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
Absolutely 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 WikiPaedia and are responded . The
Approach is Asharian 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.

A WORK TO BE CONSIDERED BY
AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH

ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES

Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not existby
demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific
or historical factsor 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.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God
as described in scripturessuch as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian
1
 2

Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdasby 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) 2
 3

It is said that Deity does not shew high moral Attributes so Deity is not a Perfect Existent.

Discussion:

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 .

3
 4

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:

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
 5

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.

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.

Divine Essence Hath Essential Right to do any Act that is in the

Omnipotence of the Divine Essence. So if an Act is immoral on Human
Level and a Similar Act is in Divine Power then it is not Immoral to the
Divine Essence to Exercise it, Even if due to Divine Wisdom Divine
Essence Exerciseth it Not.

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.

5
 6

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.

There are three types of Acts. 1) Those which are in Power of Divine Essence
and Non Divine Essences and Rational Supposita whether they are Immoral
on Non Divine Level say Speaking of false Sentences.

2] Those which are In Power Of Divine Esesnce and Not In Power of Non
Divine Essences say to Create, To accept Prayers, To give Salvation. 3] Those
Which are in Power of Not Divine Esssences but not In Divine Essence
whether they are immoral for Non Divine Essences or Not eg: Homosexuality
Heterosexuality,Eating, Vomiting, Sucide, etc.,

Note Divine Essence Cannot commit Sin since if an act Sin for Non Divine
Essence then Either it is in the second or it is in the third type. In the case it
is in the second type it is not a Sinfor Divine Essence since Divine Essence
Hath Essential Right as Its Absolute Attribute to Do any thing that isIn Its
Omnipotence. If It is in the Third Type and is Sin for Non Divine Essence
Rational Essences it is not in Divine Power/Omnipotence. Since they are Self
Absurd Upon Divine Essences.

These last to types may be termed as Incommunicable or Intransitive Acts in

Regard to Divine Essence [Third Type] and Communicable or Transitive Acts
In regard to Divine Essence [Second Type]. It must be noted that Immanent
Acts are not Acts But Attributes and are Absolutely Identical to the Essential
Attribute to which they are ascribed to.. But any Non Divine Immanent Act
[i.e an Act Which Occureth in the Essence Of the Agent] is Per Se Absurd
Upon Divine Essence.

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

6
 7

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 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 (non-
supernatural) 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.
7
 8

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.

Russels 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:

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.

8
 9

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 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:im9 Bi Nafsihi:] or it is not. In the case
 10

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
10
 11

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.

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
11
 12

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

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 Cantors 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
12
 13

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
willor has allotted the same freedom to his creationsby 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.
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
13
 14

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 god-

concept 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
15
 16

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

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
16
 17

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 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
17
 18

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 fastershowing 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 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,
18
 19

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.

Also this is an Incorrect Induction. An induction is of the form:

a1, a2, , an are some Fs that are G,

All Fs are G . In more CLEAR FORM:

Some A is B
There fore All A is B.
Such an Induction is not a Powerful Proof and cannot be USED Against the
Existence of Divine Essence.

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.

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.
19
 20

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
Skhyapravacana Stra 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.

ANSWER

This is Ad Ignorantium discussed above.

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 self-
contradictory, and some[which?] commentaries speak plainly on this subject. The Sankhya- tattva-
kaumudi, 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]
20
 21

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

21
DEPENDENT. BOTH OF THEM ARE CONTRARY OR CONTRADICTING
 22

ATTRIBUTES . HENCE DEITY CAN NOT EXIST SINCE IF HE EXISTETH THEN HE

IS BOTH SELF INDEPENDENT AND SELF DEPENDENT.

ANSWER:.

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
22
 23

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.

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 [Taakh: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
23
 24

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.

ANSWER:

Answer to the Moral Argument may be seen above. This objection is

not a new one yet it is the essence of some objections like the
Problem of Evil Etc.

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:= Mutazilite , Karramites believe that Divine Will is

finite ,limited , not Eternal and Not Absolute due to this objection.
But the correct Answer to this argument is that If a Self Possible
Existeth it is a Creation of Divine Essence. So If a Car is made by
using Machines it is Created by Divine Essence since With Out the
Divine Attribute Of Creativity It would have Been Self Absurd. It is
Self Absurd for a Per Se Contingent to come in Existence with out a
Creator. So Divine Essence doeth Will to Create a Car or a Space
Ship what so ever even a Computor. Like wise a number of animals
are born as an act of reproduction yet they are Creations Of the
Divine Essence.

24
 25

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 claimsespecially claims about the
existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis 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,
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
25
 26

believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist,
an agnostic-atheistan 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.

Some Points To Be Noted

Absolute and Relative Attributes

Relative Attributes of Deity are Relations of Absolute
Qualities/Attributes are those Deity Hath within Him, and Has
always possessed independent of the objects of his
creation. His Relative Attributes, , 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 are the absolute attributes applied to situations
involving creative objects. 26
 27

[Omniscience is an Absolute Attribute and One May Differ from

this Classification since Omniscience and Omnipotence are
Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Power/Potentiality. To include
them in Relative Attributes is incorrect. But for reference
Purpose they are presented so that the readers may not be
confused].
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. Gods 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.

[It may be noted that Essential Attributes are Essentially Different from Moral
Attributes. Perfection of Divine Essence implieth that Moral Attributes are
neither Essential Attributes not Moral Attributes.So those Theists
,Philosophers and Theologians who do not distinguish between Relative
Attributes and Essential Attributes and Essential Attributes and Moral
Attributes often face problems due to their incorrect classifications. ]

Absolute Attributes are Divided in to two types.

1] Positive Absolute Attributes [Essential Attributes] like Omnipotence and

Omniscience. [Each one of the two is Absolute].Also called Transitive
Absolute Attribute [As: S:ifa:t Al Mutaddiah]

2] Negative Absolute Attribute like Eternity Self Existence, Aseity Also

called Intrasitive Absolute Attributes[As:ifa:t Al La:zimah] . Both
types are not in Divine Omnipotence but they are in Divine Omniscience.

Relative Attributes : They are like Mercy, Justice ,Love,Benevolence etc.

They are finite and are relations of An Essential Attribute and an Act in Power of
Divine Essence.

Moral Attributes are just an special case of them.

27
 28

Note : 1]The Word God is not used since some use to make satire on the word
saying that read it backwords. So a More strong word is used that is Deity.

2]In Technical form Deity is nothing but a Divine Essence and an Essence is
nothing but a Subsistent Thing [Per Se SubsistentThing]. An Attribute is Not
Subsistent [Not A Per Se Subsistent Thing]. The word In may be confusing since to
say A Subsisteth in B is not valid in case of Divine Essence a, better word is A
Subsisteth With Divine Essence.

28