[In the name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful]
Monism :
Monism, is typically defined as a belief that there is One God who has many manifestations in the diverse religious traditions.
In hinduism, this some what Monism is popularly known as 'ADVAITA' which teaches that this universe and everything we see around is mere an ILLUSION i.e Maya and that the one and only Brahman(God) is reality and that this illusion is due to our AVIDYA or IGNORANCE. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya, thus by consequence that a human soul is equal to God's Soul in essence, to make it simple it says that we humans are God(brahman) themselves, which leads to pantheism, which no Rational person will ever agree with.
Now, let me take this belief under scrutiny,
First of all let us introduce ourselves with the term 'ILLUSION'
a. An erroneous perception of reality.
b. An erroneous concept or belief.
Source : Illusion - definition
It unequivocally says, an erroneous perception of reality implying that we can perceive only those things in illusion of which we had perceived earlier. for instance, if I mistake a rope to a snake that would be called as an illusion but this illusion would have never been possible if i have had never known or seen a snake in reality. Therefore, we can never ever perceive a thing to which we ain't familiar. Let me elaborate it further by another example, imagine a person who is blind by birth cannot see any dream objects as such. He can dream only of those things that he is familiar of. Since, he is blind by birth, at best, he can dream of sounds that he had heard. Therefore, an illusion presupposes the "real existence" of the illusory object or its constituents. If the illusory object or its constituent had not existed at all, then it becomes impossible for anyone to dream of the object.
Alike, If this universe and every thing else we see around has to be qualified as 'Illusion', this universe and every thing which we see around must have been a real entity at sometime in the past.
Now, Some monists may come up with the contention that despite, 'Dragon' being a non-existent entity can be perceived by us.
Well, i must bring it to the attention that, for imagining of a dragon one must be familiar of 'reptile creatures' and 'wings', without these real existing entity 'reptiles' and 'wind' one cannot think of a dragon. likewise, if all we see around is mere an illusion its constituents must be real as well as familiar to us in past.
In case, monists come up with the yet another baseless contention that we've already experienced and perceived the world.
Now, If God(brahman) was mistaken to this world or universe alike rope to a snake, then it would beg for the real prior existence of the “world” alike the prior real existence of snake is the necessary for perceiving snake instead of rope. If we had not seen snake before, we would not be mistaking rope for snake at the first place. So, can't we counter by saying that this world is also a thing of past experience for God in order for it to become a superimposition? Now, the question arises as to what is the basis for this past experience of God? Is the thing currently being superimposed is a real thing of the past or a superimposed thing? If its real it would cremate the advaita belief as advaita does not accept another REAL besides God. If it were a superimposed thing again, it would result in endless regression as it would ask for another prior experience and that prior experience asks for another one and so on and on to infinity. Either way, advaita Fails.
Other Logical flaws in advaita :
1. If we take advaita into contemplation that every entity we see around is not real and mere an illusion, we would reach a consequence that even the scriptures which are said to teach this advaita is also an illusion, therefore we should not get bother of what it teaches as its maya and mere maya, as any non-existent entity can never yield right knowledge. For instance, in fiction world we often come around a statement like “A PHOENIX's tears can cure any injury” is a fallacious one because there's no such bird like PHOENIX therefore its tears curing injury is another absurd statement.
Alike, if the world is unreal, its constituents such as Scriptures which are said to sanction advaita should also be unreal.
As we have seen, unreal entities like phoenix's tears can't yield right knowledge such as its tears can cure any injury in a similar way, if this world which includes scriptures are unreal, hence, the knowledge derived from the scriptures can't be right, consequently Monism Fails.
2. If everything is mere an illusion, we won't be able to differentiate between good or bad because as per this notion everything in world is mere an illusion, therefore good deeds or bad deeds are equal. but, when i read Chandogya Upanishad 5/10/7 i got disappointed, it reads as follows
"Those whose conduct here on earth has been good will quickly attain some good birth—birth as a brahmin, birth as a kshatriya, or birth as a vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth—birth as a dog, birth as a pig, or birth as a chandala."
How, come Good conduct and Bad conduct can be differentiated from each other in light of advaita theory? Its a paradox and what we may call, 'internal inconsistency'.
3. A person cannot see everything as "one and the same" as the advaitins would want it and as the consequences of contemplating over advaita implies, else one won't be able to run his daily activities as the advaitins will see his wife in his sister or his father in his mother, which is irrational.
4. The belief known as advaita would be an illusion itself since everything besides God is unreal or Illusion which again is a paradox.
5. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's. Neither of them is a possible premise. Since, Brahman is knowledge(refer svetasvatara upanishad adhaya 1:16). Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature highly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the location of Avidya since, the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a circular reasoning.
6.Upholder of Advaita philosphy argues that the world is mere illusion does it not mean that their body, organs of their body, mind and intellect are also illusion? As the mind, which findsthe universe illusory, is itself an illusion, does it not mean that thetheory of illusion is another illusion? Advaita Philosophy, being a product of the mind, does it not mean that advaita is an illusion. So as a philosophy based on illusion, is not Advaita philosophy, including its theory of world as maya, just another illusion?
Since, this notion of universe being illusion has been refuted above, so, i would like to move on to prove monotheism as a rational and logical belief.
Since, advaita has been disproved, this universe and everything we see around is real. So, there can be two possibilities left regarding existence of the universe -
1. It is eternal(from infinite time)
2. It began to exist.
The notion of universe being eternal is fallacious according to contemplation of 2nd Law of thermodynamics :
The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For instance, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy to one of a lower temperature or energy.
To explain precisely, according to to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy(low temperature or energy), as their energy is being used.
Therefore, Applying second law of thermodynamics to this universe we will conclude that it must have began to Sexist. ince the universe is a closed system, with enough time this universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Hence, as the universe continues to expand it will gradually become cold and dead. However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that it must have began to exist and consequently we can conclude that this universe must have AT LEAST ONE creator or cause as Out of nothing comes nothing for example, in order to chair to come into existence there must be a carpenter as its creator, so there can be two possibilities either (a) one cause or creator (b) multiple causes or creators. Following are the analysis of these two possibilities.
The notion of creator or cause of this universe being only one is named as 'MONOTHEISM' in islamic terminology it is called as 'TAWHEED'.
Monotheism :
It is defined as the belief in ONE and ONLY God, negating existence of any other deity besides that one One OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT God.
Islam, as enshrined in Quran and hadith is a Monotheistic faith, Monothiesm is the central theme of Islam, there are 100s of explicit and unambigious verses denying and arguing the existence of any other gods beside the One God - the creator, the sustainer, etc.
The Quran says in 112:1
“(Say) He is God one and Only.”
Ockham’s Razor :
Its a philosophical principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, meaning “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In simple words it means that, entites shouldn't be multiplied without necessity.
As already proven this universe must have had at least one cause or creator, but polytheism would be an irrational notion, as it would imply that ONE GOD is not sufficient enough to do everything, because in light of this belief, there must be something which one God is unable to do and that is done by the other God implying that God is NOT OMNIPOTENT and ALMIGHTY. So, it sounds Irrational, because the cause or creator of this universe should be Omnipotent/all-powerful because without this ability universe couldn't be created.
A possible contention to the above assertion might be, Why can't multiple gods be semi-powerful and maintain this universe together?
The basic problem with this contention is that, the existence of multiple god would create chaos.
Holy Qur'an presents this arguement in Surah ambiya 21:22 :
“If there were in them gods besides God, they would both have
been in disorder. So glory be to God, the Lord of the Throne, being
above what they describe.”
Quran - Surah Al Mu’minun, Chapter 23, Verse 91:
“No son (or offspring or children) did God beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some wouldhave tried to overcome others! Glorified be God above all that they attribute to Him.”
Let us understand it better with help of Mode logic i.e analogies/examples
1. For instance, if all time-keeping equipments were produced by a company consisting of three independent partners, with each specializing in only one aspect of these time-keeping equipments.
Can such a company be depended on for continual supply of time-keeping equipments?
What if one partner (for some reason) decides to withhold his part, or decides to stop making it altogether–where would this leave the consumers?
Or what if each of the three partners, thinking that his part is the most important wants his name to be listed first at the top of the product–where would these wrangling leave consumers?
Or what if the partners cannot agree on a specific design?
2. If there were two dieties and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to moved, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities. First, the wills of the two are both carried out; second, only the will of one of them is carried out; third, the will of neither of them is carried. The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries. The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible. This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God. Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.
UNITY OF PHYSICAL LAW:
There is order in the universe because one law pervades the whole of it, and one law clearly points to one Author and Maintainer of that law. The unity of law is a clear proof of the Oneness of the Maker.
What I mean by one law pervading the universe is that a physical law doesn't change from one place to another. For example, law of gravity is same everywhere be it on moon or earth or anywhere else.
So, if there were many gods, they would have wrangled with each other on the feasibility of certain law.
Besides, these ways there is yet another possible way to refute Polytheism.
CONCEPT OF DIFFRENTIATION :
We diffrentiate between two entities by certain Observable characterstics, such as Colour, Shape, Size, etc.
But, in absence of these certain characterstics, would you be able to perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts are required to perceive any number of entities. Now since the cause of the universe is outside the universe, we can assert that there are no conceptual differentiators such as distance, shape, colour and size, because these concepts only make sense within the universe. hence if there are no observable diffrentiating characterstics we can't claim multiplicity of causes of universe.
On the Offset, i would like to invite all the readers rather say Monist and Polytheist readers to logical and rational Monotheism.
