ALLAH?s OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE, ALL-POWERFUL & MOST MERCIFUL ATTRIBUTES
-
Hello alpha97,
So i understand that your are not in search! but you like to enjoy a game of refute! specially with a traditional muslim.
If that is the case, i have nothing to offer to you. otherwise clearify!
Seems like my first post has still kept you in shock. Actually, it is you and all others desperately searching and extruding ways and means to live a life as per events and laws written in an ancient book while already living an advanced, meaningful and purposeful life. So yes, you have really nothing to offer but keep playing the game of scrubbing and waxing the pages of history. As for your 'game of refute', you can keep that as a token of future reward when your senses are enlightened. But for now, continue singing the words of an alleged 'Allah'.
-
Hello Tay,
I believe this premise is flawed because it includes God within the linear limits of time. By definition of omniscience and omnipotence, time is relegated to it's created domain and cannot encapsulate it's creator.
Doesn't that give more of a reason then, that attributes are encapsulated, limiting GOD? So yes, you are proving my point. Thanks.
-
Peace Danish,
Doesn't that give more of a reason then, that attributes are encapsulated, limiting GOD?
Not at all, since it's not the attributes(ominscience, etc) that are encapsulating, but the author's use of the confines of time. Like I said, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God cannot be bound by the rules of time, which God created.
The author's entire argument rests on the premise that God cannot know the future and then change the future while remaining omniscient and omnipresent. In reality, there is no future. Future is non-existent. Ominscience, by definition, includes knowing all that is.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Danish,
Doesn't that give more of a reason then, that attributes are encapsulated, limiting GOD?
Not at all, since it's not the attributes(ominscience, etc) that are encapsulating, but the author's use of the confines of time. Like I said, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God cannot be bound by the rules of time, which God created.
What, Tay????? If its NOT the attributes that are encapsulating, then why talk about "confining of time"? If GOD was beyond time and beyond our perception, then where does GOD's attributes come from? You are making a derogartory and contradictory statement.
The author's entire argument rests on the premise that God cannot know the future and then change the future while remaining omniscient and omnipresent. In reality, there is no future. Future is non-existent. Ominscience, by definition, includes knowing all that is.
You are totally mistaken about author's argument. He presents both views giving logical examples and reasoning and later presents them simultaneously to better understand both these attributes. Please re-read again. Also, how do you know there is no future in reality and that future is non-existent. Have you visited "future"? In similar argument, have you SEEN and KNOWN GOD?
Edit Besides, if Allah is omnipotent, then He can do anything, and He can create anything. As was just shown above, the concept of omnipotence contradicts the concept of omniscience, thus for Allah to be truly omnipotent, He would have to be limited in knowledge (as odd as that may sound). If this is in fact the case, then that would in itself negate Allah's omnipotence, as there would already be one thing Allah could not do make Himself omniscient!
-
THE ALL-POWERFUL ALLAH
The contradiction of omnipotence and omniscience aside, there are other seemingly irreconcilable problems with the concept of an all-powerful deity. What can Allah create? If He is omnipotent, then He can create everything and anything. This is where questions that theists hate comes in. Can Allah create a four-sided triangle? Some theists, including Muslims, have argued that this is an unfair question, as we are asking Allah to create something in a way that is totally opposite to its definition. Regardless, this shows how human beings can limit what Allah can do by way of our own definitions. It is my opinion that "Allah," or "God" is an ambiguous sound that was created by human language and because of this He/She/It can be limited through human language.
Regardless, Christian and Muslim theologians/philosophers (from Saint Aquinas to Ibn Sina) have tried to escape such questions by arguing that God can only do what is possible, and not do what is impossible. This has been an attempt to salvage the concept of God/Allah's omnipotence, but it instead admits that He is limited in power. There are things that are even impossible for Allah, hence Allah's powers are limited, thus Allah is a limited being. Then, to take a page from theist arguments, one might ask "who put those limitations on Allah?" I think from here one could understand that limitations are simply given and defined by the eternal laws of the mathematics, the universe, nature, et cetera, and there is no reason to assume limitations and rules must have a source. Thus cosmological and design arguments become worthless, but that's an entirely different conversation.
In July of 2000, physicists, ended a conference on superstring theory at the University of Michigan with a session called "Millennium Madness," choosing 10 of the most perplexing problems in their field. On August 15th, the New York Times ran an article titled "10 Questions to Ponder for a Millennium or Two," which covered this conference, and one of the questions was as follows
"Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable?"
Einstein put it more crisply did God have a choice in creating the universe? Imagine Allah sitting at His control console, preparing to set off the Big Bang. "How fast should I set the speed of light?" "How much charge should I give this little speck called an electron?" "What value should I give to Planck's constant, the parameter that determines the size of the tiny packets -- the quanta -- in which energy shall be parceled?" Was He randomly dashing off numbers to meet a deadline? Or do the values have to be what they are because of a deep, hidden logic? These kinds of questions come to a point with a conundrum involving a mysterious number called alpha. If you square the charge of the electron and then divide it by the speed of light times Planck's constant, all the dimensions (mass, time and distance) cancel out, yielding a so-called "pure number" -- alpha, which is just slightly over 1/137. But why is it not precisely 1/137 or some other value entirely? Physicists and even mystics have tried in vain to explain why.
This relates to Allah's alleged omnipotence because one wonders if the laws of the universe are created, or simply given. Can the allegedly omnipotent Allah control and manipulate the laws of physics, mathematics, et cetera? My favorite example has always been that of the two stones. If a person has one stone, and then adds a second stone to his collection, he will have two stones. No more, no less. This is because in the physical world, 1+1=2. Could Allah escape this fact? Or is even He subject to the laws of mathematics? If Allah had one stone and added another stone, is there any way He could end up with more or less than two stones? Could He do so without cheating (i.e. creating new stones, breaking the stones, making stones disappear, et cetera)?
In short, Allah, or any being that we assume exists, would have to be subject to the laws of the universe. Allah cannot create four-sided triangles; He cannot alter the rules of mathematics. These laws cannot be changed because they are not created. They are simply given facts. The laws of the universe do not require some sort of law giver, and the very nature of these laws help to totally discredit the concept of omnipotence.
-
Peace Danish,
What, Tay?? If its NOT the attributes that are encapsulating, then why talk about "confining of time"? If GOD was beyond time and beyond our perception, then where does GOD's attributes come from? You are making a derogartory and contradictory statement.
I'm not sure how you see this as derogatory, but perhaps I haven't explained myself well. Let me give it another try.
The author talks about a contradiction between omniscient and omnipotent using the line of time. Here's the quote"If Allah knows everything that will happen, then He cannot change it. If it is open to change, then He does not know everything that will happen."
This quote, either your's or the author's, sets the infinite concepts of omniscience and omnipresence within the confines of time and attempts to show this as an inconsistency. This is like putting gas in a bottle and saying, "see, the gas is only as big as the bottle".
Also, how do you know there is no future in reality and that future is non-existent. Have you visited "future"?
If I had seen the future, then I wouldn't be saying that it doesn't exist. The reality is, it's always now. It's never tomorrow, it's never yesterday. The only verifiable and knowable existence is now.
In similar argument, have you SEEN and KNOWN GOD?
Yes. But I'd rather stick to the topic, if you don't mind.
Besides, if Allah is omnipotent, then He can do anything, and He can create anything. As was just shown above, the concept of omnipotence contradicts the concept of omniscience, thus for Allah to be truly omnipotent, He would have to be limited in knowledge (as odd as that may sound). If this is in fact the case, then that would in itself negate Allah's omnipotence, as there would already be one thing Allah could not do make Himself omniscient!
This argument only works if one is using some sort of predestiny or predetermination as their crutch. I happen to agree that predestiny makes absolutely zero sense. Perhaps I was the wrong person to pick up this thread -\
Peace,
Tay -
peace
hey! I just did what God can't do!
I created a 4 sided triangle!!!!!!!!!!! it's call it a square (since tri-angle would be the wrong name because a 4 sided figure would have 4, not 3, angles).anyway Danish, i think you should start by asking people what they think God is. As I've said, not everyone on this forum believes what you are trying to refute. You are making toooooo (just like the "too" has too many o's) many assumptions.
In short, Allah, or any being that we assume exists
this is the problem with the second long article you posted. It's assuming tooo much. Who said Allah was a being?
-
Hello Tay,
Peace Danish,
What, Tay?? If its NOT the attributes that are encapsulating, then why talk about "confining of time"? If GOD was beyond time and beyond our perception, then where does GOD's attributes come from? You are making a derogartory and contradictory statement.
I'm not sure how you see this as derogatory, but perhaps I haven't explained myself well. Let me give it another try.
The author talks about a contradiction between omniscient and omnipotent using the line of time. Here's the quote"If Allah knows everything that will happen, then He cannot change it. If it is open to change, then He does not know everything that will happen."
This quote, either your's or the author's, sets the infinite concepts of omniscience and omnipresence within the confines of time and attempts to show this as an inconsistency. This is like putting gas in a bottle and saying, "see, the gas is only as big as the bottle".
That is exactly correct. Tay, you are making the author's point once again. The two-sentence paragraph in bold parenthesis above which you picked out from the entire post, has been well explained with examples, prior and subsequent to that statement, which you seem to have missed out on. Whatever author's points, has been thoroughly accounted, analyzed and exemplified. Please ponder upon my next few posts on other attributable relationships to get even a better picture altogether.
Also, how do you know there is no future in reality and that future is non-existent. Have you visited "future"?
If I had seen the future, then I wouldn't be saying that it doesn't exist. The reality is, it's always now. It's never tomorrow, it's never yesterday. The only verifiable and knowable existence is now.
But you did say that "In reality, there is no future. Future is non-existent", and I asked you how you'd know that. If you haven't seen the future, then you wouldn't know whether future is existent or non-existent, unless you've been there, no? Anyhow, just to give you heads up, my reality is NOW and whatever I KNOW in truth. My absolute truth is that I do not know GOD but do know Nature/Reality and that's where I live in, hence I do not make false pretenses and give fake attributes to something I do not know and neither do I take GOD's name in vain. I cannot make it any simpler.
In similar argument, have you SEEN and KNOWN GOD?
Yes. But I'd rather stick to the topic, if you don't mind.
I thought it is part of the parcel and a crucial one at that in conjunction with Allah's attributes. Anyhow, the next posts along with previous ones may make it clearer.
Besides, if Allah is omnipotent, then He can do anything, and He can create anything. As was just shown above, the concept of omnipotence contradicts the concept of omniscience, thus for Allah to be truly omnipotent, He would have to be limited in knowledge (as odd as that may sound). If this is in fact the case, then that would in itself negate Allah's omnipotence, as there would already be one thing Allah could not do make Himself omniscient!
This argument only works if one is using some sort of predestiny or predetermination as their crutch. I happen to agree that predestiny makes absolutely zero sense.
Yes, that is what the author has been elucidating about how people have predetermined their wishful attributes towards an imaginary GOD which makes no sense. You got the point pretty well here.
Perhaps I was the wrong person to pick up this thread -\
Oh no, please don't think that way, Tay. I'm glad you did. I find you and a few others, unlike most here, very thoughtful and sensible and hope they would join in with openmindedness and rationalness. We're here to understand each other better as to what this author is talking about and others to ponder. No worries bro and take it easy. )
-
ALLAH AND INFINITY
Is Allah an infinite being? What does this mean in light of the claims of other religions with regards to anthropomorphism? The great Pantheist/Buddhist thinker Brett Neichin was once asked by a Christian if he believed Jesus was God. Neichin, who was not and to this day is not a Christian, replied that he indeed felt Jesus was God, but he also felt that the Christian asking the question was God, that he himself was God, that the chairs and table were God (not Gods), et cetera. Muslims might consider the opinion of some Mushrik Pantheist/Buddhist named Brett Neichin to be pointless, but it does relate. As Neichin himself once put it, "when you point to something that isn't God, you've just limited God."
If Allah and His creation are totally separate, one would wonder where Allah ends and His creation begins. A truly unlimited being would have to be all encompassing, and everywhere. If Isa ibn Maryam was not Allah, then Allah was/is limited. If the current Agha Khan is not Allah incarnate, then Allah is limited. We have found a spot where divinity is not present it is in the flesh of the current Agha Khan (the great spiritual leader of the anthropomorphist Isma'ili sect of Islam). If Allah is at point X, and the body of the Agha Khan is at point Y, then Allah is limited. It is that simple.
The few Muslims who I have pushed this point to would then argue that, if this is true, it also means that Fard Muhammad was Allah (which means the NOI was right after all!), that drugs are part of Allah, that excrement is part of Allah, that pigs are part of Allah, that poisonous plants are part of Allah, et cetera. To them this seems wholly absurd and unthinkable. One Muslim might ask "so you really think Fard Muhammad was God?" The answer is no. However, if we are going to claim the existence of an unlimited being, we must be consistent. If the being is at one point, and not another, he/she/it is limited. To be truly unlimited, the being must be in all things, and be all things.
The concept of Allah being unlimited is also weakened by certain aspects of the Islamic literature (particularly certain ahadith). In sura al-A'raf, we have Moses speaking with Allah up on a mountain (Sinai?). Why is it that Moses would have to go to a certain spot to meet Allah? Is Allah limited, and at a given spot? That is a moot point, but a stronger point is the idea that the believers will be able to see Allah after judgment day. If Allah can be seen, then that means he has a shape, volume, color, and is thus limited. There is also the concept of Allah's throne, which seems very physical according to what we find in the Qur'an and ahadith, thus if Allah is sitting at a given point, at a given time, He has very physical characteristics, and is limited. It would seem that at a later time Muslims have tried to reconcile and reinterpret these curious passages.
Now, some might feel there is a contradiction in this article, as it is claimed that if Allah is unlimited, then Jesus (assuming he existed) must've been Allah. Then in the next paragraph, above, it is argued that if a being has a shape, volume, color, he/she/it is limited. The argument is not that only Jesus and Fard Muhammad were divine, but ALL things. Every inch of our entire universe must be a part of Allah if He is truly infinite. However, the problem with that is, things within our universe change, and it would seem that change, as was pointed out by Aristotle long ago, negates perfection. The point of all this is to show the absurd nature of the concept of an unlimited being.
-
ALLAH'S EXISTENCE & INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Whenever I'm in discussions with Muslims, I ask that they prove the existence of Allah rather than just claiming such. The reality is they cannot offer any proof, because, in my humble opinion, there is no proof. The most popular argument used by Muslims seems to be the design argument (which is odd considering that the kalam cosmological argument was perfected by Muslims, but I'll touch on that a bit later). The basic (and wholly circular) design argument from Muslims goes something to the effect of "if something as complex as life wasn't created by Allah, then how was it made? Did it just pop out of thin air?"
My favorite response to such questions is to proclaim that the world, and all things within it were created by three green elves from dimension X. If the three green elves didn't create the world, do you assume it just appeared out of no where? The problem is the same you are simply asserting that the world is designed and that Allah (or the 3 elves in my case) is the designer. This is not a proof. Furthermore, as previously shown, we must conclude that Allah is limited, or at least that the laws of the universe do not need a creator. Based on that, we know that not all things need a creator. Regardless, don't assert that Allah is the creator; prove it! The design argument does nothing of the sort.
Some of the more intellectual Muslims I've encountered have tried to run the cosmological argument. It is actually the same argument, only instead of saying that life's complexities point to Allah, it is argued that everything points to Allah. The argument is that every thing has a cause, and it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes (this assertion has yet to be proven), and thus Allah is the first cause (another baseless assertion). Once again, it runs along the lines of "if Allah didn't create the universe, who did?" The problem with this is that it is never proven that Allah is this alleged first cause. We could just the same state that all things need a cause, and thus wonder "what caused Allah?" The supporters of this argument want us to just accept the premise that Allah is the first cause, and does not Himself need a cause, which is a case of special pleading, i.e. a fallacy.
Quickly, I'd like to explain why Allah's existence can never really be proven, short of Him actually revealing himself. To set an example, I'd first like to offer what I call "the argument from presents" for Santa's existence
(1) If there are presents under my tree, Santa Claus exists.
(2) There are presents under my tree.(3) Santa Claus exists.
This argument is perfectly valid. Now suppose I used this argument, and pointed to actual presents under my tree. Would this be proof that Santa Claus exists? Despite the fact that it is a valid argument, this is not a proof for Santa Claus' existence. To understand why, one would need a basic knowledge of sentential logic. I'll try to quickly explain it here. Let P stand for "there are presents under my tree," and let S stand for "Santa Claus exists." I will now construct a logical truth table for all the possibilities
- P - S
- T - T
- T - F
- F - T
- F - F
These are all the possible "truths" for these two statements. Now note the second line. It is possible for presents to be under my tree, and it is also possible for Santa to not exist. Thus, according to sentential logic, P does not imply S. That is the reason that the perfectly valid "argument from presents" does not prove Santa's existence. Anytime that you claim that a totally ambiguous and unobservable entity ("Santa Claus," "God," "the Pink Unicorn," "the 3 Green Elves from Dimension X," et cetera) exists, and try to prove it pointing to something common, it can be argued that the existence of the common thing does not automatically imply the existence of the baseless and/or undefined thing you are trying to prove. Complex life forms do not imply Allah's existence any more than they imply the existence of the aforementioned Three Green Elves from Dimension X. The existence of the universe does not imply Allah's existence. The following argument is the outline of all proofs for Allah's existence
(1) If X, then Allah exists.
(2) X.(3) Allah exists.
While this argument is logically valid, it does not prove that Allah exists because X does not necessarily imply Allah's existence, thus the first premise is erroneous. This is why every argument for Allah's existence can be shot down so easily. It is not that the wicked Mulhid (atheist) is being unfair or irrational. Rather it is because the Muslim pushing these arguments does not understand why the logic behind them is not totally sound.
To this point I have, in my opinion, discredited the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited Allah, and I have also shown why all arguments for His existence are somewhat fallacious. At this point, emotion comes in, and some Muslims might say that they feel Allah deep in their heart. A sincere gut feeling is not proof of anything, as many people sincerely believe many things, and many of these sincere beliefs contradict one another. Many people living in Christian dominated countries (including yours truly) have had experiences such as Jesus coming to them in a dream, telling them that he died for their sins, and is God, the son of God, et cetera, thus if sincere gut feelings or amazing transcendent experiences are some sort of proof, these sorts of things discredit Islam, and prove Christianity. With that being said, some Muslims might say that they can't imagine a world without Allah. What is the point of life if Allah does not exist? I wonder what is the point of life either way.
-
ALLAH'S SIGNIFICANCE
The more I ponder the existence of a god, be it the deity of Islam or any other respective faith, the less sense any of it makes. Purandara Dasa said that the only thing that makes life worth living is God. Blaise Pascal's famous "wager" basically argued that we should believe in God, just in case. The question is why? What is the significance of Allah, and how does this make any difference in one's life? Buddha was once, according to Hinayana and Mahayana tradition, asked by his disciples if God existed, to which the Buddha replied something along the lines of "who cares?"
It seems that Islam, much like Christianity, keep its believers in line via threats of eternal torment. With all due respect, the descriptions of Jahannam seem crude, and are only slightly more logical than the concept of hell in Christianity. Is this the point of your life? To avoid punishment at the hands of a being more powerful than you? Is that not coercion? To threaten someone, and say "do as I say, or I will punish you severely" is cruel, and very unbecoming of an allegedly merciful being. Furthermore, within the scope of eternity, no punishment seems all that bad. Even the Islamic hell, where skins are roasted off and then replaced, is nothing to be feared. Eternity means forever, and one would think that after a few billion years they could get used to such treatment. Imagine if I punched you in the chest, leaving a bruise. Then I waited for the bruise to heal, and punched you again, and continued the cycle for the rest of our lives. After this cycle had repeated a few times, I imagine you would be used to the punches. Just the same, after about thirty trillion years, a man might actually be looking forward to his new skin suit. In short, eternal punishment is not any sort of punishment at all.
Is life meant only for appeasing the whims of a cosmic bully? I would assume no Muslim would see it that way. Instead, I think many believers of any particular strain of Christo-Islamic faith would argue that it is not so much an attempt to escape punishment as it is to make it to heaven/paradise. How many times have we seen images on television of a young Muslims getting ready to fight some Western imperialist force (be it the Israelis or the Soviets) saying that he is not afraid to die, as then he will be a shaheed (martyr) and go to paradise. Is life solely meant for gaining some sort of physical reward? Virgins? Gardens? Rivers of khamr? It would seem that Islam still pushes for some sort of materialistic desire to be achieved in a very earthly paradise. Don't lead a materialistic life here, because you'll have plenty of time to do so in the next. Do not have sexual relations with numerous women in this life, because you'll have time to do that in the next. Do not drink khamr in this life, but in the next it will flow in rivers (Sura Muhammad 4715). This is not only mildly hypocritical, but it is also seemingly pointless to live one's life solely for the sake of some sort of personal gain.
The third and final reason to serve Allah, assuming He exists, is simply for the sake of doing it. Christians "serve" God as part of a "relationship" they have with God; out of love for God. Just the same, it would seem some Muslims, though not claiming to have a relationship with Allah, express deep love for their respective deity. That is perfectly all right, but what does that have to do with anyone else? I think this hi-lights a simple fact that human beings form relationships with or interact with other beings for only three reasons (1) To gain something. (2) To avoid pain, suffering, or punishment. (3) Out of simple respect for that being. This is the case with all beings, from our pets, to other humans, to our respective deity (assuming we have one). Therefore, Allah is no more different from any other being in the grand scheme of things. You love Allah, and I love my cat and my girlfriend; and if Bill Clinton threatened to have me killed for disputing the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency, I would not think of him as an honorable or merciful being.
CONCLUSION
Allah's alleged attributes are both illogical and incoherent. The reasons for believing that He exists have been shown to be either fallacious or pointless. No proof for His alleged existence has ever been provided. The very idea of His existence is of a fantastic nature, and thus questionable. If all the attributes were true as professed, then Allah must be a fake physical god which Muslims have it crowned.
PLEASE NOTE I shall be away from this forum for a while and hope members here can ponder upon this entire thread in all seriousness. If anyone has any questions directed to myself, they can email me or I shall respond to them later. I'm sure members can discuss and present their understandings among themselves to further question, rebut or confirm the author's views.
Thanks and take care. Bye now.
-
Easy folks. I would suggest that danish has thoroughly slam dunked and refuted the arguements for a perfect god......
I dont think there are any valid counter arguements.... bravo
Not only is god dead,but he never existed as conceptualised by the followers of the abrahamic scriptures... elektro
But all is not lost......Now people can live their lives according to principles of justice,humanism,respect,morality and actual reality.......JOY TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!! yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay -
peace
I dont think there are any valid counter arguements....
that is exactly the problem with yours and Danish's thinking.
..Now people can live their lives according to principles of justice,humanism,respect,morality and actual reality.......JOY TO THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
But isn't that living life according to God?
-
However, the problem with that is, things within our universe change, and it would seem that change, as was pointed out by Aristotle long ago, negates perfection. The point of all this is to show the absurd nature of the concept of an unlimited being.
peace,
that is not a problem at all. THINGS change. What we percieve changes, but what is never does. This world is like a river, it's always flowing, changing, yet remaining the same. At the quantum level, there are no changes. The laws of the universe never change. -
My favorite response to such questions is to proclaim that the world, and all things within it were created by three green elves from dimension X. If the three green elves didn't create the world, do you assume it just appeared out of no where?
the problem with that favorite response is that you are admitting that this world was created by an intelligent being.
Regardless, don't assert that Allah is the creator; prove it! The design argument does nothing of the sort.
Allah=God
God=creator (3 elves?)
the design argument, i believe, is a credible one.
If there is intelligence in this world, that means some intelligence was responsible in creating it, whether you call it the "3 green elves" or "Allah" or "god" doesn't matter.
If there are presents under your tree, it proves that something or someone put them there. Whether it was santa claus or not is up for debate.A sincere gut feeling is not proof of anything,
it's not scientific proof, no. But you can't prove the subjective using objective means.
You can't scientifically prove that you love your family. But you know that you do. Does that make you wrong? -
Peace Danish,
I've read the original post for a 3rd time, just to make sure I'm not mistaken. I reiterate, the entire argument rests on the premise that God is limited by time, and that life is predetermined. I believe neither of these concepts is logical in correlation with an infinite creator and free-will, and neither can be evidenced qur'anically.
This is the heart of the matter, and thus, all widening of the scope to include omniscience and omnipotence is rendered moot since the foundation is flawed to begin with. This argument would work well with someone who believes that all is pre-written and that God sits on a throne and rests on Sundays. Fortunately, that's not me.
Peace,
Tayp.s. thanks for the kind words
-
Easy elena. I hope you dont mind me adressing your comments...
What makes the laws of the universe work is simply the cause and effect of different versions and concentrations of energy interacting.The process is partly governed by evolution over the ages...
One alternative to the abrahamic concept of one all-powerful god is that every single thing/being has a limited amount of power,and thus we are ALL gods..... bravo yay elektro group muscle muscle handshake