|
Belief in God
By: Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi
1) Belief in God: A Natural Instinct
Belief in God is as natural as any instinct can be. An atheist asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq how could he convince him about the existence of God. Coming to know that the man had gone several times on sea voyages, Imam asked him “Have you ever been caught in a fierce storm in middle of nowhere, your rudder gone, your sails torn away, trying desperately to keep your boat afloat?” The answer was `Yes'. Then Imam asked: “And sometimes perhaps even that leaking boat went down leaving you exhausted and helpless on the mercy of raging waves?”
The answer was again `Yes'.
Then Imam asked: “Was not there, in all that black despair, a glimmer of hope in your heart that some unnamed and unknown power could still save you?” When he agreed, Imam said: “That power is God.”
That atheist was intelligent. He knew the truth when he saw it.
2) To Be or Not To Be
We think about thousands and thousands of things. We imagine a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train and a book. We see the pictures of these things displayed on the screen of our imagination.
This is called `the existence in imagination' (wujud-i dhihni)
And also a horse, a man, an aeroplane, the earth, a train or a book has its own existence outside our imagination. That is called 'existence outside imagination.' This is the real existence (wujud-i khariji)
Sometimes, we imagine such ideas which can never be found outside our imagination. We may imagine `2 + 2 = 5.' But can 2 + 2 be 5 in real existence? No. We may imagine that a thing exists and also does not exist at the same place at the same time. But can this happen in the world of reality? Certainly not.
Such imagined ideas which can never exist wujud -
Also we imagine a man walking at a certain time. Can this happen in reality? Remove all other ideas from your mind. Just look at the imagined picture of that man walking at a particular time. Now say., is it necessary that that man in reality are called `impossible' (mumtani'u'l) should be walking at that time? Or, on the other side, is it impossible of him to be walking at that time? The answer to both questions is `No'.
Why? Because it is neither essential nor impossible for any man to walk at a given time. He may be walking; he may not be walking. So far as the reason and logic is concerned both his walking and not walking are possible - possible, but not necessary.
Such imagined ideas which have equal relation called `mumkinul-wujud' -Possible, or Transient. They may exist in reality; they may not exist. There is nothing in their nature to demand this or that. So far as their nature is concerned, `To be' and `Not to be' both are equal to them.
So far we have seen two categories of relationship between an imagined idea and its existence in reality with existence and non-existence, are
1. Where that idea has equal relation with existence and non-existence. It may exist; it may not exist. There is nothing in its nature to prefer either side.
2. Where that idea can have absolutely no relation with existence. It, by its very nature is non-existence.
It will appear from above classification that there should be a third category which would be opposite of `Impossible' (mumtani`ul-wujud) mentioned in (2) above.
This third category is of the idea which can have absolutely no relation with non-existence. By its very definition, it is self-existent. Such an idea is called (wajibu'l wujud) `Essential Existence' or 'Absolute Existence'.
Now the picture is complete.
3) Beginning Point of the World
There is much conflict between the points of views of atheists and those who believe in a Supreme-Being Who created the world. Still, there is one important point where both are in complete agreement. Both agree that the basic source or cause of the universe is Eternal - has no beginning and no end; was always and will remain for ever. In other words, it is 'self-existent' or 'wajibu'l-wujud'. The reason for this idea is very simple: As every thing in this universe falls under the category of `mumkinul-wujud' ` Transient,' it has equal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist; sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore, there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to terminate their existence.
And (it is the important point) that source or cause should not itself be just a ` Transient'; otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to bring into existence. And this chain of cause and effect must stop on a cause which needs no outside source or cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause of bringing this universe into existence must be 'self-existent.' It is interesting to note that even the atheists accept this point, because they say that nothing can come out of nothing, and, therefore, the basic source of existence must be eternal. It is from ever and will remain for ever.
Now comes the first difference. The atheists say that that eternal source of existence is `Matter.' The believers say that that eternal source of existence is God. We will discuss it afterwards. Here it is enough to establish a common ground of belief, and that is the faith that the basic source or cause of the existence of the universe is Eternal - without beginning and without end.
4) Essential Qualities of the Eternal
A) By its very definition, Eternal is Self-existent, it could never have been non-existent nor can it ever be terminated. In other words, it has no beginning - because if we suppose for it a beginning we must admit that it was non-existent before that beginning. But we already know that it could never have been non-existent. Therefore, we must accept that the Eternal has no beginning - it is ever-existent.
B) By the same reason, it can have no end. It is ever-lasting, because it can never be non-existent.
C) The Eternal must be self-sufficient. In other words it should be above all needs; it should not be in need of anything. Because, if it needs anything, it will be dependent upon that thing. But by its very definition, . the Eternal does not depend upon anything, as it is Self-existent. In other words, the Eternal must have absolute perfection.
D) The Eternal can be neither compound nor mixture. A compound or mixture depends for its existence upon its parts or components. As we accept that Eternal is Self-existent, we cannot admit that its existence depends upon its components or parts. Moreover, look at any mixture or compound. You will find that the components or parts existed before the resulting mixture or compound. As the Eternal has no beginning, we cannot say that anything preceded it in existence. Otherwise, we will have to imagine a beginning point for the Eternal which is admittedly wrong.
E) The Eternal can be neither a body nor a surface, neither a line nor a point. A body, by its very nature, needs space to be in. As we have already seen, the Eternal should not be in need of anything. It follows that the Eternal cannot be a body. In real existence, a surface needs a body; a line needs a surface; a point needs a line. Eternal needs nothing. Therefore, the Eternal is neither a surface, line nor a point.
Nor can it be anything which is found in a body, like dimension, colour, smell, position, condition or other such things which are called `incorporeal' (arad in philosophical language, because such things depend on a substance or body for their existence - they are not self-existent.
F) The Eternal should not be subject to any change, because if that change be for better, it would mean that the Eternal before that change was not perfect, that is, it was in need of something. But we have already said that the Eternal cannot need anything.
And if that change be for worse, it would mean that the Eternal is now in need of something to make it perfect. And, as just explained, it is not possible. And if that change is just to the same level of perfection, then what is the need or use of such a change?
In fact, the changes may occur either in a substance (body, matter) or in its incorporeal qualities like colour, dimension etc. But it has just been proved that the Eternal can be neither a substance nor an incorporeal quality of another substance.
G) The Eternal must be a living being. Because it is agreed that the Eternal is the source and cause of the existence of the universe. And also it is agreed that nothing can come out of nothing. Now, as we find abundance of life in the universe, we have to admit that the source of all these living things must itself be All-life. It could not bestow life if it had itself no life.
H) The Eternal source of world must be all-knowing (Omniscient). The intricate design of a single atom shows the perfect wisdom embodied in it. The elaborate system and perfect design of universe leaves no doubt that whoever or whatever is the source or cause of the universe is all-knowing.
I) By the same reasoning the Eternal source or cause of the universe must be allpoweful (Omnipotent).
5) Is Matter Eternal?
The atheists maintain that the matter is the Eternal source of the universe. It needs no great intelligence to see that matter does not possess any of the qualities of the Eternal mentioned in the previous chapter. Matter has a body and as such it needs space. It is divisible and as such it is made up of several parts. It is constantly changing. But the atheists maintain that matter has no beginning and no end; and therefore, it is eternal.
But the recent theories challenge these two last stands of atheism.
6) Matter begins and Ends
What is `matter'? It is “substance of which a physical thing is made.” Or “anything which has the property of occupying space and the attributes of gravity and inertia.” Before going further it is necessary to point out one important thing. There are, in every branch of science, certain ideas which have no existence in reality. Yet they are assumed to exist in reality just to make it easy for the beginners to understand the arguments of that subject.
Take for example geometry. They teach the children that `point' is a thing having neither length, breadth nor depth. Such a thing has no physical existence. They teach that `line' is a thing having only length, but neither breadth nor depth. This also has no physical existence. In fact, it is only by taking a body (which has all three dimensions - length, breadth and depth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that we can understand the conception of surface, line and point.
Still students of geometry are taught as though these things have real physical existence.
It is done not to deceive the student, but to make it easier for him to understand geometry.
Likewise, in chemistry, the student is taught that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But it is just a stepping stone so that student can understand further arguments.
Also, it is for this reason that chemistry students are taught separate conservation of matter and energy.
But read the following quotation carefully: “In classical mechanics, mass and energy are considered to be conserved separately; in atomic and nuclear reactions, matter can be converted into energy and vice versa . . . So far as chemistry is concerned, the law of conservation of matter, that is, matter can neither be created nor, destroyed can be assumed to be true.” So you see, the theory that matter is eternal (it is neither created nor destroyed) is just an assumption for the purpose of simplifying the subject for chemistry students. It is a fact that matter changes into energy.
So it is not a thing ever-lasting nor is it a thing which does not change. Thus, we see that matter does not pass the test of eternity - it is not without end, and it is not without change. And as it is supposed that energy can be changed into matter, it is admitted that matter has a beginning. So it is not eternal - it is not without beginning.
It is assumed that when the matter changes into energy, it exists in that form, and, thus they try to prove that matter is ever-lasting-But what is Energy? It is “Capacity of matter to perform work as the result of its motion or its position in relation to forces acting upon it.” So, the energy is not a thing having independent existence. It is an incorporeal thing, that is, it depends upon a matter or substance for its existence. By its very definition, it cannot be found except in a matter. As energy is a dependent thing, it cannot be an eternal thing.
7) Two Suppositions
Now, it should be mentioned here that there are two hypotheses, that is, tentative theories, in science about the creation or beginning of the universe (Universe: All created or existing things). First there is the evolutionary theory. This theory says that all the material in the universe was formallly concentrated in a sort of `primeval' (that is, ancient) atom; that the universe was created at one particular moment and that it will eventually die. If this idea is correct then that primitive atom cannot be said to be eternal. A thing which dies, which comes to an end, cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, to be self-existence, ever-lasting or eternal.
The second hypothesis is called `Steady state' theory. It maintains that the universe has always existed and will exist for ever, and that fresh matter is continually being created. Now the universe is a collection of matter; and they believe that matter is continually being created. In other words, the universe is a compound of created things. How can a collection of created things be called “Eternal” (without beginning) is beyond credulity.
Thus it is clear that, whatever view one takes matter cannot be proved to be eternal ( without beginning and without end). Now, that matter is believed to be constantly created afresh, is known to change into energy, is known to need a shape and a place, is subject to division and constant changes, can it be said that matter is eternal when all its qualities are those of Transient.
Five atheists had had a discussion with the Holy Prophet, at the end of which the Holy Prophet told them “This universe is of such a nature that some of its parts are dependent on some other parts; they cannot exist without those other parts, just as some parts of a structure depend upon other parts for their strength and existence.
And that whole universe is, in this respect like that building. Now, tell me, if that part (which is dependent upon other parts for its strength and existence) is eternal in spite of its dependence and need, then what would have been its quality had it been just transient (possible, not eternal)?” Yes. Let the atheists say what it would have been like if the matter were not eternal?
8) Matter not the Source of Life
Now, we come to the last three qualities mentioned in chapter 4. We have already accepted the atheists' notion that nothing comes out of nothing. Now, we see in the universe a most intelligent design and pattern and a most perfect coordination in this unparalleled system. And we see it teeming with life. And, admittedly, matter has no life, and hence no power or knowledge.
Had the matter been the cause or source of the universe, the universe would have been without life; it would have been without system and coordination, because it could not give to universe what it did not possess itself. Is there still need to emphasize in so many words that matter cannot be considered as the source of universe?
9) Theism versus Atheism
Here I give the translation of the discussion of the Holy Prophet with the atheists, a part of which has been mentioned earlier: The Holy Prophet asked them: “What is the reason of your belief that the universe has neither beginning nor end and that these things are from ever and will remain for ever?” Atheists: “We believe only what we see. As we have not seen the beginning of the universe, therefore we say that it has always existed, and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it will remain for ever.”
Holy Prophet: “Well, have you seen that the universe is without beginning and without end?”
Atheists: “No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor have we seen its being without end.”
Holy Prophet: “Then how do you believe in its eternity? And why should your view be preferred to the view of that person who believes the universe to be transient because he has not seen it being without beginning or without end?”
Then after some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: “Can you tell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth were finite (limited) or infinite (limitless) ? If you say that the time which has passed so far was limitless, then how the later time came in if the former did not pass away?
“And if you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will have to admit that it is not eternal.”
Atheists: “Yes, it is finite.”
Holy Prophet: “Well, you were saying that universe is eternal, not created nor finite. Do you realize what is the implication of your admission that time is finite? What were you denying? What have you admitted? ” Atheists accepted that their belief was not correct.
Incidentally, this argument of the Holy Prophet shows that `time' has unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could not have introduced the element of time in the discussion about matter. The beauty of this can best be appreciated by only those who have studied the theory of Relativity.
10) Some Talks
The most simple arguments of ancients on this topics are still valid, in spite of all the complexity of the modern science. An old woman was spinning yarn. Someone asked her why she did believe in God. She stopped her hand and the spindle stopped. She said: “You see, a simple spindle needs a hand to make it revolve. Can you think that this sun, this moon, these stars, all this world moves without any guiding hand?”
Imam `Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) was asked for a proof of the existence of the Almighty Designer. He replied: “The faeces of camel and of donkey lead one to conclude that such animals have passed that way. The traces of human feet indicate a man's trek. Do not this magnificent universe, with all its sublimity and this lowly point (the earth) with all its solidity point to the existence of the Almighty Allah, the Sublime and the Omniscient?” Once Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani (an atheist) came to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (p.b.u.h.) and asked him to guide him to the recognition of “my Supreme Lord.” The Imam asked him to take his seat. There arrived a small child with an egg in his hand.
The Imam, taking the egg from him, addressed Abu Shakir ad-Dayasani: “Here is a mysterious fortress enclosed within a hard shell, underneath which is a fine wrapping which covers molten silver (the albumen of the egg) and some molten gold (the yellow yolk). The molten gold does not get alloyed with the molten silver, nor does the molten silver get mixed with the molten gold. (Yet both are semifluid and they should have mixed together on jerking.) They retain their separate states. No artist comes out of it to say that he has made any changes therein, nor does any vitiating agent enter it to tell of any vitiation therein. Nor is it known whether it is designed to produce a male or a female. Pea-birds of florid colouration issue therefrom. Do you think it has a Designer (the Omniscient Creator)? Who has painted all this inside it? And how did the chick come about? Who designed all these variegated hues, the feathers, the limbs, the paintings, the feet, the beak, the wings, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the 33 bowels, the crop, the joints, etc., etc. seeing that no one entered it? ”
Abu Shakir, according to the narration, was absorbed in his thoughts for sometime with his head downcast and then suddenly proclaimed, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, the one without peer, and I bear witness that Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) is His servant and prophet, and that you are Imam and Proof of Allah for His creation, and I turn away from my erstwhile attitude.”
11) Religion versus Darwinism
When Darwin first published his treatise Origin of Species in 1859, he stirred a thunderous opposition from religious groups. The religious opposition was based, mainly, upon two factors:
1. Darwin asserted - with convincing proofs - that the universe was not made in six days, as described in the Bible, but in a very very long time with so many stages between the first state and the present form; and
2. He denied - without any valid reason, of course - the need of a Supreme Being ( God) in the scheme of the universe. The Jews and Christians of that time believed in the six day-creation quite literally; they could not swallow the idea of the pro tracted creation easily. And so the conflict between Christianity and Science reached its climax in the later half of the 19th century. But what about the Muslims?
The Qur'an says that the skies and the earth were created in six “ayyam ”.The word “ayyam” has two meanings: `days' and `periods'. The Sunni commentators of Qur'an generally followed Ka'bu'l-Ahbar, a former Jew converted to Islam in the days of second Caliph. It was but natural for him to explain the verses of Qur'an in the light of his previous learning. So he imported every Jewish legend into Islam. Though the Qur'an was silent about the details, the Muslims interpreted the `ayahs' in such a way that every detail of Genesis (of the Bible) was incorporated in the commentaries of Qur'an and thus became a part of Sunni religious belief.
But the Shi'ahs commentators rejected the idea of six-days-creation right from the early days of Islam. According to them, `ayydm' in those verses meant `Periods' and not the `days'. For instance, see the commentaries of Qur'an by `Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi (died sometime after 919 A. D.) and Muhsin Fayd (d. 1680 A.D.). Also see the Dictionary of Qur'an and Traditions, by ash-Shaykh Fakhru'd-Din at Tarihi (d. 1676 A. D.). According to them the Qur'an says that the skies and the earth were created in six periods. (Or should we say `in six stages''. )
Therefore, we, the Shi'ahs, have nothing against the theory of gradual Creation, which is embodied in the theory of evolution. More than that, ours is not a belated attempt of reinterpreting our religion - as Christians are doing now to cover the Christianity's defeat by the science. We were thinking on this line one thousand years before Darwin.
But it must be mentioned here that the acceptance of gradual creation does not mean that we endorse the hypothesis of evolution. Evolutionists claim that
1. Living things change from generation to generation producing descendants with new characteristics;
2. This process has produced all the groups and kind of things now living as well as others now extinct;
3. All these different living things are related to each other.
But, as was mentioned in Need of Religion there is not a single fossil-evidence to show that a member of lower species developed into a higher species. It is for this reason that Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission) said: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact. ” It is one thing to say, as we say (and the fossils and scientific data support us) that God created this universe in stages and created the things and living beings on earth one after an other with time gaps in between; and quite another, as the Darwinisms or neo-Darwinisms say (and have no evidence to prove it) that the living things on this earth developed from non-living matter and that unicellular organisms developed stage by stage to become a human being.
12) Where The Darwinists Went Astray
So much about the first ground of the conflict between religion and science. Now we come to the second ground of the conflict, that is, the denial of God. Here we, the Shi`ahs, as well as other religious (and many scientists of the present generation) are totally against the Darwinism.
The whole deliberation on `evolution' attempts to answer the question “How the universe came into being?” But it does not touch the other big question: “By whom was it created?” But Darwin and his followers said that as they could explain the sequence of the creation and its working method, so it was automatically proved that there was no God. It is just like saying, “As I can explain the working of an automobile and can guess the sequence of its manufacturing, so it is automatically proved that there is no manufacturer of that car.” It may seem absurd as I have put it on paper here. But the more you read their denial of God the more you will be reminded of this fallacy in their arguments.
Now let us look at one more fallacy of atheism. It has already been mentioned in previous chapters. But here it is repeated to com plete the picture. They assert that `thing' cannot come out of `nothing'. Therefore, according to them, it is wrong to say that God created the universe out of nothing. There must be a source of every thing. So, they believe that the Matter is eternal; and every thing is a development of the eternal Matter.
This line of argument goes straight until it reaches the stage where begins the phenomenon called life'. Nobody has ever succeeded in solving the mysteries of life. Nobody knows where the life came from. Having rejected the belief in God, the atheists are compelled to say “We do not know; but the life must have come from the Matter.” Now, Matter is lifeless. If `thing' cannot come from `nothing', how can the `life' come from `lifeless'?
Not only this. Let us proceed further. As they say, there must be a source for everything. And as everybody knows, the Matter is a `thing'. What was the source of `Matter'? These phenomena of the universe cannot be explained without stopping at a certain point and believing that the universe began from it. The atheist say that the Matter is that beginning point. But the Matter is lifeless. So, the existence of life cannot be explained by this theory. And the Matter is senseless. The existence of Sense and Wisdom in the animals and human beings cannot be explained by it.
Therefore, if we are to have a satisfactory theory for the existence of the universe as a whole, we have to accept that there is an Eternal Being Who is the Source of Existence, the Source of Life and the Source of Wisdom. That Being is God.
13) Russell's “Arguments”]
Why I Am Not A Christian is a collection of Bertrand Russell's essays and papers “on religion and related subjects.” Professor Paul Edwards, the editor of the book, says that these essays are “perhaps the most moving and the most graceful presentation of the free-thinker's position since the days of Hume and Voltaire.” This statement, coupled with the name of Russell, was enough to compel one to study the book with high expectation of scholarly and logical discourses on the subject of religion. Whether those expectations were justified will be seen from a few comments appended below:- The first thing which comes before the eyes is the inconsistency of the arguments. Russell called himself a free-thinker, and during a debate with Rev. F. C. Copleston he said that he was not an atheist but an agnostic.
The position of atheists is that non-existence of God can be proved. The agnostics, on the other hand, say that “man does not and can not in the nature of things know anything about a spiritual existence, either of God or man or of any after-death state.” They assert that “man's only cognition can be of the phenomenal world (that is, the world which may be perceived by one of the five senses)”. According to them, it does not mean that there may not be a noumenal entity (that is, an entity known through intellectual institution only) or soul behind the phenomenal world.
The agnostics repudiate even atheism or materialism on the ground that these theories are dogmatic. They say that if you cannot know a thing, you have no right to reject it. An agnostic's one and only answer to all questions concerning soul, God or spiritual existence is that “we do not know and there are so far no reasonable grounds for believing that we shall ever know. In other words, man, being finite, can never comprehend Infinite.”
Rev. Copleston had asked Russell at the beginning of their debate (in 1948): “Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?” Russell replied: “No, I should not say that; my position is agnostic.”
If Russell believed in agnosticism, then his only answer about all questions concerning God, or life after death should have been “I do not know.” Instead, he declares right on the jacket of the book, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.” Another example: Russell says at the beginning of the preface: “I think all the great religions of the world -Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true.” After this statement, one would expect him to look at each of the above religions in turn to prove why even one of them was not true. But he did not feel obliged in any of his essays to bring this argument to its logical end. He just said that, “since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true,” and then arbitrarily concluded that not even one of them was true!
This type of inconsistency goes on from essay to essay; and one finishes the book with a feeling that if these essays would have been written by a lesser being than Russell, the publishers would not have designed to publish them.
The first article Why I Am Not A Christian was delivered as a lecture in 1927; Russell has tried in this lecture to repudiate the arguments of Church for the existence of God. He says: “Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that every thing we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.)… I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of 18, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography and I there found this sentence: `My father taught me that the question, `Who made me?' cannot be answered since it immediately suggests the further question, `Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.”
Now, Russell has, perhaps unwittingly, misquoted the arguments of believers. To refresh the memory, the reader is advised to read again Chapter 2 and 3 of this book. There he will find, inter alia, the following sentences: “As every thing in this universe falls under the category of `mumkinu'l-wujud' (Transient), it has equal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist; sometime in future they will cease to exist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore, there must be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to terminate their existence.” And then comes the important point which Russell has missed. The point is that that source or cause should not itself be just Transient. Otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to bring it into existence. And this chain of cause and effect must stop on a cause which needs no outside source or cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause of this universe must be 'Self-existent'. If one compares the Islamic version of the argument of `The First Cause' (as given in this book) with the version of the Church as pre sented by Russell at the beginning, one finds two important differences.
He said: “Everything we see in this world has a cause.” But he should have said: “Everything we see in this world is transient and as such must have a cause for its existence.” Again, he said: “As you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause.” But he should have said:” You must come to a Cause which is not transient, which is Self-existent (whose very essence is the existence itself).” Read his version with these amendments, and see how his objections loose every weight. Russell thought it sufficient to scoff at this argument off-handedly. “I can illustrate what seems to me (the believers') fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother and it seems to me (their) argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother.”
It seems to me that it is Russell who is indulging in fallacy. He has failed to note that the believers do not say that `every transient thing has a transient cause, therefore, the whole universe should have a transient cause.' Our argument is that, as all the components of the universe are transient, and as a collection of billions of transient things is still transient, the whole universe is still transient, and as such must have an external cause to bring it into existence. And that cause must be Selfexistent. And as He is Self-existent, the question, `Who made God?' doesn't arise.
|
