Divine Morality and New Theories of Morality

MORALITY AND DIVINITY

DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND MORALITY [Type the document subtitle] HUSAMULLAH [Pick the date]

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

Page 2 of 15

Introduction Divine Morality and Nature of Act are a common problem of Theism in general and Abrahamic Religions in particular. These two are represented beautifully by two famous Greek Paradoxes namely Epicurus Paradox and Ethyphro’s Paradox.

Two of the most fallacious arguments against the Existence Of Divine Essence are based upon the evil in the World and the Moral Standard of Divine Essence. These two arguments are connected in some meaning.

Discussion The two different problems are closely related to one an other such that they are indispensible from each other.

They are often used to deny the Divine Existence (Esse/Vuju:d) and Divine Essence.Two of the Greatest problems faced by some theologians who:= 1] Intentionally or unintentionally deny the difference between Absolute Attributes and Relative Attributes, Essential Attributes and Active Attributes of Divine Essence.

2] Advocate the Absolute Morality for Human Acts.

3] Or Both.

Divine Morality First of all it must be noted that Divine Esse is not an Attribute but the very Essence. One may sentence the relation between these two as follow: The Self Existing Essence [‘Adh:Dha:t Hiya Mudu:d Bidh: Dh:a:t]is the Esse [Vuju:d] .As the Divine Essence is the Only Essence of this type/kind, so Divine Esse is Absolutly Identical to the Divine Essence. That is Divine Essence is the Divine Esse and Divine Esse is the Divine Essence.

Absolute Attributes are of two types. 1] Negative Attributes 2] Positive Attributes [Also Essential Attributes].

Relative Attributes are of two types. 1] Active Attributes. 2] Moral Attributes. 3] Semi Active Attributes.

Active Attributes are those Divine Attributes whose opposites are in Divine Power yet their Exercise is Relatively Absurd [An Absurd in Relative] Like Justice. Injustice ,Cruelty Undeseving Punishments .

Semi Active Attributes are neither in Divine Power nor their Negations and Contradictions are in Divine Power nor their Opposites are in Divine Power. They are as follow:=

Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15 1] Life of Deity [Vita]. 2] Esoteric Speech of Deity=Divine Essence [ Some Times called Speech in Thought or Simply Thought or Idea or Dictum]. 3]Attribute of Sight of Deity i.e Divine Essence. 4] Hearing /Listening of Divine Essence=Deity. 5] Will /Intention/Volence Of Deity=Divine Essence. 6] Omniscience 7] Omnipotence. 8] Creativity [S:ifatut Tacvi:n].

Moral Attributes are those Attributes of Divine Essence if they are applied to Created Rational or Intellectual Supposita they generates the ideas of right or wrong , good or evil or bad or legal or illegal.

They are Pure Relative Attributes.

Moral Attributes are as follow:= 1] Mercy. 2] Justice. 3] Love. 4] Providence. 5] Truth in statements and Assertive and Negative moods of sentences. 6] Not over burdening any one of the Creation. 7] Guidance .8] Providing ways of Salvation.

Now we come to the problem of Morality.

As according to the Moral standard it is often argued by Atheists that Divine Essence Satisfieth Not the hight moral standards which are supposed to be satisfied. This maketh Divine Essence to Cease.

So the problem is to be studied in a different manner.

There are two different views of Morality. Mu”tazilites believe that Good and Bad are the intrinsic nature of acts so the Morality is Absolute and Rational. Their standard cannot be changed even by the Omnipotent Per Se Subsistent Existent [Per Se Subsistent Esse]. But this maketh Divine Essence bounded to some laws which limit Divine Omnivalence and Divine Omnipotence. So it was suggested by some theologians that they are Essential Attributes, yet in order to differentiate them form Essential Attributes they began to say the very same thing with different sentences not using the word Essential.For example they called them as Natural Attributes [As: S:ifa:t Al Fitriah]. Actually the opined that If Divine Essence is Perfect then all the Positive Attributes must be Essential and their must not be any difference between these types. Great Salafite Theologian also committed the same error when he denied the difference between the two types of Attributes nounly 1] ESSENTIAL 2] ACTIVE. Mu”tazilah believed that Actions are Intrinsically and Rationally Right or Wrong. Imam ‘Ibn Taimiah was a Moral Absolutist in the view that he declared Moral Attributes as Divine and Essential Attributes and made several Objections on those who made some distinctions between the two types. The greatedst problem faced by Mu”tazilites was that they were compelled to particularize Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omnivolence. ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: attempted to solve the problem by Declaring the Attributes from which intrinsically Right Acts Emanate as Intrinsically Right . Now Righteousness and Wrongness became a standard from Divine Attributes them selves. For Example to be Merciless is always immoral even if Mercilessness is required for Justice. Injustice is always immoral even if Justice is not even Necessary. This dogma limited the Divine Right to Exercise an Act that is in Divine Omnipotence.

Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15 Khairabadis borrowed this concept and applied to the Truth of Assertive and Negative Sentences and declared that to speak a false Sentence is Immoral and an Imperfection even if spoken By Divine Essence.They do not consider that “Divine Essence hath a Divine Right to Speak a false sentence even if Divine Essence never Excerciseth His Omnipotence over it”. The consequence was that they denied Divine Omnipotence over the False Sentences.

But the worst of all problem is that the Dogma of Essentiality of Moral Attributes implieth so many problems that it is a tool to deny the Existence of Divine Essence.

So it is necessary to restudy the problem raised by Atheists and to Analyze it as according to the systems of Pure ‘Asha:’irah and Ma:turidiah.

It is argued that Divine Essence doeth not exhibit high moral standards and the Existence of Evils in the world is a Proof of this claim.

So If Moral Attributes are Divine,Essential, Absolute , Natural ,and Active Attributes then this implieth that Divine Essence Existeth Not. Also Divine Essence cannot make the world particularly this imperfect world.

Divine Perfection The problems of Divine Perfection is misunderstood by some scholars whether theists or atheists. The theorised that Divine Perfection impleth that the Moral Attributes and Essential Attributes all are equal and Moral Attributes are also either equal to Essential Attributes or are themselves Essential Attributes.

Moral Attributes are closely related by the theories about Morality. For example Moral Absolutism or Absolute Morality etc.

There cannot be any positive solution unless and otherwise it is accepted that Divine Essence Hath Essential Right to Do What is in Divine Absolute Power. Epicurus rejected that Divine Essence Ceaseth to be Divine Omnibenivolent

. There are many other problems which are the

extension of Epicurus .

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that an act is either intrinsically right or wrong.

The word Absolute may have a number of different meanings. But in the case of the terms “Absolute Morality and Moral Absolutism” the word Absolute means as follow:“ The term Absolute in the compound terms like Absolute Morality etc.” means “Independent of the circumstances.” This is opposite to the meaning of the term Relative in the compound term Relative Morality. “The term Relative in the compound term Relative Morality ” means “varying with the circumstances.” fFor example take the case of killing of an other human being. It may not be not absolutely wrong to kill another person. For example killing Axis forces in WW2. This shews that in some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. Some people even go beyond that . They claim that this is intrinsic goodness or morality. Consider the following examples:= Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15

1] Stealing, Thefting is condered as intrinsic immoral, even if done for a good reason eg to feed a starving family).

2]Killing of babies is considered as an intrinsic evil if the majority of a democratic country allowes it.

But one again this goes for beyond its limit. It is said that such things are bad even if it is Commanded by the Divine Essence Itself. There cannot be any thing absolute in the meaning of Intrinsic good or intrinsic bad but in the meaning of “Regardless of circumstances”. In this meaning Moral Absolutism crosses its limit and is even applied to Divine Essence [i.e Deity] Itself/ Himself.So the problem goes beyond its earthy domain and universal domain and reaches to Divine Domain.

The Problem Faced By Mu”azilites.

Mu”tazilites were/are the champions of Absolute Morality. They opine/d that it is Necessary Upon Deity [Divine Essence] to Chose the Good and reject the Evil not only for Himself/Itself but to Command the Good ACTS and to Prohibit from Evil/Bad Acts. If Divine Essence exerciseth otherwise then Divine Essence Commiteth Errors.This soon merged with the problem of Divine Power. Mu”tazilah were divided to into two basic groups. 1] Those who denied that Denied Power is Omnipotence. They claim Divine Essence cannot do such acts. Niz:a:m was leader in this particular issue. 2] Those who believed that Divine Essence doeth have the Power but If Deity /Divine Essence Himself exercise these acts He Himself Commiteth Error.

For example on typical example is that some Mu”tazilite opined that Divine Essence Hath the Power to Punish Infants for nothing but if Divine Essence Exerciseth it He Himself deseveth to be Punished.

This is the extreme example of Mu”tazilite Sub-Schools of thought.

Two Ancient Paradoxes namely 1) Epicurus’ Paradox 2) Ethyphro’s Paradox are the two parts of the problem.

1) The Divine Attributes of Morality 2) Nature of Good and Bad Acts Absolute Morality is related to the idea that even Moral Attributes of Divine Essence are Natural and Essential. (The word Natural is used in the meaning related to the Nature of Divine Essence).This Generates the problem that if Divine Essence performeth acts of Injustice and Mercilessness , Divine Essence Himself Becometh Immoral and those Theologians who believe that Moral Attributes are Natural, Divine, and Absolute opine that if such acts are Logically Contingent then Divine Essence ceaseth to be Divine Essence. Similarly if Divine Essence Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15

ordereth or commandeth any such acts to rational supposita Divine Essence cease to be Divine Essence.

But this is not the two consequences of the problem. An other problem is that Divine Morality is not according to the highest concepts of Morality. If Ethyphro’s Paradox implies a problem of Morality in regards to Divine Commandments, Epicurus’ Paradox implies a Problem inrespect to Divine Morality Itself. A generalized form of Epicurus problem may imply that Divine Essence is not a Moral Essence at all or there are Contingencies of Moral and Immoral Acts Subsisting in Divine Essence.

Since if Absolute Morality is applied to Divine Attributes then there are many things that are done by Divine Essence which He either Cannot Do or Must not Do or both.

Some Discussions: 1] Moral Absolutism is not compatible with an Absolute Authoritive Divine Essence. Since it advocates that Divine Authority is Limited.If it implies that Moral Attributes are Good and Right in themselves and their intrinsic Goodness and Righteousness is the reason that they are chosen by the Divine Essence=Deity to do. Their opposites are Intrinsically or Esoterically Bad or Evil that is bad or Evil in them selves that is the reason they are not chosen by the Divine Essence.

Although Divine Essence Can Chose them yet as a Rational Existent Divine Essence choseth the Good one or the right one of the two. For example Divine Essence Can Chose both Justice and Injustice since the Divine Essence Hath equal Power on each one of the two yet He choseth the one that is Good and Right.

But this implies a problem and this is that If Divine Essence orders to do a bad act or choses an Evil Relative Attribute then did The Divine Essence do any Wrong or Evil. The questions may be elaborated in different forms.

2] Moral Relativism is an opposite theory . It may be considered as valid for Divine Essence.

But the problem is that a large number of Critics do not accept it. Although it is incorrect to reject a theory on the basis of elections whether the majority wins , in theological, philosophical ,logical and rational issues, we have to see the consequences of the theory as well as to see the construction of the inner nature of the theory. But it must be noted that in the domain of Logic mere Majority is not a Proof of correctness or wrongness of a theory. Unless and other wise there are some inconsistencies in the theory it can not be discarded just because it is axiomatically rejected by Majority or is rejected with out providing any proof.

There are several subdivisions of this theory.

2.1)Descriptive Moral Relativism Descriptive relativism simply saith that:=

Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15

It is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in application in all historical and cultural circumstances.

This is very accurate version of this theory and is very practicable. One may extend this theory to Divine Essence Himself. That is it is incorrect to assume that same moral frame of reference is applicable to Divine Essence if there is one.

2.2)Meta Ethcal Moral Relativism

Meta-ethical moral relativism believes that people disagree about:=1) Moral Issues, 2): terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" This proves that they do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. This theory may lead to the conclusion that there cannot be any higher moral standard than that provided by the local morals of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's morals could possibly be justified.

Although there are many critics of this theory yet is it a strong theory and no rational argument or logical argument may be proposed against it. As mensioned earlier the democratic view of right and wrong is not applicable to philosophical theories that if a large number of critics agree that a theory is wrong then it is wrong.

A New Theory Proposed:= OBJECTION ON MORAL RELATIVISM 1] Moral relativism fails as a moral system simply because it cannot arbitrate disagreements.

Although this objection itself is objectionable since even the very Alleged Absolute Morality cannot arbitrate disagreement , this objection cannot be applied to this theory . Since as for as the conditions are satisfied there is no disagreement if Absolute Morality does not have a disagreement.

Even if Moral Relativism fails it is Absolute Morality is not implied. At best Objective Morality is implied. Again the word “Objective” in the compound term “Objective Morality” means “Independent of people’s opinion and views.” This is contrary to the word“Subjective” in the compound term like Subjective Morality. The word Subjective in the compound term stated above means “Only a matter of personal opinion or view.” If there are objective moral acts, then in the various circumstances in which people find themselves they are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what some of them or all of them Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15

may think.So if it is the case and it is the case then this OBJECTIVE Theory crosses its limit when it is extended from Humans to the very Divine Essence Himself.

2] Some Criticize Moral Relativism it fails because it rejects basic premises of discussions on morality.

3] Many critics have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality. Since they reject an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason.

These two (2,3) only demands a set of axioms but not beyond that.

4] Some Critics may argue that meta-ethical relativism may lead to MORAL NIHILISM , or MORAL INCOHERANCE .

Logically this is not a good argument until and other wise it is somehow proved that they are impossible. If A implies B and If B is not impossible it is use less to argue that A is impossible.

Some Modified Theories of Morality Proposed .

1)Necessary and Sufficient Condition theory of Morality.

A thing is Intrinsically Good unless and otherwise it satisfies a Condition ξ.If it satisfies the Condition ξ then it is either “neither good nor Bad” or It is Bad. Note that in this discussion Bad is far more general then the term Evil, so it does include it. Similarly A thing is Bad in itself unless and otherwise it satisfies a Condition say ψ.If it does satisfy the condition ψ then it is either “Neither Good nor Bad” or it is Good. In this case one may see that what so ever is good is intrinsically good if it satisfies some conditions and if it does not satisfiy atleast one of them [ if they are more then one] then it is not intrinsically good. It may be bad or “Neither Good Nor Bad”. Similarly the same can be said for bad. An Evil is nothing but a special case of Bad. So

Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15

“All Evils are Bad but Not All Bads are Evil� Yet they satisfy the same conditions necessarily which are satisfied by Bads since they are their sub cases or special cases.

It is just like the case that each and every real number can divide with the necessary exception [not possible exception] of the number Zero.

Examples from Mathematics: 1.) (x^2)/x =x iff x=/= 0.

2.) [((x^2)-1)/(x+1)] = x-1 iff (x+1)=/=0 As the theory is applicable in the case of Intrinsic Theory of Absolute Morality it is also applicable in the weaker cases of it say Regardless of Circumstances.{1}

2) Morality Constant in a Universe.

When the Laws Of Morality are extended so far that they are supposed to be applicable on the Divine Essence as well then it becomes reasonable and rational to discuss the matter in the supposed cases assuming them as true in order to shew the limitations of the theories of Morality.

The Terms Necessary to be understood before the proposal of this theory:= 1] The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse 2] Parallel Universe may be defined as follow:=

Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15

The various universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternative universes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Scientists are debating whether there are multiverses or not , but in the present discussion as we are discussing about the Divine Essence (= Deity=Divinity) and putting aside the question whether the Divine Essence really Existeth or not, it is necessary to assume a Divine Essence Existeth in the theory. If a Divine Essence really Existeth then this Essence IS Per Se Necessarily Omnipotent and Must have the Power to make indefinite number of Multiverses out of infinite may Per Se Contingent Multiverses.

Actually Abrahamic religions imply Multiverses since the concept of Heavens are the concept of Multiverses.

Some scientists try to disprove Divine Essence by the concept Of Multiverse but it does not disproves Divine essence but its Per Se Contingent Possibility is implied by an Omnipotent Divine Essence. If there is an Omnific He can Create as many Multiverses as He Willeth to Create .

Now our theory says that Moral values are Constant to a Universe. But with the change of Universe they may change or they must change.

So at least it can be said that Moral values may change from universe to universe in a multivrse and from a Multiverse to another Multiverse.

We are not going to assume a Multi-Multiverse or 2-Multiverse [in the meaning Multiverse of Multiverses] for the sake of simplicity.

So the laws of Absolute Morality may be modified to the Theory of Constant Morality in a Universe . This means that: The Proposed theory is the concept that there are standards in an Universe against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act in the universe. Thus, actions are intrinsically inherently moral or immoral, in a given universe regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. The morals are inherent in the laws of a universe, and with the change of Universes and Multiverses they either change or may change.

This theory is still valid if it is supposed that there is only one Universe and there is no Multiverse since even in this case the theory remains valid in a conditional formation of “IF” and “What If” .

So if it is so that there are no other Universes and if there is not Multiverse even then it is true that “If there were “Universes and Multiverses” or “Universes and one Multiverse” the theory is true. We put it aside whether there are These Universes and Multiverses or not.

Similarly we put aside the question where Divine Essence Existeth not Existeth Not , but Assume that Divine Essence Doeth Exist.

Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15

In this case it is possible that Divine Essence may have different Laws for Different Universes in One Multiverse and Different Laws in Different Multiverses.

There may be two distinct Universes such that there is nothing common between then in regard to Morality.

This theory may be understood in a strictly secular context. as well .

If there is no Divine Essence [=Deity] However, system of morality as Can Not Be Derived From Divine Commands. Since Existence of Divine Essence is A Per Se Necessary Condition for the Existence of Divine Commanments. So this implieth that Moral Values are intrinsic to Uncreated Universes and Multiverse.

Since if there is no Creator then and if Universes and Multiverses Exist they are Uncreated.

Having known all the basic prerequisites and preliminaries it is easy to under stant the following examples:= Example 1] Suppose that there is a Planet ξ in an other Universe ß and on the planet there are only two types of Rational Supposita [Humanoid Persons] live.

One of them are producers β and other of them are consumers say ε. Apart from them there are no third type of living beings found on the planet.

Now both of them have Rationality , Intelligence and both group constitute two equally advance civilizations.

Now the Phisophers and Scholars of Ethics of ε shall consider it as their essential and fundamental right to consume the rival community as their food and must put forward theories of Morality that allow them to consume the producers. On the contrary the Philosophers and Scholars of the β community shall consider these as deadly as we consider harmful viruses or carnivorous animals .So to kill them in their Theories of Morality must be good and not bad.

Suppose that there is a grand debate between the Philosophers and Scholars of both types of races . It is certain that they cannot accept a common moral standard.

So the never ending battle and never ending debate shall continue. The laws of Morality and Values of Morality cannot be applicable to that Planet of another World.

Example 2 Suppose that on a Planet of another universe the food can be non living materials. So to consume vegetable is equal to consuming a human or a humanoid. In such a high Moral Universe where to consume animals and vegetable to be equally Immoral and Evil , if a space and universe traveler from earth comes or if a space traveler from that planet from the said Universe some how comes to earth their reactions must be quite different. The traveler from planet named Earth of this Universe shall observe their planet is an extreme alleged Moralist and the traveler from that planet shall consider the humans of Earth as extreme immoral.

Example 3 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15

Suppose that there is a Planet φ in another Universe Δ. On this planet there are two problems:= 1] The birth rate of children is very high.

2] How ever they can be used as food by the adults by cooking them in a special way.

3] There is no source of food other than these newly born babies.

So the morality of our Universe shall not be valid to that Universe.

Killing and eating newly born babies is Certainly Immoral from the perspective of our Universe but it is the only source of survival in that supposed Universe or atleast on a planet of that universe. So it must be perfectly Moral on the Planet Of That that Universe.

If a traveler from that Planet of an other Universe ever comes to out Universe and lands upon earth he/she shall find very our moral values as strange. A visitor from Earth of this Universe must find the Moral Values of that Planet in another Universe as extremely immoral.

Example 4 Consider a Planet Say α in another Universe ß. Suppose that they have a very limited Supply of Food and Very High Rate Of Reproduction. Suppose that the act of Reproduction is unceaseable . So in this situation they use to kill a large number of infants and babies just to keep the continuity of source of food and nutrition. There this act shall be considered as immoral by a visitor from Planet Earth of this Universe.

Example 5 Suppose that on a Planet of another Universe the only way of reproduction is that the female humanoid must eat the male humanoid. There is no other process of Reproduction. Even the men of their planet voluntarily present themselves to be consumed for the noble cause of the survival of their race. If a man from Earth of this Universe ever visit to that planet in another Universe , he must consider it as a worse form of Cannibalism.

These examples do suggest that change of Universes and Change of Multiverses imply the change of Moral Values.

So the Moral Values are Constant for a Given Universe and there are infinite many Possible Universes and Multiverses where they Absolute Moral Theory is invalid . If it is Supposed that Other Universes and Multiverses are Impossible even then under this supposition if it is assumed that they are Possible then the result shall be the same.

Same is true for the Divine Essence. If there is a Divine Essence then Laws of Moral Values are not Applicable to Him. The Basic Objection on Divine Command Theory and Theological Voluntarism is that the Commandments Of Divine Essence is not due to Wisdom and Rationality but arbitrary Divine Will.

Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15 This objection may be answered as follow: To a given Universe there are a number of set of Moral Values yet one or some are the fittest to the said Universe. But to a Different Universe there are different Moral Values and some or one of them is the fittest. The Fittest of one Universe is different from the Fittest of the another Universe. So Divine Essence Can change the Moral Values and but this imply a change in the Universe itself. Since Divine Essence Can Chose both types Fittest and not the Fittest but Choseth Only The fittest this does shew that If Divine Essence changes the Moral Values of one of the Universe this means that the Universe known to Us has Mutated into some new Universe which is not the same as it was before. For example if Divine Essence Commandeth Women to eat Men or Men to eat Babies then this means that the Universe hath completely Mutated and it hath become some thing in which these Laws are the Fittest.

So to Judge the said new mutated Universe from the standard of the Old Unmutated Universe is incorrect and Wrong.

This concept implies that two or more similar Universes have same Laws of Moralities or Similar Laws of Moralities, and dissimilar Universes have dissimilar Moralities.

Suppose that the Universe ß has a different type of Moral Values and Universe α has different Types of Moral Valued then if Universe α becomes Exactly like ß after Mutation or a Transition what so ever then the Laws of Morality Of ß shall be applicable to α. Now to Judge α from the Morality of premutation period and laws is incorrect an fallacy.

It is hoped that these two theories may help to discuss the problem of Morality Theories in a new perspective and these two theories may be considered as new ways to discuss the problem.

Foot Notes: {1} It is said that if Divine Essence Can Do A Thing then What If Divine Essence Doeth It. For example if Cannibalism is Evil What If Divine Essence Commandeth for it. The answer is simple. In the supposed case the act of Canabilism is supposed to become good.

The answer is that although such a Commandment is in Divine Power but Divine Essence Shall never do such a thing. There are you types of Impossibes. 1] Absolute Impossible 2 ] Relative Impossible. A Relative Impossible is an Absolute Possible.

A Relative Necessary is also an Absolute Possible. How ever an Absolute Necessary is Neither An Absolute Possible nor an Absolute Impossible. Now A Relative Impossible is One which Divine Essence Can Do But Never Doeth.

Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15

Now if such a commandment of Cannibalism is Relative Impossible. If Divine Essence Commandeth an act that is Relative Impossible it doeth not remain Relative Impossible and Becometh a Relative Necessary.

But if a Relative Impossible Converteth in a Relative Necessary it ceaseth to be a Relative Impossible.

But if a Relative Impossible converteth to Relative Necessary then it is not a Relative Impossible.

So If Divine Essence commandeth a Relative Impossible the Relative Impossible is not a Relative Impossible.

If Relative Impossible is not a Relative Impossible it is Absolute Impossible. It is just like the case An Absolute Possible is Not Absolute Possible such implication of Contradiction doeth not imply the Absolute Impossibility of the Thing that implieth its Negation.

Example IF it is Absolutely Impossible that “ Yellow is not Yellow” then it does not imply Yellow is Absolute Impossible.Such an Implication may be termed as Relative or Extrinsic Implication to Absolute Impossible and doeth not make /doeth not imply the Absolute Impossibility of Yellow. So Why Divine Essence doeth not chose an act that is Relative Impossible when It can Chose is that Divine Wisdom implieth that the Divine Will choseth the fittest out of all which It Can Chose.

NOTE : The concept of the theory is based upon the teachings of : 1] Saint Aquinas Thomas; Who gave the concept of Fittest [in a Universe].

See Summa Theologica 2] Shah ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d ; who gave the concept of Plurality of Possibility of Universes .

See Yakrozi/Yakrozah 3] Maula:na: Qa:sim Nanautavi ; Who gave the concept of Plurality of Possibility of Time and Space. He also gave the concept of plurality of Earths [Inhabitable Planets].

See ‘Al M-na:z-rah ‘Al “Aji:biah 4] Mirza Gha:lib ; who seconded the concept of Plurality of Possibiliy of Universes.

See Math:navi Imtina:” Naz:ir [Poem] 5] Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi ; Who accepted the Plurality of Universes yet he did not accept the Absolute Possibility of Plurality of Contingent Firsts and Contingent Lasts.

Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: and Imtina: Naz:i:r Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15

In addition to them different theories of Morality are seen and studied.

Page 15 of 15