 |
|
A
Letter from God
[God
Responds in Mukto-mona Forum !]
By-
Avijit Roy
E mail : [email protected]
I have received the following letter from God just yesterday. I am publishing
it in Mukto-Mona as per His permission. Hope the letter will carry reader's
interest.
~
Avijit
Nov 17, 2001
My
Dear followers,
I
am critically observing this discussion forum Mukto-mona
sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really I want
someone to talk to. It's really becoming very tough and boring for me passing
my lonely days and lonely nights. Well, yes ... I can always converse with the
angels, of course, but since I did not give them any free will and they
are nothing but "Hukumer Chakor" (obedient servant), and since I myself
have created every thought in their submissive minds, they are not very
pleasing conversationalists for me.
Well
again yes..., I (I mean my Christian entity) can talk with my son Jesus and
with the "third person" of our holy trinity, the Holy Spirit, but
since we three are all the same, there is nothing we can learn from each
other. Moreover, Jesus sometimes sarcastically calls me
"Father," and hmmm....that feels good for sometime, but since we
are nothing but "Siamese twin" born from the womb of the same
surrogated mother, it doesn't mean to me much. And yes, I can also talk to
Muhammad -the famous Muslim prophet, but that unfortunate guy is now burning
in hell. I actually tried a lot to save him from burning hell-fire (cause,
after all he is my "peyaarey baandaa" ) but some of the
members - Ali Sina, Abul Kasem, fatemolla, Butcher from Mecca, Syed
Kamran Mirza, Habib Sarwar, Khurshed Chowdhury, Taslima Nasrin, Susan, Ms.
Muslim_apostate and many others firmly accused him for his lascivious
and pedophilic
character, for his scandalous affairs with his
maids and slave
girls, for his massacre
and genocides and for his assassination
of his opponents etc. Some liberal members - Nadiya, Aparthib, Manab, Audrey,
Eshon, Jahed, fatemolla felt pity realizing Muhammad's unfortunate fate and tried to
raise their voice showing their anxiety - whether it was possible to give him
a second chance, but the former members threatened me for even going for
hunger strike if justice is ignored. I was at a loss and got really scared!
Though I had repeatedly been attributed as "Just" as well as
"Merciful" at the same time by my beloved followers, I realized that
it was actually impossible to bring justice and mercy together in the
field of trial in a law-court. In order to show mercy to Muhammad, justice
will have to be ignored and in order to uphold justice, mercy will have to be
sacrificed. What should I do? - this is a real dilemma I faced dealing with
the fate of Muhammad. After thinking for a while, I decided to be in the
side of justice sacrificing mercy.
 Well...
let's put aside Jesus or Muhammad for this moment. Let me better tell you
what actually bothered me so that I hurriedly wanted to communicate with
honorable Mukto-mona members. Actually some months ago, one of the prominent
member of this forum - Mr. Abul Kasem directly
e-mailed to me . I felt really humiliated. Cause, first of all,
I could not find out how Mr. Kasem got my e-mail address. I thought some of my
closed devoted servants only know my e-mail address. It seems I was totally
wrong. I suspect some conspiracy is going on behind me between Mr. Kasem
and Zibrial - one of my devoted angel in this territory. And secondly, in
that e-mail he asked me some very hard questions; and I was not at all
prepared for such sudden examination. To be frank, I could not answer a single
question raised by Kasem at that time. Oh ! ... I miserably failed in that
examination (not for the very first time, of course). But anyway, I did
not wanted to respond Kasem at that time to make the situation even
worse. I thought it would be better if I keep silent so that no body would know
about my failure story. Meanwhile on 11th September the saddest tragedy
happened. The whole world shocked to see such heinous acts and killing of so
many innocent people. I got very angry. I immediately called Muhammad and
asked him what have your devoted followers started doing all over the whole
world ? Why killing of innocent people by my name ? Muhammad kept silent
bending his neck down. I also got frustrated to observe the oppression
on minority started in Bangladesh just after the BD election. My frustration
increased while I found that some Hindu members and BJP supporters of this
forum became very happy to find such effective tool to bash innocent Muslims.
I was shocked. I began to search for a human - yes HUMAN - nothing much and of
course nothing less than that ! Searching for a "Human"
in pure form who would be able to apply his rational thoughts overcoming
his preoccupied narrow religious boundary. But I am sorry to say - I hardly
found such person. Every where in this word only one message I'm getting now a
day - "KILL ! KILL !! KILL (by
the name of religion and compassionate and most merciful god)!!!" ! Well
being continuously agitated, and being unable to control my immense
frustration, I have sent my
angry message to Mukto-mona through Mr.Raman on 10th November
clarifying that I do not really care about what is written on those bullshit
holy books - I just don't want to see killing of innocent people by my name,
understand ? But alas! Situation never improved. Some of the
fellow members showed his doubt whether
I am really compassionate and merciful or not. Now Avijit,
Aparthib,
Philosopher
Knight (SS) even started showing their doubt openly about my
existence. Sad indeed (ei naa holey "ghor koli kaal" ? ). I
think it is the high time to say you something about me.
Dear
believers of this forum,
I
found some of you in this forum having a devoted passion for me (though each of you
two have a different antithetical view about me, - some are the
proponent of Islamic god, some are Christian god, some are Hindu god and even
I have found some are the followers of Sikhism- and, not surprisingly all of
you think that only your view on me is absolutely right, yet it makes me very
happy that at least you didn't exhibit any doubt on my existence, and thereby
showed some respect after all) Having said that, I wish to say - I
have few questions in my mind, and I thought you (�those who have profound
faith on me�) would be the right person to ask. It will go like this:
You
are educated & learned. You have examined philosophy and world religions,
and you have a degree which makes you qualified to carry on a discussion with
someone at my level--not that I can't talk with anyone, even with the
uneducated believers who fill the churches, mosques, temples and flatter
me with endless petitions, but you know how it is. Sometimes we all crave
interaction with a respected colleague. You have read the scholars. You have
seen my devoted followers writing papers and publishing books about me, and
you know me better than anyone else.
It
might surprise you to think that I have some questions. No, not rhetorical
questions aimed at teaching spiritual lessons, but some real, honest-to-God
inquiries. This should not shock you because, after all, I created you in my
image. Your inquisitiveness is an inheritance from me. You would say that
love, for example, is a reflection of my nature within yourself, wouldn't you?
Questioning is healthy, even if it comes from god, right ?
Somebody
once said that we should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.
The questioner always wants to know the answer to the question, i.e. what is
truth? In fact there will be no further questions once the truth is known. It
is a rough but surest way of understanding "Quest
for Truth". I hope my devoted followers would not mind by my
questions.
My
first question is this:
Where
did I come from?
I
find myself sitting up here in heaven, and I look around and notice that there
is nothing else besides myself and the objects that I have created. I don't
see any other creatures competing with me, nor do I notice anything above
myself that might have created me, unless it is playing hide-and-seek. In any
event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything being omniscient),
there is nothing else but me and my creations. I have always existed, you say.
I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than
myself.
So
where did I come from?
I
know how you approach that question regarding your own existence. You notice
that nature, especially the human mind, displays evidence of intricate design.
You have never observed such design apart from a designer. You argue that
human beings must have had a creator, and you will find no disagreement from
me.
Then,
what about me? Like you, I observe that my mind is complex and intricate. It
is much more complex than your mind, otherwise I couldn't have created your
mind. My personality displays evidence of organization and purpose. Sometimes
I surprise myself at how wise I am. If you think your existence is evidence of
a designer, then what do you think about my existence? Am I not wonderful? Do
I not function in an orderly manner? My mind is not a random jumble of
disconnected thoughts; it displays what you would call evidence of design. If
you need a designer, then why don't I?
You
might think such a question is blasphemy, but most of the members of this
forum thinks that there
is no such crime called "blasphemy". I can ask any question
I want, and I think this is a fair one. If you say that everything needs a
designer and then again say that not everything (like Me) needs a designer,
aren't you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren't
you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn't that circular
reasoning? I am not saying I want to debate with your conclusion; how could I?
At least I know that I do exist. I'm just logically wondering why it is
proper for you to infer a designer while it is not proper for me.
If
you are saying that I don't need to ask where I came from because I am perfect
and omniscient while humans are entirely fallible, then you
don't need the design argument at all, do you? You have already
assumed that I exist. You can make such an assumption, of course, and
I would not deny you the freedom. Such a priori and circular reasoning might
be helpful or comforting to you, but it may not do the same for every members
of this forum. Moreover, being a god I must utter the truth that it really
doesn't help me figure out where I came from.
You
say that I am eternally existent, and I suppose I would have no objection if I
knew what it meant. It is hard for me to conceive of eternal existence. I just
can't remember back (my "previous or former birth before big bang" )
that far. It would take me an eternity to remember back to eternity, leaving
me no time to do anything else, so it is impossible for me to confirm if I
existed forever. And even if it is true, why is eternal greater than temporal?
Is a long sermon greater than a short sermon? What does actually
"greater" mean? Are fat people greater than thin people, or old
greater than young?
You
think it is important that I have always existed. I'll take your word
for it, for now. My question is not with the duration of my existence, but
with the origin
of my existence. I don't see how being eternal solves the problem (one
creative force has created another, then still the question remains open - how
the first creative force came from the blue). I still want to know where I or
my great grandfather came from.
I
can only imagine one possible answer, and I would appreciate your reaction. I
know that I exist. I know that I could not have created myself. I also know
that as I am the only God, there is no higher God who could have created me.
Since I can't look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a
creator. Perhaps--this is speculative, so bear with me--perhaps
you created me. Yes, I think it is the
high time you
should reconsider a very widely used flawed statement - "God
has created man with his own image". Correct statement may be -
"Man has created god with his own imagination",
I think.
Don't
be shocked by hearing those blasphemous statements. I mean to flatter you.
Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such
design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in
nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent--that is what
your readers say. Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Help
me out on this.
Of
course, if you made me, then I could not have made you, I think. The reason
that I think I made you is because you made me to think I made you. Some of
you have often said that a Creator can put thoughts in your mind. Isn't it
possible that you have put thoughts in my mind, and now here we are, both of
us, wondering where we each came from?
Some
of you have said that the answer to this whole question is just a mystery that
only God understands. Well, thanks a lot. The buck stops here. On the one hand
you use logic to try to prove my existence (design argument, big bang,
singularity, physics etc.), but on the other hand, when logic hits a dead end,
you abandon it and invoke "faith" and "mystery." Those
words might be useful to you as place-holders for facts or truth, but they
don't translate to anything meaningful as far as I am concerned.
You can pretend that "mystery" signifies something terribly
important, but to me it simply means you don't know.
Some
of you assert that I did not "come" from anywhere. I just exist.
However, I have also heard you say that NOTHING
comes from NOTHING. You can't have it both ways. I either exist or I
don't. What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all?
If I don't need a cause, then why do you? Since I am not happy to say that
this is a mystery, I must accept the only explanation that makes sense.
Logical explanation is - You created me.
Is
that such a terrible idea? I know that you think many other gods were created
by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis, Durga, Kali, Bishnu, Brohmma. You
recognize that such deities originated in human mind because of uncertainty,
desire, need, or fear. If the blessed beliefs of those billions of individuals
can be dismissed as products of culture, then why can't yours? The Hindus
created Brohmma, Persians created Mithra, the Jews created Yahweh, Muslims
created Allah and you created me.
A devoted Muslim thinks that his religion Islam is a true
religion, you think yours one. But When did I confirm you that your
religion is the truest religion, but Islam or Hinduism is not ? I have also
seen that you do not wish to accept Taslima, Ali, Avijit, Jahed, Audrey and
Aparthib's concept of Humanism, may be because of that Humanism does not care
whether I really exist or not, right ?. Do
you really think that God and religion should have a monopoly business
defining morality? If I am
wrong about this, please straighten me out.
My
second question is this:
What's
my purpose of life ?
Maybe
I made myself, maybe some other god made me, may be some impotent creative
force made me, or maybe you made me--let's put that aside for now. I'm here
now. This is important. But why am I here? Many of you look up to me for
purpose in life, and I have often stated that your purpose in life is to
please me. (Read the verses/slokes/suras in all regious scriptures) If your
purpose is to please me, what is my purpose? To please myself? Is that all
there is to life?
If
I exist for my own pleasure, then this is not "godly" - it's jus
selfish. It makes it look as if I created you merely to have some living toys
to play with. Isn't there some principle that I can look up to? Something to
admire, adore, and worship? Am I consigned for eternity to sit here and
amuse myself with the worship of others? Or to worship myself? What's the
point?
I
have read your writings on the meaning of life, and don't misunderstand me,
they make sense in the theological context of human religious goals, even if
they don't have much practicality in the real world. Many of you feel that
your purpose in life is to achieve perfection. Since you humans fall way short
of perfection, by your own admission (and I agree), then self improvement
provides you with a quest. It gives you something to do. Someday you hope to
be as perfect as you think I am. But since I am already perfect, by
definition, then I don't need such a purpose. I'm just sort of hanging out, I
guess. Then what will I be running for ?
Yet
I still wonder why I'm here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be
perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds
of natural LAWS OF PHYSICS that govern everything from quarks to galactic
clusters, and it runs okay on its own.
I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of
repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking
falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules,
rejecting Shautal Borua's sexy postings from mukto-mona and a trillion other
boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of
those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together,
and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing
in the universe for me to do. It's
boring sitting up here and doing nothing.
I
could have created more universes and more laws for you, but what's the point?
Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? (I'm asking you, not the
pope). Moreover, one Dillikaa laddu (a sweet from Delhi) is enough,
don�t you agree? I am sure if you buy a large packet of laddu, the
last piece would not obviously taste as sweet as the first one, right ?
If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an
infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must
compel myself, then I am a slave.
I
can't merely assign purpose to myself. Surely, I can bestow simple meaning on
you--pleasing me, adulate me, pray for achieving perfection, whatever--and
perhaps that is all that concerns you; but doesn't it bother you, just a
little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? I
mean, you do not find any purpose of your own life if I do not exist? And if
this is true, then isn't it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for
yourself either? If it makes you happy to demand an external reference point
on which to hang your meaningfulness, why would you deny the same to me? I
also want to be happy, and I want to find that happiness in something other
than myself (some other god may be). Is that a sin?
On
the other hand, if you think I have the right and the freedom to find
happiness within myself and in the things I created, then why should you not
have the same right? You, whom I supposed to create in my "own"
image?
I
know that some of you have proposed a solution to this problem. You call it
"love." You think I am lonely up here, and that I created humans to
satisfy my longing for a relationship with something that is not myself. Of
course, this will never work because it is impossible for me to create
something that is not part of myself, but let's say that I try anyway. Let's
say that I create this mechanism called "free will," which imparts
to humans a choice. If I give you the freedom (though this is stretching
the word because there is nothing outside of my power) not to love me, then if
some of you, a few of you, even one of you chooses to love me, I have gained
something I might not have had. I have gained a relationship with someone who
could have chosen otherwise. This is called love, you may say.
This
is a great idea, on paper. In real life, however, it turns out that millions,
billions of people have chosen not to love me, and that I have to do something
with these infidels. I can't just un-create them. If I simply destroy all the
unbelievers, I may as well have created only believers in the first place.
Since I am omniscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would
have a tendency to choose me, and this would produce no conflict with free
will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated
simply by not having been created in the first place. (I could call it
Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell. But I
cannot. Only one thing I can do now... I can put all the un- believers
and infidels into the hell in their after life. Seriously, Is that what I am
living for ?
You
can't have a love relationship with someone who is not your equal. Tiger
or Lion cannot have "love" relationship with goat or deer. If
you humans don't have a guaranteed eternal soul, like myself, then you are
inferior and worthless as companions. If I can't respect your right to exist
independently, and your right to choose something other than me, then I
couldn't love those of you who do choose me. I would have to find a place for
all those billions of eternal souls who reject me, whatever their reasons
might be. Let's call it "hell," a place that is not-God, not-me. I
would have to create this inferno, otherwise neither I nor the unbelievers
could escape each other. Let's ignore the technicalities of how I could manage
to create hell, and then separate it from myself, apart from whom nothing else
exists. (It's not as though I could create something and then simply throw it
away--there is no cosmic trash heap.) The point is that since I am
supposedly perfect, this place of exile must be something that is the
opposite. It must be ultimate evil, pain, darkness, and torment.
If
I created hell, then I don't like myself.
If
I did create a hell, then it certainly would not be smart to advertise that
fact. How would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or
simply to avoid punishment? How can I expect someone to love me who is afraid
of me in the first place? The threat of eternal torment might scare some
people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love. If you treated me
with threats and intimidations, I would have to reconsider my admiration for
your character.
How
would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that
they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them?
Could you live with yourself? Wouldn't it have been better not to have brought
them into the world in the first place?
I
know that some of you feel that hell is just a metaphor. Do you feel the same
way about heaven?
Anyway,
this whole love argument is wrong. First of all as an "all-loving"
god, I should not suppose to get angry if someone does not pray to me. Since I
am perfect, I should not lack anything. I shouldn't also supposed to be
lonely. I don't need to be loved either. I don't even want to be loved because
to want is to lack. To submit to the potential of giving and receiving love is
to admit that I can be hurt by those who choose not to love me. If you can
hurt me, I am not perfect. If I can't be hurt, I can't love. If I ignore or
erase those who do not love me, sending them off to hell or oblivion, then my
love is not sincere. If all I am doing is throwing the dice of "free
will" and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then
I am a selfish monster. If you played such games with people's lives, I would
call you insensitive, conceited, insecure, selfish and manipulative.
I
know you have tried to get me off the hook. Some of You explain that Yours
Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection
of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you
explain. Well, who gave them their human nature? If certain humans decide to
do wrong, where do they get the impulse? If you think it came from Satan, who
created Satan? And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first
place? Who created that susceptibility? If Satan was created perfect, and then
fell, where did the flaw of perdition come from? If I am perfect, then how in
God's name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection? A
well said proverb goes - a
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, agree ?.
Here
is the title for your next theological tome: Was Bibi Hawa ( Eve) Perfect? If
she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn't, I purposely
created her imperfection.
Maybe
you think all of this gives me a purpose--putting Humpty Dumpty back
together--but it actually gives me a headache. (If you won't permit me a
simple headache, then how can you allow me the pain of lost love?) . Sometimes
I really
need to pray. I could not live with myself if I thought my actions were
causing harm to others. Well, I shouldn't say that also. Since I think you
created me, I suppose I should let you tell me what I could live with. If you
think it is consistent with my character to tolerate love and vengeance
concurrently, then I have no choice. If you are my creator, then I could spout
tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could
dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy
it. I would be very human-like indeed.
I
have a thousand more questions, but I hope you will allow me one more:
How
do I decide what is right and wrong?
I
don't know how I got here, but I'm here responding Mukto-mona. Let's just say
that my purpose is to make good people out of my creations. Let's say that I
am to help you learn how to be perfect like me, and that the best way is for
you to act just like me, or like I want you to act. Your goal is to become
little mirrors of myself. Won't that be splendid? I'll give you rules or
principles, and you try to follow them. This may or may not be meaningful, but
it will keep us both busy. I suppose that from your point of view this would
be terribly meaningful, since you think I have the power to reward and punish.
I
know that some of you think that I give rewards not for good deeds, but
simply for believing Jesus as in my son or Muhammad as a prophet. Well both of
them were convicted for their misdeeds; and yes..Jesus was not paroled for
good behavior--he was simply released. (He had some illegal connections with
some of my angels.) If my righteous judgment demanded absolute satisfaction,
then Jesus should have paid the price in full like Muhammad, don't you think?
Beyond
that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the
blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that
justice? If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the
jail sentence for you? If someone burglarized your home, would you think
justice was served if a friend bought you new furniture? Do you really think
that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death
of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice
that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal
responsibility? It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven
who have avoided the rap for their own actions. Something is way out of kilter
here.
I
have heard some of you saying that - "Ok, If God do not exist then we
will not face any problem after death. But if God exists you people will go to
hell. So safe and most rational choice is believing." I could not but
laugh hearing their arguments. Many religions in earth are
offensive and totally antithetical to each other (but all claiming to be the
�truest religion�). For example, Islam says that Christ was a man, but
Christianity says that he was a god. So if I am a real Muslim god , all the
Christian people like in Mukto-mona will go to hell because of not believing
in my existence, but just for picking only a wrong religion and thereby
following the wrong rule which was NOT prescribed by me. Muslim and Christians
believe in one god but the Hindus believe in thousands of god and goddess.
Muslims believe that idol-worship is a great sin but Hindus do it meticulously
as a fundamental part of their religion. So you see both Abdullah and
Mr. G-Sub cannot be true at the same time. Muslims slaughter cows in their
religious festival whereas Hindus consider it as a great sin. So if, by any
chance, I am the true Hindu god, then all the devoted Muslim members in
Mukto-mona will go to hell cause they unnecessarily have slaughtered too many
cows in their religious festivals !!!! And if I am a real Muslim god, well
obviously I do not find any hope for G-Sub, Ustav, Kiran, Bishnu, Manab
Kaushik or you. So you see, many devoted believers and god-loving people will
go to hell because of just unintentionally following the wrong prescription.
That's the crux.... I am really confused which god I am.
But
let's ignore these objections. Let's assume that I will punish evil and
good will be rewarded irrespective to any religion that you follow. But How do
I know the difference? I am the God. And no body have written any rule book
for me to follow. May be you are thinking me to be the Final
Authority. I must simply decide, and you must trust my decision. Am I free to
decide whatever I want?
Help
me out here. How am I supposed to choose what is moral? Since I can't
consult any authority or rule-book or any constitution, the thing to do, it
appears, is to pick randomly. Actions will become right or wrong simply
because I declare them to be so. If I whimsically say that you should not make
any graven or molten images of "anything that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," then
that is that. If I decide that murder is right and compassion is wrong, you
will have to accept it. That's why, Adnan also thought whether
I am a real autocratic ruler in one of his response to one of our members.
Is
that all there is to it? I just decide, willy-nilly, what is right and what is
wrong? Or worse, I decide based on whatever makes me feel good? I have read in
some of your literature that you denounce such self-centered attitudes.
Some
of you say that since I am perfect, I can't make any mistakes. Whatever I
choose to be right or wrong will be in accordance with my nature, and since I
am perfect, then my choices will be perfect. In any event, my choices will
certainly be better than your choices, you feel. But what does
"perfect" mean? If I am
perfect, then there are certain things that I cannot do. If I am not free to
feel envy, lust, or malice, for example, then I am not omnipotent. I cannot be
more powerful than you if you can feel and do things that I cannot.
Additionally,
if you feel that God is perfect, by nature, what does "nature" mean
then? The word is used to describe the way things are or act in nature, and
since you think I am above nature, you must mean something else, something
like "character," or "attributes." To have a nature or
character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits.
Why am I one way and not another? How did it get decided that my nature would
be what it is? If my "nature" is clearly defined, then I am limited.
I am not God. If my nature has no limits, as some of you suggest, then I have
no nature at all, and to say that God has such-and-such a nature is
meaningless. In fact, if I have no limits, then I have no identity; and if I
have no identity, then I do not exist. In fact why
the most reputed scientists still today do not believe in ME - but
believes in NATURE and natural laws are widely understood. But
it seems it does not satisfy you. You complained that Hawking is not an
atheist. But I didn't find Hawking is a theist either. He never prayed to me
single time. Neither does he believe in my created heaven, hell or Satan. Then
what sort of god he believes in ? Well, still I remember when he was a guest
on Larry King Live, over a year ago, he was asked by Larry if he believed in
me (God). He answered by saying that he equates god with the laws of
nature. He
also said that he believes everything in the universe can be
explained scientifically. Perhaps you confused Hawking's famous
statement "Mind of God"
in his famous book "The brief History of Time" He
actually used this term in a metaphorical sense of some creative force. [Word
of caution here - this creative force is just an assumption and haven't
proved yet , and moreover it is just an impotent super force which can't be
termed as "god" in a real sense to confuse with me. Just like
gravitational force or elecro-magnetic force cannot be and should not be
termed as god.] Remember, Einstien also once said "god does
not play with dice". By this he meant that there are no random motions in
the Universe; all Nature conforms to mathematical laws. This is the God of
Spinoza which is totally different from me. His definition of God was just
another word for Nature and its laws (laws of physics). Einstein did not
believe in a super-intelligence, the existence of the Trinity, the miracles of
Jesus, the immortality of the soul, astrology, Muhammed's teaching, Phrophet's
meraaj, Phrophet's moon-splitting, Noah's arch, existence of angel and Satan,
Ram-Ravan-Hanuman or Adam- Eve story. How can you then try to convince the entire group
that these two scientists believed exactly in me ?
Who
am I?
This
brings me back to the conundrum: if I don't know who I am, then how can I
decide what is right? Do I just poke around in myself until I come up with
something?
There
is one course I could pursue, and some of you have suggested this for
yourselves. I could base my pronouncements on what is best for you humans. You
people have physical bodies that bump around in a physical world. I could
determine those actions that are healthy and beneficial for material beings in
a material environment. I could make morality something material: something
that is relative to human life, not to my whims. I could declare (by
conclusion, not by edict) that harming human life is bad, and that helping or
enhancing human life is good. This would be like providing an operation
manual for something I designed and manufactured. It would require me to know
all about human nature and the environment in which you humans live, and to
communicate these ideas to you.
This
makes a lot of sense, but it changes my task from one of determining morality
to one of communicating morality. If morality is discovered in nature, then
you don't need me, except maybe to prod you along. I saw to it that you have
capable minds with the ability to reason and do science. There is nothing
mysterious about studying how humans interact with nature and with each other,
and you should be able to come up with your own set of rules. Some of you
tried this rational reasoning even before Muhammad, Jesus or Moses.
Professor Ajoy K Roy in
one of his mails informed the group that Nastikata or atheism, as a
philosophy was developed by Dhisan before Gautam Budha. According to Dhisan
the Universe exists, but not ME - the creator; The creation of life is a
specific process of nature and it evolves out of the composite composition of
four elements. With death all ends. Perception is the only direct proof of
existence. Even if your rules contradict mine, I couldn't claim any higher
authority than you. At least you would be able to give reasons for your rules,
which I can only do by submitting to science myself.
If
morality is defined by how human beings exist in nature, then you don't need
me at all. I am off the hook! From what I have read, most of you have your
feet on the ground with no help from me. I could hand down some stone tablets
containing what I think is right and wrong, but it would still be up to you to
see if they work in the real world. I think we all agree that grounded
reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded faith or deity.
This
is a wonderful approach, but what bothers me is that while this may help you
know what is moral in your environment, it doesn't help me much. I don't have
an environment. I'm out here flapping in the breeze. I envy you.
Nor
does the humanistic
approach specified by some of the members in this forum help those of
you who want morality to be rooted in something absolute, outside of
yourselves. It must be frightening for you who need an anchor to realize that
there is no bottom to the ocean. Well, it's frightening for me also. I
don't have an anchor of my own. That's why I'm asking for your help.
Thank
you for reading my letter in spite of your busy schedule. Please answer
at your convenience. I have all the time in the world. My e-mail address - [email protected]
Sincerely,
Yours
Truly
GOD
[Writing
from heaven, but burning like hell!]
Courtesy : Losing Faith In Faith:
From Preacher To Atheist, by Dan Barker and The Case Against God:
Science and the Falsifiability Question in Theology, by By Massimo
Pigliucci. I was highly encouraged by the above two articles to write the
letter; and I used many of their arguments to enrich my article.
Comment
on the article
|
|
|
