Whether God could create a God?
-
Additionally, you have never wondered why Allah is written Allahem Rabbana which is a very peculiar literal style unless the Allahem is supposed to give inclusion of Rabbana into it?
Both 5114 and the one from the previous post where I addressed use the same particular grammar.
You have never reflected upon the grammatical style?
Allah/Elohim does indeed stem from the saying of GOD to Moses that "I am that am I" albeit in third person. This is how the realm of GOD works. We are expressions of that "superior consciousness" so to say, and what you say about what you now say "Infinite Intelligence" or what it is you say. There are two choices; to choose to be in the spirit of That Which Is AlRahman AlRaheem or to choose the illusive material world in which is Satan that gives incentive.
We were never part of the physical world until Satan duped us. We must abstain to save ourselves. Clear as glass that GOD formed the universe, but it is not as GOD intended with our indulgence and disobedience
And you are right GOD has no name because that is materialistic and immediately creating an image for the phenomenon GOD.
Salaam
-
Salam truthseeker11
No offence it is all a learning process. We all give our opinions and I try to learn as much as I could from others.
Huwa in Arabic can mean both "he" and "it". The dictionary says it means "he" when referring to a male human. When you use "he" for the god, you ascribe a sex to the god; however, the god does not have a sex. By mistranslating "huwa" to "he", you turn a neutral message into a patriarchal and misogynistic message.
Yes we can use "It" instead of "He" but then "It" refers to non-intelligent or non-living things. So we have to use a word to refer to The God.
My point is that "consciousness" can also be used for a human. You said "God is a consciousness". Human is also a "consciousness". So you are perceiving/equalizing the god to something. Instead of saying "God is a consciousness", you should have said "the god is an infinite consciousness" to satisfy 4211 that you quoted against me.
Same is true for many attributes of The God like Raheem, Khaliq, Aalim
etc. etc. For me a person can reflect an attribute of The God but when we use "Al" before an attribute it refers only to The God.How can you be aware of the god? While in this temporary illusion of physical existence, you can only be aware of something that you can perceive with your senses. You cannot say "we can feel" for the god, because the god cannot be felt. "Feel" implies being aware of something or someone using your senses, but then you are perceiving/equalizing the god with something.
May I request your opinion about extra sensory perceptions?
You again mistranslated a quranic word. "Allah" as used in al-quran is a common noun and not a proper name. It is a combined form of "al ilah" which means "the god". When you mistranslate "allah" as "God" you are perceiving/equalizing "the god" to something (pagans also call their idol god). Instead of translating "allah" as "God", you should have properly translated it to "the god" to satisfy 4211 that you quoted against me.
Thanks for the links I will try to get benefit from them.
Can you kindly quote a verse that instructs us to remember, praise, or glorify the god using only quranic words? Perhaps I missed it. Will you stop someone from remembering, praising or glorifying the god in his/her own way just because that person was not using quranic words?
Of course we can remember, praise or glorify The God with any appropriate words but I prefer using revealed words as per 237
( (
Sahih InternationalThen Adam received from his Lord words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.
You are free to use any words you thinks are appropriate.
I respect your understanding as well and hope you take my humble opinions constructively rather than as criticism.
Likewise I respect your understanding and I don't take it as criticism but a way to learn from other's opinions. No one is perfect and for me everyone is learning all the times.
May the infinite creator guide us to the truth.Peace
-
This question misses a certain issue. Yes, God is capable of all things. So the question really is not "can" but "would God create a God?" To which the answer is unequivocally NO. Not because of lack of ability, but because God is sufficient and needs no others to complete Himself. There is no motive, desire, or need or Him to do this. It would be self-contradictory. And God is not self-contradictory. All other discussion of this issue is therefore moot or off-subject.
-
It would be more than one rabb and disorder.
Salaam
-
well, I'm Muslim Monotheistic & I'm new on this group.
don't be judge I'm an atheis based on my question above peace
(although I'm an ex-atheist, haha..)
now, let share about our knowledge about God first,
start from this Question.Salaam..
=Marshall=Salaam,
What does the expression "God is The Creator" means to you?
Salaam,
Bender -
if one see that as possible then yes and the results is still one God..
- = ?
It can be
+=
or
+= Impossible
Given to add any number / amount to a number we need to recognize the finite / border / limit of such number first before addition.
And we can't do that for an infinite number given we will count the amount of infinite number until infinity... (no end)..Note This kind of question exist due to the view of "human - like" God..
-
sounds like calculus.
it's all about limits
we go to the positive and negative infinityheaven or hell when this rides through.
when you do math are you "physical" on the paper?
what makes you uniquely you?
your intelligence (reference to a. i.) on that paper or just a few numbers your throwing out there into the equation?
numbers are infinite it's it's own world
your pencil "rules" that worldso why make a god who owns a god?
-
Hail,
God cannot create Himself but only beings in His image. A father causes creations (sons and daughters), not an identical version of himself and the creations have to grow themselves into what they wish to be based on the provisions from the father.
Paradoxically the two realms, the world (al-ardh) and the origin (al-asema) work the same but physically versus abstractly except the wise one has their foot in the other non-visible world which there are subtle metaphors of in this world.
You will not find God in the Flesh but only mislead yourself. One must look beyond this illusion, contradiction. God is God of the living not the dead. God is Father only of the Spirit and not the Body. The son of the flesh is not alive but dead while they may perceive it not. Your whole purpose is to come alive by cultivating your Spirit's growth. Your Spirit is to be in the same model as God, your Father, but then one cannot be distracted by the Body which was designed to mislead from the start and cloud the Spirit perception and prevent it from cultivating. This was your test. Your test is to manage to see through your deception and find a way out by not desiring to be the Body with all its deceptive impulses. This is Satan's (the Body's instinct) will.
God did not create your Body as a pleasure for you. This is a trap. It is actually just a primate your soul is bound to making it relatively advanced. Its weaknesses causes havoc, just observe the world for an example. The people who have succumbed utterly to the Body ruin the world. It is easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find the flame of their Spirit.
Your Body is not the real you but this is what you are made to believe. The one who finds themself will find the Father for the Father has been there all along yet you could not see it because you were so blind, blinded by your Body. This is because the Spirit's origin is the Father while the Body is of death/lifelessness. God designates dead as being people who simply follow the "automation", i.e the predictable behavior of the bodily species called Homo Sapiens. You can clearly be better than that by finding your true identity.
Rabb is the used word in Arabic and it means something like Developer. Some people have translated Rabbi as teacher, which is a kind of "developer", due to this linguistic phenomenon. Morphologically Rabb means more of "Foundation-Giver". Always hard to find a feasible translation into other languages.
Be safe
Amenuel -
if one see that as possible then yes and the results is still one God..
- = ?
It can be
+=
or
+= Impossible
Given to add any number / amount to a number we need to recognize the finite / border / limit of such number first before addition.
And we can't do that for an infinite number given we will count the amount of infinite number until infinity... (no end)..Note This kind of question exist due to the view of "human - like" God..
Salaam,
Not sure if you meant with "" Allah.
If so then the first "" is not equal to the second "" in your " + ="
The second is always a creation of the former, thus can never be Allah.With other words "Whether God could create a God?" is a flawed question.
There are more of these weird questions, like "Can Allah make a circle which is a square?".Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
Not sure if you meant with "" Allah.
If so then the first "" is not equal to the second "" in your " + ="
The second is always a creation of the former, thus can never be Allah.With other words "Whether God could create a God?" is a flawed question.
There are more of these weird questions, like "Can Allah make a circle which is a square?".Salaam,
BenderThat's why I gave 2 options... it depends on one perspective...
But in any case it will not resulted in 2 Gods...
Again this line of question exist due to the view of "human like" God, popular in the western world.
God who envied, God who has enemies, Gof who get angry / pissed off, God who fought a war / battle, God who wrote a book..The flaw is actually on the view of "human like" God itself..
-
I.e. the instinctive primate god with the ape's typical fallible traits. It is as primitive as its adherents.
That's why I gave 2 options... it depends on one perspective...
But in any case it will not resulted in 2 Gods...
Again this line of question exist due to the view of "human like" God, popular in the western world.
God who envied, God who has enemies, Gof who get angry / pissed off, God who fought a war / battle, God who wrote a book..The flaw is actually on the view of "human like" God itself..
-
This thread is full of pure conjecture about the nature of God. No person is able to conceptualise the nature of God. His nature is beyond our comprehension.
The Quran warns us not to spread speculation about Islam as though it is knowledge.
Incidentally, the question makes no sense. A god is not created, by definition, so you can not define any created thing as a god. It's not a theological question; it's a semantic one, and the answer is no.
-
Incidentally, the question makes no sense. A god is not created, by definition, so you can not define any created thing as a god. It's not a theological question; it's a semantic one, and the answer is no.
Right. It is very common that people, we, come up with quetions like those, like when we try to characterize God as good or bad according to our own demands on what goodness or badness we exect.
Good and bad are human concepts. We need those concepts for our own good. ?Does God need them? and least of all ?Is He subject to that?. No he created those concepts for us, that we know. Not for Him.
Salaam
-
Indeed.
The flaws are found in people's logic and perception, not in reality.
People would say "Can God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? In either case he's not omnipotent as either he cannot lift it, or he cannot creat it. Therefore God doesn't exist."
rotfl -
This thread is full of pure conjecture about the nature of God. No person is able to conceptualise the nature of God. His nature is beyond our comprehension.
Your statement itself contains a false conjecture...
Given nature itself is a creation..
Time and Space itself is a creation..The conception of "infinity", later to be symbolized in math with , started as a philosophical discussion in / around early Indus Aryan civilization.. when they're discussing the definition of "ultimate reality" which later they named as Brahman.
Something which has no beginning or end.. encompassing everything and beyond..Early Judaism also had similar view on YHVH..
"Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will My resting place be? Has not My hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares YHVH
-- Isaiah 66 -
-
God's nature is esoteric but not impossible to know. God is an expanding consciousness with every "cultivated" soul being a significant share of it while the lifeless person is merely a drop in the ocean (metaphorically speaking). The stronger a soul the greater share of the Grand Consciousness and thus greater influence potential, e.g. the ability to prophesy events and one becomes a determiner rather than "fate-ling". The relationship God versus soul/person (nafs) is highly symbiotic based on above elaboration.
There are theorists who say we are God and that is basically true albeit there is a kind of Force (like in Star Wars) which is inherent in every matter and non-matter. We do not replace it (Rabb) but we can synchronize ourselves to "the full image of God" and each person is supposed to be a "Who Is" which is the English translation of the Semitic word Allah. God will "harvest" (release) souls which have attained the successful level of ascent towards absolution, much like is taught in Hinduism. Failures will return in the Flesh repeatedly with the Spirit level retained but with physical memory suppressed which can be brought forth through various measures (meditation, hypnosis etc). It is the Body that clouds one from perceiving they have existed as a soul for some time.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Jafar, that's another semantic argument. I used the phrase the nature of God to describe the qualities that God has. The meaning of the statement has nothing to do with Nature.
I'm not sure how the history of the concept of infinitely is relevant here.
The historical concept of infinity is relevant to show how and when human civilization recognized the "true God".
(And not human-like deity kind of God)
Infinity is the true answer on your question of "What's the Nature of God"..Time and space is merely a creation.
The nature is merely a creation.
Border and limit, of any dimension, is a well engineered design.
Our current "observable reality" is merely a perception.
Infinity is the absolute reality. -
Jafar - Infinity is a simple concept that has been around forever. There have always been ideas regarding things which have no beginning and no end. Allah is not infinity (glorified is He). Allah designs and creates things, but infinity does not. Allah is aware, while infinity is a concept we are aware of. Infinity is not aware of anything. We could make a long list of qualities that Allah has that the meaning of the word infinity does not include.
I think you're stretching the meaning of the word infinity way too far. Allah is not infinity, which is an abstract concept, not a concrete thing that exists.
-
Man of Faith - Your post is blasphemous. Allah is utterly independent of His creation. He has no need of the worlds. He does not depend on Creation. Allah existed absolutely before any of us existed at all. To suggest that we are somehow a part of God is utterly at odds with Islam.
You claim that 'stronger' souls are able to prophesy the future. That seems to be something you have originated without reference to the Quran.
You claim that we are reincarnated, and are aiming to be released from the cycle "much like is taught in Hinduism". Again, this is blatantly at odds with Quranic beliefs. We are not reincarnated at all.
I didn't realise you were promoting this kind of thing when we spoke the other day, else I would have mentioned it then. Respectfully, this is a forum for Quranists. It's pointless if anyone can post anything, even if it is totally at odds with Islam, just because the user believes in it and decides to call it Islam.
This isn't aimed at you personally. I have been trying to push back on a number of users lately, and am honestly just trying to find the best way to reform the forum so that visitors can read discussions of Quranism without frequent interruptions that are literally irrelevant. Otherwise, we will simply educate less people, and gain less knowledge ourselves. I left this forum a few years ago, because it was far too noisy. There are bound to be other people who also left for the same reasons.
Maybe I am wrong, and the community does not share my feelings or concerns, but I have had conversations in private that confirm that I am not alone at least.
Please understand this is not personal.