Posts Tagged ‘Nature’

Nature, natural and supernatural

October 19, 2015

The etymology thereof:

Middle English (denoting the physical power of a person): from Old French, from Latinnatura ‘birth, nature, quality,’ from nat- ‘born,’ from the verb nasci .
Middle English (in the sense ‘having a certain status by birth’): from Old French, from Latin naturalis, from natura ‘birth, nature, quality’ (see nature).
supernatural (adj.) Look up supernatural at Dictionary.comearly 15c. “of or given by God,” from Medieval Latin supernaturalis “above or beyond nature, divine,” from Latin super “above” (see super-) + natura “nature” (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, “of or given by God, divine; heavenly;” association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.

That is supernatural, whatever it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect, in nature, from without the chain. [Horace Bushnell, “Nature and the Supernatural,” 1858]

supernatural (n.) Look up supernatural at Dictionary.com1729, “a supernatural being,” from supernatural (adj.). From 1830 as “that which is above or beyond the established course of nature.”

Origin and history of the term (Supernatural)

The term “supernatural” itself did not come to be used until the 15th century and means, when translated literally from the Latin roots, “above nature.”

In the original sense of the coinage, though, it had the connotation of something that was “of or given by god.” By the 19th century, its usage had expanded to include other non-material mythical beings such as ghosts, demons, etc.[5] It is, however, worth noting that the natural/supernatural distinction is not universal. Some cultures such as the Nayaka (of India) and the Ojibwe do not have a concept of the supernatural.[6]

Paarsurrey notes:

The word “supernatural” has no relation with Quran, everything created, being created and that which will be created by G-d is natural.


”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?

July 27, 2015

<>Thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

post #1

paarsurrey started the thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

  • A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
  • From a text book of science
  • Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.

Post #12
 Thief Wrote:

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required….see Webster’s

paarsurrey liked the above post.
Post #26


The point is clear…..
God created the universe….such is faith.
Science seeks to know how…..

Attributes of G-d uniquely manifested in the Word of G-d and the Work of G-d

May 13, 2015

Feel free to view ,comment and join discussion on< > under the topic <Your best argument that god exists>.

Post #188

paarsurrey said:

I don’t agree with you.

The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don’t have to.

Paarsurrey wrote:

One attribute of G-d is mentioned in Quran (the secure and pristine Word of G-d) as Ahad one meaning of which is unique. Most (some may say that all ) big objects in the Universe (the Work of G-d) are round in shape or or tend to be round or a circle expressing in a way that as to Who have shaped them.

The Work of G-d and the Word of G-d thus correspond with one another.

Such are the attributes of G-d uniquely manifested in the Converse and the nature.

Is imitation of the same possible? I don’t think so.


How to make a comparative study of Religion?

March 25, 2014

Please click the following link to get the context of the discussion.

MAR 25, 2014 @ 23:05:55

@unkleE :MAR 21, 2014 @ 03:22:18
Quote : “Hi paarsurrey, how are you going?
You have built this comment around the statement that to know God, we need a revealed book. What you say raises three questions in my mind:
1. Must God reveal himself through a book? Could he ever do it some other way?
2. How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?
3. How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere. So how else can we discuss?
Thanks.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend
I am fine.

“The statement that to know God, we need a revealed book”

I think I did not literally make that statement. Well, I don’t object if one has got that understanding from the post.

unkleE : “to know God, we need a revealed book”
Paarsurrey: To know God and as to how his attributes work; His Word is most useful for that purpose.

I think you also agree with me on this point.

Don’t you?

I try to answer to your other questions below:

1. unkleE :“Must God reveal himself through a book?

Paarsurrey: I think you agree that God revealed Himself on Moses and Jesus; and a Jew or Christian cannot deny that.

Perhaps you want to know from me as to why He did manifest in this way.

Since the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is only attributive; He is not a physical or spiritual being that we could see Him with our physical eyes; though we can see his attributes working behind everything in Nature, in silence.

Yet it has always been primarily His communication or Converse through which He had manifested to human beings. Hence the importance of the spoken Word of Revelation which is verbal when revealed and also secured in writing, in the book form, is the most important source of guidance that leads to Him; it can never be over-emphasized.

Nature manifests Him silently but the Word speaks of Him loudly.

unkleE : “Could he ever do it some other way?”

Paarsurrey: Yes; He could manifest Himself in diverse ways; and nobody could limit the ways of his manifestations; yet He cannot be limited by anybody or forced by anybody to change His ways:

[35:44] …………………………….. But thou wilt never find any change in the way of Allah; nor wilt thou ever find any alteration in the way of Allah.

For one; all truthful revelation from the One-True-God is to be believed; be it of the past, present and or future; be it on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad etc; all is to be believed; being from the same source of one God.

2. unkleE: How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?

a. By comparative study

b. And the reasonable inner-evidence of the Word Revealed according to the attributes of the One-True-God. We could do that; not at all difficult to discern.

3. unkleE: How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere.

Paarsurrey: I think you have observed me quoting from the revelations of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad in this connection; I don’t think it will pose a problem even now.

These quotes should not depict simply the authority of God; but the reason/wisdom content in the same must reflect the attribute of God being All-Wise. The quotes must therefore be full of evident reason and wisdom. The gist of the reason must exist there.

It is not a perfect Book if it needs external reasons to be provided; that portion which is devoid of reason must not be from Him.

Nobody is entitled to put words into God’s mouth; He is all-knowing.

Does it help?

What is your thinking on your three questions?


MAR 26, 2014 @ 11:53:30
@unkleE: MAR 26, 2014 @ 06:54:25

“if we discuss the revelations we each believe in, how can we draw any conclusions? ”

I think I said that I believe all truthful Word revealed from the One-True-God on His prophets messengers; I even mentioned names of some of them.

I don’t see any problem.

“unless we already have some truth outside the books by which to judge their truth”

If the revelation is truthful; it would have inner truthful evidences also.

“We would need some criteria by which to make our comparisons”

I mentioned reasonable criteria.

“I was using historical and scientific learning”

People write history differently; it is not 100% correct. There was a period when there existed no written history; Truth existed even then.

Science is only a child of the yesterday and works in the things physical and material; Religion guides in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; both work in different spheres. Science cannot prove or disprove important subjects of religion like existence of God.

This is what I think; others could think differently


Science and Religion both essential for living normal life on the planet Earth

March 21, 2014

March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm

@MYATHEISTLIFE says: March 21, 2014 at 6:29 am

“It occurs to me that this subject is about how the believer chooses their own morality over the dictated word of their deity. When there is a right and wrong way to interpret the text it is by definition not a perfect text and cannot be seen to contain perfect or objective morality.”

Interpretation is done by both Religion and the Science.
The experiments are made on the basis of the availability of certain data at a certain point of time and the results are interpreted and are accepted within a certain range of accuracy; and there is an implied condition always with the results “if other things remain unchanged” (since everything is moving, so other things don’t remain unchanged); the ultimate check of the results is with the Nature- the Work of God. If there is an anomaly detected subsequently in nature with the result of the experiments; then new hypothesis/theory is made and new experiments are made to remove the anomaly.
The same way in Religion; as we advance/change in time and place; the previous interpretation/understanding does not remain valid simply because our understanding, though previously it was thought to be correct; but due to the change of time and place an anomaly is detected; when more thought was applied on the original text of the Word revealed one gets to know the mistake of previous interpretation/understanding; it was not the fault of the Word of God, so to make a new and correct interpretation/understanding becomes necessary.

Science/Nature is the Work of God and religion is from the Word of God; both belong to the same source of One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara); both work in different domains for benefit of the humanity; both are complementary to one another and never contradict one another if correctly interpreted.

Science works in the physical and material domains; religion is for guidance of the humanity in the even more sophisticated and intricate issued of ethical, moral and spiritual realms; nevertheless both are essential for living normal life in this planet Earth, peacefully.

Let us see below what Wikipedia says on the usage of interpretation:


• Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration
• Interpretation (logic), an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language
• De Interpretatione, a work by Aristotle
• Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory
• Exegesis, a critical explanation or interpretation of a text
Math, science and computing[edit]
• Interpretation (model theory), a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure
• Interpreter (computing), a program (a virtual processor) that is able to execute instructions written in a high-level programming language
• Interpretation function, in mathematical logic a function that assigns functions and relations to the symbols of a signature
• Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature
• Interpreter pattern, a software engineering design pattern
• Left brain interpreter, the post-hoc construction of explanations by the brain’s left hemisphere
• Interpreted language, a programming language that avoidsit program compilation

God Spoke with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; God honored him With His Converse

March 17, 2014

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.

“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

MAR 17, 2014 @ 15:50:55

@Howie :MAR 16, 2014 @ 16:44:54
” you feel you have revelation of the God you believe in”

Paarsurrey replies:

No, I am not honored with Revelation from God; but the book I suggested you to read; its author did have this blessing; and I had personally met with some other persons who had this blessing and did talk with them.

Like science is a tool that explores into nature, the Work of God; Quran is the Word of God that leads to God in religion.

I give a quote below from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908:

“The Speaker (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is Honored with Divine Converse”

“I would be guilty of doing great wrong to my fellow beings if I were not to declare at this stage that divine bounty has bestowed upon me the status which I have just defined and has honored me with the kind of converse the features of which I have just set out in detail, so that I should bestow sight upon the blind and should guide the seekers of the One Who has been so far lost, and should give to those who accept the truth the good news of that holy fountain of which many speak but which few find.

I wish to assure the listeners that the God, meeting with Whom is the salvation and eternal welfare of man, cannot be found without following the Holy Quran.

Would that the people were to see that which I have seen, and were to hear that which I have heard, and should lay aside mere tales and should run to the truth! The cleansing water which removes all doubt, that mirror through which that Supreme Being can be seen, is converse with the Divine that I have just mentioned. Let him whose soul seeks the truth arise and search.

I tell you truly that if souls are charged with true seeking and hearts develop true thirst; people would search for that way and would seek that path. How can that way be discovered, and how can the intervening veil be removed? I assure all seekers that it is Islam alone which conveys the good news of that path. All other people have since long sealed up divine revelation. Be sure, however, that this seal is not imposed by God, but is an excuse that is put forward by man on account of his privation.

Be sure that as it is not possible that we should be able to see without eyes, or should be able to hear without ears, or should be able to speak without a tongue, in the same way it is not possible that without the help of the Quran we should be able to behold the countenance of the True Beloved. I was young and am now old but I have not encountered anyone who has quaffed the cup of this visible understanding except out of this holy fountain.

Page 206-207

Thanks and regards

Ignorance of purpose of life; does not mean no purpose of human life

February 24, 2014

Ignorance of purpose of life; does not mean that there is no purpose of human life

I wrote comments on the topic “Fundamentalist Liberal Christians” at Ruth’s blog; link:

February 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm

@ Ruth:February 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Like the honeybees, as I understand, live in colonies; different bees in the same colony have different functions to perform; one kind of them cannot perform the function some others can perform and they do perform. So individually each one of them is busy performing its function; perhaps unaware of what others are performing and as to how they are performing.

Individually they have a meaning in the function they are performing but collectively they have the purpose of raising a honeybee colony.

Collectively they are supporting one another to collect honey and pollen as their off-season food.
The nature has another purpose of their life of which they are unaware; while collecting pollen they add pollination of nearby crops useful for the human beings.

So nature has assigned another purpose to them; to which they are unaware. Their ignorance does not mean the nature has not assigned them a special task/purpose.

Does it help?

“Ghosts: An Atheist Touchstone”

February 13, 2014

My comments on triangulations blog:

02/13/2014 at 2:56 pm
@ trueandreasonable :02/13/2014 at 12:45 pm

“An atheist can believe in ghosts spirits esp and other supernatural things and still be an atheist.”
I don’t get you exactly. How an Atheist can believe in ghosts spirits esp while he is not ready to accept the existence of One-True-God?

Similarly: How can a naturalist accept ghosts etc as a natural phenomenon while he is not ready to accept the One-True-God who exists and the nature has come into existence at His command?
This would be a dire contradiction, I think.
Please elaborate your viewpoint.

Any Atheist or Naturalist could also respond, please.

Mocking and belittling not a good or a moral humane behavior of the Atheists

January 14, 2014

Following comments were exchanged between paarsurrey and others @

paarsurrey to Wetzel:

I think mocking and belittling is not a good or a moral humane behavior on the part of the scientists, if they do it.

The truthful revealed religions represented by the stalwarts like Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have never opposed the scientists or the science. If anyone of them have; somebody please quote from them.

These stalwarts and their Revealed Word was to guide the human beings in the ethical,moral and spiritual realms and they confined themselves to these realms.

The scientific and material endeavors have been left free for human inquiry and investigations as these are in the secular realm.

xscd @ paarsurrey

Could you please translate your comments into simple English, or condense your basic point(s) into a comprehensible and succinct summary statement? Thank you.

If you’re saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive, there would be a lot of people who would disagree with you. Many religious people believe in evolution and God simultaneously, and regard the creation myth of the Bible’s Genesis and other creation myths as just that.

paarsurrey @ xscd

The Truthful Revealed Religion is the Word of the One-True-God; and the science having its basis in the nature is the Work of the One-True-God (Allah Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Ishawara) . since the Word and Work belong to the same personage; if truthfully understood, both are not and cannot be contradictory.

I think it would help.

English is not my mother language; if I have not been able to express it fully; one may ask me another question, please.


xscd @ paarsurrey

Thank you. That additional response clarified your position.

Understanding of Pascal’s Wager (or betting/gambling) made easy by Wikipedia

April 10, 2013

Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal. courtesy Wikipedia

I tried to read the Pensées of Pascal but since my mother tongue is not English; I could not understand it fully from the words of Pascal.

So I looked to Wikipedia- my virtual university. Now I feel that my understanding has been bettered after reading the .Please see “explanation” clicking the link:

Explanation: by Wikipedia

Below I give in the inverted commas the “Explanation: by Wikipedia”
Followed by comments/opinion on each point as “Paarsurrey” what I believe to be the truthful concept irrespective if Pascal believed them or he believed otherwise.

The wager is described in Pensées this way:

1. Explanation of Pensees: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”
Paarsurrey: Yes; merely by reason or by reason alone God is incomprehensible.

2. “since, having neither parts”
Paarsurrey: yes; He has no physical, material or spiritual parts as He is only an attributive being, reflecting himself by his attributes.

3. “nor limits”
Paarsurrey: Yes; he is Absolute in every good attribute, having no blemished attribute; nobody can set limits for Him while He sets limits for others.

4. “He has no affinity to us”
Paarsurrey: If the word affinity is taken as to have no resemblance or likeness; then yes, He is ONE singularity, uniqueness: If we take affinity to mean relationship or kinship or attraction or sympathy; since he has created us humans with a lot of sentiments; so He does take care of us and he helps us when we need Him; we implore him ,we make supplications to Him , we pray to Him with emotions; so he hears our prayers and solves our problems and attracted to us when we need him; saves us and forgives our sins.

5. “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….””God is, or He is not.”
Paarsurrey: As just we have seen if we use the right and appropriate resources, we are capable of knowing Him; if we refuse to use the resources and insist on using our preferred and biased resource of “reason only”, then of course we cannot know Him, not for any of His fault; but our own irrational fault.

6. “But to which side shall we incline?”
Paarsurrey: Naturally we must incline to the most beneficial line.

7. “Reason can decide nothing here”
Paarsurrey: Yes; reason without an appropriate tool is blind; cannot see anything.
8. “There is an infinite chaos”

Paarsurrey: I don’t understand as to what he means using the word “chaos”; universe is in a rhythm, it is orderly and symmetrical. If he means be it the obscurity that exits in the human minds on the issue; it will remain or even increase if we try to comprehend God by “reason alone”.

9. “which separated us”
Paarsurrey: He is always near us with his fine attributes.

“A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up”
10. Paarsurrey: God is definitely playing no games with us. He could play games, if he desires, without us. If he means the human choice; or free will choice; yes; he does not want to use force on us .Had he done it; then we would have not been given the choice or free will..

11. “What will you wager?”
Paarsurrey: We don’t have to wager or bet. We either accept him with certainty or we deny Him) “According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.”
Paarsurrey: (We have to use reason prudently, understanding its limitations; and not otherwise.

12. “Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it”
Paarsurrey: It is for this that we are not to judge anybody; and that should be left for Him to judge on the Day of Judgment.

13. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”
Paarsurrey: When we make a choice guided by the Word of Revelation using sincerely all our faculties; we are in fact not betting; but doing the right and the most beneficial thing.

14. “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see.”
Paarsurrey: When we follow the most successful and perfect human beings called prophets messengers; we can’t fail.

15. “Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will,
Paarsurrey: We lose nothing but we gain everything; right reason, right will, right knowledge and above all happiness

16. “your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery”
Paarsurrey: that will not touch us.

17. “Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all”
Paarsurrey: Yes; we gain all; as we choose the right path;

18. “ if you lose, you lose nothing”
Paarsurrey: with the mercy of Him; there is no question of losing.

19. “Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Paarsurrey: Yes; choose the right middle path.

20. “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much. Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss”
Paarsurrey: not so exactly,

21. “if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager.”
Paarsurrey: Yes we gain two lives
22. “But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play”
Paarsurrey: since you are under the necessity of playing,

23. “and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain.”
Paarsurrey: There are only two lives; there will not be any third life

24. “But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[5]”
Paarsurrey: Yes; but without any bet; with rational reasoning and positive decision.

25. “Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must “wager” by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already “embarked”, effectively living out the choice.”
Paarsurrey: When we throw a ball; either it ascends high or it falls; it won’t remain suspended there.

26. “We only have two things to stake, our “reason” and our “happiness”. Pascal considers that if there is “equal risk of loss and gain” (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists or not. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists”
Paarsurrey: Here clarity of concept of God becomes very essential. With concept of God that Jesus and Mary believed; the decision is fine; but with the concept of Paul and the scribes as described in NT; it is not reliable.

27. since “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing”, meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, “It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable…”
Paarsurrey: Yes belief in God brings eternal life or everlasting life indeed.