Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
-
The mechanisms of how you came to exist are irrelevant to what I'm saying here. You can have multiple realities in Existence but you cannot have more than one Existence.You exist but you are not Existence.
Please simplify or just define what you mean by exist and Existence and the difference between two.
-
Please simplify or just define what you mean by exist and Existence and the difference between two.
Ok sure. Exist is a verb. Anything that has any kind of reality, is existing. Existence is that which is all-existing/omnipresent. Only Existence exists in an all-existing manner/omnipresently. Everything else exists non-omnipresently. For example, you and I exist non-omnipresently. Does that clarify the difference between the two?
-
Ok sure. Exist is a verb. Anything that has any kind of reality, is existing. Existence is that which is all-existing/omnipresent. Only Existence exists in an all-existing manner/omnipresently. Everything else exists non-omnipresently. For example, you and I exist non-omnipresently. Does that clarify the difference between the two?
omnipresent
mnprz(ənt/Submit
adjective
widely or constantly encountered; widespread.
"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"
synonyms present everywhere, ubiquitous, general, universal, worldwide, global, all-pervasive, all-present, infinite, boundless; More
(of God) present everywhere at the same time.When I am not omnipresent how can I know some omnipresent exists?
-
omnipresent
mnprz(ənt/Submit
adjective
widely or constantly encountered; widespread.
"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"
synonyms present everywhere, ubiquitous, general, universal, worldwide, global, all-pervasive, all-present, infinite, boundless; More
(of God) present everywhere at the same time.When I am not omnipresent how can I know some omnipresent exists?
Does the concept of omnipresent make sense to you? Do you have an understanding of it?
-
Does the concept of omnipresent make sense to you? Do you have an understanding of it?
How can you have a concept created in your mind to get into my mind when like me you are not omnipresent. Proceed with some logic, not with preconceived understanding or belief. You may consult all theories of philosophy, and then tell me how can you perceive the omnipresent when you cannot make an image or feeling of it in your brain.
-
EIjazah Institute is an online website for learning Quran, Arabic, and Ei ijazah. Our site is available online for all people and anytime. We tackle the way of how to read the Quran correctly. We have our best online Quran classes for beginners and adults. Also, we offer free online Quran learning classes.
https//www.eijazah.com -
How can you have a concept created in your mind to get into my mind when like me you are not omnipresent. Proceed with some logic, not with preconceived understanding or belief. You may consult all theories of philosophy, and then tell me how can you perceive the omnipresent when you cannot make an image or feeling of it in your brain.
If you don't have any understanding of what Existence is and you disagree with the following definition Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, then our conversation will bear no fruit.
-
If you don't have any understanding of what Existence is and you disagree with the following definition Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, then our conversation will bear no fruit.
But prove it? Is it rational to ask somebody to believe something which you cannot prove by rational argument? I asked you to skim Philosophy to see whether it answered my question.
You can read for background knowledge on Existence here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existencehilsophical Monism here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
Since you had quoted an Ayah of Qur'aan in your write-up I thought you would mention the Philosophy of Existence from Qur'aan which is obviously the first source of First Philosophy.
Men of ordinary prudence like me should not enter into rather "dark oceans" of theories, be it of philosophers or the scientists. All along history the psyche of philosophers and scientists seems strange; they do all sorts of mental exercises and observations to know the truth but seldom read the Book of Hour.
The majority of wise-men, be they the "Seven Wise Men of Greece" or Sophists, Gorgias or renowned Protagoras and Plato or his illustrious student Aristotle, or other "men of wisdom" before and after them, tried and delved deep in their imagination to understand the boundaries of "Knowledge" but seldom cared to benefit from "The Book of Hour". The "imaginative knots" never produce a ladder and rope that could take one to the point of certainty and conviction. It is unfortunate that majority of the "wise-brains" in philosophy gave more confusion and conflict than benefit to humanity since they in time and space remained neglectful to "The Book of Hour".
A book was there for guidance knowledge Life Manual for each period of time.
-
Since you had quoted an Ayah of Qur'aan in your write-up I thought you would mention the Philosophy of Existence from Qur'aan which is obviously the first source of First Philosophy.
You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.
Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.
-
You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.
Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.
The first question of Metaphysics or first philosophy is existence and first cause. So the study of metaphysics has but to start from Man's own existence.
A man is born in a state that he does not know anything about the physical realm. As he grows he gets knowledge and perception of the physical realm around him. This is all what seems to him Existence - reality in the real sense of the word.
Our knowledge is dependent upon the existence of matter and awareness of its name-code, which verbally mirrors it through words composed with letters and consonants of a language making us cognizant of it. Cognizant is he who can verbally mirror the image of that thing for others.
So the First Reality or First Existence is the Word and the object observed and perceived by sentient - human.
Word, whether spoken or written, is a meaningful articulated sound. Written word is the first sound-recorder known to humans.
First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.
What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?
-
First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.
What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?
Peace Mazhar
So long as there are no absurdities/paradoxes/contradictions, It makes no difference to me to be honest.
-
There are no other conclusions to jump to. Anything else is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/non-existence. You can have more than one reality, but all realities have to exist in existence. You cannot have more than one existence. What separates the two existences? Non-existence? Doesn't reason dictate this to be absurd?
-
The question is how to perceive Omnipresent existence without these things. Saying and proving are two different things.
Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.
-
Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.
This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.
Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.
-
This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.
Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.
Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.
If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.
-
Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.
If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.
The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
-
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quoteAnd then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
I've been giving you a clear rational definition of omnipresence which means I've not just been using meaningless words. I gave you proof by highlighting that any other definition is absurd.
-
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quoteAnd then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Salam,
The first question of Metaphysics or first philosophy is existence and first cause. So the study of metaphysics has but to start from Man's own existence.
We are aware Philosophy came first and became the basis for science. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which Aristotle called as "first philosophy". It deals with the nature of existence, the being and the world and it is a subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".
We need to know about our existence, because what else exists know quite well about us, our stature and position in the physical realm. They have their own levels of perception and understanding.
The moment a philosopher observes the relation of his existence with the existence of universe, he can deduce nothing but the fact that his being is the first cause of the existence of the universe he lives in. A philosopher cannot fail to observe that he is not the reason for the survival of the universe, but it is the universe which is sustaining him and causing his survival though he is not her creator. So his own being is the first cause of the existence of the universe. Therefore, the first point of reflection for a truthful philosopher is to find the reason why the universe is at her service. This will lead him to find the first cause of his own existence. This will instantly lead him to the conclusion that he can not be one who causes the survival of the first cause of his own existence. Thinking otherwise will be a fallacy. The first cause must be living and surviving by His own self.