Here’s his post, http://tance2.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/back-to-apologetics-i-guess/#comment-3571.

And here’s my reply :

01,02,03,04,05. Actually the questions that I asked in 03 and 04, I have already answered myself in 05. Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. Yes, freewill as an explanation seems plausible. About God love for mankind, I am just considering the boy’s argument, because that is what he claims, right? That evil manifests when God’s love is absent in our hearts? But then, that will put the blame on God, meaning that it’s because God withdrew His love. So, I am just putting another cause before that, of why would God do that? By bringing in the concept of freewill, I shift back the blame on humans. If you say that God’s love will always be present in our heart, then the determining factor is our own freewill. God’s love doesn’t make a difference. However, when we do good, it is because we inherited the good nature from God, is that what you’re saying?[1] But then, if I accept this as a fact, then it can be directly raised against the boy’s argument, and whatever conclusion he made will be nullified, poor boy haha. He may want to salvage his argument by saying that it’s the person’s love for God, but think I have already dealt with that one.

Ok before I move on to the other points, I have several questions. Can we say that God can only do good, and can’t do anything evil? Doesn’t this contradict Omnipotence? Or, since God allows us to do evil, isn’t this an evil act itself, I mean not stopping us from doing evil? Or, maybe this is not considered evil? I know these questions may sound cliché. But, I don’t really know what is the resolution /reply.

06,07. Hmm yeah, it could be argued that all love comes from God. The theists would say this, but the atheists may say that only parents’ love is real, since he can only directly perceive parents’ love.

07,08. Of course, I doubt that love is a physical quantity. But I’m just inferring from what the boy said, when he compared God’s love with the other quantities. But the boy didn’t quite allude to “the fact that the negation of some property does not mean that both the property and its negation needs to be created”, right? He used some physical quantities (light and heat), not just properties (brightness and temperature). In fact he didn’t even mention about the properties. My point here is that, is it reasonable to apply what we have observed/inferred about physical quantities on non-physical things? If it’s not, then in order to apply his reasoning, we would have to regard love as a physical quantity. And this will lead to the other deductions that I have made in my original post. And if it’s not reasonable and love is not a physical quantity, then all of his following points will become null. Then not only the boy didn’t prove the existence of God, he would have proved nothing. (anything else I missed here? Somehow my own reasoning seems faulty. Must be the 4am madness.. hehe..)

i) well yeah, a relative moral system may be more susceptible to abuse. We can reduce this susceptibility  factor by increasing the number of opinions sought in crafting the moral codes, and making sure that the majority agrees to it. But then, this again may not be the best way. What about those who don’t agree to the moral code in the first place? Oh yes, btw. Just my own idea, have you considered a concept of changing morality? As in, new conditions/situations creating the possibilities/need of new ethics?

v) If something happens according to natural laws, then it is natural, right? I mean, in principle we could have predicted/explained the situation. Supernatural is when something contradictory to natural laws happens right? But then, of course it could be argued that the natural laws can be traced back to God, and so there’s no distinction? Are you talking of natural events that are caused by God? A natural miracle? Well, maybe I made a mistake in the definition of a miracle too. Enlighten me on this point.

01.  When the boy said “God’s love”, did he mean i) God’s love for a person or ii) A person’s love for God ?

02. If it’s the person’s love for God, then this argument does not prove anything significant. The possibility that the belief itself and not God’s presence, wards off evil thoughts can’t be ruled out.

03. If it’s God’s love, then why does God choose not to love some? And if that’s the case, the person can’t be held responsible for his evilness, because God didn’t choose to love him/her in the first place.

04. Or some may say that it is the God’s presence/absence in the person’s heart that determines the outcome. Again the same question, why and how God chooses?

05. Ok, maybe it is the act of exercising free will that a person chooses not to receive God’s love/presence in his/her heart. So, God leaves/withdraws His love for the person, and therefore the person becomes evil and/or engages in evil conducts.

06. But similarly, can’t we also say that evil arises when we reject goodness?[i] And I think goodness represents the negation of evil more accurately.  Or maybe God’s love is goodness. In that case, this points out that only God’s love can be goodness, otherwise other forms of goodness can be used to fill our hearts without the necessity of God’s love.

07. Wait, think I missed a point here. The boy argued that darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat. Basically, his argument is that in the absence of a physical quantity[ii], we notice the absence of its properties.[iii]. Following this argument, did he also mean that God’s love is also a physical quantity? This partially answers point 06.  God’s love is a physical quantity, and goodness is just the property. But, will it not still be possible for us to fill our hearts with other physical quantities also having goodness property? Say, maybe parents’ love?

08. If God’s love is a physical quantity, it has to follow naturalistic physical laws in principle, as how the other quantities do. Whether these laws are currently known or not, is a separate question.[iv] However, since God is supernatural after all, He can choose to suspend natural laws[v] and thus prevent us from finding out the equations for God’s love. But I can’t think of any reason why God would do that.

09. The professor made the assumption that because God created evil, then God must also be evil.  The boy may have successfully managed to show that God did not create evil, but he didn’t not explicitly state that God is not evil.  There might be other arguments to suggest that God is not evil, but from this video, there seems to be only one. That is; because God did not create evil, then God is not evil. This line of reasoning actually adopts the professor’s logic and with some modifications, we can say that God doesn’t possess evil quality. From the original logic we can also infer that God is bright and hot because He created light and heat[vi].[vii] Since God is Omnipotent, does this mean that He has infinite heat and light? And if He exists in this world, then surely we would get blind and burnt. If it’s argued that God is far away and/or exists in other planes or dimensions, then He is not Omnipresent.  Again, the explanation might be that since God is supernatural, He can choose to transmit His energies the way He wishes. It will be interesting to find out the mechanism of how this happens.

10. Referring back to the above point, the rest of the argument only makes sense if we accept the professor’s line of logic to show that God does not have evil quality. As I said, there might be other ways to argue that God is not evil. But the fact remains that the boy did not explicitly state that God is not evil.

11. And this video is mainly shows that God, if He exists did not create evil (and maybe God is not evil). I think it’s not a good argument in proving God’s existence. It’s mainly a philosophical attempt at understanding the nature of God, and certainly does not automatically prove the validity of religion. Which religion the video is talking about anyway? And what are the concepts contained in it about God?

12. And Albert Einstein never really believed in a supernatural God, at least in his later years. The “God” that he talks about is just the term he uses to refer to the natural world. Another frequent misquoted statement is his famous “God does not play dice with the Universe”. This is actually his statement against quantum mechanics which posits that natural laws are probabilistic.

13. I agree that teaching religion at school is a good idea. It would be best if the kids are taught comparative religious studies. The kids should be exposed to all religions (or at least the major ones), and be left to choose their own religion when they grow up.

[ii] Light and heat are physical quantities which can be measured. The different physical interpretations aside, both can be quantified in terms of energy.

[iii] Temperature and brightness are properties of heat and light. In the absence of hotness(high temperature) and brightness, we notice cold and darkness respectively. I can’t find a better word to replace “Hotness”.

[iv] If indeed God’s love is a physical quantity, then it becomes a scientific problem. Proper scientific hypotheses can be formed and this concept can be formally confirmed, i.e. it is falsifiable.

[v] This is how miracle happens, by definition. That is when God decides to intervene and produce results which otherwise natural laws rule out.

[vi] Light and heat must have been created by God, since He created everything that exists.

[vii] Another way of arriving at this is from the statement, “God is not evil(does not possess evil quality) because God did not create evil.” So, God is not dark and cold(doesn’t possess dark and cold qualities) too, because He didn’t create darkness and cold. Therefore, God must be bright and hot.

Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, although the concept of God varies. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Some consider this concept to be polytheistic. However, this is not necessarily so. I think that a better understanding of this concept of three aspects of one singular God can be gained by comparing it with the concept of wave-particle duality in modern physics.[3] Islam is stricter in its definition of God. The Muslims believe in the concept of Tawhid, the Oneness of God.[4] Nevertheless, Muslims and Christians believe in the existence of the same God, because by their own definitions, there is only one God. The differences in their beliefs lie mainly in the attributes of God. Thus, it makes no sense to say “Islamic God”, “Christian God” etc. At most what can be said of these terms is; God as described in Islam, and God as described in Christianity. Generally, Muslims agree that the God mentioned in Quran is the same God being worshipped by the Christians and the Jews. While Christians and Jews are considered non-believers, they are generally respected and called “People of The Book” by the Muslims.

Because Islam is revealed in the Arabic language, Muslims use the word “Allah” when referring to God. “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for one God. Therefore, Arabic speaking Christians also say “Allah” when talking about God. In short, the word “Allah” is a noun, and not a proper noun. Similarly, the proper Malay word for God is “Tuhan”.

Malays in Malaysia who are muslims use “Allah”, even when praying in Malay. Christians in Malaysia are made up of the other races, like the Chinese, Indians, and the indigenous populations in Peninsular and East Malaysia. While the English translation of the Bible normally uses the word “God” and “Lord”, problem arises when the Malay version of the Bible is used.  Read the story from these links :

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g7UGf1_sKDTCSPzV1B63elXQ4uKw

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0104/Malaysia-Catholics-allowed-to-call-God-Allah-again.-Why-the-fuss

http://dayakbaru.com/weblog08/2010/01/07/khir-toyo-vesus-marina-mahathir-over-%E2%80%9Callah%E2%80%9D-issue/

In my view, this problem is blown out of proportion. I feel that the proper word to be used in the Malay language, whether for translation of the Quran or the Bible should be, “Tuhan”. “Allah” is the Arabic term. It’s not very clear to me why they are fighting over this. However, since the word, “Allah” is being used for the Quran, I think it’s fair that it should be allowed to be used by non-Muslims too. To say that “Allah” is an Islamic word is not very accurate. But then, what if other religions also seek to use “Allah”? This is unlikely, because the concept of God in other religions is not as monotheistically defined. Thus, this can be easily avoided by absorbing the word “Allah” into the Malay language officially by the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.[5] “Allah” should be defined as “God as described by the Abrahamic faiths’ standards”. With that, this problem can be easily solved.

Absorbing religious terms from other languages is not something new in the Malay language. Even the words “syurga” and “neraka” used to refer to heaven and hell respectively, have Sanskritic origins.[6] However, these terms are nowadays being used to mean heaven and hell in the Islamic sense, which is very different from the Hindu version. I don’t think there’s any confusion with the usage. So, why will there be any when “Allah” is used by the Christians, who after all profess similar beliefs about God? If the Muslims get confused about the usage of “Allah” by the Christians and vice versa, then it’s the fault of their own religious scholars for failing explain about the spirit of their own religions.

I hope this issue doesn’t get politicised. Especially so in a country where even sodomy and female menstrual cycle are important topics in parliament, and politicians address each other as “bodoh”[7] to show their utmost respect and admiration. Recently, there have been attacks to some churches in Kuala Lumpur.[8]Oh no, not again. We already had a cow head protest in 2009, now what? Bombing protests?

I can’t help but be amused by the fuss generated by both sides (the Muslims and the Christians in Malaysia) over a simple matter. I don’t think that God would be bothered so much about the exact language and word used in prayers. Sincerity is the key to prayers, what’s in a name?

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Malaysia

[3] http://www.halexandria.org/dward161.htm

Wave and particle duality is an important concept in modern physics. Wave and particle nature are thought to be mutually exclusive, meaning that matter can’t be a wave and a particle at the same time. However, developments in the 20^th century shifted our understanding. Now, it is commonly accepted that matter is both a wave and a particle, but will exhibit either wave or particle nature under different conditions. Similarly, God may choose to express Himself in different forms under different conditions.

[4] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584517/tawhid

[5] Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka(DBP) is the regulatory body of the Malay language in Malaysia. Christians insist that “Allah” has always been used in the Malay language in the Christian sense. However, the official status of the term cannot be verified. But, to say that there is no alternative to the word “Allah” in Malay is also quite erroneous.

[6] “Syurga” and “Neraka” came from Sanskrit “svarka” and “narakka”, which in Tamil language are “svargam” and “naragam”. The abundance of Sanskrit terms in the Malay language is the result of the Hindu-Buddhist past of the Malays.

[7] http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/malay/bodoh

[8] http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20100108/tap-as-malaysia-allah-ban-5th-ld-writeth-b3c65ae.html

One famous example is the Bakhshali Manuscript. According to Dick Teresi, it was the first document in “Indian mathematics that is devoid of religious association.”[1] It was found in the village of Bakhshali in present day Peshawar, Pakistan. Scholars date it to around A.D. 200 to 400. This work may have been the origin of algebra, as its notations for equations are found to contain a large dot which represents the “unknown”[2]. Other topics contained in the manuscript are arithmetic, geometry and the calculation of square root. I came across a rather interesting example of the problems contained in the Bakshali Manuscript. I will not explain or provide the solution in this post; however for the sake of your interest, it goes: “Before you are a group of 20 people comprising men, women and children. They earn 20 coins between them. Each man earns 3 coins, each woman 1.5 coins, and each child 0.5 coins. How many men, women and children are there?”[3] This may seem trivial, even unimportant; however we have to remember that this was presented in a period when there was no calculator, nor algebra. Nonetheless, in my opinion it will be a good IQ question to be posed to a bunch of secondary school kids.

Another example of an early secular treatise on Mathematics is the Ganita Sara Samgraha dated A.D. 850. It is written by Mahaviracharya, a Jaina scholar who resided in South India. It has been said to contain all the Indian mathematical ideas in the ninth century. Perhaps the most important ideas of the work are the explanation of the concept of zero, and methods for solving linear and quadratic equations. These ideas most probably laid out the foundations for the further expansion of mathematics by the Arabian/Muslim scholars.

One of the most significant products of revision and expansion of Indian mathematics in the Arab world is the Kitab al-fusul fi al-hisab al-Hindi (Chapters in Indian Mathematics) by Al-Uqlidisi. Most important contribution from this work was the use of Hindu-Arabic numerals[4]. Coupled with the use of decimal systems and pen-paper for calculations, it led to the possibility of performing multiplications and long divisions. Apart from this, the Islamic civilization also made other important contributions to mathematics during the Dark Ages.

Further expansion of mathematics involved the participation of the Western scholars during the Renaissance. The scientific revolution also happened around that time, accelerating the pace of growth. Subsequently, this resulted in the form of modern mathematics that we now have. We can see here that the early Indian mathematicians, drawing inspiration from the scriptures, played a part in the development of modern mathematics.

[2] The idea of using a symbol to represent an unknown quantity in mathematics is the central idea in algebra. The most commonly used symbols are letters “x”, “y”, and “z”

 [3] (2009). Bakshali Manuscript. In C. A. Pickover, The Math Book : From Pythagoras to the 57th Dimension, 250 Milestones in the History of Mathematics (p. 76). New York: Sterling Publishing.

[4] Hindu-Arabic numerals system is the precursor to the modern numerals system we use.

This is my first post. More will follow soon. Stay tuned!!