considered so by reason, is what causes the doer of that action to be depicted as `wise'. If there were no wisdom in an act, it would be considered futile and vain.

It is obvious that the benefit or good which follows an action has no external existence prior to the act, and it is the idea of a benefit which compels or inspires the would‑be doer to act, in the sense that each one of us has some idea of a benefit derived from our experience of the external order and the general laws governing it. This order guides our actions to their perceived ends and objectives. Likewise, this idea of benefit is the result of our experience of interrelationships between things and, undoubtedly, this system of ideas is dependent upon and derived from the order prevailing in external reality.

It is characteristic of our voluntary actions that they are per­formed in accordance with our system of knowledge, and our will is dependent upon the good or benefit which we perceive in our actions. Now, if there is conformity or correspondence between an action, on the one hand, and perception and knowledge, on the other, then such an action is considered as judicious and wise and its doer is said to be `judicious' or `wise'. But if we default, whether due to some short­coming or neglect, then the action is considered as futile and erroneous and the doer is considered unwise.

Therefore, wisdom is the quality of the doer of an act whose work conforms to his subjective understanding, which, in turn, corresponds  to the order prevailing in external reality. The `good' or `wisdom' of an action is also its correspondence to subjective understanding that is derived from external reality. So `wisdom' implies conformity to external reality, and is a characteristic of a doer whose acts, through the agency of the mind, conform to the external reality. So; also, the objective or benefit of an action depends on correspondence of sub­jective knowledge to external reality.

However, this is true in the case of those actions in which conformity of subjective knowledge with the external reality is im­plied‑ like our voluntary actions. But an act of God is external reality itself, and stands in no need of correspondence to the order prevailing in the external world. Therefore, when it is said that the acts of God are based on an objective, it is meant that the `objective' of His act is derived from the act and not vice versa.[2]

In brief, one is said to be wise if he carefully examines the external reality, and from among the various options available, selects one which promises a maximum amount of benefit.

Then he so organizes his actions that he can attain the desired objective with minimum amount of effort. Wisdom is the conformity of an act with its objective or the desired benefit, which it is considered to yield. This interpreta­tion of wisdom assumes the pre‑existence of an external reality which guarantees the attainment of premeditated objectives on the basis of conformity of the actions of the doer with it. It is obvious that `wis­dom' in this sense could only apply to one whose acts are performed against the background of external reality and which fit into its pers­pective.

However, in the case of God, whose acts are external reality itself, the attribute of wisdom is riot applicable in this sense, but solely implies that God never does anything futile, devoid of benefit or in vain. However, it does not mean that God has to ‑conform His acts to the external reality in order to make them useful or purposeful. He does not do anything futile or useless, because He is a free actor with free will. We stated that free will is attributed to someone who selects one out of the many possible courses of action which would fulfil his objective better than others.

Now if this doer possessing free will is a creature other than God, its objectives are those which fulfil some of its needs or bring it some kind of advantage. But if the free doer is God, who is free of every need and necessity, then, in His case, He cannot have an `objective' in this sense. Rather, He acts for the sake of an objective or purpose whose gain and benefit accrues to others. In other words, God acts solely out of beneficence and grace; not for achieving any good for Himself in order to satisfy some need of His own, nor in order to attain some advantage:

 

I did not bring forth creation to profit by it,

But to bestow My Beneficence upon My creatures.

 

And this beneficence and grace are essential to Divine Essence, because He is absolute perfection. Without beneficence God would not be perfect.

Dr. Ahmad Ahmadi

 

Before taking up this proof it may be necessary to consider the problem of causality as a prerequisite; for understanding the argu­ment of contingency and necessity is difficult without understand­ing causality.

 

Principle of Causality

One of the most important problems which in all philosophical schools has given rise to a great amount of debating is the question of cause and effect, or the principle of causality. It is this principle that is said to be the basis of all man's intellectual and practical efforts, for we can see that the work of scientists and their endeavours are aimed at either finding causes and effects, or determining how they correlate. A chemist, for example, who undertakes a chemical experiment, hopes to discover the real properties of the substance he is working on, or to find the effects that can be related to an element under experiment. Like­wise, a historian looking into the events responsible for the outbreak of the two World Wars is after the relationship of these historical pheno­mena with the causes and reasons which might have led to them.

In the course of his search, the scientist wishes not only to see that two things have some kind of relationship, but he also wants to discover which one is the cause or originator and which is the effect or product. This is also true of human actions; for whatever man does is either voluntary, that is, according to his will and desire, or involuntary, that is, natural and forced. If it is voluntary, then we may say that the act is the effect of a thinker's thought, since it is he who, through thought, deliberation, and after weighing various alternatives, has made his choice, whereas involuntary actions are those which come about as a result of some bodily or natural causes. It is impossible to conceive of a thing as coming into existence without a cause and by itself. Therefore, we may say that for a thing to exist there has to be something which is a cause of its existence. Thus, to define `cause', we may say that a cause is something from which some new thing called `effect' is born. We may add that as long as the cause (that is whatever is required for origi­nation of the effect) is not fully realized, the effect will not come to exist. On the other hand, if an effect comes into being, we can immediately assert that a cause has pre‑existed it. From what we have said we can conclude that causality is a relation between two beings to the effect that the existence of one is a prerequisite for the existence of the other. In this interdependence, the effect is sequential and depen­dent on the cause. The principle of causality can be concluded from the following analysis:

 

There can be only two basic explanations regarding existence of a phenomenon:

a) It comes into being accidentally or by chance[1];

b) It is the effect of a cause on which it depends.

 

If the first assumption is accepted, then we have to accept also, firstly, that there is no provable connection between things, or the effects produced by them. For example, there is no way of proving that the fruit is born of the tree, or a man's actions are attributable to him, and, as a result, one can deny one's acts to be one's own and readily regard them as being without causes or as being accidental.

 

Secondly, we must accept that there can be no valid scientific law; for every law of science is based upon the principle of causality and on the notion that every phenomenon is the product of a cause and depen­dent upon it.

 

Thirdly, it should also be accepted that no event can be predict­able, that is to say we must allow that many things are probable to occur at every moment, for nothing is a precondition for any other thing.

 

It is obvious that the above three conclusions are invalid, and the assumption that chance and accident is responsible for emergence of phenomena cannot adequately explain the problem. Thus, we have no alternative except to accept the second assumption, which entails the acceptance of the causal relationship between things. The principle of  causality was looked upon by almost all philosophers except the empiricists as a reasonable way of explaining all phenomena, whether social or natural. It was the English empiricist David Hume who rejec­ted the principle of causality, claiming that causal relationship is not what its exponents assert as an objective reality, but a subjective notion based on conjunction conceived by the mind between impres­sions. But it has been proven that such an interpretation of causality leads to pure solipsism and complete denial of the external world. Incredibility of such a view is self‑evident[2]. On the other hand, some Islamic philosophers hold that ideas such as causality and the like are intuitively obtained by the self through its direct knowledge of itself (`ilm huduri). So, it is claimed that not only the ideas of causality and substance, but all the basics of human knowledge are rooted in ‘ilm huduri[3].

On the basis of what has been said, it is evident that causality is an objective, real and external relation, not a subjective formulation as empiricists claim it to be. Therefore, whenever a complete cause‑a cause which possesses all conditions necessary and sufficient for exis­tence of the effect‑is realized in the external world, it is necessari­ly followed by the effect. Likewise, whenever we observe the effect as existing, we can conclude that its cause has already been existing[4].

 

Types of Causes

Causes are of different types; amongst them are: complete and incomplete, simple and compound, real and preparing, contiguous and distant, internal (matter and form) and external.

A complete cause is one which has in itself all necessary and suffi­cient conditions for the realization of the effect. On the other hand, the incomplete cause is one which lacks some of the necessary factors for realization of the effect; it is not sufficient for creating an effect. In short, the absence of cause (whether complete or incomplete) implies the absence of the effect.

A compound cause, is one which has parts. These parts may be either material or rational (formal); for instance, the idea of species is a compound of the ideas of genus and differentia. A real cause is like causality of the self in relation to its own states such as knowledge. An example of the preparing cause is situation of a moving body at preceding positions in space for arriving at a successive position.

A contiguous cause directly acts to produce an effect, as, for example, the movement of a hammer is the direct cause of driving in of a nail. But the distant cause is an indirect cause, such as the movement of one's hand by exercise of one's will; the will acts on nerves, the nerves on muscles and muscles move to cause the movement of the hand.

 Material, formal, efficient and final causes can be explained by the example of a chair: wood is its material cause; the shape its formal cause; the carpenter its efficient cause, and the purpose for which it is made, namely, to sit on it, is its final cause. The first two of these are called `internal' causes, and the latter two are termed `existential' causes (al‑`illah al‑wujudiyyah)

 

Relation between Cause and Effect

Now that we understand the meaning of causality, we can enter into a more elaborate examination of the relation between cause and effect. Following are some important points.

 

1. Relation of Necessity

As was pointed out, once the complete cause is realized, the effect will also be realized; and whenever we come across an effect, we reach the necessary conclusion that there must have been a cause previously realized. Therefore, the relation of necessity between cause and effect is a real one; that is, it is a kind of relation which cannot possibly be changed into some other kind of relation. In other words, the relation between cause and effect is like the relation between natural integers. Just as it is necessary for number 4, for example, to occur between the numbers 3 and 5, or otherwise the series is rationally distorted, so also the necessary relation between every cause and effect is that of succes­sion in which the position of any element in the series cannot be changed. According to what has been said, any doubt about the exis­tence of necessary relation between cause and effect is, in fact, a doubt about the validity of the principle of causality itself.

 

 

 

2. Relation of Homogeneity

 

 

 

A state of homogeneity exists between cause and effect; that is to say, every effect has some kind of agreement and consistency with the cause which has produced it, which it does not have with all other things. Or else, anything could be a cause for anything else, or anything be an effect of anything else, whereas it is not so. Certain effects result from certain causes only, and this relation, which is a necessary one, can in no way be upset or altered. And this is what we call the relation of homogeneity between cause and effect. As a matter of fact, negation of homogeneity is, in fact, negation of the whole system of necessity of causality and admission of disorder and chaos in the scheme of the universe.

3. Impossibility of Endurance of Effect without Presence of Complete Cause

Commonly we are inclined to think that it is possible for the effect to survive the cause. In this regard example is given of enduring of a building after its builder or enduring of artifacts after a craftsman has made them. But if the meaning of cause and effect and their rela­tions is really understood and the true concept of causality is known, then it will be seen that the effect is like the shadow or reflection of the cause, so that it can never be separated from it, as it is not possible to separate the shadow from its object. Such examples, which are erro­neously forwarded, concern types of incomplete cause, not the complete cause. In the case of a building's survival after its builder, the existence of the builder alone is not the complete cause for the building's endu­rance; rather, it is the quality and composition of the construction materials (along with other factors) which constitute the complete cause for the building to endure.

Having dealt with the nature of causality, now we shall return to our main subject: the argument of contingency and necessity, a theo­logical argument to prove the existence of God by demonstrating dependence of all contingent things on the Necessary Being.

 

Contingency

If we consider the nature of a thing, we cannot say of it that it should necessarily have existed or not existed. To our rational mind its relation to existence or non‑existence is neutral. If the object exists in the external world, then there must have been a cause which has brought it into existence. For, on the basis of the principle of causality nothing can come into existence without a cause, and that for every phenomenon or event there has to be a cause. A being which has the characteristic that its existence depends on that of another, is called a contingent being (mumkin al‑wujud)

A Necessary Being (wajib al‑wujud), on the other hand, is such that no reason can be found for attributing its existence to that of another being. Therefore, necessity, when applied to existence, means independence of existence; it is characteristic of a Self‑existing Being, which is self‑sufficient and independent of other things for Its exis­tence.

Having briefly explained these two terms, let us now see how we can employ the contingent and necessary argument to prove the exis­tence of God. There is no doubt that some things in the universe come into being which did not exist before.

We can see many examples of this in nature, such as blossoming of trees in spring after falling of their leaves and flowers during autumn, passing of nights and coming of days, ending of spring and beginning of fall, youth is followed by old age and old age by death, and so on. Right at this moment, I perceive sounds, flavours, sensations of touch which did not exist few moments ago (acquired knowledge or `ilm husuli)

At this very moment I have a feel­ing of love and affection for the people around me, and I am moreover conscious of such feelings; while only a few moments ago I did not have such sentiments, nor was I aware of them. Now, I have awareness of my own self and I am aware of this awareness (`ilm huduri)

All these things which did not exist before and are now existent are called phenomena. It is self‑evident that no phenomenon can be without a cause. This means that the existence of every phenomenon is entirely dependent on that of another, and, therefore, it is contingent. Now the question arises whether or not the cause of a phenomenon or any contingent being can also be a contingent being dependent on other beings, or if it has to be self‑existent, independent, or, what is called, a Necessary, Self‑existing Being.

In answer it may be said that both cases are possible; that is, the cause may be either contingent or necessary. Now, if this cause (the producer of the contingent effect), is itself a necessary being, then our claim of necessary cause is proven. But if it is contingent, then we are faced with two alternatives:

 

1.either it is the effect of another contingent cause, which in turn is itself the effect of another cause, and so forth till infinity (a linear or infinite series);

2.or the chain of cause and effect is not linear but circular; that is the cause at the beginning end of the chain of causation is itself the last effect at the end of the chain.

 

Therefore, in the case we accept the second alternative, that is, if we consider all causes in the chain of causation as being contingent, there are only two plausible hypotheses: (i) an infinite series (ii) or a vicious circle. Accordingly, the existence of the Necessary Being cannot be proved unless we follow Ibn Sina in showing that an infinite series or a vicious circle of causation is absurd and that the chain of causation should necessarily end in the Necessary Being. In other words, we have to show the impossibility of a linear or circular chain of causation which does not end in the Necessary Being.

 

Falsity of Circular and Infinite Series in Causation

The invalidity of circular series can be proven in this manner. There can be two or more elements in the circle of causation. If there are only two elements A and B, we may represent the causal relation­ship by writing . If there are more than two elements, for instance A, B, C and D, we may represent the causal relationship in this way:   . In this case, A is the cause of B, B is the cause of C, C is the cause of D, and D is again the cause of A. Both the cases are, however, invalid, since it entails that A should be existent and non­existent at the same time: it should exist to create B and not exist to be created by B. This is self‑contradictory and stands refuted. Also, the circle with more than two elements implies a succession of several effects without a cause, which is also seen to be invalid.

As to the infinite series, there are many reasons for considering it invalid. We shall discuss two of them here.

a) If we consider a chain of causes and effects whose last link is an effect which has not yet become a cause of another thing‑for example, a slight movement of the hand, which we consider as an effect of preceding causes, but it is not yet a cause for another effect‑we shall see that every preceding link of this chain, which precedes this last effect, must at the same time be a cause for its next link and an effect for its previous link, and so on. Thus, every link of this chain is at the same time a cause and an effect, and we know that if a link in the chain is the cause of its succeeding link that does not excuse it from the need of a cause preceding it. Therefore, every link in the series is an effect dependent on a cause.

Now supposing that this chain is infinite and there is no First Cause, it implies an infinite number of middles with no sides[5], which is of course impossible.

For example, in the chain  we take A to be the last effect (the slight motion of the hand which has not yet become a cause for another thing)[6].

 The link B (the muscles, in our example) is the cause for A and is also the effect of C or the effect of nerves). Link C is the effect of D (the effect of will, in our example). Thus every one of the links of the chain is both a cause and an effect at the same time. As has been argued, though every link is the cause for the following link, it does not mean that it can itself dispense with a cause preceding it. Therefore, every link is necessarily an effect, too. So we may overlook the causation of all links and illus­trate them thus: ; this means that we have an endless chain of effects without coming across anything which is a cause without being an effect; as we have already shown, it is impos­sible.

 

b) We said that the existence of an effect or phenomenon is dependent, not self‑existent, or in other words, it is a contingent being or an intermediary existent. Now the supposition that there is an end­less chain of contingent beings, implies an infinite chain of dependent and intermediary beings which do not depend for their existence on an independent, self‑existent being, and this is impossible.

From what we have said, we can draw this conclusion: first, that we perceive the existence of phenomenon or the contingent being either through our acquired knowledge or through introspection (`ilm huduri); i.e. we perceive the external world through acquired know­ledge (`ilm husuli) and the inner states of the self through introspection (`ilm huduri); second, that every contingent being is dependent on a cause, otherwise it cannot possibly be existent; third, the chain of contingent beings and causes must inevitably originate from the First Cause, the Self‑existent Being, that is, God.

 

Khwajah Nasir al‑Din al‑Tusi has formulated the argument of the Necessary Being in this statement:

 

الوجود ان کان واجبا فهو مطلوب و الّا استلزمته لاستحالة الدّور و التسلسل

 

Which means, if we accept the cause of all existence as the exis­tence of the Necessary Being, we have reached the desirable conclusion; otherwise‑that is, if we do not accept the Necessary Being as the first cause‑ the existence of the Necessary Being is necessitated by the impossibility of a causal circle and a causal linear series.

 

From: www.al-islam.org

---

[1] By `chance' here we mean occurrence of a phenomenon without cause. The word is also used for two other meanings: i) occurrence of a phenomenon through the agency of an unusual cause; ii) an unexpected outcome of an action which was not the premeditated goal of the doer.

[2] See Paul Foulquie's Treatise on Metaphysics; Persian trans. by Y. Mahdawi. See also Comparative Ideology published by Dar Rah‑a Haqq Organization.

[3] For more details see The Principles and Method of the Philosophy of Realism by `Allamah Tabataba'i, footnotes by Murtada Mutahhari, vol. 2.

[4] It should be noted here that causal precedence is not the same thing as temporal precedence. For example, when we move a pen, while writing, we usually say that the hand moves first, and then the pen follows the movement of the hand, or that the motion of the hand precedes that of the pen. However, they both move simultaneously. This type of precedence is called `causal precedence'.

[5] Ibn Sina, and other Muslim philosophers after him, termed this argument as the "middle and side argument"

[6] Here `c' stands for cause and `e' for effect.

Download

Miror 2

From: http://www.aswatalislam.net

Dr. Craig's Opening Remarks(20 min)

Dr. Washington's Opening Arguments(20 min)

Dr. Craig's First Rebuttal(12min)

Dr. Washington's First Rebuttal(12min)

Dr. Craig's Second Rebuttal(8min)

Dr. Washington's Second Rebuttal(8min)

Dr. Craig's Third Rebuttal(5min)

Dr. Washington's Third Rebuttal(5min)

Question and Answer Session

 

william lane craig 

Question: Dr. Craig, I'm slightly puzzled. You said in the beginning of your argument that the universe cannot be infinite because it leads to logical contradictions, such as, "How can you have infinity minus infinity?", and I accepted your argument at that point. But then in my mind, God Himself cannot be infinite, yet you went on to say God is timeless and you can have infinite happiness in Heaven, so I was somewhat confused. So I basically ignored that you said that. And I said that God cannot be infinite, and I accepted that because it does seem like an impossibility to have infinity minus infinity. Okay, alright. But if he is not infinite, if he is not that, how then can he be explained, rather than nothing, in the case of the universe?

Dr. Craig: This is a good question that students often ask. When theists speak of the "infinity of God", they're not talking about a mathematical infinity. They're not talking about an infinite number of definite and discrete finite parts that make up a whole, like an infinite set. If you will, God's infinity is not a quantitative infinity; it's more like a qualitative infinity. It's a catch-all term meaning that God is morally perfect, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and so forth. But God is not made up of an actually infinite number of definite and discrete finite parts, so the notion of divine infinity isn't this idea of quantitative mathematical idea.

Moderator: Okay, a question over here for Dr. Washington.

Question: Dr. Washington, you say it's wrong to harm an individual for the greater good and used as an example a small black child who whistles at a white woman. Should we lynch the black boy for the greater good? I have two questions. One, isn't this the type of world we live in? Soldiers sacrifice themselves---they die for the greater good. A white man loses his job in reverse discrimination so a black man can get his job. [boos from the audience] And second, don't you appreciate the fact that you live in this world?

Dr. Washington: You asked me if I appreciate the fact I lived in a world in which Emmett Till was lynched in 1955? No I don't. Do I, am I happy to live in a world where soldiers may, under certain circumstances, give up their lives? Now note this is a soldier making the choice to give up his or her life for the greater good, not someone killing a soldier for the greater [good]. That's really crucial, okay. That's, that's the central point. You cannot make this decision for someone. You cannot kill somebody, okay, just to make other people happy, or to, you mentioned other people's happiness. Now in certain cases, you know, I'm not going to address your particular example that the question is about, but I want to say that in certain cases, you know you can ask people to make certain sacrifices. But the sort of sacrifices aren't the sort of ones people seem to be making all the time. Giving up their lives. You know, people are being killed for what could arguably be just "character building," if we accept the kind of arguments that Dr. Craig has been giving tonight. That kind of thing is wrong.

Moderator: Okay, a question over here.

Question: Dr. Craig, I have two brief logical points to bring up. First, on the problem of evil. It often seems to me that, not only does it work as stated, but...

Dr. Craig: Can you speak a little more distinctly? I'm having a little trouble understanding.

Question: Sorry. On the matter of the problem of evil, it seems to me that the free will defense really doesn't explain not only natural evil to humans, but even more poignantly, suffering which really has nothing to do with moral will, or even because of nature. It's living entities that don't even the possibility of free will, such as animals and children, particularly small babies.

Moderator: Your question?

Question: The question is, how do you reconcile this with the problem, the free will defense, since they don't have free will?

Dr. Craig: The free will defense is not meant to explain why these things occur. The free will defense is only meant to show that no logical incompatibility has been demonstrated between God and harm. When Plantinga proposed this defense, for example, he said, "Maybe all natural evil is the result of demons," so that all evil is really moral evil. Now that's an absurd hypothesis, but as long as it's logically possible, it shows there's no logical incompatibility between God and harm. Now with respect to natural evils or infant suffering, I already said it seems to me in a world operating according to natural law there would be the possibility of such evils and harms befalling us. But I don't see any logical incompatibility between that and God. C.S. Lewis once said, "What do people mean that if God is all-good, He won't allow any harm? Have they never been to a dentist?" Clearly, sometimes we do allow harm or pain in people's lives in order to achieve greater goods, and God may well do that. It may well be the case that in order to achieve this much good in the world, God had to allow this much gratuitous evil. Now I don't know that, but as long as that's even possible, there's no logical incompatibility between God and evil.

Moderator: Okay. A question over here for Dr. Washington.

Question: If you don't believe in the eyewitness accounts and the other evidence for the birth, life, death, resurrection, and purpose of Jesus Christ here on Earth, how do you propose to explain how and why the Christian religion was created, and why it has become so big, as of late?

Dr. Washington: I'm not a sociologist, okay. And I think that's a sociological question. One could ask that about many movements. Why did the Muslim religion become, be created, and spread so quickly? How did it happen in Buddhism? You know, Christianity did move very quickly in some ways and I think there are some explanations, you know, I'm told. Part of it is that these people really believed, okay. They sincerely believed in their god, and they proselytized. The Jewish religion was, was so against proselytizing they didn't have a lot of competition back then, okay. Here people who were very strong believers, very motivated, they went out to try to get converts. I think it's a very simple sociological explanation.

Moderator: A question for Dr. Craig.

Question: Dr. Craig, isn't it true that the Apostle Paul, who is the most prolific and earliest writer in the New Testament, contradicted your argument on the resurrection because he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that "flesh and blood shall never inherit the kingdom of God"; that he did not believe in the empty tomb---he doesn't mention it anywhere in his writings---and as far as he's concerned there was none; and that he would totally disagree with you that Jesus was a resuscitated corpse who had to move a stone. Could you please respond to that?

Dr. Craig: Yes, with pleasure! [laughter] First of all, even if you say that Paul the Apostle believed in a spiritual, immaterial sort of body, that doesn't deny the resurrection. A good many scholars, for example, Pannenberg, under whom I studied, believe in the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus, but believe that Jesus had an immaterial resurrection body. So your point about "flesh and blood" is irrelevant to the reality of the resurrection. That has to do with the materiality of Jesus' resurrection body. But in fact I think you're mistaken in your interpretation of that verse. The words, "flesh and blood" is a typical Semitic idiom meaning "mortal human nature." For example, Paul in Galatians 1:18 says that when he was converted on the Damascus road, "I did not confer with flesh and blood, but went away into Arabia." Paul's not talking about anatomy there. He's saying that this weak, mortal human nature cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And therefore the second half of that verse you quoted, in the context, goes on to say, "therefore the perishable must put on imperishability; the corruptible must become incorruptible." So that's not at all incompatible with the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body.

As for Paul and the empty tomb, I'm strongly persuaded that Paul actually does believe in the empty tomb and that he implies i, in two ways. (1) In 1 Corinthians 15 when he says Jesus "died, was buried, and was raised," that implies an empty tomb. For a first-century Jew, it would have been unthinkable to say that someone "died, was buried, and was raised", and yet his body lay in the grave. That would have been a contradiction in terms. (2) When Paul says that Jesus was raised "on the third day," that is probably a reference to the discovery of the empty tomb by the women followers of Jesus on Sunday morning. This dating of the resurrection thus refers to the empty tomb tradition. The tradition shows that Paul knows and believes in it. So I think that Paul actually gives very strong credibility to the tradition of the empty tomb.

Question: Yeah, I have a question that basically relates to the logic behind the harming one for the greater good. And just take a hypothetical situation where someone comes to you and says, "You either kill your parents and your family in this house here, or I'm going to kill all of them plus everybody that lives on the block." And I think that logically, one person would say, "Well, in this situation, killing these few people, harming the small number for the greater good, is in fact the right choice, and that is not an immoral choice to make."

Moderator: Your question?

Questioner: So my question is, how can you now basically use that and say that every case of this is wrong.

Dr. Washington: I wouldn't do it. [applause]

Question: One of the arguments was about this cosmic lottery with the chance of 10^123 about the outcome of our universe being the one where we can live in and that this apparently must have been stacked or guided by somebody to turn out to be this way. However, you brought up the argument that if Mafiosi were winning the lotto over and over again, then obviously somebody was pulling the strings, and nobody would doubt that. The cosmic lottery, in which the cosmos was created, was only played once. For all we know, however, from quantum physics and a few other areas of science there's also the possibility that ,indeed, all possible outcomes of multiple choice events may indeed happen. So there, we may be the one universe where life is, and this 10^123 of other universes is indeed out there and exists, where life does not exist. What do you have to say about this?

Dr. Craig: The suggestion here, for those who aren't familiar with this, is that perhaps the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics is correct, that in fact our universe is just one of an infinite number of parallel universes to this one. And I guess my response to that would be, well, multiple in nature. First, I think that it is so metaphysically extravagant that theism looks modest by comparison. It has a bloated ontology of an infinite number of these worlds. Moreover, they have to be very specially orchestrated. It's not enough to just have an infinite number of them, but they have to be both infinite and randomly ordered in order to ensure that the proper results will come about. And I think it also creates extraordinary problems for personal identity, to talk about your counterpart in this other world. You exist in this other world, but then which one is the real you? It seems to me that there are all sorts of extraordinary problems with that, so that I in fact see just no reason to think that these sorts of parallel universes or worlds exist. I think theism is a much more plausible answer to the problem of the initial complex order in the universe.{1}

Question: I'm a Christian, and I have the Bible to tell me what's right and wrong, and I was just wondering--- well, I have two questions, but one was: how you think that we need to determine what's right and wrong in a society and if you think we should base our moral choices on our own intuition, and secondly, I live in a world with a lot of suffering and death, but I have hope in Jesus and in Heaven, and you live in that world, and I was just wondering what hope you had? [applause]

Dr. Washington: I think that's a great question. I think that's a really great question. I have lot of hope for this world. There's a lot of good in the world. There's a lot of bad, but there's definitely a lot of good, too. A lot of good people doing many, many good things. Many of these people doing many good things are atheists. And you ask, where do they get their moral values? I think it may vary, you know. Ultimately in some sense it comes back to them. But it may come from their community. It may come from their friends when they discuss things. It's not easy, you know. The fact that there's no easy answer where your ethical system comes from, doesn't mean, you know, that, that it's wrong, not to be able to open up a book. I think all of us struggle with ethical issues every day, and I think that's part of what it is to be human.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. [applause]

Question: My question is real simple. What I don't understand, and something that's always puzzled me about Christianity, is how the Bible can say a person could commit a hundred million crimes, they could be Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, murder a hundred million people, they confess their crimes, they accept Jesus, you know, they do the whole Christian thing, and they get to go to Heaven. And you could have the most perfect, godly, wonderful man, who does wonderful things for society and saves millions of lives, but just because he's of a different religion, or he was never exposed to Christian doctrine, therefore he goes to Hell...

Dr. Craig: I don't think Christianity says that.

Questioner: It absolutely does! That's the whole basis of Christianity.

Dr. Craig: Well, I disagree. I think I know fairly well what it says, and [laughter, applause] in Romans chapters 1 and 2 in the New Testament Paul says that salvation is available to any person who responds to the light of nature and conscience, if he hasn't heard the Good News about Jesus Christ, say, a person living in North America during the Middle Ages, before missionaries came. If this person will respond to the witness of God in nature---he can see there's a Creator God, say---and he senses the moral law of God written on his heart, and he responds, Paul says in Romans chapter 2 in verse 7, God will give that person eternal life. Now that doesn't mean he's saved apart from Christ, but it would mean that he may not have a conscious knowledge of Christ, which is the basis of his salvation. He would be like a person in the Old Testament who was saved through Christ, even though he hadn't yet heard of Christ; he responded to the light that he had. So I think God gives sufficient grace or salvation to every person. God is fair and He's loving and He wants everyone to come to know Him and be saved.

God doesn't send people to Hell. People send themselves by rejecting God's grace, whether it's through witness of Scripture and the gospel, or it's through the witness of nature. So don't blame God for the fact that people reject Him. It's not because salvation is unavailable.

Questioner: So because they disagree, they're condemned to Hell?

Dr. Craig: Wait, wait, wait,---"So because they disagree," what?

Questioner: So because they disagree, they're condemned to Hell and eternal damnation? Basically, Adolph Hitler.. I mean think about it! If you disagree, then you're punished and sent to Hell.

Dr. Craig: No, no, no. It's not a matter of disagreeing. The idea is this: all human persons have broken God's moral law, this objective moral law that we've talked about in tonight's debate. And therefore they find themselves morally guilty before God, in need of His forgiveness, under His condemnation for what they have done, and God offers this forgiveness to people if they will accept it.

It's like someone on death row, and the governor offers him a pardon; if that person refuses that person, if that person rejects that grace, then God doesn't force Himself on that person.

Moderator: I'm going to have to hold it there. That's thirty seconds over time. A question for Dr. Washington... I'll give it to Dr. Washington.

Question: [hubbub] My questions will come in the form of comments. This microphone stand will dissipate with the concept that made this microphone stand will outlive longer than this microphone stand therefore the abstract concept is more real than the physical object involved and therefore by that, a, there is an, the existence of God is therefore on the basis of a concept because mere physicality cannot conceive of an actual infinite, cannot even conceive of a, of that, so therefore there would be one example as to a God. And to as anyone being innocent, if there is no God, there is no innocent, people on this planet. And talking about in-nocent Jesus Christ, innocent Son of God, was slaughtered for all of us.

Moderator: Your question?

Questioner: I said they were in the form of comments. He can now respond to the comments. [laughter]

Dr. Washington: He said all there is to say. [applause, laughter]

Moderator: [hubbub]

Questioner: You didn't answer! You did not answer!

Moderator: You didn't ask!

Questioner: I did ask. I did too ask. [strong applause, laughter] I said, [hubbub] ... rhetorically valid

Moderator: We have to operate in good faith. You made a comment. It was not a question. He doesn't have to answer.

Audience: Sit down!

Question: Okay, my question is a two-part question, in response to the argument from harm, your response to the argument from harm.

Dr. Craig: Yeah.

Questioner: You say that if no harm exists, no responsibility exists, therefore no rationality...

Dr. Craig: Now wait, wait, wait. I said that it's possible that in a world in which God intervenes so that there would be no harm this would result in moral irresponsibility and immaturity.

Questioner: Okay, but if you say that, if there, no harm existed, responsibility wouldn't necessarily have a negative or positive value, because if it was God's will, harmful consequences wouldn't come from a lack of responsibility. happiness would exist regardless of success or failure, concepts which are measured by society's values.

Dr. Craig: Let me make it clear that I don't think God's purpose in life for us is to make us happy. So, sure, He could just make us all happy like the pigs wallowing in the mire, but I think that God's purpose for us as human beings is much higher than mere happiness. It has to do with things like maturity, responsibility, ...

Questioner: But where does the value on maturity and responsibility come from? Who's to say what's responsible and mature?

Dr. Craig: Well, it comes from God ultimately. That's the source of all objective moral values. But the point is that those kinds of things wouldn't be achieved in a world in which there were no consequences for actions, in which it made no difference what you choose. Doesn't that seem plausible to you?

Questioner: Well, it seems plausible that someone who doesn't believe in God can still be mature and responsible even though they don't go by the values that you claim.

Dr. Craig: Oh, sure they can! Remember I said that you don't need to believe in God in order to live what we would normally characterize as a good and decent life. But what I said is that in that case you don't have any foundation in your world view for those values that you affirm. Those values are just subjective and arbitrary. Why choose those values rather than any others? They're just arbitrary if there's no foundation for them. [applause]

Moderator: Okay.

Questioner: I didn't get to ask the second part of my question.

Moderator: Beg your pardon?

Questioner: I didn't get to ask the second part of my question.

Dr. Washington: She can have my thirty seconds.

Moderator: I yield to our gracious friend.

Questioner: Okay, the second part is in response to the earthquake statement you made. If God's will is the predominant and basically the only factor in world events, including natural disasters, if God could will that no earthquakes occur, if He has that much power, couldn't He also have the power to control the effects of erosion to preserve the world we live in, to keep us from harm? [applause]

Dr. Craig: Imagine what you're saying. It's so easy to say these things. But try to imagine what you're saying. You're saying now that we're going to have a world in which water falls on the mountains, but that they don't erode. Now what would that mean? I just...

Questioner: You're believing in all-mighty power, a God. If you can believe in God, why can't you believe that He can control these things?

Dr. Craig: Well, think about it. Think about what you're saying. Water would fall on the mountains, and they wouldn't erode. That would mean there wouldn't be any nutrients in the water that would be from the soil.

Questioner: [unintelligible]

Dr. Craig: They wouldn't irrigate the land. The plants wouldn't grow. It's so easy, you see, to just say these things. But then what adjustments...

Questioner: But what about hydroponics? Plants don't always need water.

Dr. Craig: Excuse me. What?

Questioner: Hydroponics? Plants don't always need water. There's nutrients in other ways.

Dr. Craig: Now wait a minute. Hydroponics is growing plants in water.

Questioner: ... suspending it. You can grow it in sand. And also you stated that God has the power to control everything. If He can, then why can't He control that? He's the almighty power.

Dr. Craig: Because it may be possible that it is not within God's power to create a world operating according to natural laws which results in this much good without also having these harmful effects. Now it seems to me that's very plausible, because when you start mentally fiddling with this, it causes readjustments all the way down the line, until really these get beyond our scope of comprehension. We simply don't understand how these adjustments could be made without creating a world in which moral and rational behavior would be impossible. And I don't have to prove that. As long as that's even possible, it shows that there is no logical incompatibility between God and the harm that's in the world.

Moderator: These are very good questions. We are pushing the possibilities of the question and answer period. We're engaging in real dialogue.

Dr. Craig: I hope you don't mind.

Moderator: Oh, I'm having a great time, but I... [laughter] It is a dangerous thing when a rhetorician is watching the rules, so, a question over here.

Question: Hi, I have a first comment, and a comment by way of illustration, and then the question. And please support the departments that are being threatened.

Moderator: That is technically irrelevant, but somehow I'm moved.. [applause]

Questioner: First, I don't know who the other speakers might have been, but I think you've had a very able opponent tonight. [strong applause] Don't take my thirty seconds! [laughter] Second, I've been to Armenia, and, with the smiles, the golden teeth will tell you they're a rich people. The Soviets built their apartments. Earthquakes do not kill people, falling objects kill people; and at that, indiscriminately, on whomever they may fall, not just poor people, I think. Okay, so the question is I think...

Dr. Washington: I want to ask a quick question. How many people died in the San Francisco earthquake? I think that was a 7.1. About 500, or something like that, okay. How many died in the Armenian earthquake? That was a 6.9. About 25,000. What's the big difference between the two. It's largely the structures in which people were living. Clearly the people in San Francisco had better housing. Even if you look at the San Francisco area, and look at what happened to it, we've got a lot of information about the Marina. Okay, these are houses that are basically built on a sand lot. These are rich people, and their houses got messed up.

But the other areas that really got messed up in the San Francisco earthquake were a lot of the old rooming houses were people lived. Or it was further south near Watsonville migrant works lived. These are the houses that collapsed. These are the people that are poor in relation to the rest of San Francisco. But the people in San Francisco are rich in comparison to the people in Armenia. That's part of the explanation of why their housing is better. That's why they didn't get hurt.

Moderator: Okay.

Questioner: I would attribute it to communism and Soviet construction. [laughter] You laugh, but people are forced to live in that housing.

Moderator: We've had a question.

Questioner: No, I haven't gotten to the question yet. People have been playing... Can I ask it?

People have been playing fast and loose with the words "evil", "bad," "immoral".

Moderator: Your question?

Questioner: The question is this. Traditionally, ethics have been grounded in a larger metaphysics. Do you have a metaphysics? Or what you mean when you say "evil"? You said you wouldn't do it, I've felt pain, I hurt. But can I talk about right and wrong? Can I talk about evil?

Dr. Washington: I think of course we can talk about right and wrong. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking for a definition, ...

Questioner: Yeah, what does that mean? What is it grounded in?

Dr. Washington: Well, I think ultimately you get to some fairly basic concepts, okay, if you start looking at definitions. Some concepts like truth. Some concepts like good. These are foundations of everything. Other things are built on these concepts; they're not built on something else. You can't define them in terms of others. But the fact that you can't define them doesn't mean we don't clearly know what they mean. Most people know what it is to say something is true, and I think people generally know what it is to say something's bad or evil. Definition is kind of a philosopher's game, largely irrelevant in life.

Moderator: Okay, question over here.

Question: Yes, Dr. Craig, in response to the argument from harm, you raised the free will defense. I'd like to illustrate by counter example and ask your response to that. Christian Heaven is a place, as you put it, of infinite joy, infinite glory, and infinite fulfillment, which is implicitly free of harm. Consequently it's possible for this omnipotent Christian God to create a world where that applies, and I would assume that Christians there are still exercising free will, I would assume. Why then wouldn't this omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God merely create heaven and those beings who would pass the earthly test, and sidestep the painful testing ground and the punishment for the others, when an omniscient God would know in advance who eventually would make it in? [applause]

Dr. Craig: This is an excellent question that raises several important issues.

Moderator: All of which will be answered in two minutes. [laughter]

Dr. Craig: Ohhh. Okay! First of all, it's important to understand that Heaven itself is not a possible world. Heaven is the outcome of a possible world. There has to be this, as you put it, "proving ground," or, "valley of decision," or whatever you want to call it, that leads to Heaven. So in order to have this as the final state, there has to be this antecedent state leading up to it that would involve the kind of world in which we live, in which choices are made for or against God, and so forth.

Now you said, why couldn't God just forego that by just knowing via His omniscience what people would do, if they were created, and therefore put them into Heaven immediately? I don't think that would work because you cannot judge someone simply on the basis of what they would do under various circumstances. You have to judge them only on the basis of what they actually do. For example, if you were born under different circumstances, you might have done all sorts of horrible things. But it would be wrong for me to condemn you or judge you because of what you would have done under other circumstances.

Questioner: But that stricture is usually imposed mainly because of the fallibility of humans.

Dr. Craig: What stricture?

Questioner: If I judge you on what I think you would do.

Dr. Craig: Oh no, no, no. It has nothing to do with fallibility. It's saying that unless you actually commit a crime, you're not guilty of it -- that's all it's saying. I can't say that because if you had been created under a set of different circumstances, therefore you're guilty of stealing and you should be punished for that. You're only guilty of that which you actually do. It would be morally impossible for God to create people and send them to Heaven or Hell on the basis of what they would have done, rather than on the basis of what they actually do. So you have to have this "valley of decision" or "proving ground" first, and then the eternal state is the outcome of that.

And besides this, there is no single thing you would have done after all. Under some circumstances, you would have placed your faith in God; under other circumstances you would not. So which ones are the basis for the decision? It has to be the actual circumstances.

Moderator: Two minutes. Alright, question over here.

Question: Dr., this is a question, that comes out of, it's an outgrowth of this conversation. It's actually a paradox I find myself in. With evolutionary theory and the idea that you're evolving, you know, we don't know exactly. Alongside with the accumulation of information and technology. We've got virtual reality. Not 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now, but perhaps 100,00 years from now, is there a possibility of us evolving into something what we presume now to be God-like?

Dr. Washington: Well I think what's interesting about the advent of culture, over the past 10,000 years or so, is that it took a lot of the pressure off of selection. You know, it's just not clear what's being selected for anymore. Before you could say that there's dangers in the environment and we respond to it, [hubbub] chance of reproducing and surviving. It's not clear what those things are in today's world. It's not clear what kind of things are being selected for. So I really have no idea, you know, what we'll look like in a thousand years. [I] hope we look good, though. [laughter]

 

 

Annotations

{1} I should add that the Many Worlds Interpretation turns out to be incoherent because the model lacks anything corresponding to the various numerical probabilities predicted by quantum theory, as pointed out Tim Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Aristotelian Society Series 13 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), p. 5.

[Member of audience: "God bless you Dr. Craig!"] Amen. [laughter, applause]

As I said, I am not going to have time to respond all of his points in the debate. I will given time in the question period. I'm not going to rush through them now. The fact that I haven't responded doesn't mean I don't have a response. Many of the things he says that I apparently grant I really don't. Some of them I grant for the sake of argument.

Let's run through some of the claims that Dr. Craig made. I don't admit his premise that God is necessary for objective moral truths. I don't have the answer for what explains objective moral truths, and I sure didn't understand what he said about God and objective moral truths, that just seems to me gobbledy-gook. [laughter]

Coming back to the issue from harm. I really want you to think about this. All of us have this moral intuition that it's just wrong to harm an innocent person for a greater good. It's just wrong. If it's wrong for us to do it, why would it be good for God to do it? God's supposed to be morally perfect, meaning He's better than us. So why should He be able to get away with what we can't get away with? If it's wrong, it's just plain wrong.

And the claim that people will be repaid in the afterlife is question-begging. The whole issue is whether God exists or not. You can't argue for God's existence by assuming the afterlife is going to be there. Since there would be no afterlife without God, I want you to think a little bit about the kind of harm that goes on in the world: earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and things like that. Dr. Craig thinks maybe these things are necessary for us to develop moral character. I think that the argument here really is that bad things happen to us and we persevere, we pull through somehow. When earthquakes happen, the world community comes together. I think this is true to a large extent. In some ways, harm brings out the best in people.

But I think there is something you may not have known about these natural disasters. You know who gets hurt in these earthquakes? Mostly poor people. Mostly weak people, the old and the young. You remember that earthquake that happened in Armenia, back in the eighties? This earthquake was actually less powerful than the earthquake in San Francisco. Yet 25,000 people died in Armenia. Why did they die? Because they had bad housing. It was cheaply made. They were just crushed by the roofs. On the other hand only a few hundred people died in San Francisco, because we're a wealthy country and we have very good housing. Relatively speaking, people really didn't suffer. So you have to think about what Dr. Craig is saying. God's going to allow the innocent, the weak, and the poor to suffer, so the rich can show their colors, can be courageous, and develop themselves into moral beings. That sounds kind of sick to me actually. I think this is totally incompatible with Christianity as you read it. Remember the proverb was that, "The meek shall inherit the earth," not that they shall be destroyed by it.

In response to my hypothetical example about President Gerberding, Dr. Craig said that the Resurrection is different because of the religious context surrounding the life of Jesus. In one sense I agree with this: people were incredibly credulous. People tended to believe that Jesus did what he did because people believed those kinds of things back then. It was a very superstitious time.

Moreover, if we examine the historical evidence concerning Christian origins, we can actually learn a lot about the religious context back then. Messiahs were essentially a dime a dozen. [Laughter] There were a lot of other religions floating around in those times. Many of them had the same features as Christianity, even though they existed before it. There were several other savior gods besides Jesus who were allegedly virgin-born, crucified, and resurrected. Sound like a coincidence? I don't have time to list all of the numerous examples, but just consider the following: Chrishna was virgin-born and resurrected; Quexalcote of Mexico, 587 B.C., was virgin-born, crucified, and resurrected; Sakia, 600 B.C., was virgin-born and crucified; and Iao of Nepal, 622 B.C., was virgin-born and crucified. I could go on with this list if I had more time, but you can clearly see where it's going. The fact that there were a lot of gods back then with these properties, suggests that Christianity might have been borrowed. Many of the things we're told about the historical Jesus might have been borrowed from other religions.

I also want to make a point about the nature of the alleged Biblical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. You have to admit that the best possible testimony for the event would be eyewitness testimony. I think we can all grant that. You may be able to build a better case if there's lots of evidence, but when the only kind of historical evidence we're talking about is testimony, then eyewitness testimony is really the best kind. Well there are 10 resurrections in the Bible. We're told that nine of them had eyewitnesses; however, according to the New Testament itself, the resurrection of Jesus was not witnessed by anyone. We're therefore justified in not accepting this rather extraordinary historical claim.