Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

[This is the 4th post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st, the 2nd and the 3rd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?”,“Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” and “Life: Evidence of Essential Existence” respectively.]According to the verdict of reason the ever-changing natural world is a possible existence and so its primary source must be an Essential Existence.Followers of religions believe in Essential Existence, however not by this name; they have given this Existence different name in different languages. That doesn’t matter. In English language this Existence is called God and for the sake of language we see no problem to use this name. But the problem is the definition of the Essential Existence or God. Religions differed each other regarding His definition. To solve these differences we must rely on the verdict of reason that is universally, irrespective of religions, common standard, hence should be accepted.Reason can find some positive attributes those are unavoidably necessary for the Essential Existence and some negative or relatively negative characteristics from which He must be free. In a nutshell we can say that He must have all the attributes necessary for perfectness and He must be free from all the characteristics those indicates directly or indirectly deficiency, weakness or need. Now we shall discuss regarding these attributes of perfectness and negative characteristics.

1) Life: The first attribute the reason can find essential for the Essential Existence is life. A lifeless existence can create neither a living thing nor a lifeless thing. A lifeless thing cannot inject or inspire life to a lifeless thing. Because we are living, so the Essential Existence must be a living existence. His life must be eternal i.e. beyond time. He is the Creator of time too, so He may not be limited within time.

2) Power: The Essential Existence must have unlimited power to do everything including creation of material and non-material living and lifeless existence, natural rules etc. If He had no absolute and unlimited power then He couldn’t start creation from nothing.

3) Will: The Essential Existence must have will to do or not to do anything, otherwise in spite of having absolute and unlimited power He wouldn’t create anything.

4) Knowledge: He must have absolute knowledge i.e. complete knowledge of His own existence and knowledge about all forms of past, present and future of His creation. Absolute knowledge means He is capable to plan and execute the plan of creation and its management. Otherwise He couldn’t do this or couldn’t do this in the best manner.

5) Unlimited: His existence must be unlimited, because limitation represents weakness. So He must be free from all sorts of limitations including that of space and time. Due to the same reason none of the created things; even the whole space can contain Him. So He cannot enter into the body or self of a creation.

6) Invisible: He must be invisible, because visibility is the characteristic of some material existences and they are naturally limited.

7) Non-Material: He must be non-material. Even He may not be semi-material. Matter and semi-material things are naturally limited. Being limited is one of the signs of weakness and imperfectness. So the Essential Existence cannot be material.

Without Limbs or Body: The Essential Existence must be free of having limbs or body. Body limits an existence, so the Unlimited Existence may not have a body and for the Existence without body question of having limbs or organs does not arise. Why do we need limbs, organs or physical senses? We need due to physical and qualitative limit of our existence. We see with our eyes, but all the scenes are reflected in the Essential Existence, so He does not need eyes; He can see without eyes and can see better than us. We have ears to hear and listen, but all the sounds are reflected in Him; He can hear and listen without ears and can hear and listen better than us. We smell with our noses, but all the smells reflect in Him. So He does not need any nose. We taste and talk with our tongues and throats, but He is the Creator of tastes and informative sounds, so all the tastes reflect in His Knowledge and He can transfer any message without voice and if will can create informative sounds or voices in ears or minds of listeners. We touch and catch with our hands, but everything is within the control of His will, so He does not need hands. We need our legs to move from one place to another place, but He is beyond place or space and is the creator of space, no space can conceive Him, so question of having legs for moving from one place to another does not arise for Him.Though no example, particularly material example matches to the very existence of the Essential Existence, yet to make the point more clear we can put an example. Suppose there is a living being with unlimited expansion of existence to the extent that all the material creations are within it and every particle of that existence has the capacity to see, hear, smell, taste and preserve & transfer all kinds of information of everything. Then should such an existence need eyes, ears, nose, tongues, throat, hands or legs? Then how may it be thinkable that the non-material unlimited Essential Existence, who is the creator of all material and non-material limited existences, should have necessity to have body and limbs or organs for Him? He does not need ears; He can hear.

9) Non-Dissectible: The Essential existence may not be a complex existence composed of parts or particles or atoms. Because an existence composed of parts is dependent on its parts, and the Essential Existence must be free of all kinds of dependency. So His existence must be non-dissectible and beyond analysis. He must be non-dissectible both from physical point of view and also from intellectual point of view i.e. from development of the very existence and qualities. Any kind of development is related to imperfect existence or quality that does not suit to the Essential Existence.

10) Oneness of Existence: It means any quality of the Essential Existence is the Existence Himself, not different from His very existence. So when we say that He is living it means His life is not different than Him. We can assume a human being or any other living being as lifeless too, but He Himself is His life. Similarly when we say that He has willpower it means He Himself is His willpower. On the other hand He sees and listens without separate seeing and listening power, but He Himself is His seeing and listening power.Though He is above any kind of material example yet this point may be understood to some extent from some worldly examples too. Generally people think that ear or hearing sense is necessary to hear and eye or seeing sense is necessary to see. But there are animals void of ears such as snakes that have no separate ears; a snake listens with its tongue besides tasting. Similarly an ant sees without eye by the help of its horns. So we can think about a living being that its body itself substitutes all of our five senses. This is regarding weak and imperfect created beings, so it is quite clear that the very ‘existence’ of the Essential Existence is capable of doing all the works those we do with our senses. Because He is the creator of senses, so He is free of the necessity of senses or qualities other than His ‘existence’.

Relative Qualities:

We can assume some qualities of the Essential Existence those focus upon His relationship with the creation. It means those are not essential for His existence for being essential existence, but emerge as the relationship with the creation Therefore, we can term these qualities as relative qualities. If He wouldn’t create anything then these qualities wouldn’t be conceivable. In a nutshell these qualities are: He is the initiator or creator, manager, guide, all-knowing, all-seeing, kind, judge, just, executioner of punishment etc. Some questions may arise and clarifications may be necessary regarding this attributes that may be discussed separately. We think in the present topic only mentioning (as done) is enough.

Why not Similar or son?

Some people ask question: If God is all-powerful then why is He unable to create another God or a Son for Him?

Such kind of question is illogical. Because, ‘being created’ is related to possible existence; related to neither the Essential Existence, nor impossible thing. If He creates anybody with all His qualities, yet due to being created and being limited within the frame of time, it may become neither eternal, nor essential, so it may not become His similar. The question of son is same. Son of a man must be a complete man and son of an ant must be a complete ant. So if the Essential Existence has to have a son that must be Essential Existence. But due to the same cause mentioned above a second Essential Existence is impossible.

[This is the 3rd post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st and the 2nd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?” and “Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” published in The Irregular Times on the 9th and 28th November 2007 respectively.]

This universe and everything in it (generally considered as material beings) are ever changing and dominated by some set of natural rules or causes and effects. When pre-conditions of emergence of something are prepared then that thing comes into existence. Thus all the present things are debtors to previous things. Thus we may go back to the primary source of this universe. But the source dominated by cause and effect rule cannot be the primary source, because in that case a cause would be necessary for that cause or source. So according to reason the primary source must be non-material and above domination of cause and effect rule, rather initiator of not only the first material existence, also initiator of cause and effect rule or natural rules. Such a source must be ever-existing i.e. above beginning and ending, birth and death, development and decaying. Such an existence is essential for the beginning of all the conditioned existence of our experience - existence of which is conditioned to preparedness of necessary causes. So we may term these material existences as possible existence and the initiator of the possible existence and natural rules dominating over these existences as the Essential Existence.

But materialists, particularly the atheists are not ready to accept this simple truth. They blindly deny the existence of the Essential Existence behind this material world, though they are not able to explain the origin of the universe that wherefrom emerged the material world and the natural rules dominating the world.

The origin of such kind of blind conception is their blind faith that existence is equal to matter and there is nothing other than matter. So they can’t understand the existence of a living all-powerful wise non-material Essential Existence. In this way of blind faith they advanced to the extent that they deny the existence of life, or in other words existence of themselves. They claim that life is nothing but chemical reactions of matter. Do they really “feel” it? No doubt that matters have physical and chemical reactions. But matter itself can’t feel anything. Then how do they “feel” it?

We may understand the reality of life from another characteristic of human beings. Mechanical reactions of matter are straight and there is no room for hesitation in such reactions. For example, if a piece of iron is put between two magnets on a point with same distance from the both free from other influential material elements, then it would proceed to the stronger one without any hesitation. But in question of many deeds we see hesitation in human beings before doing the work; they analyze many aspects of a work to take decision whether to do or not and if the decision is positive then they do it. Analysis of a future work by a human being sometimes includes not only material aspects of its reactions, but some non-material aspects, such as moral, cultural etc. too. Sometimes physical and biological needs and their fulfillment are explained as automatic physical reactions in the material sense. But it is evident that physical reactions are not mere material reactions. Because there is a personality in every living creature, though quality or level of personality varies among different kinds of creatures and among different individuals of one kind of creatures. But the non-material characteristics are more evident in human behaviour. When a hungry cow sees some grasses it do not hesitate to take it. But when a hungry human being get a fruit and sees no hindrance in front of him that may resist him/ her taking it or may create danger in future for him, yet sometimes he/ she does not take it. Here a non-material characteristic popularly called as morality resists him/ her from taking it. In fact terms like morality, kindness, honour etc. are purely non-material and are not applicable to matter. Human beings debate regarding many things including the existence of the Essential Existence and existence of a non-material entity in human being. Also this debate proves a non-material existence popularly known as soul or personality or self in the human being, because there may be no room of debate in matter. These characteristics do not conform mater. So it is quite clear that works of human beings are not limited to material reactions, but there is at least one non-material existence in a human being. It is beyond doubt that lifeless matter cannot create such non-material existences like life, soul or personality even through a billions of years’ process, because these sorts of existences are superior to mater and it is evident that inferior existence cannot bring a superior existence in to existence, rather there must be an existence more superior than these superior existences. This superior most existence must be the Essential Existence. The system of continuation of all the species and their inter-relationship is wonderful. Some species, such as plants and trees and some kinds of worms and germ-like small animals take non-living food items from the nature. Some species take only grasses and plants. Other species take at the same times mineral items, leaves & plants and flesh & blood of other animals. In general superior animals take other animals as food. But some animals having superior development than others take leaves and grasses instead of taking inferior animals and are used as food by animals those are superior to them. If this kind of animals (such as cows, ships etc.) would take meat like tigers, lions etc. then it wouldn’t be possible for human beings to make them domestic. Then they couldn’t collect enough meat. We see some categories of trees are giving fruits and human beings and birds take those. Many of the fruits have no direct relationship with reproduction. There are plants and trees those produce only seeds for their reproduction. Some plants and trees produces seeds those are fruits at the same time and are taken by other animals beside their role for reproduction. But there are other fruits those produces fruits having seeds within and other animals take these fruits leaving seeds. So the eatable parts of such fruits have no role for their reproduction Was there any harm if these trees and plants would produce only seeds for reproduction like the first group? So there is no doubt that these fruits grow not for those trees and plants but for other animals.

Another characteristics of living beings other than a few such as germs and viruses, is being male and female. However it was possible that every species would be genderless having capacity of reproduction or would be female having capacity of reproduction without help of the male. But then generations of every species would be like a tree having branches and sub-branches, instead of present network form. But that wouldn’t be enough helpful for sustaining of species. For example, at the present system, among many of the species after giving birth of child or laying egg one of the couple stays beside that or those for protection and the other goes for searching food. If only one was to do both the works then their enemies would easily take away that or those. Moreover, for superior animals particularly for human species this system helped formation of society and mutual cooperation and its benefit is evident. Progress of science and technology wouldn’t be possible in absence of social system in tree-like generation system due to absence of necessity of cooperation that exists in network system.

And the sex; it is the evidence of a wonderful programming. Sexual instinct is the strongest instinct after thirst and hunger; even sometimes it defeats thirst and hunger. This inspiration bounds the male and the female to unite and take the responsibility of continuation of the species. We see sexual instinct remain at its peak during the period the female has reproduction capacity (those who are unable to reproduce are in fact naturally defective or ill). It indicates that aim of this strong instinct is to make them bound to play appropriate role for continuation of species.

We can find the same target behind the affection and love for children without which the human race couldn’t continue its existence. Also the thirst for having children in human nature is very strong to the extent that in spite of risk for life women want to become mother. However, the western materialistic culture injected into human beings the tendency of consumption and enjoyment avoiding natural responsibility on the one hand and has invented methods elements to help sexual enjoyment avoiding responsibility of having children and risk-free delivery on the other. But during the period when there was no method or element for risk-free delivery women used to have children more than the present era though they were not unaware about the trouble and risk of delivery. Though sexual instinct is a very strong natural instinct, yet one can suppress it or can fulfill it through unnatural way to some extent and can avoid the risk of delivery. But always in the past the women folk used to welcome this risk. Why? Only due to the strength of the instinct for having child in them to the extent that it defeats the fear of life-risk. No doubt that this instinct assured the continuity of the human species.

Is it possible for the lifeless blind nature to programme the living creation in such a way even in billions of years? It is possible only for a living, wise and all-powerful Existence Who initiated the creation from nothing other than by His will.

If one stress upon one’s claim that the nature has done it, then surely the nature would be an existence other than matter and natural rules dominating the universe and He must have created matter and rules. Then the Nature (in this sense) must be everlasting, ever-living, willful, almighty and wise whom we call the Essential Existence and we have no objection if you call Him the Nature just like others who call Him God, Allah, Jehovah, Ishwar etc. The definition of this Existence is our concern, not the names given in different languages or groups of people.

 

            The primary source of this universe and everything within it, those are possible existences, is an Essential Existence according to the verdict of reason. This is a simple matter, yet a section of people do not accept it. They blindly deny the existence of a conscious, wise and all-powerful Essential Existence though they are unable to show any reasonable substitute to the Essential Existence or explain the primary source of the universe. Beside the logical conclusion our experience and observation of the nature too prove the existence of a conscious, wise and all-powerful Essential Existence.

            If we simply look to the nature we must be astonished seeing its unique discipline, complexity and wide range of creation. But the mysteries and complexity of the nature the scientists have so far discovered make us perplexed though they acknowledge that they have discovered only a part of it.

Scientists have done so many things. But they have not created natural elements or natural rules. They have only discovered natural rules, intervened in the nature and given new shapes to matters according to natural rules. Still they have so many wonders of the nature to discover, but so far those they have discovered shows that natural rules dominating the world is very complex to the extent that it is not imaginable that the world may have developed to the present state accidentally, even in billions of years. Accidental emergence of natural rules is more impossible than emergence of the world. Some example may help to understand more clearly and deeply the complexity of the creation and natural rules.

Smallest and Largest Creations

            The range of this universe so far scientists have been able to discover is billions of light-years. They acknowledge that there may be more undiscovered and also may be that there are other universes of separate dimensions.

            But creation of smallest creations is more wonderful than the vastness of the universe and largest creations such as stars and galaxies. So far the scientists have been able to discover the smallest creations are electrons, protons and neutrons those form atoms. On the other hand among living beings smallest beings are some kinds of germs and viruses and largest beings are some kinds of whales.

            We see material things in three forms: Solid, liquid and gaseous. We see solid things as consolidated, but in fact particles of a solid thing are not consolidated; there is space among particles and the quantity of matter is unbelievably less than space to the extent that if it would be possible to really consolidate this earth perhaps it would become like a football.

Who is this Artist?

            Creations are not only evidences of their wise Creator; even there are evidences that the Creator has the sense of beauty and artistic outlook. We are charmed of the overall beauty of the nature, particularly of trees and plants. But some trees and plants are extraordinarily beautiful. Have you observed that leaves of traveler’s tree are expanded to two opposite sides, not around it? There is one kind of small flower when it blossoms it seems that a butterfly is sitting on it. Is it possible that such kind of artistic creations accidentally evolved from the lifeless nature? Or the conscious wise creator wanted to create beauty? What about the beauty of he-peacock? What’s its utility? Has the blind lifeless nature created it only to attract the she-peacock to the he-peacock? There are some small fishes; people do not eat them. They keep them in aquariums only to enjoy their beauty. What is the utility of their beauty for themselves? Has the Creator created them so that people be attracted to their beauty and keep them in aquarium to satisfy their thrust for beauty?

Is it possible for the lifeless blind nature to create such beauty? If it would be necessary then why didn’t it create such for other animals? Or the wise Creator wanted to create beauty not for themselves, but for other viewers (human beings)?

            A firework is thrown into the sky; when it explodes it becomes a bunch of flowers of colourful fire. But when there is an accidental explosion in a store of ammunition there is a fire without any artistic outcome. Why do we see difference between these two? Because the first explosion occurred according to plan of a planner (fireworks-maker) and the second one is a mere accident. It proves that above-mentioned beautiful things in the nature are result of a skilled and wise planner, not result of accident.

Ant: Wonderful Creation

            Among smallest living beings those we can see with our eyes, perhaps the smallest kind of ants are the most wonderful. This kind of ants is not more than one-tenth centimetre in length and not more fat than a hair. When it walks rapidly seems a piece of cotton-fibre driven away by breeze. But it can carry weight many times more than the weight of its body, so perhaps it is the most capable carrier animal. On the other hand it moves so swiftly, perhaps in comparison to the length of one’s body it is the fastest animal in the world.

            Ant is a social animal. Quality of their social discipline is, perhaps, nearest to that of human society. They have labours, soldiers & patrol squads and a queen as the centre of the society. They store food items for the bad season and store it for the community. They carry poison to defense themselves and also for aggressive wars. They use this poison for hunting too. This poison is dangerous to the extent that if an ant bites a man once that can transfer its poison to the victims body only the quantity of a needlepoint, it creates unbearable burning. If a needle-back quantity of that poison were transfer to a human body perhaps he/ she would die instantly. But the ant carries this poison in its body and it does herm itself. Moreover when it uses the poison to hunt then use it to the quantity that the hunt would not die, only become senseless. Then they store it and take it in appropriate time or season. If the quantity of poison is not accurate then the hunt would die and when they take eat (because they take dead animals too) they would die, or at least suffer from poison. So they never use the poison in the body of the hunt more than the necessary minimum quantity.

            If one pays attention to its body he/she must become perplexed. The smallest kind of ants has all the physical parts in its body as the biggest ant has. It has 6 legs to move, mouth to take meal, two teeth to bite, two horns (antenna?) to see and hear, breathing system (though may be simple), belly to contain food, digesting system to digest food, anus to oust undigested portions of food and sexual organ to enjoy the spouse and reproduce future generation; the female ant has special organ in the body to develop eggs. We shouldn’t forget that this ant is less than one-tenth centimetre in length and land its diameter is not more than that of a hair.

            One of the most wonderful products of scientists is computer that is the output of decades’ continuous effort of hundreds of scientists. But still they have not been able to produce an ant, even one of the biggest kind in their laboratory. Perhaps they will be able to do it in future. But it proves that creation of an ant is more difficult than that of a computer. Then is it possible that such a difficult creation would be created by the lifeless blind nature?

Human Being: Most Wonderful Creation

            Perhaps the human body is the most complex creation in the world. Latest discoveries of genetic science have exposed a new horizon of wonders.

            Scientists have discovered DNAs, RNAs genes (component parts of both) and many chemical elements in each of animal-cells. There are 150 to 6,000 nucleotides in a single gene. DNA of a small virus has 5,386 pairs of nucleotide-bases. In a cell of a human body there are 46 chromosomes (23 inherit father’s and 23 inherit mother’s characteristics). In a cell there are 100 thousand genes and 6.6 billion nucleotide bases and 3 billion bio-chemical elements. There are similarities and differences among human genes and over all there are nearly 3 billion kinds of pairs of genes in human body. Structures of DNAs are like ladders or zippers. DNAs are so narrow and long that if half a gram of genes are connected each other at their length they would create a 93 million miles long string (equal to distance between the earth and the sun). Every DNA of a person contains all the history (thinking, character, experience) of his/ her ancestors until separation of its earlier sources from their bodies and these information are recorded in every DNA as codes some of which have been traced out by scientists. But

 

 

The existence of this complex world and more complex set of natural rules is the undeniable self-evident proof of the Wise Initiator, the Essential Existence.

          History of the human race, so far it is available, says that people always were in debate on religion. Because, always there were people who were denying the existence of God and hence rejecting the necessity of religion and others were claiming the existence of God or more than one god. On the other hand those who were trying to prove the existence of God were differing about definition of His existence and attributes. Even followers of one religion were differing each other regarding the same and more than that regarding religious injunctions.

            Sometimes we see that people of different religions debate regarding one or more particular religious injunctions of a religion. It is not a wise method. Rather we should try to solve basic differences. If we can solve those then solving subsidiary questions will become easy.

The Standard or Criterion

            But before entering the debate we have to decide about the standard or criterion. This standard or criterion must be acceptable to all irrespective of religious faith and even to the atheists. Otherwise it will not be possible to reach a solution. We think, the only criterion that may be and should be acceptable to all, however to solve the basic queries of life, (not the queries related to expertise), is the reason.

            Now we have to serialize the questions according to logical preferences. When the first question is solved then we can enter the second one.

Is the Truth Attainable?

            Now the first question:

            To us the first question that must be solved is that whether the truth or the reality is attainable or not. This question always existed throughout the history. Always there were some people who used to argue that truth or reality is not attainable. Their argument is like such: When we are asleep we dream, but in dream we can’t understand that it’s a dream; we think it true or real. Then wake up and can understand that it was not real. May be also our present life is like something like dream and after death we would understand that it is not true or real. Another one of their argument is that our senses are not reliable means of collecting information; sometimes we can clearly understand that those are giving us wrong information. For example, we see a plane in the sky as small as bird, but when it lands in the airport we see that it is a large thing. So we can not trust our eyes. Then if I put one of my hands into a buckets of water having 60 degree temperature and the other in a bucket of water having 30 degree temperature, then I put both of my hands at the same time into a third bucket of water having 45 degree temperature then one of my hands will inform me of hot water and the other will inform of cold water, though the temperature of the water is same.

            The solution:

            Beyond doubt that we can not attain the truth or reality regarding every phenomenon, but we can attain the truth or reality regarding many. For example, may be that the reality of my existence is as I feel or may be actually it is otherwise, but at any condition I can not doubt about my very existence. Because, I feel, I observe, I think, so I have existence (1). I have five senses and five physical organs, so those are true or real (2), though may be those are giving me all the wrong information or some wrong and some correct information. There are some external phenomenon (beyond my existence)(3), though may be those are as I observe or those are different than my observation. I sleep (4), I dream (5) and I awake (6) and I will die (7), I eat and drink (8), I talk and debate (9), I live (10); may be real nature of these phenomenon are different than that I observe, but I can not deny very reality of those. I have an analysis power in me (11) other than my physical senses that can analyze information collected by the senses and detect at least some the wrong information. If we proceed in this way we must find that we can attain the truth or reality regarding uncountable number of phenomenon, though there remain other uncountable number of phenomenon that we know nothing about those or our knowledge is fully or partly incorrect regarding those.

            Human experience says that through sincere effort with truth-seeking mind one can attain the truth or reality at least regarding basic queries of life that are not related to expertise.

Is there any Creator?

            Now the second question:

            Is there any creator behind our existence?

            To reach the goal through a shortest possible way we should try to find the solution through philosophical argument based on reason:

            Any existence may be either essential or possible. A possible existence comes into existence when all the conditions of existence are fulfilled, otherwise not. All kinds of existence within the domain of our “experience” are possible existences which are depended upon causes and effects. The causes that brought a thing into existence are in fact effects of some other previous causes. Thus if we go back and back and back then we must reach to the starting point where there must be a cause or some causes which is or are not effect or effects of other causes. Or in other words there is no other cause or are no other causes before that. In other words, this cause is or these causes are the first cause or causes, or cause/ causes of all causes. Then this cause is or these causes are essential existence or existences which the followers of religions call God or gods.

            However, many material scientists tried to explain the beginning of the existence of material world, though it is not their subject, but it is beyond the jurisdiction of their experience and experiment. Previously in the name of science it was claimed that at the beginning there was motionless primary mater, then accidentally the motion was created and the process of change in the matter started. Recently
Stephen Hockings claimed that the creation started from the primary particle. But none of these theories told us wherefrom did that motionless primary matter or the primary particle come? If there would be nothing before that how did it get its existence? Then who created motion in the primary matter or explosion within the primary particle? When the primary matter or the primary particle was void of cause and effect process or in other words natural rules wherefrom it came? The strange and mysterious collection of causes and effects or natural laws transformed this complex world; who or what did form those laws? Can those come into existence accidentally? The natural rules are many time more complex than the rules conducting a super computer; but also the rules conducting the super computer are part of the natural rules of the world; scientists only discovered and utilized those. Yet the super computer has come into existence after hundred year’s restless efforts of dozens of top-ranking scientists, not accidentally. Then how can these natural rules come into existence accidentally? Moreover, what does the accident means? Does it mean that something may happen without any cause? Only ignorant people may believe it? We face accident due to our lack of previous knowledge about a happening, but no accident is void of cause or causes. When there was no cause and effect process or natural rule then how accident may occur in the primary matter or primary particle? So any reasonable human being must accept that the beginning of the creation started by a willful and conscious essential existence or an Everlasting Great Scientist, whatever may you name Him, Allah, God, Jehovah, Ishwar or any other name.

Oneness of the Essential Existence

            Now the third question:

            Can such essential existence or the primary source of all existences be more than one? The reply of the reason is negative. Because for being essential existence and primary source of all existences that existence must be everlasting, all-knowing, all-powerful, willful, sovereign, free of any need or imperfectness and beyond time, space, change, division or analysis. So He must be void of equals, partners, helpers, spouse or and children. We need those due to our weakness and imperfectness; the essential existence must be free of those weakness and needs. If there would be more than one perfect and sovereign essential existence then all the creations would be destroyed. Because, we know that having two sovereign kings in a kingdom and their peaceful coexistence is impossible. (However, may be two persons termed as ‘king’ may coexist in one kingdom under constitutional bindings, but it is quite clear that none of them is sovereign beyond constitutional bindings.)

            So it is beyond doubt that the essential existence is essentially one.

            Let us discuss about this subject with sincere and truth-seeking mind and arguments based on reason.

            Then we can discuss regarding attributes of the Essential Existence.

History of the human race, so far it is available, says that people always were in debate on religion. Because, always there were people who were denying the existence of God and hence rejecting the necessity of religion and others were claiming the existence of God or more than one god. On the other hand those who were trying to prove the existence of God were differing about definition of His existence and attributes. Even followers of one religion were differing each other regarding the same and more than that regarding religious injunctions. Sometimes we see that people of different religions debate regarding one or more particular religious injunctions of a religion. It is not a wise method. Rather we should try to solve basic differences. If we can solve those then solving subsidiary questions will become easy. The Standard or Criterion But before entering the debate we have to decide about the standard or criterion. This standard or criterion must be acceptable to all irrespective of religious faith and even to the atheists. Otherwise it will not be possible to reach a solution. We think, the only criterion that may be and should be acceptable to all, however to solve the basic queries of life, (not the queries related to expertise), is the reason. Now we have to serialize the questions according to logical preferences. When the first question is solved then we can enter the second one. Is the Truth Attainable? Now the first question: To us the first question that must be solved is that whether the truth or the reality is attainable or not. This question always existed throughout the history. Always there were some people who used to argue that truth or reality is not attainable. Their argument is like such: When we are asleep we dream, but in dream we can’t understand that it’s a dream; we think it true or real. Then wake up and can understand that it was not real. May be also our present life is like something like dream and after death we would understand that it is not true or real. Another one of their argument is that our senses are not reliable means of collecting information; sometimes we can clearly understand that those are giving us wrong information. For example, we see a plane in the sky as small as bird, but when it lands in the airport we see that it is a large thing. So we can not trust our eyes. Then if I put one of my hands into a buckets of water having 60 degree temperature and the other in a bucket of water having 30 degree temperature, then I put both of my hands at the same time into a third bucket of water having 45 degree temperature then one of my hands will inform me of hot water and the other will inform of cold water, though the temperature of the water is same. The solution: Beyond doubt that we can not attain the truth or reality regarding every phenomenon, but we can attain the truth or reality regarding many. For example, may be that the reality of my existence is as I feel or may be actually it is otherwise, but at any condition I can not doubt about my very existence. Because, I feel, I observe, I think, so I have existence (1). I have five senses and five physical organs, so those are true or real (2), though may be those are giving me all the wrong information or some wrong and some correct information. There are some external phenomenon (beyond my existence)(3), though may be those are as I observe or those are different than my observation. I sleep (4), I dream (5) and I awake (6) and I will die (7), I eat and drink (8), I talk and debate (9), I live (10); may be real nature of these phenomenon are different than that I observe, but I can not deny very reality of those. I have an analysis power in me (11) other than my physical senses that can analyze information collected by the senses and detect at least some the wrong information. If we proceed in this way we must find that we can attain the truth or reality regarding uncountable number of phenomenon, though there remain other uncountable number of phenomenon that we know nothing about those or our knowledge is fully or partly incorrect regarding those. Human experience says that through sincere effort with truth-seeking mind one can attain the truth or reality at least regarding basic queries of life that are not related to expertise. Is there any Creator? Now the second question: Is there any creator behind our existence? To reach the goal through a shortest possible way we should try to find the solution through philosophical argument based on reason: Any existence may be either essential or possible. A possible existence comes into existence when all the conditions of existence are fulfilled, otherwise not. All kinds of existence within the domain of our “experience” are possible existences which are depended upon causes and effects. The causes that brought a thing into existence are in fact effects of some other previous causes. Thus if we go back and back and back then we must reach to the starting point where there must be a cause or some causes which is or are not effect or effects of other causes. Or in other words there is no other cause or are no other causes before that. In other words, this cause is or these causes are the first cause or causes, or cause/ causes of all causes. Then this cause is or these causes are essential existence or existences which the followers of religions call God or gods. However, many material scientists tried to explain the beginning of the existence of material world, though it is not their subject, but it is beyond the jurisdiction of their experience and experiment. Previously in the name of science it was claimed that at the beginning there was motionless primary mater, then accidentally the motion was created and the process of change in the matter started. Recently Stephen Hockings claimed that the creation started from the primary particle. But none of these theories told us wherefrom did that motionless primary matter or the primary particle come? If there would be nothing before that how did it get its existence? Then who created motion in the primary matter or explosion within the primary particle? When the primary matter or the primary particle was void of cause and effect process or in other words natural rules wherefrom it came? The strange and mysterious collection of causes and effects or natural laws transformed this complex world; who or what did form those laws? Can those come into existence accidentally? The natural rules are many time more complex than the rules conducting a super computer; but also the rules conducting the super computer are part of the natural rules of the world; scientists only discovered and utilized those. Yet the super computer has come into existence after hundred year’s restless efforts of dozens of top-ranking scientists, not accidentally. Then how can these natural rules come into existence accidentally? Moreover, what does the accident means? Does it mean that something may happen without any cause? Only ignorant people may believe it? We face accident due to our lack of previous knowledge about a happening, but no accident is void of cause or causes. When there was no cause and effect process or natural rule then how accident may occur in the primary matter or primary particle? So any reasonable human being must accept that the beginning of the creation started by a willful and conscious essential existence or an Everlasting Great Scientist, whatever may you name Him, Allah, God, Jehovah, Ishwar or any other name. Oneness of the Essential Existence Now the third question: Can such essential existence or the primary source of all existences be more than one? The reply of the reason is negative. Because for being essential existence and primary source of all existences that existence must be everlasting, all-knowing, all-powerful, willful, sovereign, free of any need or imperfectness and beyond time, space, change, division or analysis. So He must be void of equals, partners, helpers, spouse or and children. We need those due to our weakness and imperfectness; the essential existence must be free of those weakness and needs. If there would be more than one perfect and sovereign essential existence then all the creations would be destroyed. Because, we know that having two sovereign kings in a kingdom and their peaceful coexistence is impossible. (However, may be two persons termed as ‘king’ may coexist in one kingdom under constitutional bindings, but it is quite clear that none of them is sovereign beyond constitutional bindings.) So it is beyond doubt that the essential existence is essentially one. Let us discuss about this subject with sincere and truth-seeking mind and arguments based on reason. Then we can discuss regarding attributes of the Essential Existence.