"God" vs Allah
-
You never understand anything I say, please avoid my threads.
It is either that you write them in such a manner that they would be interpreted differently than you intended, or you would like me to stay away because I disagree with you.
In any case, I'm out. Sorry to have troubled you, brother.
-
The Universe as we know it is understood to have a starting point, this isn't Muslim or religious peoples ideology, this is the accepted scientific theory.
Please understand that the big bang is not a fact and is not accepted by many scientists. Let us leave physics aside and concentrate on philosophy.
As for your 'ultimate philosophical flaw', it really isn't. If God was created, then you have to ask what created that which created God. Logically speaking, it has to end somewhere.
To say that ''God'' always was, is to say that the possibility of something always existing is philosophically correct and plausible. As the question has no end, occam's razor should be applied, and the easiest solution may be the answer that we are all part of an ever-living energy.
What I propose is simple, instead of seeing Islam as a monotheistic philosophy, I see it as a monopanentheistic philosophy.
It is either that you write them in such a manner that they would be interpreted differently than you intended, or you would like me to stay away because I disagree with you.
In any case, I'm out. Sorry to have troubled you, brother.
Please excuse my earlier tone, it is because in life I am always confronted with prideful people who believe that they have the truth on every subject and never take the time to analyze anything, which is very frustrating. Again, I am very sorry.
-
Please understand that the big bang is not a fact and is not accepted by many scientists. Let us leave physics aside and concentrate on philosophy.
To say that ''God'' always was, is to say that the possibility of something always existing is philosophically correct and plausible. As the question has no end, occam's razor should be applied, and the easiest solution may be the answer that we are all part of an ever-living energy.
What I propose is simple, instead of seeing Islam as a monotheistic philosophy, I see it as a monopanentheistic philosophy.
Please excuse my earlier tone, it is because in life I am always confronted with prideful people who believe that they have the truth on every subject and never take the time to analyze anything, which is very frustrating. Again, I am very sorry.
Your apology is accepted. I can understand your frustrations.
To begin with, applying existing and altogether human philosophies to a being that we, as humans struggle to conceptualise -- even with said being contacting us to inform us of his nature, is a little illogical. For example, God is perfect. There is nothing on earth that by human rationale we would call perfect, yet Allah calls our forms perfect. Does this mean God is wrong?
Continuing with your application of Occams Razor, I agree, the most simple plausible solution should be applied. However, you cannot ignore that which is evident to simplify further. That would not be Occams Razor at all.
Then there is your position of monothiestic pantheism. From the language used in the Qur'an, assuming we both agree Allah is the author of the book, I understand that it is not that everything is God, rather everything belongs to God. Do you see what I mean? I am not well versed enough in pantheism, but from what I understand the natural world as it is, looking at it from a pantheistic basis, would not make sense.
-
To begin with, applying existing and altogether human philosophies to a being that we, as humans struggle to conceptualise -- even with said being contacting us to inform us of his nature, is a little illogical. For example, God is perfect. There is nothing on earth that by human rationale we would call perfect, yet Allah calls our forms perfect. Does this mean God is wrong?
Allah calls our form perfect, we ought to keep in mind that this perfectness is exclusive to something, that is, in this instance, to form. And yes, there is something that we could call perfect, the absolute life harmony of everything that exists.
Then there is your position of monothiestic pantheism. From the language used in the Qur'an, assuming we both agree Allah is the author of the book, I understand that it is not that everything is God, rather everything belongs to God. Do you see what I mean? I am not well versed enough in pantheism, but from what I understand the natural world as it is, looking at it from a pantheistic basis, would not make sense.
I typed mono-panentheism and not mono-pantheism.
-
To say that ''God'' always was, is to say that the possibility of something always existing is philosophically correct and plausible.
maybe, but only if you leave physics aside. and u cant leave it. considering issues like increasing entrophy, fine tuned universe etc, your ever living energy doesnt seem to be the easiest solution D
my humble advice to you is to think twice before occam's razor is poked into ur ass. ;D
peace
-
maybe, but only if you leave physics aside. and u cant leave it. considering issues like increasing entrophy, fine tuned universe etc, your ever living energy doesnt seem to be the easiest solution D
Read this, we will see if you will still use the old fine tuned universe argument.
http//www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/FTTech.pdfAs I said earlier, let us leave physics aside, as it is an unsure science, if we can come up with an irrefutable philosophical idea, then surely it will be backed one day or the other.
If we find a bullet-proof scientific fact on the universe, then it will lead us to a perfect and irrefutable philosophical idea as well.
If we find an irrefutable and perfect philosophical idea, then it will lead us to a bullet-proof scientific fact.As everyone can participate in the second method, I think we should do it that way and not around.
-
Peace lordfox.
I do not recall saying anywhere that I have the truth. Your Creator has the truth and the answers. As for not understanding your question, there were others, according to what I was reading, who did not understand?Our ideas often get us into trouble, that is why ( Us humans) are here in the first place. Our Creator tells us HIS message has got all the answers ( fully detailed !) and we go elsewhere for our answers. I was making that particular point.
I respect your views, I admire those who are brave and search deeper and deeper.
Peace again.
-
If we are emanations, then we can expect us to have the same characteristics of that which we are emanated from.
If we are creations, then we can expect to NOT have those characteristics of the Creator.The idea of an emanated existence is gnostic sophistry that has no real moral or ethical implications that are in any way superior to those implied by a created universe, and does not explain the existential questions of reality any better.
-
If we are emanations, then we can expect us to have the same characteristics of that which we are emanated from.
If we are creations, then we can expect to NOT have those characteristics of the Creator.The idea of an emanated existence is gnostic sophistry that has no real moral or ethical implications that are in any way superior to those implied by a created universe, and does not explain the existential questions of reality any better.
bravo
-
Read this, we will see if you will still use the old fine tuned universe argument.
http//www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/FTTech.pdfto fully understand presented material I need to review and remember some old stuff, but I dont have so much time. Anyway, whether fine-tuning is truth or not doesnt make difference.. I know that findings of Physics so far interestingly support the arguments of theology. This is what matters.
As for your "irrefutable philosophical idea", it is perhaps due to my limited knowledge of philosophy but I dont find any meaning in saying baseless words in a showy way and then calling them irrefutable or so. You cant say things like if Allah is so then it is plausible to say something can be so. Allah is not something. He has no eqivalent and is indefinable. You cant compare undefined entity with anything.
You'd better frankly say your personal materialistic beliefs that unseen doesnt exist but matter(energy) etc etc,and science will somehow recognize this "fact" one day.
peace
-
As for your "irrefutable philosophical idea", it is perhaps due to my limited knowledge of philosophy but I dont find any meaning in saying baseless words in a showy way and then calling them irrefutable or so. You cant say things like if Allah is so then it is plausible to say something can be so. Allah is not something. He has no eqivalent and is indefinable. You cant compare undefined entity with anything.
You'd better frankly say your personal materialistic beliefs that unseen doesnt exist but matter(energy) etc etc,and science will somehow recognize this "fact" one day.
peace
Gee, this was an embarrassing, as you clearly did not understand anything I said. rotfl
-
If we are emanations, then we can expect us to have the same characteristics of that which we are emanated from.
If we are creations, then we can expect to NOT have those characteristics of the Creator.The idea of an emanated existence is gnostic sophistry that has no real moral or ethical implications that are in any way superior to those implied by a created universe, and does not explain the existential questions of reality any better.
No