On Logic of Induction and Cause

(There is no formal, or even informal definition or explanation of either logic or inductive logic, its sub-branch. But a simple discussion.)

Master Agha:

I told you before that saying of Voltaire that even if there was no God, man would have created it.....!

.... Look, J. S. Mill has tried to fooled the whole world with an illogical argument. When we talk about humans, we're forced to acknowledge something is behind him, of course inductively, whereas deductive language is 'formal' enough not be discussed here. The thing that is behind him (i.e, man) cannot be like him, it thus follows. It is acknowledged by these logicians that there must be some criteria of the Perfect and how 'it' is to distinguished from the 'relative' and 'imperfect'. Man is imperfect. It is a burning human rights issue that why man has no independent will over the choice of his birth? That he should have the liberty to choose to be born or not to be born? But he has, practically, no control over it and like on many other things. So man is imperfecter than 'he' who created him and sustains him. Thus, inductively even J. S. Mill, whose blunder I'll mention later, could not refute the argument that following must be the criteria for the perfecter being who created imperfect man:

He must be infinite,
He must be eternal, independent of time,
He must not procreate, i.e, all-powerful,

Read Surah -e- Ikhlas from the Koran, you'll find the same logic. It is but natural that the thing which is the 'final cause' of all causes must have no 'cause', as Aristotle said. J. S. Mill refuted this argument by putting forward his counter-argument like this way:

'monday' comes before 'sunday'. Is 'sunday' the cause of 'monday', he questions? That is, did 'sunday' create' monday', or did 'saturday' create 'sunday' and so on and so forth? Obiviously not.

We ask him, k bhai, time is indivisible, you're dividing time into separate things. Moreover, time is a separate thing from something which could be behind man. We have divided time into days and months for our own comfort, time does not become divisible by saying so. This is how his argument, that there can be nothing behind man who is the final cause of all causes, becomes invalid, without going into further dtail.

So, Mr. Umer now you understand that he who knows himself knows his Lord?