A Letter from God

[God Responds in Mukto-mona Forum !]

By- Avijit Roy

E mail : charbak_bd@yahoo.com  

  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 meI 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 - GOD@heaven.com 


Yours Truly


[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


[Mukto-mona] [Articles] [Recent Debate] [Special Event ] [Moderators] [Forum]