From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE GOD), PART-3
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:42:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.143747.5624@doug.cae.wisc.edu> irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>A TREATISE ON NATURE

>EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH SWA (THE GOD)
>AND THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF THE WAYS TAKEN BY ATHEISTS,
>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS

I think you should read St. Anselm.  People have been trying for ages
do prove SWA, but they mostly end up biting their own tails at the end
of it all.  However, no harm trying.

>NOTE from the NARRATOR: Those people who are approaching to 
>learn the matter discussed in this treatise with objective 
>mind should not pay attention to the heavy language used here.  
>But, those  pople who are approching to the matter to make 
>fun of and sarcasm about it blindly before studying the 
>essentials of the matter, they are the ones who are addressed 
>with that heavy language as the initial reason of its writing is 
>explained in PART-1 by the author.    

Standard problem.  You shove your opponent into a narrow alley, beat him up
and then say, "now do as I say."  I believe the word is duress.

>A DROPLET FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF MIRACULOUS QUR'AN
>----------------------------------------------------
>                   PART 3 
>THE SECOND WAY:
>	This is expressed by the phrase, "It Forms itself".  
>It, too, involves many impossibilities and is absurd and 
>impossible in many aspects.  We shall explain three 
>examples of these impossibilities.

What it ?  It can mean things from nothing to anything.

>First Impossibility:
>	Oh you obstinate denier!  Your egotism has made 
>you so stupid that somehow you decide to accept a hundred
>set about their work, as though taking the whole universe
>into account.  Seeing your relationships within it, they 

Alright, alright, I'm shattered.  I'm worthless, I'm a piece
of ssssssss.

>take up their positions accordingly.  And you benefit 
>with your external and inner senses in accordance
>with the wonderful positions that they take.  
>	If you do not accept that the particles in your body
>are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law
>[..]
>	To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a 
>thousand Plato's to a single particle of one such as you
>who does not possess even a particle's worth of intelligence 
>in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand 
>times over.

Don't see your point.  By today's standards, I don't consider
Plato to be particularly knowledgable.  I would say we do indeed
know about thousand times more than what Plato knew.  Plato alas
is unconscious, you see, he's dead.

>Second Impossibility:
>attribute such an artefact to those particles. 
> [...]
?

>Third Impossiblity:
>	If your being is not 'written' by the pen the 
>Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, Who is the Single
>One of Unity, and is instead 'printed' by nature and causes, 
>there would have to be pringting-blocks in nature not only 
>to the number of the cells in your body, but to the number 
>[...]
>of them; pens to the number of those letters being necessary 
>in place of a single pen.
>	Indeed, as may be seen, sometimes a whole page is 
>written in a single large letter from among those letters with a 
>small pen in fine script, in which case  a thousand pens would 
>be necessary for one letter.  Rather, if it took the form of
>your body, wit all its components one within the other in concentric 
> 	Now, see, if you claim this, which involves hundred 
>impossibilities, to be possible, then again, if they are not 
>attributed to a single pen, for those well-ordered artistic 
>pieces of type, faultless printing-blocks and letters to the 
>same number as themselves would be necessary.  And they 
>too would have to have been made;  and they too would 
>have to have been well-ordered and artistically fashioned.  
>And so on.  It would carry on in succession and infinitum.
>	There, you, too, understand!  This way of thinking 
>is such that it involves impossibilities and superstitions 
>to the number of particles in your body.  Oh denier of Allah!  
>(The God!)  See this, and quit this way of misguidence!

There's something interesting here that I'd like to follow.
You say that a single character takes a single pen to write, and
two characters would take two pens to write, ad infinitum.  Fair,
each character is unique or so perfect, and therefore requires two 
different pens (or makers).  Now what's impossible about this ?  Are you
implying that if there are two particles in my body, they would
have to be created by two creators ?  You haven't proved that there
can't be two creators instead of one. Sounds like you are arguing
_for_ pantheism rather than against it.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27177 alt.religion.all-worlds:115