Jack Rabbit said:
They are treating God like a balloon. When confronted with scientific and logical arguments, they inflate their pet balloon so large and make it bigger than universe beyond the realm of testability and falsifiability. When none are around and faced with thoughts on life/after-life, they deflate the balloon and treat it like a tribal deity.
Subair said പറയാന് വിട്ടു പോയി X ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് വന്നാല് നിരീശ്വര വാദം തെറ്റാണെന്ന് വരും.
അതിന് ശേഷം X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല് ഒന്നാണോ, പലതാണോ, ഒന്നും മൂന്നും കൂടിയതാണോ, ആ ശക്തിയെ അള്ളാഹു എന്ന് വിളിക്കണമോ, ആ ശക്തിക്ക് അവതാരങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടോ തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങള് നമ്മുക്ക് ആസ്തികര് എന്ന നിലക്ക് ചര്ച്ച ചെയ്യാം.
Finally, Hussain has clearly spelled out what kind of God he is defending. Read his comment 8 and my response 8 here . He is defending a God which is refuted by Dawkins in this book The God Delusion - Abrahamic God
Let us take your assumptions:
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainity principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology. During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
Also there are physical events like radioactive decay which happens without any particular reason.
Hmm this is like plane crashing even before take off.
Let us continue on the universe needs an eternal creator line of thought.
Can we call X as the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? No. Why ?
Take this example of linear system of equations for an analogy
x,y,z,w are unknowns
x + y + z + w = 10
x + 2y + z + w = 12
x + y + 3z + w = 16
x + y + z + 4w = 22
The solution of this is x=1, y=2, z=3 and w=4
Had i showed only the first equation, x + y + z + w = 10, (x,y,z,w) could have been (1,2,3,4), (1,1,4,4), (1,1,1,7)...Many combination can satisfy the first equation.
The above is only a special case where we have unique solution when we have all 4 equations. This doesn't mean that all sets of equation have unique solutions. Some may have no solution and some may have many solutions
So unless we bring all the attributes of the God under discussion, X could be anything.
So what attributes do we have in hand ?
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല് പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല് - beyond any physical laws
കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. - Creator of universe and all its natural laws
അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്
X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. - eternal
ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള് എടുക്കാന് കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്. - Since X is powerful to take decisions like creating this universe he should be omnipotent and omniscient (all knowledgeable, since he has to take decisions)
Is this the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? Not yet
What is missing here ? This X doesn't need to have any connection with humans or the world we live in and it has only partial resemblance to Abrahamic God.
So which is the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ?
It is similar to Case 1 God: God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around us.
These are the features you omitted compared to my definition
1. infinitely compassionate - I am taking that from the beginning of almost every Surah in Koran - IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST COMPASSIONATE, MOST MERCIFUL. You may choose to deny this feature by denying Allah and Koran.
2. intervenes in our daily life - If your X has no business with our lives, why are you spending so much time to defend him/her ?
3. co-exist with evil around us - You may choose to deny there is no evil in this world and it is my illusion
Can we omit any of these features while making the transition from X to God under discussion ? No
Tell me why X who is omnipotent, powerful to take decisions and infinitely compassionate choose to leave so much evil in this world ? This was the question asked by Epicurus 2500 years ago, even before Christ or Muhammed.
Please don't come up with this absurd reply.
God was aware about the future events but he didn't take decision on the course of future events instead he gave free will and delegated decision making to humans. So evil is creation of humans. God cannot be blamed for that.
This kind of bail-out plan was advocated by Hussain and Alikoya.
Hussain proved he is dumb enough not to understand proof by Epicurus .
It looks like both aren't aware about evil in nature other than those caused by humans. For eg: the famous example by William L. Rowe on natural evil:
In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn (baby deer) is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. God could have chosen otherwise.
Don't tell me this is a hypothetical situation. Wild fires are common in places like Yellow Stone National Park
Alikoya was wise enough not to reply my question.
See whether you can answer my question to Alikoya ?
Here is my moral dilemma.
One group decided to bomb and derail a passenger train. I came to know about their plan. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE PREPARATION OR PLANNING STAGES. I remained silent. The D-day came, their mission was successful and many people died.
Am i culpable of any crime on the judgment day ? My plea before Allah is i was only aware of the mission and didn't plan or execute it.
PS: At the end of the demonstration, it is commonly observed that some act like an unsinkable rubber duck by claiming their balloon is still intact despite the fact that nobody in 2800 year old history of philosophy (from axial age to current day) was able to do so .