Concept of Allah

Atheist:-

It is claimed that Allah cannot exist or is not omnipotent because this concept involves a contradiction. This can be seen from such questions as: "Can Allah create a stone that he cannot lift?"

Comment:-

The Question is meaningless. Gobbledigook.

Atheist:-

No. It is not meaningless. On the contrary it has a very clear meaning.

Comment:-

Here we see the difference between the two attitudes mentioned before between those who base themselves on verbal logic and those who base themselves on perception.

In fact, the difference shows that there is a difference of perception as to what has meaning and what has not. Therefore, perception is much more basic than logic and transcends it.

For the logician the statement has meaning, but for Muslims who accept the Quran it cannot have meaning:-

Put the statement in the form:-

Either

"Allah cannot create a stone that He cannot lift."

or

"Allah can create a stone that He cannot lift."

For Muslims Allah, as described in the Quran, is Almighty, who can do as He likes.

Therefore, the statement "Allah cannot create..." is a self-contradiction. It does not make sense.

and

"Allah cannot lift" is also a self-contradiction. It does not make sense.

Both answers, if Allah cannot create or if He cannot lift imply that Allah is not Almighty. The question, therefore, is not a question at all. It is based on a pre-assumption which re-appears in the answer.

But there is also another answer: "Allah can create or lift as He wills."

That is: it is not a question of either/or, but we recognise that a third factor, namely conditions, determine the relationship between any two things. This allows a range of things to exist. "A has a relationship B to C under condition D". This I believe to be much more compatible with Islam and should be the basis of Islamic Logic.

However in the case of Allah, there is no distinctions, His Will defines everything.

As it is, the spurious argument has the same form as:-

"Verbal statements are lies?"

If this statement is true then it is a lie, because it is also a statement.

If the statement is a lie then it is true, because what it says is false.

Bipolar Logic gets into vicious circles when dealing with Absolutes. It can only deal with limited things such as "Some verbal statements are lies."

Ultimately it is a question of perception whether or not all this is understood.

Atheist:-

This gave me the impression that you wished to present yourself as not employing 'verbal' logic, yet after typing the above, you tried to present a logical argument. This is in spite of the fact that you claim that your approach (that of 'perception') transcends logic.

Comment:-

One uses the same instruments of communication which the other understands.

But you have misunderstood again owing to attachment to words. Words are signs pointing to something. For me, words must refer to something real to have meaning. This is not the case for you.

It is perfectly clear:- Either "Allah cannot create a stone that He cannot lift."

or "Allah can create a stone that He cannot lift."

For Muslims Allah, as described in the Quran, is Almighty, Who can do as He likes. Therefore, both statements are self-contradictions. They do not make sense.

Atheist:-

However, if the second proposition also employs a contradiction, wouldn't it also be false? It seems to me that the two propositions are logical opposites of one another, yet you, indirectly, told us that they are both false. It seems, then, that your approach has produced a contradiction of its own, and hence we should reject it.

Comment:-

That is what I said. The proposition is rejected. Both answers, if Allah cannot create or if He cannot lift imply that Allah is not Almighty. The question, therefore, is not a question at all.

Atheist:-

For example, suppose I asked the question 'are there any married Muslims?' The answer would seem to clearly be yes. But suppose I asked 'are there any married bachelors?' The logical structure is the same, but the notion of a married bachelor is self-contradictory. This does not mean it is not a question - it *IS* a question, but the answer is no (as one of the terms it employs is self-contradictory).

Comment:-

It is a question superficially. It has no meaning.

So we have a difference of attitude. You think it has meaning and I think it does not. i.e. there is nothing to which the words "married bachelors" refer. It is a question of insight.

Atheist:-

When you say 'real' do you mean something that actually exists or something that potentially exists? For example, if there are no camels with blue fur, does that mean 'camel with blue fur' has no meaning? It seems to me the meaning is very clear.

It is possible to have meaningful questions with contradictions present within them. For example, consider the question 'is it possible that Hamid Aziz is both a Muslim and not a Muslim at the same time?' There is a contradiction present in the question, yet the question is still very meaningful, and as a result we can give a clear answer: No.

Now, I gave the example of the following questions: "Are there married bachelors." With regard to this you replied: "It is a question superficially. It has no meaning."

But it does have meaning. We can clearly answer the question, and the answer is "No". How can you answer a question that has no meaning? If you can answer the question, then you understood the question, which would mean it was meaningful.

Perhaps you should attempt to answer the question of what Allah's omnipotence means for you. Does it mean Allah can only do that which is possible, or does it mean Allah can do literally anything? In other words, is Allah limited by bivalent logic, or can He transcend it?

Comment:-

We differ.

I do recognise Origins, Principles, Potentialities and Actualities as parts of Reality. But as far as I know "camels with blue fur" do not exist and I do not know whether they can come into existence given existing laws. As for someone being a Muslim or not being a Muslim, it is possible that he is both to different degrees.

You have confused yourself. This question is different from "Are there married batchelors" because the terms are mutually contradictory by definition whereas there is no contradiction between a Person and a Muslim.

But sorry, on this site, I am not interested in verbal games. I find much of the purely logical arguments that you and others conduct as mere futile verbal jugglery.

A Muslim:-

The very proposition is a non-sensical waste of time. (Why intelligent people would waste their time vainly disputing it is beyond me.) What exactly is the problem? The cynic asks 'Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?'

What is the cynic proposing? Does it even make sense as a problem statement without getting bogged down in textual paradoxes? Is the point that the created stone is 'very heavy'? But 'weight' is a phenomena of MASS in a gravitational field. If God creates such a 'Massive' body that potentially taxes His ability to exert 'Force' upon it, then is it safe to say that it is 'the most massive' body in Universe?

If is it the most massive body in the universe, then 'it' is the body that is exerting the greatest gravitational pull on ALL OTHER BODIES in the universe. The statement that "Can God lift 'it'" is entirely, absolutely, without any meaning. It is a patent absurdity.

Lift it against what? What is this 'gravitational field' that is exerting a pull on this 'most massive body' that you are trying to 'resist' (i.e. "lift it")? The most massive body in the universe will be a gravitational singularity. 'It' will exert pull on all other bodies and it is in respect of all other bodies subject to its gravitational pull that we can *meaningfully* speak of 'lfiting'. *Regardless* of how massive a body is, ANY force applied to the body WILL result in a shift of position of that body, however minute the delta. So: "Can God create a stone so heavy that he can not lift it?"

That is a vacuous statement, devoid of ANY meaning as far as the words "heavy" and "lift", etc. are concerned. The cynic poses a faulty 'problem' and then says 'Aha! This is a problem with the proposition that God exists'. But the 'problem' is entirely in the "mind" of the cynic.

Atheist:-

This is an excellent point. There would be two ways to rephrase the question. The first would be to capture the essence of the notion of Allah creating something which then exceeded some other part of His power (e.g. could Allah create a marble so durable that He could not destroy it?). The second would simply be to instantiate in place of the heavy stone a deliberate contradiction (e.g. could Allah create a married bachelor?). The first approach is relevant, because the point was to ask if Allah could create something that somehow exceeded or trumped some aspect of his power. The second approach is simply to note that if something is impossible (like a married bachelor), then I still await the answer (i.e. can Allah create a contradiction, or does His omnipotence only entail only doing that which is within the limits of bivalent logic?).

Another Muslim:-

I believe the hidden question in this question, and others like it is "Does God exceed limits He set" and/or "Does God set limits on Himself"

The answers to these in Islam is no and yes, respectively. Allah has prescribed mercy on Himself (6:12 and 6:54); this is a limitation though not necessarily one we can understand. A limitation He Tells us of is in turn a promise, and His promise is always true (4:122, 10:4, 10:55, 11:45, 13:31, 18:21, 28:13, 30:6, 30:60, 31:9, 31:33, 35:5, 39:20, etc, etc) So we can be sure He does not exceed such limits.

No question of "Can God do such-and-such..." is ever valid because God is the definition of the possible... HE decides what the rest of creation CAN or CANNOT do. For Himself the question is always what He WILL or WILL NOT do.

Comment:-

This is a very good answer.

The Universe and all things in it are the result of restrictions caused by rules. These make some things possible and others impossible. Without rules or Laws the Universe would not exist. These restrictions do not apply to the Creator but to the things created.

Games, too are recognised, differentiated from one another and played because of rules. Human beings can create such rules but as they transcend them, they can flout or change the rules.

If it is asked: Can Allah create contradictions, then the answer is also Yes and No. Contradictions refer to rules. Something is thought of as a contradiction if it flouts a set of rules. Allah can suspend the rules or create other rules that might apply elsewhere. He can but might not wish to.

We have to ask: which set of rules are we speaking about - those of Allah or those created by man. Restricted knowledge or understanding would see contradictions that a wider view would see as complementation.

There are most certainly apparent contradictions in nature as judged by men. A case in point is: Light is corpuscular - light is wave-like. There are balances between opposite forces throughout nature, including within man - there are enabling and disabling forces, accelerators and breaks, catabolism and anabolism.

A system of Logic that recognised that "A has a relationship B to C under condition D" would allow for the existence of what are regarded as contradictions in erroneous logic.

Statements or questions such as "Can Allah create something that He cannot destroy" have no meaning and are verbal contradictions such as "married bachelors". They refer to nothing.

However, one could understand the phrase "married bachelor" in a different way:- It could refer to someone who is legally married but behaves as if he was a bachelor. He acts as a single person without considering his wife. There is then no contradiction verbally, but there is in the person. The words apply not to objects but to different states which may exist in different combinations. Some of the rules describing each state apply to the person.

Here we have a case which illustrates that it is not the form of words but their meaning, how words are understood that matters. It is not the word itself but that which it refers to that needs to be understood. The Atheist approach seems to me a case of confused verbal juggling.

----------<O>----------

Contents