In this post, I will attempt to show why it is impossible for Omniscience, Omnipotence, Perfection, and Infinity, to ever be contradictory (semantically inconsistent). At the end, I will explain how Justice, Forgiveness, and Mercy, are compatible.
Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable (completely perfect/absolute power/freedom). That which is Omnipotent cannot be expected to “create a round square” because creating a round square cannot be classified as a doable thing. Since it is not a doable thing, it is irrelevant to Omnipotence. For something to be meaningfully classed as being doable (and therefore expected of an Omnipotent being to be able to do), it must at least be meaningful (semantically consistent). If one absurdly insists that an Omnipotent being should be able to do absurd things like create something from nothing, or create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift, or move forwards and backwards at the same time, then the absurd answer of “yes he can”, can be given. Maintaining such absurd standards, one can then go on to insist that they have made sense of “an Omnipresent rock”, “a rock so heavy that an Omnipotent/Omnipresent being cannot lift”, “round squares”, “1 + 1 = 3” etc. and then use them in “rational” discourse as though they are meaningful objections.
I can climb a mountain. That which is Omnipresent, cannot climb a mountain. If the Omnipresent cannot climb a mountain, then He is not Omnipotent.
Suppose a cripple had the ability to take full control of another person’s body. He takes control of a professional rock climber’s body and makes it (the rock climber’s body) climb a mountain. The rock climber is unconscious during this process. The cripple never left his own body. He just took control of the rock climber’s body via some very comprehensive remote control mechanism. Who climbed the mountain?
The cripple can’t take control of his own body. Thus, he can’t make his own body climb a mountain, but, he can make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain. Whilst the rock climber can’t take control of the cripple’s body, he has or can take control of his own body. So the rock climber can make his own body climb a mountain, but he can’t make the cripple’s body climb a mountain. Whilst both the cripple and the rock climber can make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain, neither of them can get the cripple’s body to climb a mountain. God on the other hand, Can Get the cripple’s body to climb a mountain (In truth, the cripple’s body is his and he belongs to himself. In Truth, the cripple wholly belongs to God. God’s power/authority/domination over the cripple is absolute). God Can Do or Will what both the cripple and the rock climber can do or will (make the rock climber’s body climb a mountain), but neither the cripple nor the rock climber can do what God Can Do (get the cripple’s body to climb a mountain). Let’s look at another example to better illustrate what I’m trying to convey here:
I can certainly kill myself. God can’t kill Himself, therefore, God is not Omnipotent.
Perhaps I can kill myself (I can’t kill myself if God Renders me invincible to all but Himself. Also, the rock climber from the previous example can’t have any control over his body if God Cripples him). God Can certainly kill me. I can’t kill God. God can’t kill God either. Therefore, I can’t do what God can’t do, and none can do what God can’t do. This is because God is able to do all meaningful things (Omnipotent/Able). Let’s look at another objection:
I can exist non-Omnipresently. God can’t exist non-Omnipresently. I can do what God can’t do.
God Exists. I exist because of God’s Existence (He Created me and Sustains me). God is Omnipresent. I am non-Omnipresent. God can’t be other than Himself, but I can be other than myself. I can perhaps change my identity, personality, gender, or turn into ashes. But then again, God Can certainly change my identity, personality, gender, or turn me into ashes too. Whilst it is true that I can be what God cannot, this is not the same as saying I can do what God cannot. If it is argued that I can make myself exist non-Omnipresently (which I can’t because I didn’t Create me or Sustain me), then God Can Make me exist non-omnipresently too. Clearly, there’s nothing that I can do that God can’t do. Let’s move onto another style of objection to Omnipotence:
If God is Omniscient, then God Knows what every free-willed being He Created will choose to do before they actually do it. This brings God’s Omnipotence into question. How can God Create free-willed beings if He Knows what they are going to do in advance? If God cannot Create free-willed beings, then God is not Omnipotent.
For God, it is Determined/Known that I’m going to choose y in circumstance qxS (see “An attempt at a true theory of everything: part 1” for more details on this). If circumstance qxS is brought about, I choose y. I literally choose. It is absurd to claim that God’s Knowledge of what I would choose has resulted in me not choosing y. Either there’s no such thing as free-will (in which case it is irrelevant to Omnipotence and us) or there is such a thing as free-will (in which case it is relevant to Omnipotence, and God’s Omniscience takes nothing away from this). Denying free-will in an absolute sense is absurd. If I willingly eat food, then that is surely different to someone feeding me food against my will. If someone restrains me and injects me with poison, then that is surely different me willingly injecting myself with poison.
Another objection to Omnipotence:
1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its Creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its Creator, then the Creator does not have absolute power.
The above logically implies that a non-God being can will something without God Willing it or fully/perfectly wanting it. I will proceed to show that this is semantically inconsistent of a perfect existence.
There is nothing knowable that God doesn’t Account for or Know. Also, He is Free (Able/Omnipotent), therefore, there is absolutely nothing that is done outside of God’s Calculation or independently of His Will. Both we and God Know that God Will not will imperfectly (God’s will is not imperfect. God is not imperfect). What God will Will between two or more equally perfect possibilities, is either not knowledge to be had (therefore it’s not relevant to Omniscience), or it is knowledge to be had (in which case the Omniscient has this knowledge). Consider the following objection:
I can predict things and make mistakes. How can that which is Omniscient predict things or make mistakes? He cannot. So how can He be Omnipotent if He cannot predict things or make mistakes?
The short answer is: Just as you can predict things or make mistakes (whether intentional or unintentional), God Can Make you predict things or make mistakes too. God Can Make you do this intentionally or unintentionally on your part. Neither you nor God Can Make God make mistakes. Now for the long answer:
God Can Make you predict, and you can only predict provided that it’s what God Wants/Wills you to do. If your friend asks you to predict something but you pass out before you have a chance to do so, then both you and your friend wanted you to predict something, but God Willed otherwise. It is God who Gave you access to semantics and Made you sentient enough to understand hypothetical possibilities. Thus, the only reason you can predict, is because God Wants/Wills you to be able to predict. Call this the first layer of God’s Will/Existence in relation to you. The next layer is when does God Want/Will you to predict? That’s something you find out when you successfully predict something. If you willingly predicted something on Sunday, then God Willed you to willingly predict something on Sunday. Another layer is how does God Want you to predict? If you “unwillingly” predicted something because you had a gun to your head, then that’s how God Willed/Wanted you to predict. Or put differently, Existence (God’s Will) is such that you predicted that way.
Whatever happens, happens because God Wants it to happen. Whatever doesn’t happen, fails to happen because God Wants/Wills different to it. How can it be other than this when it is God who Creates and Sustains in an Omniscient and Omnipotent manner? If something happens such that God Thinks ‘I did not fully want this to the last atom’s weight’, then God is imperfect. God being imperfect is absurd (it contradicts the semantic of God/Good and Being/Existence)
To sum up Omnipotence, God Knows what we will or won’t do under every possible circumstance, and Chooses which possible circumstance comes to pass in relation to us. This encompasses saying God Chooses what we choose to do (this is not the same as God choosing instead of us or in place of us. God Chooses in place of God. We choose in place of us. I will discuss this further when discussing the Attribute of Perfection). God’s power is absolute/perfect. There is nothing that He could possibly want that He could not Do/Have/Will. Thus, everything that occurs, is as a result of what God fully determines/decides/wills/wants (Perfection/Goodness). This is a both a semantical and logical requirement of Omnipotence and Perfection/Goodness.
With what has been said so far, how can one possibly do something that God cannot? How can one possibly conceive of something that is doable, yet at the same time, conceive the Omnipotent as not being Able to do it? How can one conceive of a hypothetical possibility that is hypothetically impossible? How can Omnipotence possibly be contradictory?
Omniscience = knowing all that there there is to know (completely perfect/absolute knowledge). That which is Omniscient cannot be expected to “know what it’s like to sit and stand at the same time”. Nor can He be expected to “know what non-Existence or round-squares look like”. This is because all such expectations are absurd (semantically inconsistent). Thus, they are not meaningful objections to Omniscience.
Does God Know what it’s like to be me? Does God Know what it’s like to be depressed, anxious, or in pain? Does God Know what it’s like to be ignorant?
How I have come to be in this world is not relevant here. What’s relevant here is that me and my world were Produced/Created by God, and are Sustained by God. I know what it’s like to be me and I fully belong to God. This entails that what it’s like to be me can be fully broken down and explained in terms of Existence. Even if it can’t be explained in terms of Existence (which it can), it can certainly be felt, understood, or known as a result of Existence. In other words, some relevant existing thing or things give rise to the knowledge and feeling of what it’s like to be me. All that’s required, is to have appropriate and adequate access to those relevant existing thing or things. That which is Omnipresent has full reach and access to all existing things. It encompasses all things/existents fully. This means it has appropriate and adequate access to those relevant existing thing or things. Since God is Omniscient, God fully knows what it’s like to be me, depressed, anxious, or in pain. He’d be imperfect if He didn’t.
It might be objected that it is better to not feel depressed, anxious, or pain than it is to feel those feelings. Therefore, if God Feels those feelings, how can He be Perfect? And if He doesn’t feel those feelings, how can He be Omniscient?
Omniscience does not require that one fully feels those feelings, just that one fully knows what those feelings feel like. I know what it’s like to feel anxious despite not feeling anxious right now. Is it necessarily the case that I needed to experience anxiety before knowing what it’s like to be anxious? Couldn’t a memory implant of someone else feeling anxious make me know what it’s like to feel anxious without ever having felt it? Existence is such that triangles have three sides and anxiety is a negative feeling. Some existing thing or things give rise to me knowing and remembering what it feels like to be anxious. That which is Omnipresent has access to these things. It Fully encompasses these things. Thus, God fully knows what it feels like to be maximally anxious without ever having felt it. The same applies to any other feeling, state, emotion, sensation and so on.
It’s not evil to feel evil, unless one is not evil. It’s good to feel evil provided that one is evil. It’s not evil to suffer, unless one is not evil. God does not feel evil (because God is Good). God does not suffer (for the same reason). But God Knows how to Cause/Create suffering for someone (just as He Knows how to Create a round planet for someone, or Cause them pleasure instead of pain/suffering), and God Knows how to Make one feel evil (or Will one to feel evil). God only Causes one to suffer or feel evil when it’s perfection (truly/perfectly deserved). Evil and suffering are aspects/attributes that belong to God’s Creation (like the attribute of roundness belongs to planets), they are not aspects/attributes of God Himself (God is not a planet; God is not evil; God is not suffering). Similarly, finiteness and imperfectness are not aspects/traits/attributes of God Himself (because God is Perfect, Infinite, wholly innocent of evil, and entirely devoid of injustice), they are aspects/traits/attributes of God’s Creation (though God does not create/sustain imperfectly. I will discuss this, and I will discuss why it perhaps looks as though there is injustice/evil in Existence when I come to discuss the Attribute/Trait of Perfection/Goodness).
With God Having Reach/Access to all existing things (or encompassing all things), how can there possibly be something knowable that He does not know? If something is knowable, then the information exists in Existence, and because of Existence. If the information needs the right tool or mechanism to decipher/understand it, then God Has Access to both the information, and the tool/mechanism needed to decipher/understand it. How can He not when He is the one who Creates and Sustains all tools, mechanisms, and information? He Created us and Sustains us complete with the tools or mechanisms we use to decipher/understand/know/feel/see/hear everything. From what a triangle is, to what it’s like to be evil or anxious. How can the Omniscient not completely/perfectly/really/truly/100% know what He Created and Sustains? No part of us is independent of Existence. The impossibility/absurdity is in us knowing what it’s like to be God, not in God Knowing what it’s like to be us. Not knowing what it’s like to be God, is necessarily an unknown to all non-God beings. The more a being resembles God/Being, the more a being is better able to understand/feel what it’s like to be God.
Knowns such as ‘Good = A perfect existence’ or ‘Omniscience = knowing all that is knowable’ should be treated as knowns. Unknowns to us such as ‘what it’s like to be Omniscient’ or ‘how many dimensions the Omnipresent has’, should be treated as unknowns. Absurdities such as “Omniscience and Perfection are absurd, meaningless and irrelevant to Existence” or “Perfection = something other than a perfect existence” or even “perfection = something independent of a perfect existence” should be treated as absurdities.
One might object to existence being perfect by saying “since existence has only three dimensions, it is imperfect. This is because an existence that has more dimensions, is better”.
It may well be that God has more dimensions or layers to Him than we can currently perceive, but that’s unknown to us. If it’s unknown to us, then we have no right to bring it into rational discourse. What we do have rational authority or a right to say, is this: If it’s possible for existing or existence to have more dimensions than we can currently perceive, then Existence (that which perfectly exists) actually Has more dimensions and we are simply unaware due to our imperfectness. Whilst it is true that we don’t have full knowledge of Existence, we have a priori outlines that cannot be contradicted. One such outline is that God Exists and His Existence is the true existence (not ours). Unknowns do not take anything away from a priori outlines. Rejection of a priori outlines is irrational/bad/wrong/evil.
The problem of evil is another attempt at describing Existence as being imperfect. Simply put, if Existence is Perfect, then there should be no evil/injustice within It. I will somewhat briefly discuss evil first, and then proceed to prove there is no evil in Existence (the Will of God). The next two paragraphs consider the hypothetical possibility of a woman being raped.
T looks at a woman, assumes she is innocent, believes that it would be evil to rape her, and then proceeds to rape her. Where T is not potently evil, and does care about being good on some level, he may repent after raping the woman. Let’s say he repents. Whilst it is true that T was evil enough to rape the woman, it is also true that he dislike/hated evil or himself enough (meaning that he liked/loved Good, or good enough) to try and be better in light of Being/Existing/Truth (which will require that he be willing to make appropriate and adequate sacrifices). Alternatively, he simply came to fear God enough (as opposed to fearing the authorities or fearing nothing) to repent.
So, where T is truly sorry and genuinely repentant, he would take steps towards becoming a better person and would be willing to suffer for this cause (how could he be genuinely sorry if he is not willing to suffer for choosing to be evil? If he does not want or at least accept that evil ought to suffer, then he is not good/reasonable). Where T rapes the woman and then decides that he is happy being evil, and then potently commits to being evil such that no reasonable circumstance would lead him to willingly stop being evil, T has become determined/unrepentant evil. T has chosen this. In other words, T has seen and understood what it is to be evil, and consented to being evil (which is putting it mildly). This is why there is no excuse, refuge, or “safe word” for unrepentant evil. Perhaps it’s worth highlighting here that whilst Hell has not been sugarcoated in scriptures, pure reason dictates that it is a place where only the genuinely evil end up. You do not go to Hell just for not uttering “I believe in God”. You go to Hell for being clearly in opposition to Good. You go to Hell for being clearly evil. If reason dictates that you should believe in God but you don’t, then you are evil on some level. If you’re rejection of God or Good amounts to you being suppressive/lazy or arrogant/oppressive enough, then a loss of good and a gaining of bad/evil will be the Truth in relation to you. Immense pain, suffering, anxiety, melancholia, meaninglessness, and sorrow are all hypothetical possibilities. Good’s Domination over evil is Full and Extensive.
Harming someone unjustly to satisfy oneself, is evil. The more one is willing to harm someone unjustly, the more evil one is. One does not actually have to harm someone unjustly in order to be evil. One just has to be such that they would harm someone unjustly.
If you give money to charity in order to look generous, then perhaps you will look generous, but you certainly won’t be generous purely as a result of this act. How could you be generous without intending/willing to be generous at all? You cannot. Your actions only hint at what your character is like. Your decision to do something or to turn away from something, may be a determining factor with regards to what your soul becomes. What your soul reveals and hides (as in what you would will/do/choose/become under what circumstances) is fully known to God, but not to you.
And your Lord said to the angels: “I am placing a successor on the earth.” They said: “Will You place in it he who would make corruption in it, and spill blood; while we glorify with Your praises, and exalt/sanctify to You?” He said: “I know what you do not know.” (Quran 2:30)
Is there any evil in Existence? If there is any evil in Existence, then by definition, God is not Perfect. Per the dictates of pure reason, God is Perfect, therefore, there is no evil in Existence. Just to reiterate, this is a matter of pure reason. It is a priori true and therefore not susceptible to doubt. The a priori and the a posteriori are by definition, not equal. It’s in the definition of the a posteriori that it is to be taken and interpreted in line with the a priori, not the other way round. Semantically/meaningfully speaking (as opposed to meaninglessly or absurdly) the a priori is not open to interpretation, the a posteriori is (see my first post “embracing absurdities in the name of unknowns, and the indubitable nature of semantics and reason” for a thorough justification of this) . Since we are imperfect beings and what we see in our world is a matter of empiricism, it is susceptible to doubt and open to interpretation. I feel like I have to further emphasise this point:
One does not sacrifice pure reason for the appearance of things unless one is unreasonable. Empiricism that contradicts pure reason or the a priori, is absurd. My experiences have lead me to believe that some people seem to think science = reason. Science is not reason. Reason is reason and good science adheres to it. Put differently, the only reason science works when it works, is because it adheres to the dictates of pure reason. There would be no science without the philosophy of science. There would be no philosophy of science without pure reason. There would be no pure reason without God. There is no higher authority than God and pure reason. To obey the dictates of pure reason, is to obey God.
Since Existence is Perfect, evil/unjust beings exist perfectly/justly in Existence. T is potently evil/unjust, but T is existing perfectly/justly in Existence because T is getting what he truly/perfectly/really deserves. He is suffering in a place of potent suffering (Hell). If even an atom’s weight of evil was better off by being evil all things considered, or, if even an atom’s weight of injustice ever occurs in Existence, then it can be said there is evil/injustice in Existence. Where this does not happen, there is no evil/injustice in Existence. This does not happen. Pure reason dictates it. I will attempt to make this clearer for the reader in the proceeding paragraphs. Note that them + God/Good = They; us alone = we; us and God = We
We know that it’s perfection for good to be rewarded and evil to be punished. To deny this is to deny it being Perfection for Everyone to get what They Truly/Perfectly/Really Deserve. Since evil being punished is perfection, its omission would be imperfection (an omission of a perfection). All Beings Serve and Contribute to Perfection Knowingly or unknowingly, Willingly or unwillingly, but always Perfectly.
Let’s logically/semantically unpack the following: it’s Perfection for Everyone to Get what They Truly/Perfectly Deserve
It’s Perfection for God to Be God/Perfect/Good. It’s perfection for good to be good. It’s perfection for evil to be evil. It’s perfection for triangles to be three-sided (an Existence without triangles, or an Existence where triangles are not three-sided, is absurd, and therefore not Perfect or Existing/Existence. Thus, triangles being three-sided, is a perfection/truth). The aforementioned four sentences refer to the way God Is/Exists (the nature of Existence).
The Subject God Determines All Truths as All Truths Are Rooted or Contingent on Him or His Will/Existence. Only God is Self-Existing or Self-Contingent. I will attempt to illustrate what I mean by this with the following sentence: It’s good for good
people to be good. This sentence is subjectively true, as well as Subjectively/objectively true. It’s subjectively true in that it’s good for me and all other non-God beings to be good because Existence is Perfect and we get what we truly/perfectly deserve (happiness, joy, fulfilment, awe). It is Subjectively/objectively true in that it’s only good for good to be good because it’s perfection for good to be good (as in it’s an instance of what God/Truth/Perfection Wants/Wills). Now consider the following:
It’s evil for evil
people to be evil. Again, this is subjectively true and objectively true. It is subjectively true in that it’s evil for me and all other non-God beings to be evil because Existence is Perfect and we get what we truly/perfectly deserve (misery, suffering, anxiety, terror). It’s Subjectively/objectively true in that it’s only evil for evil to be evil because it’s perfection for evil to be evil. It’s not perfection for evil to be good because it’s absurd for evil to be good (not what God Wills/Wants. Not true of Existence). This is no different than saying it’s absurd for squares to be round. An Existence where evil is better off, and good is worse off, logically implies that it’s good to be evil, and evil to be good. It is literally a case of evil being good. Like roundness being triangular. Such an Existence is clearly absurd/imperfect/evil/impossible/false/corrupt, or not truly/perfectly/consistently/rationally/coherently existing.
It’s perhaps perfection for undetermined evil to become good. Undetermined evil is not the same as unrepentant evil. That which is unrepentant evil absurdly rejects that it is good to be good, and evil to be evil because it absurdly rejects God’s Perfection willingly. If T did not unreasonably/wrongly/unjustly reject God willingly, then T is not evil. So either T is good, neither good/evil, or the truth in relation to T is still being determined (as in T is still choosing between how good or evil he is willing to be). Assume the truth in relation to T is that he is evil. The only reason T
could not would not genuinely/sincerely repent and reform, is because T did not willingly want to be good when he could have been. T willingly wanted to be evil. He did not have a gun to his head when he raped (and even if he had, he still shouldn’t have raped when it would have been insincere to God/Good to do so. Would it not have been better for him to have opted out of serving himself or the being that put a gun to his head? Would it not have been better for him to have killed his desire or to have been killed by the one wielding the gun than for him to have been insincere to God instead? He should have served God. His gains would have been more and his losses would have been less).
Moses said to his people, “O my people, you have wronged yourselves by taking the calf, so repent to your Bāri-ikum, and face/kill yourselves. That is better for you with Bāri-ikum…” (Quran 2:54)
calf= Ayn-Jiim-Lam = to hasten, make speed, accelerate, be hasty, act hastily, hurry over, do speedily. ajalun – precipitation, haste. ajil – that which hastens away, transitory. ista’jala – to seek or desire to hasten, urge one to make haste in doing anything. ijlun – calf.
yourselves = ن ف س = Nun-Fa-Siin = was or became high in estimation, of high account or excellent, highly prized/precious/valuable and therefore desired with much emulation or much request, desired, it became loved or highly esteemed, console, cheer, envy.
Was or became avaricious/tenacious/niggardly of it because of its being in high estimation or excellent, little to much good.
Brought forth (e.g. gave birth to a child), menstruated, blood.
Clear away grief/anxiety/sorrow, ease/relieve, delay.
Breath, gust, drew breath, sigh, spoke long (due to regular intake of breath), become extended/long/increased, ability.
Soul/spirit, the vital principle, intellect/reason/mind, inner desire or feeling, knowledge, pride, self-magnification, a state where there is ample scope for action, ‘willingly’ when used as adverb, nafs – soul of discrimination (mental) and ruh – soul of breath (physical), oneself/itself, whole, essential constituent, reality, sometimes ghayb and nafs are synonymous, a person/being/individual, quantity, man, life, soul + body, life-blood, body, contention/thought/face/substance, heart, stomach, gulp, drought.
Brother or co-partner in faith/religion/relationship.
Wide space, distance, width.
Greatness, nobility, glory, scarcity, absoluteness, unseen, hidden reality which is beyond human perception, intention, requital, punishment.
Bāri-ikum = Ba-Ra-Alif = became/was clear/free of a thing, to quit it, become irresponsible for it, guiltless of it, remove oneself from a thing, kept far or aloof (e.g. from unclean things), state of freedom/immunity/security/safety.
Convalescent/sound/healthy, cure/heal, recover/restore.
He compounded or made a compromise with him for their mutual separation.
Mankind/creation/beings/things that are created.
kill = Qaf-Ta-Lam = to kill, put to death, be accused, slay/murder/kill/slaughter, attempt to kill, render person like to one killed, to wage war/combat/battle, to master, contend/fight, deadly, knew a thing thoroughly/well, become acquainted with it.
I will hopefully discuss why some are born handicapped, and why some have perverted desires in future posts. For now, it suffices to say that T decided/willed what he decided/willed when could have will/decided differently. If he couldn’t, then it’s not his fault. To say he couldn’t, is to say he was incapacitated (like the rock climber in the cripple example). As for the woman, we are not omniscient with regards to what/who the woman is or deserves. This is not to say we shouldn’t punish rapists (if we are not stern or brutal against evil, then we are not as good as we could be. Having said that, if we do not value every thread of good, and fail to exercise forgiveness and mercy to nurture this thread, then we are not as good as we could be. We should not be expected to be Forgiven, if we are unwilling to forgive when the opportunity presents itself).
With respect to good and evil, God Does not Want to Make T anything other than what T willingly chooses to be (T is one who would sacrifice Perfection because he absurdly believes that’s what it is to exist/be better). Rightfully, God Wants/Wills God to Be God, good to be good, evil to be evil, and triangles to be triangles. This Is Perfection/Truth. It is Existence (the Will/Being of God). Whatever God Wants/Wills, is an instance of perfection/truth. Evil does not want this. Instead, evil wants imperfection (for it to be good to be evil). Evil is wrong/evil to not want Perfection, and this is what God/Perfection Dictates as an instance of perfection/truth (it being wrong to be/want/will wrong/evil). Evil is evil’s problem and evil does not seek to remedy its problem because evil rejects its need to be better, fairer, and more reasonable in relation to God/Good (or sincerer in relation to Perfection/Truth). Evil absurdly thinks it unreasonable or unwise to be free-willingly good. Evil thinks it’s better to serve evil than it is to serve a perfect existence. Evil seeks and settles for being evil despite being invited to Good. Evil sacrifices good for evil, or perfection for imperfection, instead of rightfully sacrificing imperfection for perfection, or evil for good. There is nothing more important than Good, and there is nothing less important than evil. We may feel the need to respect cattle before we consume them by slaughtering them in a manner that is not sadistic, or by rearing them in a manner that is not abhorrent (as is perhaps the case when we pump them full of hormones), but if cattle were evil or insentient, should we be at all concerned about their well-being when they are not concerned about the Good of God? Shouldn’t we be fully focused on how we could use them for our benefit in the most comprehensive way (perhaps this is happening now). Is it not perfection to sacrifice evil for good? Shouldn’t it be all about
survival of the fittest existing well?
Had T willingly responded to reason and goodness sufficiently (instead of allowing/consenting himself to becoming more and more comfortable/happy with being evil), T would have eventually acknowledged Existence as being Perfect (rather than think it short and only good for raping and stealing). So, depending on the soul at hand, it’s perhaps perfection for undetermined evil to become good. God Guides and Misguides whomever He Wills. This is Perfection. Does said individual genuinely want Forgiveness and Mercy? Will he genuinely repent and reform? Does he genuinely acknowledge/appreciate that it’s Perfection for Perfection to be Perfect, good to be good, and evil to be evil? Or does he absurdly think that it’s good to be evil, or perfection to be evil, and persists with this attitude until he transitions from being undetermined evil, to being determined evil such that he would knowingly, willingly, and unrepentantly rape/oppress/harm that which he considers himself as being physically, or intellectually, or resourcefully (but not morally) superior to? How then can such a being get upset at God for Putting him in Hell? Absurdly/unfairly/wrongly. If he was good, he wouldn’t suffer Hell.
What would do God with your punishment if you only appreciated and acknowledged? God is Appreciative, Knowledgeable. (Quran 4:147)
would do = Fa-Ayn-Lam = to do something, He did it, the suffering or receiving the effect of an act, to commit, a doing, to do a deed, a custom/habit/manner/wont.
appreciated/Appreciative = Shiin-Kaf-Ra = to give thanks, be grateful, realize or acknowledge one’s favour, praise. shukrun – giving thanks, gratitude. shaakirun – one who gives thanks or is grateful, appreciated and bountiful in reward.
shakruurun – thankful. Sometimes a distinction is made between this word and shaakirun. The former is used to denote a person who is thankful for little or for nothing, the latter grateful for large favours.
mashkuurun – gratefully accepted, acceptable
acknowledged = ا م ن = Alif-Meem-Nun = become/feel safe/secure, state of security/safety, trust, become quiet/tranquil in heart/mind, become free of expectation of evil or free of an object of dislike/hatred, promise/assurance of security/safety, become trustful/faithful/confident, to believe/acknowledge it, manifestation of humility/submission.
Whilst it’s perhaps perfection for undetermined evil to become good (depends on whether the soul at hand is willing enough to become good for God to Forgive him, or Show him Mercy by Transitioning him from undetermined evil to good), it’s definitely good for undetermined evil to will to be/become good because he would be better off all things considered (he is at the Mercy of God at all times. Every moment in relation to him is contingent on what God Wills in relation to him, which is contingent on his level of sincerity or insincerity towards God). As demonstrated earlier, it’s imperfection/absurd for evil to be good. Let’s add to this: It’s absurd for evil to be not evil. This is the same as saying all things considered, it’s evil (would harm Good/God/Perfection) for evil
people to not be on the receiving end of evil (anxiety, misery etc.), because then, evil is not getting what it perfectly/truly deserves. This logically means there isn’t anything wrong with being evil. Which is literally the same as saying there is nothing evil/bad about being evil/bad. Just as it’s absurd for evil to be good, it’s absurd for evil to be not-evil. Sure, evil thinks that it’s better for evil to not get what it truly/perfectly deserves, or that it’s good to be bad/evil, but, it’s not right/perfection (what Good Wants/Deserves. Or what is true of Existence). It’s evil/wrong/imperfection.
So long as Existence Is true to Perfection, We Have Perfection. In other words, so long as God is God, Existence is Perfect. How can an imperfect Existence accommodate the semantics of Perfect and Perfection? An imperfect Existence cannot accommodate the semantics of good and evil in a determined/logical/consistent manner, let alone Perfect and Perfection. An imperfect Existence cannot accommodate any semantics because an imperfect Existence is absurd. There’s no such thing as an imperfect Existence (though there are imperfect beings that exist perfectly purely as a result of that which Exists Perfectly). Whether one accepts this or not (and with what level of potency/maturity/comprehensiveness), is something one can choose if they have free-will.
I can see someone arguing here that since I cannot will anything except if God also Wills it, then God Willed me to be evil. Therefore, just as I am to blame for being evil, God is also to blame too.
Whilst God Willed/Chose that you choose to be evil (put differently, whilst Existence is such that you are evil), God Did not Choose for you. Only that which chooses to be evil is to blame for being evil. God Could not have Willed for you to be evil if you had no choice in the matter because then, by definition, you are not evil. Being free-willed is a necessary semantical component of being evil, as is being a loser (by loser I mean that which suffers a loss in terms of goodness. It would be imperfection for you to have done nothing wrong and yet be created deprived of a good environment (call this good environment Paradise). If you are created in Paradise and then proceed to do/be evil sufficiently, then you rightfully become a loser of said Paradise. Souls cannot exit/escape Existence. Where they do not change, the greatest losers are those that end up with maximum suffering (Hell). They are the greatest losers because they have lost Paradise for Hell. They have traded what is good for them for what is maximally evil for them by choosing to be maximally evil). To reiterate what was said earlier when discussing Omnipotence: God Chooses what we choose to do (this is not the same as God choosing instead of us or in place of us. God Chooses in place of God. We choose in place of us.
Another matter that needs to be addressed, is hatred for evil. It’s perfection to hate genuine unrepentant evil (the alternative is that it’s perfection to love evil, or that it’s good to have neutral feelings towards that which is willingly, knowingly, and unrepentantly evil). Since we are all Created by Existence, this amounts to God Hating some of what He Created. Would it not be better if God did not Hate?
Seeing evil suffer in proportion to its evil is satisfying for those who love Good/Justice (or Benevolence towards Good as opposed to Benevolence towards evil). God only Hates that which hates or fails to appreciate/acknowledge Him. As already highlighted, hatred for genuine evil is perfection/rightful/righteous (also, as highlighted earlier, it’s absurd for evil to be not-evil). So long as this hatred is perfectly satisfied, then there is no imperfection. Ultimately, one cannot love oneself as much if one views oneself as being imperfect. On the other hand, one cannot love oneself anymore if one genuinely and non-absurdly views oneself as being perfect. Clearly, perfect love for oneself only requires for one to be perfect. It does not matter how this being perfect is achieved, just that it be true to perfection or perfectly justified (if it’s not perfectly justified, then it’s just an illusion of perfection, and the illusion of perfection is not as good as true perfection).
You shall not prostrate to them or worship/serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the inequity of the fathers on their sons to the third and fourth (generations) of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:5)
God = אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ (’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā) Noun – masculine plural construct | second person masculine singular – Strong’s Hebrew 430: gods — the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative
God = אֵ֣ל (’êl) Noun – masculine singular, Strong’s Hebrew 410: Strength — as adjective, mighty, the Almighty
visiting = פֹּ֠קֵד (pō·qêḏ) Verb – Qal – Participle – masculine singular, Strong’s Hebrew 6485: To visit, to oversee, muster, charge, care for, miss, deposit
inequity = עֲוֺ֨ן (‘ă·wōn) Noun – common singular construct Strong’s Hebrew 5771: Iniquity, guilt, punishment for iniquity
Another objection that focuses on the coherence of Perfection when taken together with Omnipotence, is as follows: I can harm myself. God Can never Harm Himself, therefore, God is not Omnipotent.
God Can certainly harm me. I can perhaps harm myself. I can’t harm God. God Can’t Harm Itself (because it’s impossible/absurd for Him to Want/Will this, not because he lacks the power to bring about imperfection by harming good and rewarding evil). I can’t do what God Can’t do.
God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of adam/man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)
that He should change His mind = וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם (wə·yiṯ·ne·ḥām)
Conjunctive waw | Verb – Hitpael – Conjunctive imperfect – third person masculine singular
Strong’s Hebrew 5162: To sigh, breathe strongly, to be sorry, to pity, console, rue, to avenge
Another similar objection is as follows: I can commit evil. God Can never Commit evil. I can do something that God Can’t do.
You cannot objectively commit evil because God won’t Will/Allow you to. Any evil that you think you have committed, if you find out all the premises in relation to it, you will conclude that it was perfection all things considered. This does not mean that you are free from blame or that you are not evil. You may be a liar but your lie is not true of Existence (it is only true that you are a lying person, and evil if you lied with evil intent). You may be evil but your evil is not true of Existence (it is only true that you are an evil person due to your evil intent). What you did amounted to perfection as a result of God’s Positioning of free-willed beings in relation to one another, and, as a result of His Handling of affairs regarding you and all who were involved. It did not amount to perfection as a result of your evil intention. Your evil intention was just a part of the equation.
You can be/become evil in soul and intent (if God Wills it), but you cannot commit evil in Existence. You commit evil only in the sense that you recognise an act to be in opposition to pure reason, your conscience, or your genuine sense of good, but still commit it anyway. Regardless of how things look, you only harm or benefit those whom it was perfection to be harmed or benefitted (including yourself). If you successfully steal from someone, then you haven’t wronged the one whom you stole from because God Wanted the person you stole from to be on the receiving end of you stealing from them. You wronged yourself, or chose wrong (provided that you wanted to be better off (good) as opposed to worse off) in that you are now worthy of punishment (unless true repentance takes place on your part such that it no longer becomes perfection for you to be further punished beyond your regret/guilt/remorse). Perhaps you’ll be stolen from, go to jail, or be misguided to become further evil to the point of becoming worthy of Hell (which you will have willingly chosen or knowingly consented to) so that it becomes perfection for you to potently/maximally suffer.
There being an instance of imperfection or evil in our universe, or anywhere else in Existence, is absurd. The appearance of things is such that some might say there’s a 99.9% chance that there is injustice in our world. Some might outright claim that there is definitely injustice in our world. Neither claims are rational. Perfection is Omnipresent. This is 100%. Thus, there being evil or injustice in our world is just the a posteriori appearance of things. It’s what we deserve to see or believe, until we don’t. One
cannot should not sacrifice pure reason for the appearance of things (it is impossible to do this rationally but not impossible to do this impulsively or unreasonably). This is literally insanity/absurdity/madness/irrationality/evil. That which is 100%, is always superior to that which is less than 100%. Do we want to be reasonable or unreasonable? Good or evil? Choice is required in this equation.
Given Perfection, if you want to be harmed against your will and against your best interest (which is absurd for anyone to truly want), then try harming those whom you a posteriori think don’t deserve to be harmed against their will and against their best interest. It is impossible/absurd for you to want to be truly harmed against your will and against your best interest. Thus, in order for you to be harmed against your will and against your best interest, you need to absurdly/unfairly view your Lord (Existence) as imperfect. Put differently, you need to be in opposition to a perfect existence. This is the absolute minimum requirement because you cannot go against your best interest on any level if you completely genuinely/truly/sincerely view your Lord as Perfect/God, and treat Him as such. God wouldn’t Allow/Will anything other than what is in your best interest relative to how sincerely/truly good/fair you are in relation to Him.
If you are miserable, evil, or lack goodness in any way, then you exist imperfectly in relation to yourself. If you want Existence to be such that you exist better (in relation to yourself), then try being better/fairer/sincerer to God. Only God Can Increase you in goodness. But God only Does this when He Wants to. God only Does this when it’s perfection. God only Does this when it’s truly deserved. None should want to get what they don’t truly deserve. None should want God to Be unfair to them or to Himself. None should favour imperfection over perfection.
You are not good when you look at a random person and think ‘I want to harm this person; God Would stop me if this person does not deserve to be harmed’. Would you think this in relation to yourself? As in would you think ‘I want to harm myself, God Would stop me if I don’t deserve to be harmed.’ Do you deserve to not harm yourself when you willingly want to harm yourself? Surely such way of thinking is evil/irrational. You’d think the opposite if you were rational ‘I want to benefit myself; God Would stop me if I don’t deserve to be benefitted’. Thus, excluding everything else, your soul is good when you look at a random person and think ‘I want to benefit this person, God Would stop me if this person does not deserve to be benefitted’. If God Wanted to Benefit this person who is random and unknown to you, and you also committed to what you wanted (helping this person), it would then be the case that God Benefitted this person through you. In this equation, you committed to being morally good, and someone was benefitted. All was as a result of God’s Will (Existence). Alternatively, you committed to being morally good, but the one you tried to benefit, was not benefitted (because God Wanted it that way). This takes nothing away from you committing to being morally good (provided of course that you put in the same amount of effort, or did with equal sincerity to God). Obviously, a posteriori speaking, you should prioritise favouring, loving, and benefitting those whom you a posteriori believe to be good or in need of help (how else will you increase in goodness?), especially if you a posteriori think they have been good to you.
The genuinely good deserve what is genuinely good for them. The genuinely evil deserve what is genuinely bad/evil for them. The genuinely perfect deserve what is genuinely perfect for them. There is more to this than what I have described here, but it is enough (perhaps this post is longer than it should have been) for the purposes of this post. I will discuss this matter in more detail in my future posts (if interested, my previous post also discusses Perfection).
The final concept to discuss is Infinity. As with anything, if it is semantically inconsistent (contradictory all semantics considered), it must be rejected as being true of Existence. If it is meaningful and not absurd, then it must be acknowledged as being true of Existence. Removing some and still having the same amount remaining, is a characteristic of infinity in mathematics. Can this be a characteristic of the Omnipresent? It cannot, because you cannot remove anything from Existence or the Omnipresent. Existence is such that things can be destroyed, die, be given life etc. but none of these acts amount to something being added or taken away from Existence or the Omnipresent. This doesn’t show that Infinity is semantically inconsistent (The Omnipresent has to be Infinite in order to avoid clear and distinct semantical inconsistencies), it only shows that adding or taking away from Existence or the Omnipresent is semantically inconsistent (also, see my previous post for a distinction between what is truly infinite, and what is the illusion of infinity).
In conclusion, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Perfection, and Infinity, are all meaningful/rational (semantically consistent) concepts. Those who have argued against the meaningfulness (semantical consistency) of these concepts, have done so by treating unknowns or absurdities as though they are meaningful objections. Unknowns or absurdities should not be presented as rational/meaningful objections. They should not be attributed to God or Existence. We should not think that we have meaningfully (as opposed to unknowingly) found a way wherein which Existence could be more Omnipresent when we are dealing with an unknown (such as a 10th sense), or, that we have meaningfully (as opposed to absurdly) found a way for God to be more Omnipotent when we are dealing with an absurdity (such as creating round squares). What it’s like to be Omniscient or Omnipresent (an unknown to all non-Omnipresent beings), should not have any effect on the clear meaningfulness of Omniscience. Should one disregard the clear meaningfulness of Omnipresence just because there are things that one does not know about the Omnipresent (such as does Existence accommodate a 10th sense)? Of course not. So why would one do this with Omniscience? Whether something like an Infinite library/world within God’s Infinite Existence is possible or not (which it isn’t), should not take anything away from the fact that our Lord God is clearly Perfect and Infinite.
The compatibility of Justice, Forgiveness, and Mercy
One final objection: If our Lord is Just, then how can He Be Forgiving and Merciful?
Justice = Everyone getting what they truly deserve
Mercy = Forgiving someone for doing something wrong, or granting good to someone who has not necessarily done anything to deserve it (like giving someone free food or free money).
If x is evil in relation to you, then you either:
- Punish him
- Forgive him
If you commit to 1, then that’s an eye for an eye (intent to harm and committing to this, for intent to harm and committing to this). If you commit to 2, then you may have done in an unjust manner. In the case of 2, whether you did in a just or unjust manner, depends on the following:
If you forgiving x results in you suffering a loss of good or being harmed/wronged in any way, then you should not forgive him because that would be a case of injustice. That would be a case of you sacrificing the innocent (in this case yourself) for x’s past evil in relation to you. That would be a case of sacrificing good for evil. It should be x who should be sacrificing for you. It should be evil that should be sacrificed for good.
If you forgiving him results in you not being harmed or wronged at all, then it is not necessarily unjust for you to forgive him. Assuming that he was genuinely sorry such that he was no longer evil in relation to you (so intent to harm, rape, oppress or cheat had genuinely subsided/ended), and that his past evil was not responsible for harming you in any way, then it can be said that x wronged/harmed nobody except himself (because he was genuinely remorseful or in regret over his actions). So by you having forgiven him, you showed him forgiveness whilst not being unjust. Again, you were not wronged/harmed; x was harmed; x was wronged by none other than himself. Had x harmed you, and you thought him to be still evil, but you forgave him purely because you find him attractive, then you would have done wrongly/unjustly. You would have embraced evil in the name of “forgiveness” (like a drug addict taking drugs in the name of a “meaningful and fulfilling life”) and you would have made yourself worthy of less good. It takes evil to embrace evil. It takes evil to reject Good as opposed to acknowledge or appreciate It.
God Is Perfect and Infinite. You being Harmed or Benefitted is a part of His Perfection. So regardless of what you do, you cannot harm or benefit God (otherwise He would be imperfect and non-Omnipotent). He Benefits Himself by either Punishing you or Rewarding you. Which means you can only do/choose in a manner that would make it such that perfection = you being benefitted or harmed (be forgiving or generous with God/Good in mind so that Existence would be such that Forgiveness and Mercy apply to you). Thus, only God Can Harm or Benefit you (Karma). You cannot Harm or Benefit yourself. You choosing to seek God’s Benevolence is beneficial for you. It is you seeking good and God Granting it to you. It is not you granting yourself good. That you grant yourself good is an illusion. Only God is Good/Generous. At best, you very strongly resemble Goodness and Generosity (making you very generous and good. Making you worthy of love as a result of being competent and benevolent in relation to yourself and others whom you believe yourself to have a right to view as being good. Whilst the appearance of things should not lead one to sacrifice pure reason, they should be valued and interacted with in a sincere to God manner).
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)
good = δόσις (dosis)
Noun – Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 1394: A giving, gift, donation. From the base of didomi; a giving; by implication, a gift.
perfect = τέλειον (teleion)
Adjective – Nominative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 5046: From telos; complete; neuter completeness.
gift = δώρημα (dōrēma)
Noun – Nominative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 1434: A gift, bounty. From doreomai; a bestowment.
coming down = καταβαῖνον (katabainon)
Verb – Present Participle Active – Nominative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 2597: To go down, come down, either from the sky or from higher land, descend. From kata and the base of basis; to descend.
heavenly lights = φώτων (phōtōn)
Noun – Genitive Neuter Plural
Strong’s Greek 5457: Light, a source of light, radiance. From an obsolete phao; luminousness
change = παραλλαγὴ (parallagē)
Noun – Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3883: A change, variation, mutation. From a compound of para and allasso; transmutation, i.e. fickleness: variableness
shifting = τροπῆς (tropēs)
Noun – Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong’s Greek 5157: A turning, change, mutation. From an apparently primary trepo to turn; a turn, i.e. Revolution.
shadow = ἀποσκίασμα (aposkiasma)
Noun – Nominative Neuter Singular
Strong’s Greek 644: From a compound of apo and a derivative of skia; a shading off, i.e. Obscuration
O mankind, what has deceived/deluded you concerning your Lord, the Generous? (Quran 82:6)
deception = Gh-Ra-Ra = deceived, beguiled, inexperienced or ignorant in affairs, act childish, exposed to perdition or destruction without knowing, danger, hazard; deficiency of, imperfect performance of; vain things, vanities
Generous = Kaf-Ra-Miim = To be productive, generous, precious, valuable, honourable, noble, All-Generous, Most Generous
To Him is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, and what is in between… (Quran 20:6)
“The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. So serve Him and be patient in His service. Do you know for Him سَمِيًّا (the Arabic root of this word and heavens = Siin-Mim-Waw)?” (Quran 19:65)
سَمِيًّا = Siin-Miim-Waw = to be high/lofty, raised, name, attribute. samawat – heights/heavens/rain, raining clouds. ismun – mark of identification by which one is recognised. It is a derivation of wsm (pl. asma). ism – stands for a distinguishing mark of a thing, sometimes said to signify its reality.
serve = Ayn-Ba-Dal = serve, worship, adore, venerate, accept the impression of a thing, obey with submissiveness or humility, approve, apply, devote, obedience, slave, keep to inseparably, subdue, assemble together, enslave.
He Created seven heavens in tabaqah. You do not see/perceive/know any flaw/imperfection in the Creation by The Gracious/AlRahman. Keep looking/perceiving; do you see/perceive any flaw/imperfection/oversight? (Quran 67:3)
tabaqah = Tay-Ba-Qaf = to cover/overwhelm, to make a thing match/conform/suit/correspond/agree with another thing, to hit/get right, become accustomed/habituated, a thing that is equal of another thing of any kind in its measure so that it covers the whole extent of the latter like the lid, tibaqun – fittings, adapting, in order one above another, stages, layers, stories, series, plane, floors, stratum.
Gracious/AlRahman = Ra-Ha-Miim =
Rahima – He favored, benefited, pardoned, or forgave him. To love, have tenderness, mercy, pity, forgiveness, have all that is required for exercising beneficence.
Tarhamu – He had mercy, pity, or compassion on him; he pitied or compassionated him much.
Arham – Wombs (singular) womb, i.e. place of origin. The receptacle of the young in the belly.
Ruhmun – Relationship, i.e. nearness of kin, connection by birth; relationship connecting with an ancestor. A connection or tie of relationship.
Rahman – it is active participle noun in the measure of fa’lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness.
Rahim – it is in the measure of fa’il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving.
If you are evil and unrepentant, God Is Just and Unforgiving in relation to you. This is what’s Perfection in relation to unrepentant evil (Existence is such in relation to unrepentant evil). If you were evil but then you genuinely/sincerely repented, then God is Just and Forgiving in relation to you. This is what’s Perfection in relation to that which has sought God’s Forgiveness (to not be punished) and Mercy (to increase in goodness) with sincerity. God Can always Afford to Be Forgiving and Merciful to genuinely/truly repentant individuals or seekers of good without Being unjust to Himself or undervaluing Himself. A slave who keeps doing whatever his master tells him to, is not being merciful to the master. It’s not Mercy if it’s not Recognised as Mercy, and it’s not good to show Mercy to that which would never acknowledge it or appreciate it.
“If You punish them, then they are Your servants/slaves, and if You forgive them, then You are the Noble, the Wise.” (Quran 5:118)
God does not forgive that partners be set up with Him, and He forgives other than that for whom He pleases. Whoever sets up partners with God has indeed strayed a far straying. (Quran 4:116)
You would have to serve other than God, or set up partners with God to fail to genuinely seek His Forgiveness and Mercy. If reason tells you to do x (because that is what would be in line with a perfect existence), but you refuse to do so because you fear or favour some imperfect being as much as you favour or fear God, then you have not sought, prioritised, or cared about a perfect existence. You have not sought God, therefore, You have not sought God’s Forgiveness or Mercy. The loss of good should terrify you, and your clearest refuge from such thoughts should be God because God does not waste good in any way, shape, or form. He Handles ALL affairs to the last atom’s weight or millisecond (or less). The greatest protagonist you can conceive of will not be as competent and benevolent (morally good) as God.
So he (Satan) caused them to fall them with deception (Gh-Ra-Ra); and when they tasted the tree, their shame became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of the paradise; and their Lord called to them: “Did I not prohibit you from that tree, and tell you that Satan is your clear enemy?” (Quran 7:22)
caused them to fall = Dal-Lam-Waw (Dal-Lam-Alif) = To let down (e.g. a bucket into a well), to lower, a bucket, offer a bribe, convey.
tasted = Thal-Waw-Qaf – to taste/experience/try/perceive. One who tastes, cause to taste.
shame = Siin-Waw-Alif = to treat badly, do evil to disgrace, be evil/wicked/vicious, ill, anything that makes a person sad and sorrowful, bad action, mischief and corruption, sin, evil doer, wretched or grievous, vex, annoy. su’atun (pl. suat) – corpse, external portion of both sexes, shame.
began = Tay-Fa-Qaf = begin/start to do something, to take to doing something, to set about, commence/initiate, continue uninterruptedly.
fasten = Kh-Sad-Fa = Adjoin or put together, to men, make a thing double putting one piece upon another, cover with a thing, have two colors, to lie (as though to sew one saying upon another, and thus, embellish it).
They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves/souls and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!” (Quran 7:23)
wronged = Za-Lam-Miim = Zalama – To do wrong or evil, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, harm, suppress, tyrannize, misuse, act wrongfully, deprive anyone of a right, misplace, injure, be oppressive, be guilty of injustice, act wickedly, be wanting in or fail.
Say: “O My servants who transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of God. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.” (Quran 39:53)
sins = Thal-Nun-Ba = to track, make a tale, add apendix, follow closely, become spotted.
Commit offence, fault, sin, wrong, act of disobedience, transgression.
It will be neither by what you desire, nor by what the people of the book desire. Whoever works evil, he will be paid by it; and he will not find for himself besides God any Patron or Protector. Whoever works good whether male or female, and is an acknowledger, then these will be admitted to paradise, and they will not be wronged in the least. (Quran 4:123-124)
desire = Miim-Nun-Ya = To try or to prove someone, to mediate, to wish or desire.