ANNOTATION:
Arguments about the existence of God and the Qur'an

I have found in your "Principia Cybernetica" a page which shows that 
your knowledge about Islam is rather limited. You simply lump Islam and 
Christianity together. Have read the Holy Qur'an - the true verbatim 
word of Allah? If you haven't and if you don't know much about Islam it 
would be better to remove the word Islam from your articles.

Here is www site with the translation of the Holy Qur'an:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ 

If you have sufficiently know Islam and still you make such conclusion 
then it is another thing.

There are my comments on your article "arguments for the existence of 
God"

>Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that 
>go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major 
>proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows: 

In general rational proofs of the existence of God cannot in principle 
conclusively prove the existence of God - the God exists because He 
exists, and not because somebody has to prove His existence. You can 
believe or not to believe in God, it will have no effect on Him,He is 
all-rich(ghaniy) and free of all wants, but you will be among the losers 
in Hereafter, if you don't believe.

Allah Almighty  says:
And if you would wonder, then wondrous is their saying: What! when we 
are dust, shall we then certainly be in a new creation? These are they 
who disbelieve in their Lord, and these have chains on their necks, and 
they are the inmates of the fire; in it they shall abide.(Surah Ra'd, 
verse 5)

Rational proofs of God cannot be conclusive because "there is nothing 
like he" and "nothing is equal to him"(as Allah says in Holy Qur'an ). 
Since God is dissimilar to all created things we cannot devise a 
rational system which will comprehend Him. The God is always mystery 
unfathomable to the human mind.   

>1. Ontological: 
>It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be 
>perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect 
>being must exist.
>Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence. 

Yes we cannot. Only Allah can think thing into existence.

>2. Causal: 
>Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to coninue backwards 
>to infinity with causes, thereforethere must have been a first cause 
>which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God. 
>Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you 
>contradict your own premise. And if you do,there is no reason why the 
>universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates 
>without cause. 
>3. Design: 
>Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for 
>specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer. 
>Objection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide 
>complete explanations for apparent design. 

Principles of self-organization are much less logical than the concept 
of creator.

>3a. Modern design argument:the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This 
>is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe 
>seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will 
>form and life can emerge.Many constants of nature appear to be very 
>finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance 
>are astronomical. 
>Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally 
>astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, 
>if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the 
>possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological 
>principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge 
- not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological 
principle merely states that >if we are here to observe the universe, 
it follows that the universe must have properties that permit 
intelligent life to emerge. 
>4. Experiential:
>A very large number of people claim to have personal religious 
>experiences of God. Objections: We cannot assume that everything 
>imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations 
>etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or 
>publicly verified.Mystical and other personal experiences can be 
>explained by other causes. 

Arguments 1-5 can only support our belief, if we believe. However the 
source of belief is not rational arguments, a man believes because he is 
guided by Allah. 

Allah the Allmighty says:

This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He 
pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, 
all that they did would be vain for them(Surah Al-an'am, verse 88)

These "vain gods" are numerous, and the theory of self-organization 
seems to be one of them.

>5. Pragmatic:
>Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively 
>enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the 
origin of ethical systems). 
>Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In 
>any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while 
>crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.

There aren't any data that "crime thrived in theistic societies".

In fact there is no society in the past which hasn't one or another form 
of belief in the life after death(either heaven or hell or 
reincarnation). Only in the Modern age men have lost the belief in 
Hereafter. Therefore now, the affairs of the world go from the bad to 
the worse.

In fact if a man doesn't believe in PERSONAL afterlife in one or another 
form, he has no incentive to be moral and do good things. Your concepts 
of natural evolution is unconvincing. If I am only a "byproduct" of the 
a evolution and consequently my existence hasn't any sense, I can do the 
worst things without any remorse. Because there is no Judge who will 
call my to His judgment. And I will be quite indifferent if the system 
in which I live increases  or decreases its "fitness", subsists or 
crashes.  If I will cease to exist what imports? What difference whether 
after my death my wisdom will be incorporated by some monstruous cyborg.    

Allah the Allmighty says:

And they(disbelievers) say: What! when we shall have become bones and 
decayed particles, shall we then certainly be raised up, being a new 
creation? 
Say: Become stones or iron,Or some other creature of those which are too 
hard (to receive life) in your minds! But they will say: Who will return 
us? Say: Who created you at first. Still they will shake their heads at 
you and say: When will it be? Say: Maybe it has drawn nigh(maybe it will 
be soon).(Isra, 49-51)

>General objection against all the rational proofs for God:

>Each of the above arguments is independent of the others and cannot 
>logically be used to reinforce the others.
>The cause argument - even if it were valid - would prove only a first 
>cause. It would tell us nothing about the
>nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical. 
>It would not prove that the first cause was
>the personal, judging, forgiving God of Judaism, Christianity, or 
>Islam. It would not prove the existence of a
>designer or of a perfect being. Equally, the design argument would 
prove only a designer, the ontological
>argument would prove only the existence of a perfect being, and so on. 
None of these arguments individually
>can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were one and the 
>same - they could be three different
>beings.

A rational argument cannot prove neither disprove existence of God. 

Arguments against the existence of God

>The major philosophical criticisms of God as viewed by Judaism, 
>Christianity and Islam are as follows: 

The Islamic concept of God is fairly different from that of Judaism and 
(especially) of Christianity.

>1. Evil: 
>Because evil exists, God cannot be all-powerful. all-knowing and 
>loving and good at the same time.

Every Muslim says in his confession of faith: "I believe in the good and 
evil from Allah Allmighty". There is one point: Allah never has 
intention of evil. He, however, lets to happen(some) evil intended 
either by men or by Shaytan.
 
>2. Pain: 
>Because God allows pain, disease and natural disasters to exist, he 
>cannot be all-powerful and also loving and good in the human sense of 
>these words. 

Allah's sense of love, goodness and justice are certainly not human. He 
is not like human. His sense of these things is much superior to that of 
human.

By the way, do you thing that parent who spanks his child for 
misbehavior  or surgeon who performs painful operation are evil?

>3. Injustice:
>Destinies are not allocated on the basis of merit or equality. They 
>are allocated either arbitrarily, or on the principle of "to him who 
>has, shall be given, and from him who has not shall be taken even 
>that which he has." It follows that God cannot be all-powerful and 
>all-knowing and also just in the human sense of the word.

Allah is Ruler and King. He gives to whom he wants of His slaves and 
withholds from whom he wants. He isn't accountable before His slaves. 
The slaves are accountable before Him. The slave have only one option: 
to submit to the will of their Lord. 
 
>4. Multiplicity: 
> Since the Gods of various religions differ widely in their 
>characteristics, only one of these religions, or none, can be right 
>about God. 

Allah the Allmighty says:

Is it then other than Allah's religion that they seek (to follow), and 
to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or 
unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned(Surah Al-Imran, verse 83)

>5. Simplicity:
>Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he 
>did not exist, it is simpler to assume he
>does not exist (see Occam's Razor). 

Indeed, the theory of self-organization is not one of the simplest. :-)

I think that creator who creates is simpler concept than self 
organization. Take an example. You have returned after work. Before 
leaving you have left a terrible disorder in your room. Upon returning, 
you see that everything is tidy. What you will think:

1) my room has selforganized; or
2) my housemaid has tidied it. 

Another your argument is that if Allah(praised be He and exalted!) is 
invisible he doesn't matter. Gama or neutron rays also are invisible. 
However, the victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima would not say that they 
don't matter.

The presumption that Allah how he is described in Qur'an has created 
heavens and earth has far reaching consquences.

Allah the Allmighty says:

Do you not see that Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth? 
If He please He will take you off and bring a new creation(Surah 
Ibrahim, verse 19)

Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely 
be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted, though We were to 
bring the like of that (sea) to add(Surah Kahf, 109)

And were every tree that is in the earth (made into) pens and the sea 
(to supply it with ink), with seven more seas to increase it, the words 
of Allah would not come to an end; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise(Surah 
Luqman, 27)

If we consider these verses we can draw the following conclusions:

Our universe is indeterminist, since every moment Allah can bring "new 
creation" instead of what exists. We cannot know whether that which 
exists now will exist the next moment. That which we will ecounter even 
in the next future can be quite different from what we can anticipate 
now. This squarely contradicts your theory of evolution since evolution 
means gradual change.And all your efforts to predict future will be 
frustrated by Allah.

To rational mind our universe can look like chaos and accident since we 
are unable to comprehend the Truth of Allah, this truth being quite 
unlike all "truths" we can imagine, but in fact everything is purposeful 
in it but serves higher Divine not human purposefulness.  

"The words of Allah would not come to an end". The words of Allah mean 
the forms of our universe. Therefore we will never be able to describe 
our universe in full. The dreams of S.Hawking about the "end of science" 
will remain dreams until the End of Days. 

I know that you all are very busy but maybe some of would find time to 
discuss these questions?

Sincerely yours,

Abdurrahman Linas Kondratas

REPLY: Loser? Just as much as you might be.

(1) My argument would be that rational proofs for God must be able to prove his existence as, if they cannot, then God is irrational. Why should it be impossible to prove God's existence by reason? It strikes me as convenient for the theists that God is unknowable and hence his existence cannot be proved or disproved. 'He just exists' is not an argument at all, it is simply an assertion and I don't see why I should believe in God 'just because'. A true god must surely be worthy of my worship and if I am required to believe without question then sorry, but he isn't and I won't.

Also, I'd like to argue that (using your logic) fairies exist at the bottom of my garden. Simply because they just do. They "exist because they exist". Just because, when you use this logic to justify your beliefs, more people agree with you, doesn't make them in any way more valid. Logically, if we take your statement to be true, then anything can exist, and hence it is possible (given that 'nothing' is a valid concept) for nothing to exist, i.e. for there to be no God.

(2) This (as I'm sure you're aware if you've read any of the debate on the internet) is known as Pascal's Wager - you should believe, because if you're right you go to heaven and if you're wrong then you'll have lost nothing, but all atheists will burn in hell. I'd like to suggest that God wouldn't actually want to be surrounded for eternity by hypocrites who all believed 'just in case', but I'll assume that your personal belief has more solid foundations. Let me present another argument: Your choice of religion is not necessarily any more valid than my choice to be an atheist. There is nothing to say that any one religion is more likely to be true than all the others, so I stand just the same chance of ending up with an afterlife that won't burn me in hell for all eternity as one that will. If this isn't convincing enough, then consider the following four possibilities:

(a) There is no God - I'm right, and haven't wasted my time on unnecessary prayers and religious rituals.

(b) There is a God, but He isn't directly involved with human affairs, so once again I just die and that's that.

(c) There is a God and he is concerned with human affairs, and there is an afterlife in the traditional sense, but He's a just God and so won't punish me for holding beliefs for what I honestly found to be valid reasons.

(d) There is a God and He is concerned with human affairs, and there is an afterlife in the traditional sense, but He's an evil b****** and will send me to burn in Hell even though I made an honest effort to ascertain the truth about his existence and didn't do anything evil at all. This God is clearly unjust. So, if God is unjust, how do you know that He won't send you to burn in Hell for all eternity as well? Sure, He said that if you believed then you'd be saved, but if He's unjust then he could have been lying.

As I can see it, these are the only four possibilities. Hence, it's far from certain that I'm doomed. I'm working on a speech on this topic, so I'd appreciate some feedback - thanks for allowing me to challenge your point of view.