The Person

By:  Joseph W Tibbles

This series will attempt to philosophically give good reason for the existence of God.   I say “give good reason” and not “prove” since, short of private revelation, there can be no proof.  It is intrinsically impossible to scientifically prove God, because science is the study of the world, and God is not naturally a being of the physical world.  Instead we must look within ourselves.

Before continuing, it is necessary to define what is meant by “God.”  For God to be God, he must be supernatural, omnus, and personal.  As the origin of nature, He must be completely above and separate from it.  He must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (in short:  omnus), or there would conceivably be a being greater still, and this would be God.  He must be personal to account for the existence of persons.  By “person” we mean a self-determining agent with motives directed towards ends, the ability to know truth, and the ability to have rights.

A popular argument for God’s existence is that nature requires a first cause.  We, however, do not know that.  The origins of the universe cannot be scientifically proven.  One can no more prove that the universe could be without a creator than one could prove that it could be with a creator.  Both sides of such an argument proceed from a prejudice either of the existence or the absence of a creator.  Thus, one would be assuming the answer fitting with one’s wish and working backwards from there.

One can, however, note the existence of their own person and those around him, and note that personality, however basic, cannot arise from chemical reactions, however complex.  It is conceivable that the most advanced animal life could have arisen by chance in nature, but it is inconceivable that a person could.

First, every man believes in his own person.  Some may say that they do not, but this is only academic.  All practically believe that they are a person.  For a man to believe that he is not a person in practice, he must never make a claim to want anything beyond bodily needs, never claim to have an opinion, and never claim a right or duty to anything.  Such a man assumes he is a person by engaging in an argument about not being a person, for he asserts that he has a proximate end in being right, that he knows something to be true, and that he has a duty to spread that truth.  A chemical reaction cannot have a non-physical end, know truth, or have a duty.

In engaging in an argument against his personality, a man must also assume that he with whom he is arguing is a person.  Such a man claims that another is attempting to reach a non-physical end in an erroneous way, that he is mistaken about the truth, and that he has a duty to admit his error.  A chemical reaction cannot have a non-physical end, cannot be wrong, and has no duty.

Second, whence does this personality come?  It cannot come merely from nature, because the person is qualitatively more than mere interaction of elements.  No matter how complex the reaction, matter simply cannot be a person.  It cannot have ends beyond natural ends, it cannot know anything, and it cannot be due anything.  The human person, however, can and does insist that its ends are not natural, that it is capable of knowledge, and that it is wrong to treat it as a mere natural phenomenon.

If nature could not originate personality, then what did?  Hence we must look outside of nature, for nature lacks the ability to answer the question.  Whatever introduced the first person into the world must be supernatural, because nature could not have produced it.  It must be omnus, for if it were not, than it would be merely the proximate source and not the ultimate one.  It must be a person, since it could not give us what it does not have.  It short, it must match the definition of God.  If it must match the definition of God, it must be God.

We now must note two things.  Firstly, theologians would argue that God must be a super-personal, but this is an argument for theologians and one for another time.  Secondly, that we got to this conclusion by the only means possible.  God is intrinsically supernatural and unable to be scientifically observed.  This means that He is artificial in the sense that He produced artifacts.  Such a being could only tell of his existence to created persons in two ways.  The first is from outside (revelation), but that would not be a philosophical proof and could not be done by the free will of God.  The second is from within (introspection), which God must do by the very definition of creating another person, and could only have done by creating another person.

Further articles under this heading are forthcoming.  They will range from answering questions, through expanding upon what was written, to branching into other topic concerned with the existence of God.  I will try to delve as little as possible into theology, since it is outside the mandate of the article.

Discussion can be held about the above article by following this link:  http://www.sophistsociety.com/forums/index.php?p=/discussion/57/deus-est

Philosophy of Islam is peace and
harmony in all affairs of man
By Dr Syed Bashir Ahmad

Palestinian women pray early morning in front of the Dome
of the Rock in the old city of Jerusalem yesterday. — AFP

People attend Friday prayer at the Grand Istiqlal
Mosque in Jakarta yesterday. — Reuters

IN his famous book, Gateway to Knowledge about Islam, Yusuf al Qaradhawi explains how Islam reforms the individual and society at large by addressing the issues of their soul and heart by making them the stimulus for change for a better world around them. Al Qaradhawi says science facilitated repairing exterior of the human being, but it failed in reforming his essence.

It has not been able to penetrate deep to the conscious, the cognizant, the sensitive and the susceptible “divine delicacy”, that which when is sound, leads to soundness of the human being; that which when deteriorates, leads to deterioration of the human being; that what is known as the heart or the self or the soul. Whatever that may be termed, that verily is the essence of the human being!

Science granted the human being tools to triumph over some of the forces of nature, but it did not give him means to prevail over his own self: over his desires, his distrust, his anxiety, fear, perplexity, while in conflict within himself and in clash with the society. Modern medicine and surgery have advanced to their farthest frontiers, in this century. Physicians have started saying that the science can eradicate all diseases, except death and old age! In spite of this, diseases have been proliferating, ramifying and spreading at an astonishing speed.

Out of these, “nervous and psychosomatic diseases”, are nothing but consequences and symptoms of the terrible contradiction, through which the individual and the society are passing. The secret of this is that the material knowledge, with all its diversity and discoveries, has not been able to know the reality of the human being. One, who knew the matter and its laws, could not know his own self. No wonder, that this situation led a great scientist like Alexis Carrel (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1912) to pen his famous book Man, the Unknown.

Hence, modern science tried to nurture all material aspects of the human body, but it failed to nourish the human-self along with its contents of conscience, aspirations and will. This led to tall and stout bodies with brawny muscles, but the other side, which is the essence of the human being, ended up suffering from arcane lot of crisis.

Modern psychology affirms that among the root causes of psychosomatic diseases are hatred, malice, fear, fatigue, despondency, dismay, distrust, selfishness and annoyance with the surroundings. All these relate directly to a life characterised by deprivation of faith in God. Islam indeed, is the most magnificent revolution of the human history. It is the revolution for liberty of every human being from servitude and submission to anyone other than his Creator. It is a revolution in the areas of thought, conscience and perception. It is a revolution in the world of reality and application.

The title of this revolution is the august expression and declaration of monotheism “laa ilaaha illallah” (there is non worthy of worship except the one and the only God, Allah). Thus, people are equal. No one should be allowed to enslave others nor should people tyrannise one another. If someone oppresses, tyrannises and perverts, others should obstruct his way and seize his hands, or else they will be considered accomplices in the sin and deserve the just retribution from Allah.

The Holy Quran affirms: “And incline not to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you; and ye have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall ye be helped. (Al Quran: Hud: 113) The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) says, “When people notice an oppressor and do not seize his hands, it is the time when Allah is about to punish them all with punishment from him”.

He makes it obligatory upon everyone spotting an oppression or corruption or injustice to strive for changing it with all possible means, “Anyone spotting an abhorrence, should change it with his hand; in case he can’t afford to do so, he should change it with (the communication skills of) his tongue; in case he can’t afford do so, he should curse it in his heart; this is the weakest (level) of the faith”. (Narrated by Abu-Dawud and Tirmizi as authentic).

As for the third step, the smallest possible benefit of this, in the short term, is the disgust with oppressors and does not allow the faithful to participate with them in eating and drinking, nor does he associate or befriend with them. The Prophet (PBUH) regarded resistance to internal oppression and depravation akin to resistance of external invasion and aggression; both are holy struggle for the divine cause. When asked: “which type of struggle is the best?”, he replied: “word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.” ( Narrated by Abu-Dawud and Tirmizi as authentic).

He thus regarded this type of struggle as the best and the paramount struggle. This is Islam, which prompts to resistance of oppression until death and regards the one who gives life for this cause, as a martyr of the divine cause. Such a martyr is ranked among the vanguards of glorious martyrs. Islam nurtures consciousness of dignity and self-esteem in a Muslim’s personality and makes it one of the characteristics and impressions of faith: “…honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers…” (Al-Quran: Al-Munafiqun:  “We have honoured the sons of Adam…” (Al Quran: Al-Isra’: 70)

“When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: “In what (plight) Were ye?” They reply: “Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth.” They say: “Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?” Such men will find their abode in Hell, — What an evil refuge!” (Al Quran: An-Nisa: 97)

Among the invocations, The Prophet (PBUH) taught us is: “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow; I seek refuge with You from helplessness and laziness; I seek refuge with You from miserliness and cowardice; I seek refuge with You from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men”.( Narrated by Abu-Dawud, under No: 1555). This invocation to Allah teaches seeking refuge with Allah from all manifestations of weakness that strike the human being, affect him, subjugate him and humiliate him.

Is Islam a threat? Indeed, Islam is a threat to those who do not want peace. The underlying philosophy of Islam is peace and harmony in all affairs of man and in his relationships with the natural world, the fellow human beings and with his own family and soul. Obviously, Islam is a threat to those materialistic powers who want to rule by creating chaos and follow a divide-and-rule policy to ensure their interests. Islam is a threat to those who make arms, promote arms race, like to fish in troubled waters and therefore have no stake in peaceful settlement of disputes. Islam is indeed a threat to oppressors for it stands for the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden people.

The struggle between the forces of good and evil, or truth and falsehood has been continuing since the dawn of time. Islam invites all peace-loving forces to join hands and work for a better world. Islam is the most vigorous of the world ideologies and its impact on the political and social history at the beginning of the new millennium is proving profound. Islam is a living ideology that opposes any kind of aggression and injustice. Hence, hegemonic powers are against it and its teachings. Islam is the only international code of conduct that challenges these powers that want to rule by creating chaos and follow a divide-and-rule policy to fish in troubled waters.

This is Islam, which calls for revolt against injustice, feebleness, helplessness and servitude and incites to advocacy of truth, strength and freedom. Is it fair to say about such a religion that it is an opium of the people and that it benumbs them with promises of bliss in the paradise, so that they keep mum about injustices in this world?!!!

e-mail: drbashirahmad@hotmail.com

To discuss this article please follow this link to the forum discussion.

http://www.sophistsociety.com/forums/index.php?p=/discussion/56/philosophy-of-islam-is-peace-and-harmony-in-all-affairs-of-man

Chalmers has a very interesting theory or at least a perspective on consciousness that differs greatly from Dennett and others. I hope you all enjoy the interview.

In order to best establish an acceptable theory of reality we must be reductive in nature to establish all the properties of an abstract notion such as reality. So how do you reduce what appears to be an abstract notion to a tangible theory with substance? Without factually defined parameters that are established as truth it seems quite impossible to determine that which is real without being reductive. This leaves little to do other than to be reductive in our search. By working in this fashion we should be able to establish the objective and the subjective, the constant and the flux.  Let us first look at what is commonly accepted as reality.

The common notion of reality is that if I or society deems an object or color as objectively real then it is, this however is greatly flawed in that it is plausible that what I perceive to be real is merely a subjective view of an abstract notion or object that may not be real to others. For example if I suffer from hallucinations I may perceive a goat in place of an ordinary tree where as others may perceive the tree. It is safe to say that manifestation although subjective in quality should never be so in type or quantity. This creates a problem for anyone who looks for a universal standard by which everything is measured to be or not. For those that fall in to this category there must be an objective standard for what is real and what is not. There must be a constant, there must be an established base for everything to be brought about that is independent of man. Reality must be an objective constant in that it consists entirely of constants. I will pursue a theory here that shows that this is in fact the case. I submit the following definition of reality:

Reality is the Metaphysical abstract structure that not only encompasses but also supports the constant extensions P, M, and N. There is a causal link between all properties and a functional requirement of each property to make that which is universally true.

Reality is categorically reducible in that all possibility, Natural Law, and Manifestations are extensions thereof and partake in the order of all things; all other aspects are products of these three extensions and would be considered universals. To expand and clarify, possibility is an extension of reality that maintains universals such as abstracts, essence, and attributes. All products of possibility consist singularly as a possible attribute or relation to a particular manifested later. Possibility is a constant in that it is consistently possible without ceasing to be possible. Examples of universals originating from possibility include but are not limited to numbers, colors, and shapes. In the case of natural law we see universals as possible properties subject to the parameters of natural law. For example the law of bivalence, Supervenience, and causation create a set of requirements before a manifestation can obtain possible properties. Manifestations encompass all objects or beings that take on a quality, quantity, or type that can either naturally or with the help of artificial tools be perceived by mans senses. A universal can logically hold a place in multiple extensions, for example if in the future, if man was able to perceive through his senses universals before manifestation or natural law before application of universals we then have universals maintained in dual extensions.

The complexity of reducing reality is something in question. It is important to understand that there must be a reductive review of the constants that make reality reality in order to best determine the importance anything that exists. Let us move forward. Reality consists of Possibility, Natural Laws, and Manifestations, without all three extensions reality is not. Abstracts (Forms or Universals) exist as possibilities but progress through natural law and finally to manifestations allowing our perceptions to translate the results. Physical objects exist as manifestations determined by possibility and natural law. The perception of these objects and abstracts etc. are merely translations of a subjective mind relying on experience to determine that which is truly there, unfortunately experience is neither universal nor does it contain the universal understanding required in order to fully understand truth before perception. We will begin the establishment of a sound theory with the expectation that each extension of reality is logically sound and can truly support all that is. If reality is a constant we then must expect that the universal extensions are sound in nature and the purpose of these universals fit logically with all others

• Front-facing video chat camera
• Improved regular back-camera (the lens is quite noticeably larger than the iPhone 3GS)
• Camera flash
• Micro-SIM instead of standard SIM (like the iPad)
• Improved display.
• What looks to be a secondary mic for noise cancellation, at the top, next to the headphone jack
• Split buttons for volume
• Power, mute, and volume buttons are all metallic

And some video footage of the iPhone from all angles, enjoy.

After a few contacts, some video releases, and eager iPhone customers speculating a release date apple demands the iPhone be returned in a letter shown here in this article.

If you haven’t seen the video yet, it’s here.

Hare then a day later upload this video response stating his comments were taken out context and that the constitution is “near and dear to him”. Hare states “he is sorry this had to happen”. The video response was posted on April 2nd and has had over 112,000 views. Enjoy