Page | 1
ANSWER TO RESPECTABLE MR X on
PART ONE 1
Respected Mr X ( ) was once a Muslim but he left Islam because according to his statements he was unable to defend ‘Isla:m any more. His objection in the video shall be discussed in full detail ‘Insha: ‘Allh.How ever an other issue is discussed in this article.In this article it is requested that it does appear that he cannot accept any religion after drifting from’Isla:m , and sooner or latter shall become an Atheist. His mentality and sensibility inclines towards pure atheism and his atheistic tendencies are implied from what he said as a preliminary in his video cited above. However before entering in details about his preoccupied mind, a mind occupied with atheistic tendencies , it pay please be noted that the scope of the present article is not to discuss his objection but it is extremely limited to discuss his tendencies and inclinations. It may please be noted IN ADDITION that I do not wish to annoy him , and I shall try my best not to use a single word which is either offensive or implies offence in the least meanings of the words offence ,offensive etc. It is also attempted to shew that to accept a religion with some terms or conditions or both from the side of acceptor is not an acceptance of the religion at all.
It is discussed as follow:= Claim #1:= Respectable Mr.X cannot accept any religion . Claim #2 Atheism is the only choice for him. Proof Of The First Claim:=
Page | 2
Mr> X did leave ‘Isla:m because he was unable to defend ‘Isla:m from some Objections [At least One]. Since he explicitly does accept this in the video.
www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVfU8cS5tLY If some one is unable to do an act then he does lack the ability to do the act. This implies Mr.X does lack the ability to defend ‘Isla:m from some objections [at least on objection] If some one does lack the ability to do an act then it is his/her inability to do the act. If Respectable Mr. X does lack the ability to defend ‘Isla:m from some objections [at least one] then it is his inability to defend ‘Isla:m from some objections. Let it be supposed that after leaving ‘Isla:m he does accept an other religion say Religion Z [whatsoever it may be]. If he does accept the religion Z , and if he is unable to defend the religion due to his inability, then then he must have to quit Religion Z , as he has quitted ‘Isla:m. Suppose that after quitting religion Z he does accept an other relion say Religion A then in similar conditions he must have to quit religion A. The process shall continue. Mr. X cannot claim that he has the ability to answer each and every objection to a religion which he is supposed to accept after leaving ‘Isla:m. Since no human being can claim that he has the all the knowledge so that he can answer each and every occurancial or possible objection on his religion. This implies that if he does accept a religion he does also accept that if he find some objections [at least one] such that he is unable to answer due to his inability to answer the objection he shall leave the religion. But the religions of the world are numerically finite and definite, and in Natural Number. Suppose that the number is η . As the number is η and the ηth religion is the last religion on the planet earth. This implies that the total of religions are A1 , A2 ,A3 ,A4 ,….,Aξ,….,Aη Let it be suppose continuing the process he ultimately does accept the nth religion say A ή.
Page | 3
That is from Aξ he does accept Aξ+1, WHERE 1<= ξ <ξ+1<=η
Let It be supposed that he once again does find some objections [at least one] on the nth religion which he does accept ultimately and finally.
As An is the last religion then his process of accepting one religion after an other due to his inability must cease to continue. As he cannot remain in a religion on which some objections are made and he is unable to answer and there is no religion left on earth which he may accept then he shall become a religionless person. This does imply that he cannot remain in a religion if he does find some objections which he is unable to answer due to his inability to answer the objection. This does imply that under the stated conditions he shall become a person with out any religion [whatso ever]. Q.E.D Proof of Claim 2 If Mr X does become a religionless person then he either does believe in God or He does not believe in God. If he still does believe in God with out believing in any religion then he Must rely on Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God in order to continue to believe in the Existence Of God. But if Mr.X does find some objections on each argument [at least one objection on each argument] such that Mr.X is unable to answer them then he must have to leave and quit his belief in the Existence of God. In this case he does become an Atheist. QED After proving these two claims it is attempted to prove the following claim:= Claim#3 Mr X cannot accept any religion what so ever it may be if he does find an objection on the religion on in the Holy Book or Holy Books of the religion which is either similar to one of the objections on Islam which he was unable to defend or a more strong objection than the objection which was made on ‘Isla:m and he was unable to defend due to his inability to defend. Proof Of The Claim : Suppose that Mr X does accept a religion say A1 and does fine some objections [at least one] which are either Similar to the objections [at least one] made on ‘Isla:m and he is unable to answer them [it].
Page | 4
As the objection(s) is (are) either Similar or More Strong then by the similarity or parity of reasoning(s) it is find that its [their] Mr.X does lack the ability to answer it [them] or it is the case as the objection(s) is (are) more powerful , the lack of ability and inability are primarily implied. This implication is an strong implication and the reasoning is more strong then the reason of similarity. QED. Some questions:= Q1] What if Mr. X does accept a religion say religion A2 and he does find some objections to which his inability to answer is found yet he remains in this religion A2?
Q2] What if Mr. X does accept a religion after quitting religion of ‘Isla:m and does find some objections [at least one] which are unanswerable in reality but he does think he can defend this religion incorrectly? Q3] What if he does quit a religion but after quitting the religion he is able to answer the objection on his former religion. Does he revert to his previously accepted former religion or does remain to the latter religion provided by the conditions that he does not find any objection on the latter religion which he is not unable to answer or he find objections [at least one] which he does posses the ability to answer? Q4] If Mr. X does accept a religion with a condition that he does remain in the religion as long as he does not find some objections, answer to whom are beyond his abilities, this is not accepting the religion since two accept a religion what so ever it may be with the terms and conditions of the acceptor [ one who does accept] is no acceptance , since a religion does demand intrinsically and exclusively that it must be accepted with out terms and conditions form anyone who does accept it ,who ever he or she may be.This does imply that Mr.X did not belong to his former religion since Mr. X violated the intrinsic demand or requirement of the religion what so ever it may be. So who can it be said that he did belong to the former religion.?
Suggested Answers:= A1] In this case Mr X is violating his own principle which he has used against ‘Isla:m. That is he := Mr. X must necessary quit a religion if he does belong to the religion but does find some objections [at least one] such that he does lack the ability to answer to objection. If he does do so then he does not follow the law or rule which he himself did have made and did use against ‘Isla:m. A2] In this case Mr X has to accept that he can misunderstood things. In this case his decisions and Judgements are immaterial.
Page | 5
A3] This is a paradoxical situation and it is not possible to suggest an answer . It is however a possible case that he does accept both of the religions even if they have contradictory articles of their respective faiths. An objection to the 3
In his video Mr X does have accepted that he left â€˜Isla:m because he does find some objections [ at least one] which he hath the inability to answer . Generalization of this argument implies a Rule/Principle that if he does believe in a religion what so ever it may be and then he does find some objections [at least one] such that he does not have the ability to answer them he then does quit the religion, but he does not say that if he ever gain the ability to answer them or if he become able to answer them in indefinite future he shall revert to his former religion. So this answer does appear to be incorrect. Answer to the objection on the A3. Although Mr.X does not say that he shall revert in case he become able to answer the objection(s) but it does appear that once he does gain the ability to answer them his reasons to quit a religion must cease, and if the reasons do cease then it does appear that his initial decision to quit his former religion(s) was incorrect. It is not supposable for a person like Mr.X that he may not revert even if his reasons for quitting his former religion(s) are wrong and incorrect. A4] This is a problematic question. If it is not known whether at the time of accepting the religion Mr. X does impose his own terms and conditions or at the time of accepting the religion Mr. X does accept in unconditionally and untermed; yet he only does impose them at a latter period of time. If this is the case he actually does drift from the religion the day he does impose them. Only it is not known to others that is he is no longer a member of the religion since Mr. X does not announce these terms and conditions. Sub-Question 1 on A4:= Does it not the case that if Mr. X does accept a religion his acceptance of the religion is uncertain? Answer to the Sub-Question1 on A4:= The answer is affirmative, since it is conditioned at least by the condition that Mr.X is faithful to that religion as long as he does not find some objections [at least one] to which he is unable to answer. Sub-Question 2 on A4:= Does it not imply that with these conditions he did not belong, does not and shall not belong to any religion even if he does claim so? Answer to the Sub-Question1 on A4:= Answer is in affirmation. Summary:=
Page | 6
Mr. X was once a Muslim and he according to his claim did use to defend ‘Isla:m some times yet he once faced an objection on ‘Isla:m which was not able to defend. Due to his inability of defending his religion at the time he left his religion. But the rules and the principles which compelled him to drift from ‘Isla:m implies that he cannot fallow any religion and if he does continue this process the ultimate result is that he shall become an Atheist. Since no human being is so learned that he/she can claim that he/she possess the ABILITY to answer each and every objection on the religion in which he does belong to. To answer an Objection on a religion is to defend the Religion what so ever the religion may be. It a Person lacks the Ability to Answer Some Objections on the Religion He does belong to , and If he changes his Religion due to this inability the process is Perpetual unless and otherwise he does reach to Atheism. There fore his tendencies and inclinations are towards Atheism.
Conclusion:= It is found that if Mr. X does accept another religion after quitting his former religion his acceptance uncertain and doubtful claim certainty. So it is most likely that he is not going to inform, which religion he has accepted and without informing his new religion he is likely to present some of those objections which he was unable to response and did accept his inability. Request:= I do suggest that before watching his videos one must read this article , since it is necessary for any follower of any religion to see the preoccupation of his mind on which he does select a religion what so ever it may be from his after his former religion what so ever it may be. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
PART TWO In this part it shall be tried to shew that even if Mr. X claimed that he was once very serious about ‘Isla:m and he is not deceiving deliberately , yet he was never a Muslim even he is not speaking falsehood. DISCUSSION:
Page | 7
In the period of time when he considered himself as a Muslim, he did not believed in ‘Isla:m as the Ultimate Truth and did not consider ‘Islamic Truth as Ultimate. If this is TRUE then he was never a Muslim even if he assumed himself as a Muslim. This must be discuss in some detail.
In ‘Isla:m a Person NEITHER can be a Muslim NOR can become a Muslim if he does not believe ‘Isla:m as an Ultimate Truth . This does imply that any objection made on ‘Isla:m and on the Truth of ‘Isla:m is Ultimately Wrong. So if an Objection on the ‘isla:mic Truth if it cannot be answered is still believed to be incorrect since theby the Principle “Any Objection on Ultimate Truth is Ultimate Wrong”. So in the time when Mr. X faced some objections on ‘Isla:m and Truth of ‘Isla:m he must have considered them as Objections on Ultimate Truth in the Cosmos. But when he would have tried to response them he would have discovered his inability to answer them. But if he had believed in ‘Isla:m as Ultimate Truth he Must have concluded that these Objections are Ultimate Wrong since they are on Ultimate Truth. But all the things went topsy-turvy when Mr X was convinced that ‘Isla:m is not Ultimate Truth. Since it is Impossible that some one who so ever he may be if does believe in some thing as Ultimate Truth yet does consider some Objections on it as correct he does run into Contradiction. Since it is a Contradiction if some one does believe in a thing as Ultimate Truth and simultaneously he does believe that these Objections are correct and valid due to his inability to make a response proper . Now there are two Possible Cases := Either Mr.X did not believe in ‘Isla:m as an Ultimate Truth and imposed at least one Necessary and Sufficient Condition that He shall continue to believe in ‘Isla:mic Truth as long as he does not fine some Objections Which he is Unable to Make Responses Properly Or initially this was not the case. Since the Middle is excluded and the inclusion of the Middle is not a Relative Impossibility but aan Absolute Impossibility. In the former case he was not a Muslim even if he had considered him as a Muslim even before his conversion either to any other religion or to atheism or to a group of persons who do believe in Deity with out a religion. Since imposing such a condition either in potentiality or in actuality is not to believe in ‘Isla:m since the imposition of this condition immediately does expel any one from the fold of ‘Isla:m. But on the contrary if some one initially did believe in ‘Isla:mic Truth as Ultimate Truth but latter imposed it even before to the time he faced some objections to which his inability made him response-less , and at that time he still did consider him as a Muslim he was incorrect and he left ‘Isla:m the day he did impose this condition. How ever this was only exposed when he did decide to leave ‘Isla:m openly. What IF Mr.X did have Believed In ‘Isla:m Unconditionally:= In this case he would have considered all those objections to which his inability did prevent him to make responses wrong on by the following reasoning:
Page | 8
All these Objections are Incorrect and Wrong. Since they are made on some thing that is the Ultimate Truth. An Objection on an Ultimate Truth is Ultimately Wrong even if it is it is beyond the ability of a person to answer them. One may provide an earthy example of it:=
Zeno’s [Z-nu:n] on objection on Motion is unanswerable yet no one does deny since the Existence of Motion and Movement is an Ultimate Truth. So this objection is Ultimately Wrong as it is upon some thing that is Ultimately True. So it is impossible to be convinced from this objection of Zeno which is on the absurdity of Motion and Movement. Yet it is a separate case wheter this objection is answerable or not. It may be said that Motion and Movements of Bodies in Physics is perceived by all Human Senses there fore this example is imperfect if not perfectly incorrect, and the Zeno’s Objection on Motion of Bodies can be safely applied to Time and Passing of time τ1 to from τ2 where τ1 < τ2. Since time is something that is not perceived by human senses but it is perceived in mind if not conceived by mind. In rough sentence it is sensed by mind. Application of Zeno’s objection of time cannot be refuted so easily. If it is claimed that this is a better example yet it is still not a good example since time is perceived by all Existing Rational Supposita an other example is of Deity Himself. There are some Objections on the very Deity Himself. If Mr. X after leaving ‘Isla:m did not become an Atheist and does continue to believe in Deity with in the fold of any religion what so ever it may be or without any religion what so ever there are still some objections which cannot be answered so easily. One of them is as follow:
The "Epicurean paradox Lactantius (250 CE- 325 CE) attributes this trilemma to Epicurus ( 341BCE-270B CE) in De Ira Dei::
Deity either Does Will to take away evils or to annihilate evils, and is Unable or Does Not Have Sufficient Power to do so; or He is able,Do Have this Power and Is unwilling or Not Willing to Do so; or He is neither Willing nor is Able or either Willing nor Hve this Power, or He is both willing and able or He is Willing and Do Have this Power. If He is Willing and is Unable or if He is Willing and Does Not Have the Power, He is feeble and Weak and Not Omnipotent, which is not in accordance with the character of Deity; if He is Able and Unwilling or If He Does Have the Power Yet He is Not Willing, He is Envious and Malevolent ,and also not Omni- voluntas [Not All Willing (2)]which are equally at variance with God; if He is neither Willing nor Able or if He is Neither Willing nor Does have this Power, then He is both Envious and Feeble and additionally to both of them Not Omnipotent or Malevolent and Weak, and Not Omnipotent and therefore not Deity; if He is both Willing and Able, or Willing and Does Have the Power which
Page | 9
alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them? Also Then Evil and Bad cannot Exist . But this is contrary to the observation.(3)
Answer to this Paradox is next to impossible even several solutions and answers to this paradox have been proposed yet none of them are satisfactory. But not Believer in Deity ever drift from his belief in Deity. Last and not the least the following objection on the Divine Omniscience is very difficult:= N= No One Does know that N is True.
It is claimed that Deity does not know the truth of this sentence is not Known to Deity. So Deity Doeth Cease to be Omniscient. If Mr.X is unable to answer this objection then either he does become an Atheist or does believe in a Deity That Is Not Omniscient.Since in this case he is u nable to defend Divine Omniscience. Cantor theorem is also used against Deity’s Omniscience and Omnipotence yet Professor Gary Mar did replied in his elegant work and there fore it is not presented as an objection. Only rational arguments are used and no objection on any scripture of any religion what so ever it may be is not used to shew that Mr. X is likely to lack the ability to defend Deity from Philosophical arguments. For if any objection on the concept of Deity of any scripture of any religion what so ever the religion may be may and what so ever the Scripture may be may be confused as that the author of this essay is attacking that religion and the scripture of that religion, which is not the case, not in the least meaning/sense.Therefore only Philosophical arguments against Deity are presented which are supposed unanswerable by Mr.X and their answers are assumed to be beyond the capabilities of Mr. X . How ever this is the case with Mr.X who did have inability to response some objections on Islam and then he left ‘Isla:m due to his inability. He did not use Philosophical arguments but Scriptural arguments. But one thing is common and that us if he does find an objection whose answer is beyond his ability to abswer he does accept the argument or objection what so ever it mat be as correct and does reject the faith he did belong to prior to hearing or reading the objection or argument or both . This does imply that either he believed in a self contradiction or he did not believe in ‘Isla:m at all, not in the least sense since the requirement of ‘Isla:m was not fulfilled. To believe in ‘Isla:m with out fulfilling its requirements is not to believe in ‘Isla:m but to disbelieve in It AND Its Ultimate Truth. Since if he left ‘Isla:m only because he had some objections which he was unable to response , then he must have considered them as Ultimately Correct and Valid against ‘Isla:m. If so then his belief in ‘Isla:m as Ultimate Truth was nothing but an illusion. Since if some one does believe in some thing as Ultimate Truth then it is a Necessary Consequence of his belief that any objection what so ever it may be be Certainly and Ultimately Wrong and incorrect. So what was the attitude of Mr. X. When he find some
Page | 10
objections he was unable to respond properly he gave up his belief in what he did believe to be Ultimate Truth. This does mean he did not apply the following law:= Objections on Ultimate Truth are Ultimately Wrong and Incorrect.
This clearly does shew that that he did not believed in ‘Isla:m as an Ultimate Truth even when he did consider himself as a Muslim. Other wise inspite of his inability to answer these objections he would not have left ‘Isla:m.He would have in this case not left ‘Isla:m in this case of his inability and immpotentiality . But as these objections are either certainly valid or ultimately accurate or both according to Mr.X it is question what are the conditions of accuracy or validity or both of an objection in his mind which can over throw the belief in some thing which he once did consider as Ultimate Truth or Absolute Reality or both. But if he does explain them not, then this does mean that he is not telling the real reasons what so ever they may be. Additionaly if he did have some conditions for an objection in his mind to test the religion which he once believed as Ultimate Truth then this does imply a contradiction. Since the Ultimacy of ;Isla:mic Truth does imply that they conditions which are used to testify these Objections Must not be Ultimate. Similarly the Ultimacy of these conditions stated above does imply that neither ‘Islamic Truth not ‘Islam is Ultimately True. This does shew that Mr. X was either a Self Contradictor or he was never a believer in ‘Isla:m and ‘Isla:mic Truth . If it is supposed that every sentence and every word in his video in regard to his claimed sincerity about ‘Isla:m is true then it does mean that he if did believe in ‘Isla:m as True even then Mr.X did not believe that Islam is Ultimately True. This does imply that Mr.X did believe that ‘Isla:m is Not Ultimately True or its Truth is not Ultimately True. But if it was really so then one thing be really clear that Mr.X was not a Muslim even if he might have considered himself so. Even in any period of time after his conversion to a Unislamism what so ever it may be , he may still claim that he was once a Muslim and was very sincere to his former religion Nounly ‘Isla:m, his claim is incorrect since in the period of past the required conditions of belief in ‘Isla:m were neither satisfied nor fulfilled. So this was just a fallacy to consider a person as Muslim who never did believe ‘Isla:m as Ultimate Truth. This fallacy canbe commited even by a person about his own self if he does not know the difference between the two that is a) To believe Some Thing Ultimate Truth b) To Believe in some thing as Not Ultimate Truth. If Mr.X does claim that Once in the Past He did Believe in ‘Isla:m as Ultimate Truth and he considered these Objections and the conditions of these objections as neither Ultimate nor Certain then it is a fallacy to reject some thing which is believed to be Ultimate or Certain or both due to a number of things which are neither believed to be Ultimate not believed to be Certain. So if this fallacy committed by Mr.X then whether it may be committed deliberately or may be unintentionally it does not make much difference since the problem is not whether his act is deliberate nor without intentions, the problem is that a fallacy is committed as it is committed regardless of its reason.
Page | 11
Now it is clear that Mr.X did commit a fallacy in the case stated above. If Mr. X does claim that He did not consider rather he Consider not that the objections and the conditions of the validity of these Objections are Ultimate initially yet he then begin to believe that atleast these conditions are ultimate without having a slightest doubt that they might be used against ‘isla:m , then there are two logical possibilities. 1] Even in this case he did have an Exception for ‘Isla:m 2] He did not have an exception for ‘Islam. If he did have an exception for ‘Isla:m then the could not apply these Objections on ‘Isla:m. He must have rejected these objections as incorrect by the stated above Principle. If he did not have an Exception for ‘Isla;m then this is what that is discussed above, that this does imply that be did not believe in ‘Isla:m as an Ultimate Truth. To believe in ‘Isla:m as not an Ultimate Truth is Not to believe in ‘Isla:m at all not in the least meaning of the word belief. Sufficient examples of objections are given on the Existence ,Omniscience and Omnipotence of Deity, though they are Philosophical in nature yet it does seem to be that Mr.X is Probably unable to provide a convincing answer to objections of stated above. An Objection This does seem that a person does not have the right to investigate ‘Isla:m? Answer:= As long as a Person is not a Muslim He/She has right to investigate “Isla:m. He/She can only become a Muslim when He /She does believe that ‘Isla:m is Absolute and Ultimate Truth and if he is convinced HE/SHE may accept ‘Isla:m. But when a person once does accept ‘Isla:m as an Ultimate Truth he cannot leave without falling in contradictions. As it is stated above in case of Mr. X. IT IS HOPED THAT ANY ONE WHO MAY SEE THE VIDEO ON YOU TUBE OF THIS PERSON HE MAY FIRST PROB IN THE MIND OF THIS PERSON THROUGH HIS OWN WORDS AND SENTENSES AND ANALYZE HIS CONCEPTTION AND HIS ULTIMATE TENDENCIES TOWARDS ATHEISM BEFORE LISTENING AND WATCHING HIS VEDIO.PLEASE CONTEMPOLATE SERIOUSLY AND IF YOU AGREE THAT IT IS THE CASE THAT HE DOES HAVE TENDENCIES OF FALLACY AND THEISM , DO NOT TAKE HIS VEDIO SERIOUSLY. AS I AM NOT WILLING TO WRITE ON YOUTUBE SINCE ONE CANNOT DISCUSS THE PROBLEM IN A VEDIO AS HE CAN DICUSS IN WRITING I AM NOT ON YOU TUBE.
############################### ############################### ############################### ###############################
Page | 12
(1) Respectable Mr. Ismail, yet for any one as well â€œto whom it may/can concern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-small/why-must-evil-and-sufferi_b_857787.html
If any thing does occur without Divine Will then Divine Will is not Absolute, that is Deity is not omnes volunt . This does imply that the Divine Will/Intention is finite and limited and Neither Eternal Nor Absolute.It does cease to be Omni-voluntas, (2)
(3) An other form of this argument is as follow:= CLAIM:= Deity Does Not Exist. Argument:= Evil Does Exist It is an accepted postulate of both Atheists and Theists, Believers ,Unbelievers and Disbelievers. If Deity Does Exist then there are Only FOUR cases which are given as follow:= 1] Deity is Willing to Annihilate Evil and Do Possess the Power to Annihilate it but Evil does continue to Exist. This is impossible since it is self contradicting. 2] Deity is Willing to Annihilate Evil and Do Not Possess the Power to Annihilate it and Evil does continue to Exist. This does imply Deity is Not Omnipotent and Does not Possess the Quality of Omnipotence . Deity is additionally Deity is Weak and Feeble.. 3] Deity is Not Willing to Annihilate Evil and Do Possess the Power to Annihilate it AND Evil does continue to Exist. This is Does Imply that Deity is Malevolent and Not Omnibenevolent . Additionally Deity is not Omnivolent [All Willing] . There two cases of Not Willing a Thing. Either Deity is Unable to Will or Deity is able to Will but Does not Will., that is Either Deity cannot Will an Act or Deity is Can Will the act but Does not Will. In either case Deity Does Cease to be Omnivolent and Does Cease to Possess the Attribute/Quality of Omnivolence. 4] Deity is Not Willing to Annihilate Evil and Do Not Possess the Power to Annihilate it and Evil does continue to Exist. This does imply that Deity is Neither Omnipotent nor Omnibenevolent . Additionally Deity also does cease to be Omni- voluntaries /Omnivolent.
But as Deity cannot be Not Omnipotent, Not Omnibnevolent,Not Omnivolent, Malevolent,Weak ,Feeble, Thoughtlessness etc. There is no fifth logical possibility. This does imply Deity Does not Exist.
Page | 13