From: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE G
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:59:53 GMT

In article 3317@doug.cae.wisc.edu, irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>
>
>	A TREATISE ON NATURE
>

[deletia- usual introduction]

Here we go again. I hope that's it.

>    
>
>A DROPLET FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF MIRACULOUS QUR'AN
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------
>
>                   PART 5

[deletia- fun prayer]
>
>THIRD  IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE THIRD WAY:
>
>(Third Way: "Nature necessitates it; nature makes it.")
>
>
>
>	THIRD  IMPOSSIBILITY:
>
>	The following two comparisons, which are included in other
>parts of the Risale-i Nur, explain this impossiblity.
>
>
>
>	First Comparison:  A wild savage entered a palace which had
>been built in an empty desert,  and completed and adorned with
>all the fruits of civilization.  He cast an eye over its
>interior and saw thousands of well-ordered and artistically
>fashioned objects.  Because of his boorishness and lack of
>intelligence, he said, " None from outside had a hand in this,
>one of the objects from inside must have made this palace
>together with all of its contents", and started to invistigate. 
>However, whatever he looked at, even his untaught intelligence
>could not fathom out how it made those things.

Pretty silly guy.

But not exactly analagous, and us boorish atheists CAN fathom
how nature can make "these things", for the most part.

>	Later, he saw a note-book in which had been written the plan
>and programme of the palace's construction, an index of its
>contents and the rules of its administration.  For sure, the
>note-book, too, which was without hand, eye or implement, like
>the rest of the objects in the palace, was completly lacking the
>ability to construct  and decorate the palace.  But, since he
>saw that, in comparison with all the other things, the notebook
>was related to the theoretical laws, he was obliged to say,
>"There, it is this note-book that has formed, ordered and
>adorned this palace, and has fashioned all these objects and set
>them in their places."  And tranformed his uncouthness into
>ludicrous jabber.

I dont understand what this is meant to parallel.

What is the "notebook" to an atheist?

>	Thus, exactly like this comparison, a boor who subscribed to
>naturalist thought, which denies Allah (The God), entered the
>palace of the universe, which is infinitely more well-ordered,
>more perfect and everywhere full of miraculous instances of
>wisdom than the palace in the comparison.

Except that it isn't, but we covered that already.

Might I guess we are off on argument from design AGAIN?

>  Not thinking that is
>was the work of art of the Necessarily Existent One, Who is
>outside the sphere of contingency, and shunning that idea, he
>saw a collection of the laws of Divine Practice and index of
>Dominical Art, which are like a slate for writing and erasing of
>Divine Determining in the sphere of contingency, and like a
>constantly changing note-book for the laws of the Functioning of
>Divine Power, and are extremely mistakenly and erroneously given
>the name 'nature', and he said;
>
>	"These things require a cause and nothing else appears to have
>the relationship with everything like this note-book does.  It
>is true that reason will in no way accept that this unseeing,
>unconcious and powerless note-book could carry out this
>creation, which is the Work of Absolute Dominicality and which
>requires infinite power.  But since I do not recognize the
>Eternal Maker, the most plausible explanation is to say this
>note-book made it and makes it, so I shall say that."

I do love your straw men.

The notebook, is, what, physical laws? They do not resemble a notebook;
our physical laws are descriptions of how the universe works, as near
as we can tell. There is no God in them, because we do not see a God.

They come from us, and do not control- merely describe. There is no
plan, no guide. What is is merely what came to be, in no way special
from any other possibility.

>To which we reply:
>
>	Oh you mistaken unfortunate! Your foolishness exceeds anything
>imaginable!

Nonsence. You INVENTED the arguemnt you attack; you must have imagined
it.

> Lift your head out of the swamp of nature and look
>beyond youself!  See an All-Glorious Maker to Whom all beings
>from particles to planets testify with their all-different
>tongues and to Whom they indicate with their fingers!  Behold
>the Manifestation of the Pre-Eternal Inscriber, Who fashions the
>palace, and Who writes its programme in the note-book!  Study
>His decree, listen to the Qur'an ! And be delivered from that
>delirious raving! 
>

This is not an answer. It is a conclusion, for which you
present not one shred of justification. It's below even your
standards here.

>
>	Second Comparison:  A rustic bumpkin entered the bounds of a
>splendid palace and saw there the uniform actions of an
>extremely orderly army carriying out its exercises.  He observed
>a battalion, a regiment and a divison stand to attention, stand
>at ease and march, and open fire when commanded as though they
>were a single private.

And what, might I ask, is so singular about a private? :)

>  Since his rude, uncultured mind could
>not comprehend and denied that a commander had been given
>command by the country's laws and by royal decree, he imagined
>that the soldiers were attached to one another with strings.  He
>thought of what wonderful string it must be, and was amazed.

And so we are.

But the order you imagine is not there, rather a carreening chaotic
mess.

>	Later, he continued on his way till he came upon a magnificent
>mosque like Aya-Sophia.  He enterd it at the time of Friday
>prayer and watched the congregation of Muslims rising, bowing,
>prostrating and sitting at the sound of a man's voice.  Since he
>did not understand the Shari'a, which consists of a collection
>of immaterial, revealed laws,

What does it mean for laws to be "immaterial", and isn't
calling them revealed circular?

> nor the immaterial rules
>proceeding from the lawgiver's command, he fancied the
>congregation  to be bound to one another by material string, and
>that this wonderful string had  subjected them and was making
>them move like puppets.  And, coming up with this idea, which is
>so ridiculous as to make even the most ignorant roar with
>laughter, he went on his way.

Perhaps it is merely that they bowed and so forth because they had
learned to do so at the command of the man's voice, and
that is all there is to it. It is not reasonable for them to do so,
but humans are so rarely reasonable.

>	Exactly like this comparison, an atheist who subscribed to
>naturalist thought, which is denial and pure brutishness,

Begging the question, and argument ad hominem. You must watch that.

>entered the universe, which is a splendid barracks of the
>Monarch of Pre-Eternity and Post-Eternity for His innumerable
>forces , and well ordered mosque of that Pre-Eternal
>All-Worshipped One.

VERY circular. This does not seem to be true.

>  He imagined the immaterial laws of the
>ordering of the universe, which proceed from the Pre-Eternal
>Monarch's Wisdom, each to have material and physical existence:

Not clear what this means. Nobody is claiming material strings
are pulling things around, rather forces and such, whose behavoir
seems to follow some rules.

>and supposed the Laws of the Soverignty of Dominicality, and the
>Rules and Ordinances of Greater Shari'a, the Shari'a of
>Creation, which are immaterial and exist only as knowledge, each
>to have external, material, physical existence.

Same statement again. Why repeat?

>  But to set up
>in place of Divine Power those laws, which proceed from the
>Divine Attributes of Knowledge and Speech and exist only as
>knowledge, and to attribute creation to them; then to attach
>name 'nature' to them, and to deem force, which is merely a
>Manifestation of Dominical Power, to be an independent almighty
>posessor of power is a thousand times more low-fallen ignorance
>than the ignorance in the comparison.

And yet we have seen them create, therefore we believe they can.

>
>IN SHORT:  THE IMAGINARY AND INSUBSTANTIAL THING THAT THE
>NATURALISTS CALL NATURE, IF IT HAS AN EXTERNAL REALITY, CAN AT
>THE VERY MOST BE A WORK OF ART, IT CANNOT BE THE ARTIST.

It is everything; you and I are part of it.

Nature in this context is very broad.

It is art AND artist.

>  IT IS
>AN EMBROIDERY, AND CANNOT BE THE EMBROIDERER.  IT IS A SET OF
>DECREES, IT CANNOT BE THE ISSUER OF THE DECREES.  IT IS A BODY
>OF THE LAWS OF CREATION, AND CANNOT BE THE LAWGIVER.  IT IS BUT
>A CREATED SCREEN TO THE DIGNITY OF ALLAH (THE GOD), AND CANNOT
>BE THE CREATOR.  IT IS PASSIVE AND CREATED, AND CANNOT BE A
>CREATIVE MAKER.  IT IS A LAW, NOT A POWER, AND CANNOT POSSES
>POWER.  IT IS THE RECIPIENT, AND CANNOT BE THE SOURCE.

Sez you. Repeatedly. But you are wrong, or so I think.

Mere statement is no good, even if your caps lock key is stuck.

>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To be continued Allah Willing 
>
>NARRATOR: Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam
>

There is MORE? :/

I didn't know what I was getting into when I decided to refute
this thing.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc