The productive thinking

What do you call a person….

But why is he an idiot?

Why cant he decide to enjoy the moment and end it all once he has had enough of his enjoyment of life? Why should he avoid getting run over by a car? You may think there are obvious answers to these questions – that ending life defeats the point of life!  However to some they would differ- that life is to do what you wish with it- it’s your life!  So you even have the movement for legal euthanasia that campaigns for the right to nd your life if you so wish; suicide clinincs have even opened in countries where it is legal! These assumptions have been questioned philosophically over the ages to form the most basic answers to the question of why are we alive.

It starts with thinking

Alhamdulilah to the one who began His revelation with the word Iqra- to read,recite

There was a way of thinking amongst the people living in the past (and also today) that led them to deny the Oneness of Allah SWT along with the superstitions that they believed in and the contradiction in their lives – give exaamples

Allah then ordered the prophet muhahmaad saw to use their minds and think- to think correctly and come to know the truth.

When the arabs started to embrace this message and they began to think and submit they broke free form the intellectual shackles that kept them oppressed by other humans- slaves to their traditions and supersttions and tribes. They started to unleash the full potential of the human acheivements in science, military and civilisation to create a tranquil and harmonious individual, families and society.

It is important to understand this process of thinking and inculcate it within our children so that we protect and purify our personalities, our homes and the future of our society.

So where do we start? We can talk about the nature of the human and analse him and what makes the psychology of a child different to an adult. We could talk about the difference between man and animal and how the gift of the mind has allowed the human to become the master of hisenvironment whilst the animal will die out if it doesn’t adapt.

This journey will be one that  any human can undertake- from first principles to becoming the

The most important question in life:

Why am I alive?

It will define what to expend your life force upon- it will drive you in your darkest hour- it will push you to keep on – to do what you are supposed to do- it will give you purpose – it will let you know if you are wasting your life or fulfilling it. It can cause one to find happiness or anxiety when

It will define your actions- what is good and bad –good and evil are not labelled on any action there are no universal moral codes that everyone is born with. for example,  would everyone agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent child? If yes, then what if you knew that this child was going to grow up to become an evil dictator that would wage war and kill many innocent lives? philosophers have debated  over moral dilemmas throughout the ages. Societies have their own penal codes different to one another as they have different views of morality.

Good and evil are linked to ones moral criteria which is linked to their objective in life. So for instance a person who believes that they are alive to obey God and earn His salvation may have a view of abortion as a sin due to  the sacredness of a God-given life. This may be different to one who believes that they are alive to enjoy their freedoms that the past generations have given to this ever -evolving world and that they should be free to abort the life of a baby in their body if they so wish.

In short if your purpose of life is wrong then your life would have been wasted and worthless.

This si similar to the one who buys the latest most expensive smartphone but does not use its functions correctly because he hasn’t figured out how to use it. In fact the owner uses it as a paperweight to stop the papers on his desk from flying off! Its purpose hasn’t been realised. This was not the purpose of the phone- to be used as a paperweight.  It was a waste of his phone.

But how do we know that it was a waste? How do we know that its purpose was not to be a paperweight one may argue? Even if it was an expensive one !? Maybe the owner wanted to use it for that and it is fulfilling a purpose is it not? Most people may not actually use it for the purpose of calling anyone but for other functions such as texting, internet etc. There is nothing intrinsic within the phone to tell us what its purpose is and so how will we know? As there is nothing intrinsic or internal from the phone that tells us what its purpose is then one may try to figure it out using its design and function. But even that is not definite- an object such as this smartphone may be able to carry out many functions (such as a paperweight). There is no way from examining the object to tell its purpose. Purpose must therefore come from outside of the object. Purpose has to be defined  by the maker of that object- it is the reason that the object was made for. Only the maker would be able to tell us the intention behind his/her invention.

Similarly, we may think that just because I can do such and such then this my purpose. We may even try to find purpose from within ourselves internally- through introspection or soul-searching or some fashionable lifestyle guru who guides us to find our purpose. Just because I can enjoy to eat and drink, to reproduce, to  read and write , working, playing sport, listening to music- does not mean that my purpose is any of those things that I am capable of or even enjoy. Purpose is not an internal/intrinsic feature of any object including human beings. Purpose is defined by the maker of the object- why did they make it? So the human must ask why was he made from his maker- if such a maker exists!

There is another aspect of your nature that pushes you to look for this creator of man if it exists or not. Apart from the need to understand your purpose of your life, there is also a need to sanctify and revere within  human nature. This is innate and can be seen throughout the ages where man has worshipped many things including the sun, stars, nature, God, gods. Even in secular and godless societies this innate need finds itself manifested in the celebrity worship of film stars, athletes and music idols. It is not uncommon in these atheistic and secular societies for helplines to be opened for helping the distraught teenage souls when their favourite pop band has split up. Even when believing in communist ideas, societies that denied the existence of religion this innate reverence instinct was manifested in the deep respect for their leaders as they would perform pilgrimage to the embalmed bodies of Lenin and the graveyard of Marx, and the recitation of the words from the red book of Chairman Mao. Therefore there is an instinct of reverence that should be directed to the highest being that exists otherwise our action of reverence will not be correct. As mentioned previously, if you cannot perform actions that solve your problems correctly then you will suffer the consequences of your wrong actions.

Similar to an engineer who wants to build a bridge and uses the wrong formula to calculate the strength of the force that is needed to keep the bridge standing- it will collapse. Similar to the student who uses the wrong formula to solve his mathematics problem- he will get the wrong answer.

Out of all the questions that exist, this is the gravest most important question though as its answer will lead to great ramifications. Knowing who the creator is does not lead you to just fulfil your need for reverence correctly but it also has costly implications for the rest of your life. For if this being is greater than you is it not greater than you in knowledge about how to solve your problems in life, about guidance in living life? It is not just greater in its deserving to be prayed to in fulfilling your spiritual needs. It would be greater than you in the knowledge about how to live as it manufactured you. similar to if your phone was to encounter a problem then where would you send it to get it fixed? Wouldn’t you trust that the manufacturer of your phone would be more capable of solving its problem than your hair- dresser, than your neighbour, than another phone manufacturer, than yourself?

n it Would’nt this greater being also be able to inot just greater  For if you believe that there is a greater being than those created beings around you. So if you do not know who the creator is then you will  refer to imperfect sources for that information and guidance.

 

Knowledge:

How will we know if this maker of mankind exists? How do we know anything? How can we be sure of the answer to any such question?

People may argue different ways of acquiring knowledge about the world, indeed even about  knowing things. Philosophers throughout history have debated what is true knowledge. This includes knowing whether a creator exists or not. For example someone may believe information that their parents or a highly respected person has told them, you may have a feeling after going to a holy place of worship, maybe a dream that has inspired you. However, none of these things produce certain knowledge- they can be disputed by others with a different view, feeling or dream.

There is also a danger of irrational thinking in that it delves into speculation that leads to useless information whilst giving the illusion of  knowledge. This is like when philosophers start to describe the qualities and characteristics of the unseen creator . examples of such debates include how the all-loving all-powerful creator allows evil to exist .  such irrational thinking causes confusion, doubt and skeptism in the existence of a creator.

is there anything that you can know? Without any errors or speculation or doubt in your information?

This has been studied amongst philosophers throughout time and known as epistemology- the philosophy of knowledge.  Some philosophers (such as Descarte) would argue that knowledge  and truth are understood innately without having to rely on the external world for any truths, whereas others (like Locke) would propose that we are born as blank slates and that knowledge is acquired through our senses and what we experience- the empirical view.

So what will lead to true knowledge since we have seen that eryone may come out with opinions which differ from each other. How then do we distinguish between what is a fact from an opinion?a fact is information which is true for everyone. Truth by its definition is what cannot be denied- no-one can disagree with it or claim that it is false. This is the description of any statement that is true. A truth therefore must be objective - verifiable by all and not subjective or personal to you or a group of people – that would be an opinion. Therefore emotions/dreams/feelings which are subjective and not universal for all cannot be a source of truth. One person may enter a church and pray and feel like he has an answer to the meaning of life and another individual may not have that feeling.

So what can everyone agree on then?

Everyone can access the physical world outside of their bodies and it does not change from person to person. We have access to this external physical world through our five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.

 But doesn’t everyone perceive the world differently? For example colour blindness is an example where someone may not see the distinction between certain colours. So what if your senses don’t work?

 There is a substance that we can all perceive with our senses – the reality around us. There are basic elements of it that anyone who senses it can agree to- for example if we take a book that exists- it will have a certain dimension- it takes up a certain amount of space in the universe. You may have people disagreeing over the colour due to a problem or difference in sight- but they will still accept that there is a book- or at least an item – if for instance there  might be a problem with sight and cannot distinguish between the letters on the pages.

What if they don’t have that sense altogether? With the senses that do exist, then they are able to appreciate  the universality of the reality around them that applies to all. So if I can't see the book- then I could feel it through touch. If it was a plate of hot food that I could not see- then I could smell it.  We progress in life and are able to function to the extent that we appreciate the reality around us through our senses. If those senses do not work then the reality from our surroundings accessed –in order for the mind to make a judgement- will be restricted, resulting in faulty judgements of our world and then faulty actions. As an example- if I walk into my house and I did not sense (smell was not working due to a cold) that there is methane  gas in the air due to a leak from the gas pipe – I may well assume that it was safe to light a cigarette- unfortunately causing an explosion and harming or ending my life.

What about those who may doubt our reality?

Ultimately even the sceptics cannot deny their reality otherwise they would suffer too, and not last very long within their environment. So for example if a sceptic was to walk into their house and smell a gas leak, they may choose to philosophise that we can’t be sure if they really exist and if the gas really exists- however when it comes to the action– they would have to base their actions on that knowledge of their reality otherwise they would die or be at a serious loss in any explosion!

This is the rational method – the thinking based on the sensed reality-that allows the human to make correct judgements about his environment enabling him to manipulate and control it and thus to progress. This method of acquiring knowledge and forming judgements must therefore also be utilised when answering the most important questions to do with our lives: i.e. where did we come from; what will happen after death; and what therefore is the relationship of  these with our life- our purpose of life?

This is rational knowledge: it is only limited to forming conclusions upon our sensed reality and you can be so sure about it that you bet your life on it all the time- everyone does. No one denies their reality otherwise they could not live! You would not be able to cross the road if you tried to philosophise that the car coming towards you is a dream!

 So rational knowledge produces facts and truths because it is based on the reality that we all sense. It cannot go beyond that. If you try to base any knowledge beyond the senses then it no longer is a fact and is now open to opinion and interpretation as it is subjective to you only. So for example if you are sitting at home and you hear a knock on the door- you know for certain that there is something behind that door that caused the knock – why? Because from reality you have sensed that doors do not have the ability to knock themselves. However it would be irrational to describe what is behind that door with certainty- is it a man, woman, boy, girl, a stone that was thrown, or a branch from a tree that fell? The only way to know is if you could open the door and check or if someone outside could tell you (if we could verify that they were not lying).

This then leads us to another type of knowledge that we will come to after the next part

Where did we come from? Is there a creator for man?

when we study the reality around us (i.e. anything we sense within the universe) we will come to know that nothing has the quality or characteristic of being able to create either itself or other things. What is meant by create is to bring into existence from nothing, rather than just a manipulation of form from already existing things. For example, making a can from metal extracted from the ore that already exists in rocks is not considered as creating a can in our strict sense here- but rather making a can.

So even when a child is born- it was not that he came from nothing, but he grew from his parent’s cells and then that fertilised cell kept on absorbing nutrients from its mother and then from the environment until it grew to its size.

We cannot observe anything within our universe creating itself or other objects from nothing even the smallest speck of sand or sub-atomic particle has never been observed to appear from nothing out of thin air. Sub-atomic particles of mass (the stuff inside everything) have been found to transform to and from energy – however that energy is  still ‘something’ and can be converted using the formula E=mc2, So mass and energy are interchangeable. Energy has not ever been produced from nothing, and neither has mass.

Moreover the aforementioned point is even established according to the scientific law of thermodynamics that within the observable universe: "energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be changed from one form to another" (U_{T} = U_{i} + W + Q) and energy is related to matter through the law E=mc2. So even scientifically, it is established that within the universe something cannot appear or disappear into nothing. [ side point of scientific knowledge: science is not a criteria to judge truth as it can be based on interpretations of observed phenomena to justify unobserved theories. The interpretation therefore has elements of speculation ]. However the above observation is established rationally through our senses – the scientific method just confirms it – i.e. it does not contradict what even scientists know.

 If it was true that objects within the universe have the power of bringing themselves or other things into existence from ‘nothing’ then this would mean for instance that whilst you walk down the street a chicken (or an egg- whichever came first) appears from nowhere- hitting you in the face! Or whilst sitting down watching television and getting hungry you don’t bother walking to the fridge to get some food but you open your hand and wait for the food to materialise into your hand! Why even bother mine natural resources like carbon based fuels and nuclear fuels for power stations when we should be able to power our homes from the energy inside the sub-atomic particles that are constantly being created!

then where did everything come from?

So, logically speaking if we use the information that we can sense:

If our universe exists

If nothing within the universe has the power to bring itself into existence (creation)

 It must have come from something that is not within this observable universe

This is the rational belief in a creator.

It is a fact -not based on opinion as the reality proves it for everyone.

The second type of knowledge

Now, to know anything about this creator by just thinking about it would not lead to any certain knowledge and it would all be speculation. This is because we can only give a correct judgement based on what we can sense in our reality as mentioned above. As this creator is not directly sensed by us then we cannot make any judgements about it using our mind- it would all be guesswork full of doubt. This is the problem that the ancient philosophers would face as highlighted previously.

But as we have demonstrated, you do not need to see it directly to know that it exists, and it is completely correct to believe in a creator as it is a conclusion based upon the sensed reality. This is similar to the following situation:

You hear a knock on the front door of your house.

You know from reality that doors do not have the power to knock themselves.

You link this information to the sensed reality and conclude that there is something on the other side of the door, however you cannot describe what this thing is that is outside your door because it is out of your sensed reality- is it a man, woman, boy, girl, a stone that was thrown, or a branch from a tree that fell? The only way to know is if you could open the door and check or if someone outside could tell you (if you could verify that they were not lying).

This then brings us to another type of knowledge that we can say can be used to establish truth. If the reality that we want to discuss is not sensed then any information we have about it from our own minds will be speculation. The only reliable information will only come transmitted to us from that object itself if it can communicate it to us.

This is the reality of our situation: we can rationally establish the existence of a creator for this niverse- but we can not observe it directly. But we still need to establish our purpose of creation and we need to know what happens at the end of life. As it is out of the reach of our senses- to be able to communicate with it and ask it then the only way we can acquire this knowledge is if it communicates it to us – this is known as transmitted knowledge (naqli in Arabic). This of course will need to be verified with some form of proof.

How to access this transmitted knowledge

Now from reality we know that this creator has not communicated with each one of us directly otherwise we would all have the same idea and answer about the question of purpose and life after death as well as other details about this creator. Clearly this is not the case- humans do differ about these ideas. However, some people may claim to have such communication from the creator. Now if that is how the creator has chosen to communicate to us then we will need to verify such claims as the person could be lying or delusional. The question is how? Is it enough that they claim divine communication without any proof? What kind of proof would we require?

The proof would have to establish that this so-called messenger from the creator has indeed been authenticated by the creator. Now if the messenger is a human being like us then the proof should be simple. We live within a universe which exhibits certain physical laws. For instance human beings do not have the ability to fly or breathe under water. Objects on Earth are influenced by its force of gravity so if you jump you will be pulled back to Earth by its force of gravity. Water will freeze at 0 degrees Celcius (at a pressure of 1 atm) and act differently as a solid ice than when it is a liquid (for example flowing in its liquid state). These laws of the universe are not within the ability of  the human being to change. They are part of the characteristics or design of the universe that we have already established has been created. In fact this in itself is another proof of a creator, for if these characteristics came from the universe itself- i.e. that the universe created itself with these characteristics- then the universe should be able to change these rules and laws that they obey. Why should they be bound to them if they are its maker? Why should the Earth for example rotate around the sun in a fixed pattern- that gives us a predictable time for sunrise and sunset? The Earth if it created itself should be able to stop rotating around the sun if it wants to. Why does the sun have to use its gravity to keep pulling on the Earth for its orbit? Why does the Earth have to use its gravity to keep you or this book from not floating away? Why doesn’t water decide to  boil at 200 degrees instead of 100 degrees? The entire universe is all bound by laws that are  beyond it’s ability to break free from! Laws that must have therefore been instigated by an external force to the universe- the creator that we have already estabiished!

It is these laws that we are forced to abide by that will also be able to prove to us the proof of messengership. Since it is beyond the ability of the human being to break free from the laws of the universe, then if he was able to do so then it would demonstrate that he must have some form of authority to do so from the one who established those laws (and can lift them if  it chooses to do so). This is true if there is some challenge to other human beings to copy such an action that broke the natural law- in order to show that it is beyond the ability of a human being to perform such an action.

For example if a human being could start to freely fly and other human beings could not do so after being challenged to do the same in the same way as he. This would indicate that this law of the human not being able to fly had been broken – not because of the human being but because of the creator of the human being that chose to design the human as not being able to fly. This is what we would term a “miracle”.

Todays miracle

Wouldn’t take a miracle on hearsay- witness yourself-  but in Arabic- challenge to produce like it- fits into unique pattern of speech. -ayahs of challenge - no reports of anyone claiming that it had been met-

Abu lahab

it is the same form from prophets time-

cant deny the multiple narrations of this transmitted reality- exactly how it was heard

not rational to say it could be met now because author cannot change – principle of prinicipality- cannot get better in the future

don’t need to be arab to acknowledge it- it is a rational evaluation- is there proof that the challenge was met? but only to appreciate it- same in any field

I build a bridge and challenge anyone to build one like mine-only engineers could take it up – not the lay man- but it is there for everyone to see – layman would see that it does what a bridge does but under the water it is made of matchsticks and

I build a bridge and I challenge the world to build one like it.

Layman: looks like a bridge- cars using it to get to other side

Engineer: notice something is different as they are used to seeing designs of bridges- this design is different – look under water to examine design- made up of simple building blocks- matchsticks? Human should not only be able to copy / recreate the design- but beat it!

Here Challenge is less : recreate the design of my bridge- using matchsticks- engineer would know that they could not straight away

Similar to arab poets who could tell that they could not compose in the set structure

Similar to magicians who dropped in submission when faced with moses’s snake

Layman may not tell the difference

Arabic literature has its different structures : poetry and prose that have their different compositions or designs. If one design of expression is tried to squeeze and  fit into another style then it will stand out

For the well read it is plain to see- the layman may not

Similar to English has its poetry and prose

Poems can be broken down  and its structure analysed in terms of line, stanza, rythym and rhyme. These can be combined to form different types of poems such as sonnets, villanelle and haiku to name a few. There will be uses of devices within the poem to strike the listener such as the use of enjambment, onomatope and dissonance.

Prose will also have its various styles such as when writing a text message, an email or an essay.

The quranic style does not fit the structure of any of the styles of prose or poetry.

It came with its own unique style, and the challenge is to recreate that style using the same devices that give it its unique structure.

The time of evaluating its authourship is at the time of its emergence as it is rationally impossible for the author to change.

The challenge to produce a structure like it was given to the arabs.

On top of this is the  precise predictions made in the quran – which a non-arab speaker can also evaluate.

The chapter on Abu Lahab the prophets uncle is clear in its irreversible condemnation of him to Hellfire.

The promise for the believers is to be admitted to paradise and to be saved from the hellfire for  the rejection of gods message.

In order to undermine the message of the quran all he had to do was hypocrtitcally announce that he was a believer  and follower of Muhammad.

However he did not and for 10 years he had the opportunity to seal the fate the main enemy of the Quraysh even as his enemy grew from strength to strength with his followers and ultimately establishing his political authority in the city-state of madina from which they launched wars against each other.

But who could have known the future to such a precise extent and risk the validity of the message? This is beyond the knowledge of a human being!

The knowledge of time would not be beyond the knowledge of the creator of the universe since time is a function of the universe that we live in.

(some laymen critics try to argue that evyone is going to hellfire anyway so there is no special prophecy here- however this is a shallow argument that shows the lack of any understanding of the base message of islam and  not based on any scholarship- it makes no sense for anyone to believe and follow muhammed if there will be no difference to their fate in the after-life!)

(they also try to foolishly argue that the verse was revealed after he had died because the verb ‘ma aghna’ is in the past- this is wrong from

But it does more! Able to withstand more force.

Like a house of cards that is built

and only an engineer could understand how to test it- stress load, weather resitance, corrosion, des

How would lay man evaluate it rationaly- what would the test be? Hold same amount up/strength

Analogy: magicians and layman- layman fooled easily and cannot tell difference between illusion and miracle. Magician able to tell it’s a miracle as expert in the field. Splitting the sea- everyone can see- so why not a simple miracle that everyone can see? It is for all times and it protects the message itself- it has to have a thoughtful aspect to it- as the message is an idea/thought- there is only one god worthy of worship and t follow his guidance.

-        Miracle for all time

-        Rational proof- specific prohesy lahab

-        Argument of establishing it at point of introduction- requires preservation

-        Challenge- even till today

-        How would non-arabic speaker verify it?

Accepting it means submitting to it- mind not meant to fathom morality- whats the point of divine guidance then?

for example  or are they within the    lives has certain limitations that

not only have philosophers  in the past debated on such questions but also m

Infinity unravelling

As mentioned earlier, the mind is man’s greatest asset when used correctly-separating him from all other creatures: it allows him to progress within and control his universe – even if he is physically unable to move within his environment, he will invent a machine that will allow him to take control of his environment.  The mind when used correctly will let us understand our environment

 The mind can be mans greatest liberator or his greatest prison-

If the mind is used correctly then the knowledge he will derive will be useful – leading him to progress in life as he understands his purpose and solves his problems correctly. It will allow him to break free from the man-made ideas that shackles a person to conform to oppressive systems; to false ideas of the route to happiness; from ideas that paralyse them from fulfilling their potential.

However if used incorrectly, it can casue you to accept what is told to you. it can cause you to become confused throughout life, hesitating whenever faced with a problem. Doubt can cause anxiety as you believe in false ideas of what perfection means and from the frustration  the false ideals that you aspire to are not within reach. The psychological problems that arise from irrational thinking has led to led to depression and anxiety. The mind can be a prison of darkness even for the one that appears on the outside to be happy. The purpose of the individual is not realised and his life is wasted.

Transmitted Knowledge in the quest for purpose

 Once the quran has been established as the communication from the creator then it establishes another line of knowledge for us- a knowledge of the creator about aspects that we will not be able to know due to our senses being limited to the observable universe. This will include any knowledge of the creator itself as well as what happens after life- both of which are beyond our sensible reality.  This type of knowledge as we have already mentioned is transmitted  knowledge and is not directly observable (known as naqli in Arabic).

We can now go back to our original question about purpose and seek answers from the creator. The creator informs us that it’s name is Allah and refers to itself as He (and so shall we from now on refer to Him as such) and that He is the sole creator of the universe and that He has no partners and had there been so there would indeed be much chaos (as they struggle against each other – upsetting and contradicting each other’s rules within the universe).

Our purpose is clearly defined for us:

“And I (Allaah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone)”

[al-Dhaariyaat 51:56]

Worship here is defined in many other verses as full submission to Allah and His Messenger in terms of thought and action. For example in the penultimate verse of surah Baqarah:

“…they (the beleivers) say, we hear and we obey..”

To hear is to underst

Thinking should not contradict the definintive evidences  as this is akin to disagreeing with Allah and a sign of rejection of His Message to us.

A believer should find no resistance in their hearts to the judgements of Allah and His messenger

The believers are the ones who will be rewarded with paradise

(Differrnt to a muslim)

(definitely transmitted and based on clear cut meanings)

The problem of the philosophers

Describe to me what a ‘krtitokrac’ does. Anything you can think of. Can you be sure of anything that you think of it? I don’t think you can – because it doesn’t exist – it’s a made up word. Odds are you tried to look it up to try and get an idea. Whatever you had come out with would not have been any closer to the truth than what another may have thought of. You could not produce any thinking on the subject matter because there was no reality for you to sense (you had never seen/heard/felt/smelt/tasted one) and there was no previous information stored that your mind could have linked to the reality of the sound ‘kritokrac’. Any output of your thinking would have been irrational gibberish.

What about a ‘thalaja’? can you do any better? If you know Arabic then you may have come across the word before. If you have then you can link the sound of the word  to the reality you have seen which is now stored in your previous information. If not then you may like to know that the word ‘thalj’ means ice in Arabic. You can know recall all the previous information stored in your mind about the word ice and start to produce some thinking about this thalaja- “maybe it is some form of ice, maybe it is an ice maker…”. These would all be close to the reality of it – which is a freezer. Now the next time you hear that word (the sensed reality) you would be able to give me a thought upon it by accessing your stored previous information (that sound means ‘freeezer’ in Arabic).

This is the rational thinking: the use of the mind to link previous information to the sensed reality. If any of these four factors are missing from the process then there is no rational thinking: the reality, the senses (to access the reality), the previous information and the mind (to link the reality with the previous infprmation). Rational thinking is a natural innate way of thinking and what the human being uses in everyday life to progress and solve his problems. You live in your environment and the quality of life in your environment depends on the quality of your irrational thinking. If you are missing any of the processes of rational thinking (or if there is a malfunction or incorrectness of any of the factors) then you will not be able to progress and solve your problems successfully. You will not be able to suuceesfully navigate in your environment. You will to put it simply suffer and not last very long. So as an example

The problem and incorrect method of the philosophers can be identified as :

Ignoring and doubting the rational procedure when establishing sound knowledge.

Philosophers like to establish the knowledge that they can be sure of – a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. This would provide the building blocks of establishing certainty of God’s existence, so if you doubt the method of knowledge or tools that you use to establish God’s existence then that would mean you could doubt God himself (the conclusion of your method of knowledge).

There are many views on this topic that the philosophers had over the ages from Plato’s claims that our experience of the world is no more than shadows and that the true reality lies beyond these shadows, to Descarte’s doubt of everything except his own existence. From the  empericists, to the idealists, to the skeptics – all with different views of knowledge. Even in the Islamic world many philosophers who started to dabble with the translated works of the ancient philosophers started to also get affected with these ideas and fall into circles of confusion because of a lack of a clear basis of thinking of these matters.

 One of the reasons for these many views is the use of hypothetical “thought experiments” which leaves the discussion open to any imaginable scenario. The problem with these discussions and the methods of thought experiments is that they are not necessarily based on reality. So for example Descarte’s ‘clever demon’ scenario where he imagines a demon that has convinced him of the reality around him which does not exist but which is really a dream. Likewise in the Islamic world philosophers would use these thought experiments not grounded in reality to make a case for their point such as the famous ‘floating man’ of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to argue for the existence of the soul.

Because these thought experiments are not based on the real world that we can sense (e.g. a demon that makes us dream, a floating man etc.) then the conclusions that are derived are open to many routes that the imagination can come out with. The author of these thought experiments will only naturally focus on the route they wish to take in order to prove their point. However even in the pre-suppositions that are made there will still be different interpretations or routes that you could take to interpret the discussion. For example, Descarte’s thought experiment that a demon that controls us is making us think that we are alive and that 2+3=5,  where in fact we are dreaming and that this controlling demon is making us think that we are conscious and that really 2+3= 6! He then argues that God must be true because God implanted this idea within our thinking however it  could be (and has been) argued according to his same parameters that it was the same demon that made us believe in this untrue idea of God!

(Similarly Ibn Sina’s famous thought experiment of the floating man who he imagines has been created without the ability to sense anything  would be able to sense his own existence and this would mean that the mind and body are not identical- for he could sense his mind but not sense his body. Again the conclusion of Ibn Sina can also be ) remove this

The biggest problem is that there is no grounding for the assumptions that are taken in the the thought experiments. If what  is taken as an assumption has no truth to it then what is built upon it will also have no truth. However the assumption isn’t grounded on reality of what we know and sense between the difference of our conscious state and our sleep dream state. So if you were dreaming right know why aren’t  you being chased by lions and flying away from them? Why isn’t your long dead relative making an appearance and sitting next to you? why aren’t those things that happen to us in our dreams happening to us now?

As mentioned earlier, the framework of knowledge is important otherwise anything can be claimed! Not one of these philosophers could deny to live within their sensed realities- that has to be the basis upon which we build our knowledge- otherwise why do we refer to it when it comes to everyday living? You would not survive very long in this world if you denied the reality of the world. If you decided to exit a room through the wall instead of the door you would find your bones broken! Actually, one philosopher by the name of Pyrrho’s philosophical lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore cliffs, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and  his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards. (Note: Pyrrho’s philosophical stance that no knowledge is definite and therefore to be trusted is argued to be self-contradictory for this life premise to him was definite and trusted knowledge!)

Thinking irrationaly about God and his nature- when God is an unsensed reality

Leading to doubt of its existence

Leading to problems in life and society- fatalists

The errors in thinking and doubt increases when discussing the reality of God.  This has been a source of  contention and criticism between philosophers in the western and Islamic world debating the attributes of god. For example the question of evil : whether a God that was omnipotent could prevent the evil that exists and if not then that means he is not all-powerful and unlimited; but if he could but chooses not to then that would mean he is not omnibenevolent- all loving- so if not a good god or all-powerful god then why worship him?

Similarly the mutakillimeen philosophers of the Islamic world would debate how gods attributes could be understood such as His Knowledge and predestination. Famously, the speech of Allah in the form of the Quran was believed to be created by the Mutazilite school of thought through the examination of His attributes via the application of logical deduction as such:

 Major Premise: in the phenomenal realm, the Word of God is manifest in the texts of the Scriptures (i.e. the Qur'an and other religious scriptures)

 Minor Premise: these texts are composed of letters and sounds that are embodied alternately Conclusion: the Qur'an that is the embodiment of God's factual speech (Kala>m) is created

This conclusion contradicted another built on

 Major Premise: The Word of God (Kalam  Allah) is a product of the speech nature which is inherent in  God‟s Essence

 Minor Premise: All that become the attributes of God‟s Essence are eternal as the eternity of God Conclusion: the Word of God is eternal.

Likewise another group emerged believing that humans have no responsibility due to God controlling man’s actions , again by using logic to delve into the unseen nature of God as such:

God has no partners in creation

If man creates his actions then he is sharing creation with God

Therefore God creates man’s actions

Thus  the debate over his attributes  created a lot of confusion and even schisms within elements of society as these were matters of belief and used to define (and attack) ones identity as a proper believer.

Again the problem here is how the unsensed reality of God can be applied to our sensed reality; how can the infinite qualities by understood by limited beings; how can we square a circle.

(Note: This is dissimilar to the problems that arise when we start to go into questions of the infinite nature of  God and try to understand it when we don’t have access to its reality. If God is all-powerful then can He create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? If you answer yes, then how can He be all-powerful if He cant lift the stone? And if you answered no, then how can He be all-powerful if He can’t create a stone?

This question seems to suggest that such a being cannot therefore exist. However the paradoxical nature of the situation only appears because the question itself is a non-sensical question.

If we break down the question it is actually asking can an unlimited being be limited? Can an all-powerful entity not be powerful? Can an infinite also be finite? It is a nonsense question because by its definition it contradicts itself. Because the situation of being unlimited in power is dichotomous to being limited in power- there is no middle ground – therefore you are either limited or unlimited and you cannot be both by definition. Similar to a lightbulb being on or off. Therefore as it does not make sense as a question then we can disregard its challenge to this idea of the existence of an infinite creator.)

 

unsurprisingly, this is also the same sort of confusion that arises amongst the modern day philosophers of mathematics when trying to unravel the nature of Infinity. When mathematicians try to make a formula to represent the idea of the unlimited or the concept of ‘infinity’ then it starts to go against common sense understanding of reality. This is because it is mathematically and scientifically imposible to measure anything infinite in our limited lifespans as it could mean that the data is very large (larger than our lifespans) rather than infinite. When mathematicians like Cantor tried to quantify the infinite then they came out with different understandings of what it means mathematically. For instance Cantor, using his set theory demonstrated different  types of infinity such as transfinite, but this led to contradictions in the qppication of his formula, and paradoxes to arise. Needless to say even in mathematics there are disagreements and this is because there is no such thing in our reality as infinity. The numbers that mathematics represents are not real actual tangible and sensed things but are an abstract construct: you can’t hold a ‘2’ in your hand and add it to something that is a ‘3’ to get a ‘5’. What you can do is find 2 items and find another 3 items and put them together and then if you count them you will get 5 items. So the numbers do not exist outside of the reality they represent. Therefore any number or formula that tries to represent infinity is going to be full of speculation and doubt- it is just an abstract idea because in our reality there is no such thing as infinity. It ends up being  just fanciful philosophy as the ancient philosophers would talk about without any real knowledge. 

Is it any surprise then that mathematicians who spend their lives trying to prove their fanciful philosophy as real when there is no way to verify it are usually insane or end up insane (as Cantor did)– living in a different reality- just a modern day Pyrrho!

we don’t know what it means in our reality and when we try to apply the mathematical formula to life it doesn’t make sense: e.g.: Imagine a thin line, almost a thread, stretching to infinity in both directions. It runs to the end of the universe. It is, in essence, infinite. Now look at the space all around it. That also runs to the end of the universe. It’s also infinite. Both are infinite, yes, but are they the same? Isn’t one infinity bigger than the other? It doesn’t make sense but Cantor wanted to demonstrate this non-sensical idea mathematically using set theory. This demonstrates the mismatch between abstract mathematical ideas and reality.

Absurdities arise when an infinite sum of finite things (such as the celestial bodies within the universe) is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite even though it be very large indeed!

mathematics is abstract trying to represent the tangible world. So

also indefeniteness in number doesn’t equate to unlimitedness in power- can we understand it in our limited exposure to our reality of the limited world?

 Descarte: God alone is strictly infinite. Yet there are created beings, like extension and numbers, which are unlimited in certain respects. So Descartes introduces a technical distinction between the infinite, “that in which no limits of any kind can be found,” and the indefinite, that in which “there is merely some respect in which I do not recognize a limit” . An ordinary body, for example, is limited in size but unlimited in divisibility. The extension of the universe beyond the earth and stars, which Descartes sometimes calls “imaginary space,” is unlimited in size but limited in power, intelligence, and the like .But Descartes also emphasizes an epistemic side to the distinction. Infinite things are those that I “understand” to be absolutely unlimited (in all respects), while indefinite things are those in “which, from some point of view, we are unable to discover a limit.” Extension, for example, is indefinite because “no imaginable extension is so great that we cannot understand the possibility of an even greater one. But I understand God to be actually infinite “so that nothing can be added to his perfection”  Unlimited power/love : should it equate?

 God has infninite justice: human terms the criminal is punished but god forgives- does that mean he is not just?-

Fact is we cannot understand what is out of our reality- even if we think we do ….. ant crawling on an apple – round and round it goes- not knowing any other world- and then you pick it up into your world- does it even sense the power you have between your fingers to squash it? It might sense a difference in environment but does it get the full reality? Why doesn’t it crawl back onto the safety of the apple?

(maths: First of all, and most obviously, it’s a confusion about metaphysics. To ask, “How many positive integers are there?” is to presuppose an error. Sets aren’t “out there”. They are created. All sets are exactly as large as they’ve been created. There is no such thing as “all the positive integers”.

It’s like asking, “How many words does the largest sentence have in it?” And when you respond, “I don’t know, but at any given time, it’s a finite amount”, they say, “No! I can just add a word to it! It’s an actually-infinite sentence with an infinite number of words!”

Just because you can always add another word, doesn’t mean an “actually-infinite sentence” is out there.

Basing your thinking on this doubtful conclusions rather than on correct unspeculative rational conclusions.

 Would anything you think of anything useful, anything productive? Would anything you come out  

Strength of god

The stupidity of irrational thinking

Certain over uncertain thinking

Accepting the existence of the unseen is not the same as irrational thinking