1 A number of objections are made upon the Existence of Deity. Some time they are considered as Proofs of Non Existence of Deity. It has been tried to response some of the objections one Deity. The Deity is a Per Se Subsistent Essence that is Per Se Eternal ,Necessary Existent , Self Existent and Omnificent. It is tried to answer some of the most repeated arguments /proofs against Divine Essence. Divine Essence Is Itself In Itself. Any thing That is in the Divine Esseince is Divine Essence Itself and Absolutelu Identical to It. Deity is the Divine Essence and Divine Essence is the Deity. That is the reason the technical term for Deity that is Supreme Existent is Divine Essence. Any thing that is Per Se Subsistent is Essence. Essence of a Suppositum is Identical to the Supossitum. Time and Space what so ever they are are Contingent Existent and are Created By Divine Essence. Existence/Vuju:d/Esse of Divine Essence [‘ADH:DH:A:T ‘AL ‘LU:HIAH] is ABSOLUTELY Identical to It. A Number of Objections are borrowed from Weki Paedia and are responded . The Approach is “Ash”arian in Principle and it is for every one “To Whom It May Concern”. Not Necessary Muslims , All those who agree with this approach whether inside ‘Isla:m or Outside it may use this approach if they agree with it.
Atheism
Concepts
History
[show] Types[show] Arguments for atheism[hide] Against God's existence
Atheist's Wager Evil God Challenge
Fate of the unlearned
Free will
God of the gaps
Hitchens's razor
1
2
Incompatible properties
Inconsistent revelation
Nonbelief
Omnipotence paradox
Poor design
Problem of evil
Problem of Hell
Russell's teapot
Theological noncognitivism
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
People[show] Related stances[show]
Atheism portal
WikiProject
Part of a series on
Irreligion
2
v
t
e
3 Irreligion[show] Atheism[hide]
History
Demographics
Discrimination/Persecution
Criticism
Lists of atheists
Forms and variations Implicit and explicit
Negative and positive
New
State Christian
Hindu
Jewish
Aspects Anti-clericalism
Antireligion
Antitheism
3
4
Relationship between atheism and religion
Existence of God
Agnosticism[show] Nontheism[show] Naturalism[show] People[show] Books[show] Secularist organizations[show] Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
v
t
e
Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—by demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts—or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.
Empirical arguments Empirical arguments depend on knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation to prove their conclusions.
4
5
The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.
ANSWER:=
This is an irrelevant argument. Revelation is in Power of Deity but it is not Deity Itself. It is Per Se Possible that Deity Existeth and Revealeth no thing.
Deity Hath even Power to reveal contradictions in the Speech of Revelation. So if there is a Deity the Deity cannot be disproved just by shewing that there are contradiction revelations. So if Deity revealeth falsehood and false sentences even then it doeth not disprove the Divine Existence. Divine Existence is some thing Else. Revelation is an other thing . It is an Act of Deity not Even an Attribute Of Deity. So Deity Existeth there are several Per Se Possibilities or Per Se Contengincies.
PROBLEM OF MORAL ATTRIBUTES
The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
ANSWER
(a)
If it is supposed that both Good and Evil are Created by Deity even then Deity is not disproved. It is supposed that if Deity Existeth , If Deity is Omnipotent and Omniscient but not Omnibenevolent Deity continueth to Exist. It is just the disprove of an alleged Attribute of Deity. So Divine Existence cannot be disproved by disproving that Omnibenevolence is an Attribute Of Deity.The problem of Evil is based upon the Relative and Moral Attributes of Deity. Epicurus made a famous argument Against the Supreme Existent which is presented with some modifications: It is said that :If Deity is Omnipotent and Hath Power to Annihilate Evil but does not Willeth to Annihilate Evil then Deity is Malevolent and Not Omni-benevolent. If Deity is not Willing to Annihilate Evil and Doeth Not Hath Power to Annihilate Evil then Deity is neither Omnipotent nor Omnibenevilent nor Omnivolent but Melavolent.
(b)
It is said that Deity does not shew high moral Attributes so Deity is not a Perfect Existent. Discussion:
5
6 A number of attempted proofs against the Existence of Deity , state that Deity doeth not shew high moral Attributes and if Deity lacketh atleast one of them or possesseth atleast one of them in inferfect type Deity Ceaseth to be Deity. This may be a problem to those theologians and theists who do not differentiate between Essential Attributes of Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence [i.e Deity] ,which are Absolute Attributes of Deity and Moral Attributes of Deity which are Relative Attributes of Deity. According to them Relative Attributes of Deity are just as natural/essential as the natural/essential attributes, being an integral part of the nature of God. But there is a difference between the two types of Divine Attributes. Moral Attributes are Relative Attributes and are relations between an Essential Attribute Of Deity and Divine Acts Of Deity. All the Relative Attributes of Deity are Separate and Distinct From Divine Essence [i.e Deity] ; they are Finite, Limited , Not Eternal and Not Absolute. Each Relative Attribute is Per Se Possible / Per Se Contingent to be Annihilate. Their Annihilation is Not Per Se Absurd / Per Se Impossible. On the contrary Essential Attributes Are Associated [Sustained With /Qa:’im] With the Divine Essence [i.e Deity] or Are Identical [“AIN] ; Annihilation and Negation of each one of them is Per Se Absurd and Annihilation of any one of them Per Se Implieth Annhilation of Divine Essence Itself [i.e Deity Himself]. Divine Essence Hath the Power to Annihilate Evils but Deity is Not Willing to Annihilate it. This implieth that Deity is Not Omnibenevolent. Since Deity is Benevolent but not Omnibenevolent. Since Benevolence of Divine Essence is not Omnibenevolence ; Since Benevolence is a Relative Attribute and It cannot be Absolute Infinite, Unlimited and Eternal. A number of Divine Relative Attributes are in Divine Omnipotence. No Divine Absolute Attribute whether Negative [eg. Infinity,Eternity] or Positive i.e Essential [Omnipotence] is in Divine Omnipotence. All Relative Attibutes of Deity are Annihilatable and No Essential Attribute is Annihilatable . So as Deity i.e Divine Essence is Most Benevolent but still not Omnibenevolent some of His Acts are beyond Moral Attributes. Existence of Evils is one of them. Similarly as Moral Attributes are Relative Attributes Some Acts of Deity are beyond their Domain and they are due to Divine Wisdom . However it they cannot be claimed to be IMMORAL Acts for example if Deity is not Willing to Annihilate Evils it doeth not mean Deity is Malevolent. The reason is as follow:
6
7 1] If Divine Essence was Omnibenevolent Deity Would have Willed /Intended to Annihilate All Evils inspite of any Wisdom in their Existence and Any Wisdom for Non Willing to Annihilate them. But Divine Essence is Benevolent and Not Omnibenevolent that is why Evil Existeth. 2] If Omnibenevolence would have a been a Positive Absolute Attribute [Essential] then Divine Essence would not have created a Single thing. Since this Attribute implieth to Creat the Best of the Best Creations . But there are Infinite Per Se Contingents, that is to each and every distinct Per Se Possible Creation there is one Diistinct Creation that is Better then It and there are infinite Per Se Possible Distinct Creations. So this is just like to chose the Greatest Finite Number from the Set of All Real Numbers . This is Per Se Impossible . So Omnibenevolence is Is Not an Essential Attribute of Divine Essence. 3] If Omnibenevolence is an Essential Attribute then Divine Essence Ceaseth to be Omnipotent , Since to in this case It Would have been Per Se Absurd for Divine Essence to make any Creature that can do Evil. This implieth that Divine Essence Would not have been a Perfect Existent.So Perfect Existence of the Perfect Existent Implieth that some Attributes must not be associated or referred to Divine Essence since it is a Perfect Existent. 4] If Omnibenevolence would have been a Relative Attribute then Divine Essence would have a choice to select inferior Worlds but not Superior Worlds which are Per Se Possible. This implieth once again imperfection in Divine Essence. Any How it cannot be an Attribute of Divine Essence. Therefore Divine Essence is Benevolent but not Omnibenevolent. No Relative Attribute is Absolute and the word Omni is used for ABSOLUTE Attributes.
7
8 Note: If an Agent hath Right to do an act then the acts is not Immporal for the Agent. Say if it is the right for the Divine Essence to Speak a False Sentence then to speak a false sentence is not Immoral even if Divine Essence never Speaketh Falshood. SOME TYPES OF ACTS:: There are some types of Acts which are Immoral on Human Level but are Per Se Absurd Upon Divine Essence,like Acts Of Fornication, Raping,Homosextuality, Heterosextuality, Intercourse, Catabolism, Stealing,,Robbing, etc., They constitute a different case from the acts which are Immoral on Human Level but are In Power of the Divine Essence like Punishing some one for an Act which the Person Hath not Committed. The Necessary and Sufficient condition for the Per Se Possibility of these acts is to be converted into a Body or to become a Finite Existent or to become Non Absolute. Such act which require Human Organs are all Per Se Absurd and None of them is Per Se Contingent. So these acts and acts which are not immoral on human level but have the condition stated above are Per Se Absurd Upon Divine Essence like Urination, Womitting ,Tasting, Smelling ,touching, etc. Speaking falsehood is different from this type since Divine Essence Doeth not Require Material Organs to Speak. If the Act of Speaking requireth them the Act of Speaking would have been as Per Se Absurd Upon Divine Essence as the Sexual Acts. Whether Moral or Immoral since they do require Organs for their Agents as Necessary and Sufficient Condition for Its Per Se Contingency for the Agents and the Dooers. So it is clear that the difference between Divine Essence and Human Essences is in regard to some Acts are clear.
Destiny Of The Nevangelized Persons. The destiny of the nevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.
ANSWER
It is highly controversial what shall happen to such persons and rational supposita. A number of theologists do believe that Deity Shall not Punish them. So this is not a DISPROVE OF DEITY.
The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
ANSWER: This is a Fallacious Argument. To Design is just an Act of Deity. Deity Hath Power to Create a Design better then any arbitrary Possible Design. There are Infinite such Possible Designs. Each in Power of Deity. If Deity chooseh any one of them by His Own Free Will , still there are infinite distinct Designs Superior to it and infinite distinct Design inferior to it. Each is in Omnipotence of Deity. Selecting any one of them is due to the Free Will/Intention. As Deity is Absolutely Free Agent , Deity Can Choose and Create [I.E Hath Attribute Of Will/Omnivalence to Chose and Omnipotence to Create]. How ever the Design is not so poor as allged but it is
8
9 quite rich and beautiful. Fron the Universe to the inside of a nucleus every where is is a wise design and to claim such a marvelous design as poor is highly controversial.The complexity of the universe doeth imply that the Design is complex and not poor. So this is based on a claim which is itself the most controversial claim of all times if not all eternities.
The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
ANSWER : Divine Will is Free and Deity is a Free Agent. If Deity Selecteth or Chooseth an act it doeth not mean that Deity cannot chose a better one. There are infinite such acts and between any two acts there are distinct infinite acts. So what Deity Hath choseth by His Own Free Will cannot be refuted if a better act is known. There are always infinite distinct Possible Better Acts . So this argument is incorrect.
The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (nonsupernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods, [53] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
ANSWER: Occam Razor is some time a fallacy and is the fallacy of Occam Razor.Occam Razor is just probable and not Per Se Necessary. Occum Razor is sometime concides with the fallacy of Over Simplication and thus in this case it becometh a fallacy.
Ad Ignorantium
The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell's teapot analogy can be considered an extension of Occam's Razor.
Russel’s argument is incorrect and false. Let Suppose a thing that is an Exception from the Principle of burden of proof. Now there are just two Logical Possibilities. 1) Either such a Supposed Existent Doeth Not Exist. 2) Or such an Existent Doeth Exist. Since the Middle is Excluded. In the case such an Existent Doeth Not Exist even then it is True that if Such an Existent Existeth the Existence is independent of the burden of Proof. If such an ExistentDoeth Exist then such an Existent doeth not require any Proof. Also the claimant of such an existent doesth not have burden of Proof upon Him. Mathematically Burden of proof is upon both sides and not upon the positive claimant.
It is the Fallacy of AD IGNORANTIUM. This may be defined as follow: A conclusion based on the basis of lack of Evidence/Proof to the contrary. It is the violation of the Principle “Absence of Evidence/Proof is not an Evidence /a Proof of absence.” Logical Forms:
9
10 X is True because there is no proof that X is False. [First Form] X is false because there is no proof that X is True. [Second Form]. It is the second form which is generally used by Atheists.. Its complex form is to confuse the Burden of proof and the Second form of Ad Ignorantium with one another and this is done in attempt to prove the Non Existence of Divine Essence.
ARGUMENT OF STEPHEN HAWKING
Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[54] Some Christian philosophers disagree.[55]
ANSWER: Deity is a Necessary Existent [Va:jib ‘Al Vuju:d]. If such an Existent Existeth then the Existent , the Essence of the Existent and all Its Essential Attributes are Uncreated. It is Per Se Possible to Suppose that Deity Doeth not Exist. But it is it is Per Se Absurd that Deity Doeth not Exist like it is Possible to suggest that Contradictions are Per Se Contingent but it doeth not means that it is Not Impossile. The Question is Who Created the Universe?
Now there is an answer that An Uncreated [Ghair Makh:lu:q],Eternal[Qadi:m], Self Existing[Mauju:d Bidh: Dh:at] ,Per Se Subsisting[Qa:’im Bi Nafsihi:] and Necessary Existing[Mauju:d Bil Vuju:b] Creator [ Deity/’Ila:h] Did Create the Universe. If the answer is this then the alleged deflection to the Question “Who Created the Uncreateded, Necessary, Per Se Subsistent, Self Existing and Eternal Creator becometh Iincorrect and Wrong, So this ceaseth to be an argument against the Uncreated Deity. If it is Possibile to Explain the question about the Beginning of the Universe with out a Deity, it doeth not mean that the Doeth Not Exit. It isjust a theory. Either Deity Existeth or Deith Existeth Not. If Deity
10
11 Existeth then all the Theories becometh incorrect and wrong. If Deity Doeth not Existeth then these theories are the Theories of Absurds. So based on a theory the Very Existence of the Deity cnnot be disproved.If it is claimed that Gravity or La of Gravity is sufficient to explain the Creation of The Universe then the Question is either this Gravity or Law of Gravity is Hath a Beginning or It is With out a Beginning. It it is Not Without a Beginning i.e it is with a Beginning then the the question is Who did Create this Law Of Gravity or Very Gravity or both???? The question once again is a Problematic. But if the Latter is true that this Gravity or Law of Gravity is With Out a Beginning then Either It is Per Se Subsistent [Qa:’im Bi Nafsihi:] or it is not. In the case if It is then it is an Essence since one that Existeth and is Per Se Subsistent [Qa:’im Bi Nafsihi:] is an Essence [Dh:a:t] . In this case it is nothing but a Divine Essence. At best a Non Living Divine Essence. This is an Imperfect Concept of Divine Essence, If it is not Per Se Subsistent then it Must Subsist in Some thing that Existeth [Mauju:d] and is Per Se Subsistent. If it Existeth in some thing that Existeth and is Per Se Sibsistent Essence then it is an Existing Essence. This implieth that this Per Se Subsistent is The Divine Essence . In this case It is at most an Imperfect Divine Essence [Deity] . The Only Difference is that it is Imperfect ,Non Living,With out a Will and Infinitely inferior to the Perfect Divine Essence. So inferior that it can be studied in Science of Physics. So this is to bring Divine Essence in the Domain of Physics not to Deny The Divine Essence...
Deductive arguments Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. BOEING ARGUMENT
The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates.
ANSWER :This is not implied. Since All the Theologists believe that Deity is Infinitely and Absolutely Simple.
There is no such implication that if creation is complex then its Creator if there is one is also Complex.
Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading.
ANSWER:= Deity is Omnipotent and Complexity is Per Se Possible and Per Se Contingent. So If Deity is Absolutely Simple, and Omnipotent and Omnificent Deity Can Create any Complex thing how so ever Complex it may be . Since It is the Omnipotence over Per Se Possible Complexity. Complexity of a Created Possible Doeth Not Imply the Complexity of the Creater whether there is an Omnificent and Omni-Creator or there is not such a Creator. In either case this objection is incorrect. In the case if there is no Deity ,even then this argument is wrong .It must be noted that if the claim is true even then the proof given for the claim is incorrect. In such cases one can owe to an other proof if any . This is a general rule. So this proof or argument what so ever it may be against the Existence of Deity is Incorrect and Unsound.
11
12
747 GAMBIT
The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
ANSWER :COMPLEXITY IS PER SE POSSIBLE AND A COMPLEX STRUCTRE WHAT SO EVER IT IS , IS PER SE CONTINGENT AND DIVINE ESSENCE IS PER SE SIMPLE AND ESSENTIALLY OMNIPOTENT. AS DIVINE ESSENCE HATH POWER OVER PER SE CONTINGENT POSSIBLE STRUCTURE DIVINE ESSENCE CAN CREATE IS BY ITS OMNIPOTENCE [ABSOLUTE POTENTIALITY / POWER /’AL QUDRAH ‘AL MUT:L-Q-H]AND OMNIVOLENCE [ABSOLUTE WILL /INTENTION] .
There is no Per Implication between a Complex Creation and the Complexity of the Creator Essence . That is Complexity and Complications of a Creation/Creature Doeth not Imply the Complication or Complexity of the Creator.
.OMNIPOTENCE ALLEGED PARADOX
The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?"
This Question is based upon the incorrect and wrong concept of Omnipotence. Onipotence is an the Attribute of Power that is one Each and Every Self Possible Per Se Possible or Intrinsic Contingent, It is not on Per Se Absurd and Per Se Necessary. So Any thing that is Per Se Absurd or Per Se Necessary [that is Divine Essence Itself] is not in Divine Omnipotence and it is Per se Absurd for any Per Se Absurd and Any Per Se Necessary to be in Divine Omnipotence. As Per Se Possibles and Per Se Contingents are Infinite and to each and every Per Se Comntingent there is a Per Se Contingent distinct from it, they are infinite,The Divine Omnipotence is said to be Absolute in the Meaning it is above each and every Per Se Possibile with the Exception of Divine Essential Attributes. So this is based on the incorrect and wrong definition of the word Omnipotence. Omnipotence is alwas defined in regard to Per Se Contingents , neither in regard to Per Se Absurds npor in regard to Per Se Necessaries. There is no Attribute that is the Ability to Bring a Per Se Absurd in Existence or to Created A Per Se Subsistent Absurd [Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t] or to Send a Per Se Necessary Out of Existence or to Annihilate a Per Se Necessary. If there is an Attribute then such an Attribute is not a Perfection but an Imperfection and is Per Se Absurd upon Deity.
Paradoxes , Contradictions, Excluding the Middles , Self Contradictions, are included in Per Se Absurds and Absolute Impossibles. So there is no Paradox in the Divine Omnipotence.
AN ALLEGED PARADOX OF OMNISCIENCE 12
13
The omniscience paradox contests further problems between omnipotence and omniscience, such as a lack of ability to create something unknown to God.
ANSWER: It must be noted that such things are Per S e Absurd and are discussed above.
The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.
If Deity is Omnipresent then this is an irrelevant argument. Omnipresence and Immanance has no thing to do with the Perpetual Punishment. Only Omnibenevolence is an attribute which contradicts the Ever Lasting Punishment. But this is the Denial of just one Divine Attribute and not of the Divine Essence it self.As Omnibenevolence if it is an Atttribute is not Per Se Essential Attributes [Dh:a:ti Bidh: Dh:a:t] but an Active or Relative Attribute and Negetion of an Active Attribute doeth not Imply the Negation of Per Se Subsistent Essence of Deity.
It is often tried to shew that Cantor’s theorem is a Propblem of Omniscience. But it is shewn by Propfessor Gary Mar in His article “Why Cantor Theorem Against God Does Not Work that Cantor ‘Theorem cannot refute Divine Omniscience. An other objection is that Divine Essence cannot know the truth of the statement:
N=No One Doeth Know that N is True.
Since if this is True then it is implied that Divine Essence Also Doeth Not Know Its Truth. If it is false then its Negation is ~N which is “Some Do Know that N is True. The Negation of the statement implieth that The Original Statement is logically true. Since it is true under all values. If true then it is not known to Divine Essence.
An answer to this argument is that: All the Human beings who know this statement if know that this is a logically true statement then to say Divine Essence cannot Know it s truth is incorrect and wrong. If this statement is true then no logician would have known that it is logically true. But may logicians know it. So why to exclude Divine Essence when Human do know its truth. This shews that it is not a Pure Truth but it is a Paradox. It is just a theorital truth which is actually false since if all the logicians who accept this statement as true know its truth poving that this is false.If a single human logician knoweth that it is logically true hence true then it is false on both sides. Also it is a complex fallacy like the statement as follows:
No One Know that A Circular Squire Exists in Reality. Its negation is Some Do Know that Circular Squire Exists in Reality. Original Statement and its contradictions/negation are equally false , since it is a complex statement.
PROBLEM OF DIVINE WILL/INTENTION
The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore, our free will contradicts an omniscient god.
13
14 Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.
ANSWER: This objection is one that compelled some of the theists like Qadriah, Mu:su:viah, Jahmiah and Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal to deny that Divine Knowledge is Eternal and Compreheneth every thing . So the believe that Divine Knowledge is Temporal [H:a:dith:]. Actually there is an objection to the freedom of Will of any Rational Suppositum as well as the Divine Essence Itself. But this doeth not Disproveth the Existence of Necessary Existence It Self.
Divine Will/ Intention [‘Ira:dah] is Absolutely Free [‘Al H:-rr ‘Al M-t:l-q /’Al H:-rr-h ‘Al M-t:l-q-h]. It Hat the Capabilty to Choose any Per Se Contingent for Creation. It can Chose more that One Per Se Contingent simultaneously . But it is Immutable . It is often alleged that If Divine Essence is Omniscient then freedom Ceaseth to be . This is incorrect on several reasonings. Supponse that there are to Absolute Willers. 1] One of then is Omniscienct .2] Other of them is not Omniscient. Let there be two Mutually Exclusive Per Se Possibles SAY A and B. Now for Second Existent it free to chose either A or B. The same is true for the first Existent since the Omniscience of the first Doeth not Cease the Freedom of Its Essence i.e The First Existent to Choose A or B.Wills of both are equally free to chose any one of the two Per Se Possibles A and B. The only difference between the two is that the First One Doeth Know what Its Will shall Chose and the Second One Doeth not Know.The Will/Intention of the Second Willer /Intender is not obstructed by any Attribute while choosing A or B.The same is true for the firat since Omniscience also doeth not obstruct in its choosing whether it be A or It be B. Now we come to another question . In the case of the first if it is known to the Willing/Intending Per Se Subsistent Willer/Intender that He shall Chose A and Shall not chose B then can this Intending /Willing Essence Choose B and not Chose A.The answer is that the can-ness [Ability] to choose is there and it is not obstructed by any Attribute what so ever. So it is free to Choose in this way with out any Obstacle. So its freedom to choose B and not to choose A or Not to choose any one of them is conserved and doeth not cease. In the case if it chooseth so then immediately it is implied that Omniscience Ceaseth to be Omniscience and becometh a Not Omniscience Knowledge. So if the Omniscience is correct then It is known [Omniscienced] to the Omniscient that what so ever His Will shall chose it shall be by its intrinsic freedom and It Shall choose A and Shall not Choose B as a Free Act of Choice. Now if it is supposed that Will Chooseth against the Omniscience then Omniscience is not Omniscience, not that Free Will or Free Intention is Not Free Intention. So Either the Eternal Attribute of Knowledge is Omniscience or it is Not. In the second case What so ever the Will/Intention chooseth it is not known to the Divine Omniscience and Divine Essence. In the First case it is Known that what so ever Shall be chosen shall be chosen by thr free Will and What shall not be chosen shall not be chosen by the free Will. So the Divine Omniscience Supporteth Freedom of the Will. It may be said that Doeth the Omniscient Know that His Free Intention/Free Will Chose A or not Chose A , AND Similarly for B.. That is Does Divine Omniscient Know His Will Can Chose A and Chose B equally when It is Known to the Omniscient that the Will/ Intention Shall Chose A and Shall not Chose B. The answer is in affirmation. That is It is Kown by the Omniscient that The Will can chose B even if It is known that the free Will shall not chose B. So if the Will chose the opposite then it is not the freedom of the Will/Intention that is lost but the Omniscience it Lost. But an Omniscience is Perfect and Pure so it is Per Se Absurd for it to be Incorrect Insound and Erroneous . So neither they two Contradict each other not the two are mutually exclusive Attributes.
14
15
. CHICKEN ARGUMENT
A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
ANSWER:=The word Deity is once again is incorrectly used by the Anti God Objection Makers. Since Deity meaneth A Per Se Subsistent Essence that Is Eternal, Necessary Existent and Omnific and Omnificient. As Omnificience [‘AL Kh:aliq ‘Al Mut:l-q] and Self Existence are the Necessary Attributes of Deity then it cannot be applied to the Deity. Now either ther is a Deity that is Eternal, Necessary Existing, Self Existing and Omnificen or there is no such Exitent. Yet in any case (whether there is such a Divine Existent or there is no such Divine Existent (Deity)) this assumption cannot be applied to the Uncreated Omnificent [Creator]...
Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the godconcept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.
This is a Logical Fallacy. Since if a thing is not verifiable by Scientific Tests it does not imply that it is Disproved by Scientific Text. If Deity ws disproved by some Scientific Tests it must have been an Error in the Tests since Scientific Tests are incapable to Test Deity. They all fail . If some tests fail , they yield absurd and incorrect results .
PROBLEM OF MORALITY
The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, He would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans.
ANSWER: Moral Attributes are not Essential Attributes Of Deity. Some Theologians have confused deliberately the difference between different types of Divine Attributes and argued that all Divine Attributes are equal in Eternity and Necessity. But this is not the case. Divine Essnce Hat Omnipotence over all Per Se Contingents. Imperfect Existents are Also Per Se Contingents and Divine Essence Chose any thing to Create to Create that is in the Omnipotence of the Divine Essence. Also Absolutely Perfect Creations are Per Se Absurd. .
Inductive arguments Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
15
16
EXISTENTIAL ARGUMENT
The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness.
ANSWER: Existence [Vuj:d] is not the Divine Attribute but the very Essence Itself. So if they are Absolutely Identical [ or Essentially Identical] , not even Relatively Identical then none can precede they other. As this argument is based on the supposition If –Then, and it is shewn that If Part is not True the second part if it is true cannot be accepted with out a proof. It is a fallacy to attempt to disprove a claim by saying something that is either wong or incorrect or unproved or disproved .
ALLEGED CONTRADICTION IN DIVINE ESSENCE
Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."
ANSWER:= There is no contradiction. Divine Essence [Deity] is Itself in Itself.To say some thing A is for B is used in some different Meanings.1) Intrinsic For or Intransitive For. 2) Extrinsic or Transitive For. The first type doeth not imply a distinction between the Thing that is Prior to the word “For” and the Thing that is Posterior to the word “For”. But the second type implieth a Distinction between the two.The word “For” in the second meaning doeth imply a contradiction with the Divine Inness in Itself but this Inness doeth not Contradict the Intrinsic Forness . That is the reason that this objection is made. It is based upon a confusion between the two types of Forness/Forhood , one that is Intrinsic and one that is Extrinsic. The meaning of the word “For”. If it is said that “A is for B” then this meaneth that If B is Annihilated then it is implied that A is Annihilated , It is Per Se Absurd for A to Exist With Out the Existence Of B, All the Perfections of A are only for B, and A is Imperfect With Out B. In case of Divine Essence If Divine Essence Annihilateth (Let it be supposed for sake of an Argument the Very Essence it self Ceaseth,It is Per Se Absurd for Divine Essence to Exist With Out Itself, All Perfections of Divine Essence is for The Very Divine Essence Itself, and Divine Essence is Imperfect without Itself since It is Per Se Implied that it violateth the first principle of the Principles [Laws] of Thought and any thing that doeth so even in supposition is Imperfect. How ever if it is supposed that it is Per Se Absurd for Any Thing That is Itself In Itself to be Itself for Itself IN any Positive meaning of the Word “For” then it is in the Negative Meaning for the word “for” that is it is not for
16
17 Any thing that is Separate or Distinct From It. The next claim that One That is Complete is dead or Non Living is just a claim and is based on the incorrect meaning of Life and Death. Completion neither implith death not is implied by death. It is used in the meaning “ One that Posseseth All the Essential Perfections” and one that does not lack any one of the Essential Perfection, having or all Essential Attributes of Perfections .It does not mean Cessation or Terminus. That is one that Ceaseth no Continue to Exit. The word In is not used in the meaning that it is a container and it containeth it self such that the Container is Distinct from the Container ot at least Container is not the Contained One. This is not the meaning. It means that It is some thing that is Self Of Itself and it is Per Se Subsistent for any thing other then It Self to be In It. The terms In and for are not used in spetial meanings as incorrectly assumed. . . It is not used in the meaning of something which is near to be finished. So this objection is based upon the incorrect meaning of the word Complete.[Mukammal], Coerrect meaning is Ka:mil [Perfect with out need of any Attribute of Perfection ].
NO REASON TO ACT ARGUMENT
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Mises's "Human Action". He referred to it as the "praxeological argument" and claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants faster—showing it imperfect.
ANSWER:= This is an argument which is a fallacy that is to suppose some thing that is unproved or wrong. It is supposed that Deity shall not do an act/doing if there is no desire to do it, no desire to do it,no want to do it and no need to do it. Deity is the Free Agent and Deity Doeth an act by His Free Will/Intention. Deity doeth not do any act due to desire or want or wish or need or want or some of them or all of them. For Deity to do a thing/act and not to do an act is equal. Neither Deity doeth an act due to a want nor Deity doeth not do an act due to not-want, etc. Deity Is Himself Unreasoned Reasons of Reason, Uncause Cause of Causes, Uncreated Omnificient and Omnivalent. It is Divine Will that Deity Doeth an Act and It is Divine Will If Deity Doeth not an act. If Deity Doeth an Act By His Omnipotence and Omnivalence [ALL-WILL] and not due to desire or want. This is a bad Analogy often used to confuse. Per Se Absurdity of Desires, Wants,Needs, Wishes etc. doeth not Imply the Cessation of Omnipotence Of Deity (Divine Omnipotence) , Similarly Per Se Absurdity of these Humanly Attributes Upon Deity
17
18 Doeth Not imply the Cessation of Divine Attribute of Will. The difference of Act and Attribute is neglected and that is why this objection is based on a supposition that is false even if Deity Doeth not Exist but is Supposed to Exist just for some arguments. This argument is at least based upon a false analogy and atmost upon a weak analogy of human acts and wants.
ALLEGED HISTORICAL ARGUMENT
The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ANSWER:This is an incorrect argument . Since if a number of deities hath been proved false it is not implied that the Deity shall also be proved wrong. This is a kind of begging the question. The Stephen F, Robert is certainly wrong since an Athiest is one who Does not Believe in Any Deity. Dismissing some of Deities is not Atheism. This is a very wrong use of the term Atheism.
Subjective arguments See also: Anecdotal evidence Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect.
The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God.
18
19
ANSWER: This is not a prove that Deity Existeth Not. Deity is a Free Agent and To Help and Not to Help both are equally Per Se Contingent. So If there is a Deity then It depends Upon the Will of Deity whether He Helpeth or Helpeth Not. Implying that this is not a disprove of Deity. Also not to believe in some thing is one thing and to disprove a thing is another thing. This is not a disproved of Deity.
Hindu arguments Atheistic Hindu doctrines cite various arguments for rejecting a creator God or Ishvara. The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra of the Samkhya school states that there is no philosophical place for a creator God in this system. It is also argued in this text that the existence of Ishvara (God) cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.[56] Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. This is Ad Igno
CHANGING AND IMMUTABLITY For instance, it argues that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever-changing world. 1]It says God is a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances.[57] ANSWER: THERE IS NO IMPLICATION THAT IF CHANGES AAND MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE IN CREATIONS A CHANGING OR MUTATION IS PER SE IMPLIED IN THE ESSENCE THAT IS THE CRERATOR.
2] The Sutras of Samkhya endeavor to prove that the idea of God is inconceivable and selfcontradictory, and some[which?] commentaries speak plainly on this subject. The Sankhya- tattvakaumudi, commenting on Karika 57, argues that a perfect God can have no need to create a world, and if God's motive is kindness, Samkhya questions whether it is reasonable to call into existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering. Samkhya postulates that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like the real world.[58] ANSWER: THE CLAIM OF SELF CONTRADICTION IS WITH OUT ANY PROOF. ANSWERS TO REPEATED ARGUMENTS MAY BE SEEN ABOVE.
3]Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy, decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God is insufficient. They argue that there is no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there is no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a god to validate the rituals.[59] Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of gods.[60]
19
20 ANSWER : THIS IS THE SOURCE OF A NUMBER OF ATHEISTS LIKE STEPHEN HAWKING AND BARTAND RUSSEL ETC. BUT THIS IS A FALLACY SINCE NON EXISTENCE OF PROOFS OF A CLAIM IS NOT A PROOF OF NON EXISTENCE OF A THING.
Theism Atheism Atheism
Answer :=
This isAd Ignorantium
Negative and positive atheism Some[who?] strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false. Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism. ANSWER:= There is no Logical Contradiction in Divine Essence [Deity]. So The claim rest upon the attemts of to shew Logical Contradictions. Yet there is none. A number of things depends Upon different definitions of a Divine Attribute. It is therefore necessary to shew whether there is a contradiction so that one may proceed to discuss on the attempted proofs of the claim of Logical Contradictions and Paradoxes in Deity.
THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS PROPOSED AGAINST DEITY BY MY SELF AND THEN I MY SELF HAVE ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE THEM: 1] DEITY IS SAID TO BE SELF INDEPENDENT. ALSO DEITY IS SAIND TO BE SELF DEPENDENT. BOTH OF THEM ARE CONTRARY OR CONTRADICTING ATTRIBUTES . HENCE DEITY CAN NOT EXIST SINCE IF HE EXISTETH THEN HE IS BOTH SELF INDEPENDENT AND SELF DEPENDENT. ANSWER:.
20
21 Divine Essence [‘Adh: Dh:at ‘Al –Lu:hiah] is Self Independent. To say that Divine Essence is Self Dependent I just a Metaphor and it is not in some meaning that contradiceth Divine Self Independence. Divine Essence is so Independent that it Doeth not depend upon any thing not even upon its own self.
2]IF DEITY EXISTETH THEN EVERY THING EXISTETH IN DIVINE ESSENCE . NO THING CAN EXIST OUT SIDE DIVINE ESSENCE SINCE IT IS INFINITE . SO EITHER ALL THINGS EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE OR NOTHING EXISTETH THAT IS OTHER THAN DEITY. BUT DIVINE ESSENCE IS SELF EXCLUSIVE FOR ANY THING THAT ANY OTHER THING EXISTETH IN ITSELF. SO DEITY EXISTETH NOT. IF DEITY EXISTETH THEN THE CREATIO OF THE WORLD MUST HAVE IMPLIED SOME LIMITATIONS TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE [I.E DEITY] MAKING AN ABSOLUTE UNLIMITTED EXISTENT TO BE LIMITED TO SOME EXTENT EVEN IF NOT IMPLYING THE FINITENESS. BUT EVEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. ANSWER
Divine Essence is Infinite and Absolute . But It is Neither Spatial nor Timial nor Bodial. It is Beyond Time , Space,Mass, Created Energy and it is Beyond any Body. So Divine Essence Doeth not Occupy any Space nor It Occupy All the Space. It is an incorrect concept that Divine Essence Hath infinite Mass or Infinite Volume. Since Volume and Mass are not Divine Attributes rather they are Per Se Absurd and Absolutely Impossible Upon Divine Essence. So all the Creation,Worlds, Universes etc. are Distinct and Seperated from Divine Essence and Divine Essence is Beyond them yet they are not Seperated by Space and Spatial Distances [‘Al Fa:s:-lah ‘’Al Maka:niah]. So this objection is based on the Assumption that Divine Essnece is Infinitely Volumetric and Infinite Massive . But this is Incorrect and wrong assumption. Each one of the two Attributes i.e Massiveness and Volume-ness is Per Se Absurd upon Divine Essence and That Essence is Beyond Spaces hence not in any Space and Excludeth All Spaces which Exist.
3] EITHER DIVINE ESSENCE EXISTETH IN THE WOLRD OR WORLD EXISTETH IN DIVINE ESSENCE. BUT BOTH OF THE THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE. IF CREATED WORLD EXISTETH IN DIVINE ESSENCE THEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. ALSO A MUTATION IN THE PURE ESSENCE OF DEITY IF DEITY EXISTETH IN THE WORLD THEN IT IS A MUTATION THAT PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE WORLD DEITY DID EXISTETH NOT IN ANY WORLD ,THEN AFTER CREATING IT HE BEGAIN TO EXIST IN THE WOLRD THAT IS A MUTATION. IF NONE OF THEM EXISTETH IN ONE ANOTHER THEN IT IS A LIMITATION OF BOTH. THIS IMPLIETH THAT DEITY WAS NOT SO UNLIMITED AS HE WAS IN ETERNITY . THIS IS ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE.
21
22 ANSWER: Nether any Creation Existeth in Divine Essence nor Divine Existence Existeth in any Creation. Divine Essence Existeth in Divine Essence It Self and any thing that Existeth in Divine Essence is the Divine Essence Itself. There is no implication of limitation which is implied by the Existence of the Created things say World etc. 4] DEITY IS ETERNAL AND ETERNITY IS TIMELESS. BUT TIME BEGAN AND THERE IS A BEGINNING OF TIME , SINCE TIME CANNOT BE INFINITE OTHER WISE THE PRESENT MOMENT MUST HAVE COME AFTER AN INFINITE PERIOD OF TIME WHICH MUST HAVE PASSED. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. BUT IF ETERNITY IS TIMELESS THEN TIME BEGAN AFTER ETERNITY SINCE IT CANNOT BEGIN IN ETERNITY. BUT ETERNITY CANNOT BE CEASED , AND IS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME. THERE FORE TIME IS EITHER IN ETERNITY OR ETERNITY IS IN TIME. BOTH ARE IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. ANSWER : The concepts of Posteriority [Ta’akh:kh:ur] and Priority[Taqaddum] more fundamental then time. So the time less Eternity is Infinitely Prior to the beginning of time.So The Divine Essence is infinitely Prior to any Non Eternal existent and any Non Eternal Existent is infinitely Posterior to the Eternity. So every thing is clear. Time is a Per Se Contingent and not Per Se Necessary. Priority of Divine Essence doeth imply that Time is infinitely Posterior to the Eternity and the Eternal, and Eternity and Eternals are Infinitely Prior to Time and Beginning of time, whether time is linear or non linear. It must have a beginning and but its end is not must. Eternity deth not cease . Time Began and the relation of time to Eternal and Eternity are more fundamental then time it self. Time may also be seen neither as the Divine Essence nor as the Divine Essential Attributes of Divine Essence but as an Act of Divine Essence. In this case the Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes are Infinitely Prior to the Time. Time may also be viewed as the Continous Act of Creation whether the Divine Act of Creation is Pure Continous or it is Pseudo Continous that it is a continuity which is based on discrete point times [‘A:na:t/Moments/Nows]. As there is no Existing Proto Time before time neither finite nor infinite , so the above argument faileth since it is based one a duration of a Protp Time of infinite duration. 5] DEITY DOETH NOT SHEW HIGH MORAL ATTRIBUTES. SO DEITY IS IMPERFECT. IF DEITY IS IMPERFECT THEN DEITY IS NOT DEITY. 6] EITHER DEITY WILLETH A THING TO EXIST OR DEITY WILLETH FOR THE THING NOT TO EXIST. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR DEITY NEITHER TO WILL FOR A THING TO EXISTETH NOR TO WILLETH FOR A THING NOT TO EXIST. YET THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WHICH ARE BELIEVES TO BE NEITHER WILLED NOR NOT WILLED. THIS IMPLIETH THAT DIVINE WILL IS NEITHER ABSOLUTE NOR INFINITE. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. SO DEITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. SINCE DEITY IF EXISTETH THEN HIS WILL IS ABSOLUTE AND INFINITE . ANSWER:= Mu”tazilite , Karramites believe that Divine Will is finite ,limited , not Eternal and Not Absolute due to this objection.
22
23
Negative atheism Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is any type of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[66][67][68]
Agnosticism Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[69] Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.[70] Strong agnosticism Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. Weak agnosticism Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. Agnostic theism Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. For theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.[71] Agnostic atheism Agnostic atheism is the view of those who do not claim to know the existence of any deity but do not believe in any.[70] The theologian Robert Flint explains: If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist,
23
24 although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic."[72]
Apatheism An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[73]
Ignosticism The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence is usually not worth discussing because concepts like "God" are usually not sufficiently clearly defined.
ANSWER: Concept of Divine Essence is clear , even if some one believeth that It Existeth or Believeth that it Existeth Not. So this is an incorrect and wrong claim. :Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[5] while others[who?] have considered it to be distinct[citation needed]. See also: Evolutionary psychology of religion By Relative or Transitive Attributes, we mean attributes which respect the outward revelation of God's being, which are involved in God's relations to the creation, and which are exercised in consequence of the existence of the universe and its dependence upon him.
Absolute and Relative Attributes God’s absolute qualities are those he has within him, and has always possessed independent of the objects of his creation. His relative attributes, on the other hand, are those manifested through his relationship to other subjects and inanimate objects. Infinity is an absolute attribute; eternity and omnipresence are relative representing the relationship of his unlimited nature to the finite objects of creation. The relative attributes a re the absolute attributes applied to situations involving creative objects.
24
25
Moral and Natural Attributes The Moral attributes of God are those, which in human context would relate to the concept of rightness (as opposed to wrongness). Holiness, lov e, mercy, and faithfulness are examples. God’s natural attributes are the non moral superlatives of God, such as his knowledge and power. Some object to this classification on the basis that the moral attributes are just as natural as the natural attributes, being an integral part of the nature of God.
25