Quran's use of the word name (Ism)

Mazhar

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.

Perhaps you are not getting the point.

omnipresence
mnprz(&#601ns/Submit
noun
the state of being widespread or constantly encountered.
"the omnipresence of the Internet in society today"

the presence of God everywhere at the same time.
"how does God's universal action prove His omnipresence?"

Omnipresence is an attribute of some entity.

You can read here

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence

nimnimak_11

Perhaps you are not getting the point.

omnipresence
mnprz(&#601ns/Submit
noun
the state of being widespread or constantly encountered.
"the omnipresence of the Internet in society today"

the presence of God everywhere at the same time.
"how does God's universal action prove His omnipresence?"

Omnipresence is an attribute of some entity.

You can read here

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence

Omnipresence is an attribute of some entity. That's the whole point I've been making in various ways and numerous times. That entity can only be Existence. If you think it's something else or that it can be something else, such as internet perhaps, then say so and then I will address that point.

Mazhar

Omnipresence is an attribute of some entity. That's the whole point I've been making in various ways and numerous times. That entity can only be Existence. If you think it's something else or that it can be something else, such as internet perhaps, then say so and then I will address that point.

Like Philosophers you are revolving in a circle. You accept omnipresence is attribute of an entity and then you call that entity Existence. Existence is the ability to interact. Ability of interaction lead to presence of two and/or more entities.

good_logic

Peace Mazhar.
Thank you for your earlier answer to my request. In general I agree.

Another thing that you say here
You accept omnipresence is attribute of an entity and then you call that entity Existence

Why when all existence starts by an original "something that always existed/will always exist" can t we call it "Absolute existence" or "original existence"?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar.
Thank you for your earlier answer to my request. In general I agree.

Another thing that you say here
You accept omnipresence is attribute of an entity and then you call that entity Existence

Why when all existence starts by an original "something that always existed/will always exist" can t we call it "Absolute existence" or "original existence"?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

In isolation they do not give sense; one means a state and the other "original" is an adjective. They will become meaningful only when associated with Concrete entity for describing its state and characteristic.

good_logic

Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say here

Concrete entity for describing its state and characteristic

But they know for certain there is an "existence"! They will call it "existence", won t they? It makes sense to me.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say here

Concrete entity for describing its state and characteristic

But they know for certain there is an "existence"! They will call it "existence", won t they? It makes sense to me.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Entities have specific name, The word "existence" is not a name in any dictionary. And in solitary state has no message in it.

good_logic

Peace Mazhar.
I only see technicality, I have no issue if one does not know name or description or anything about "the one who existed first" to say " Existence" but the context of what is meant by "Existence" should be in the statement.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

nimnimak_11

Like Philosophers you are revolving in a circle. You accept omnipresence is attribute of an entity and then you call that entity Existence. Existence is the ability to interact. Ability of interaction lead to presence of two and/or more entities.

I don't think you know how to use reason effectively. Avoiding paradoxes is necessary. I'll try and teach you

Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this circular, correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false or none of what I've just mentioned?

I gave a definition of omnipresence, asserted that any other definition is paradoxical, and then demonstrated the various paths that any other definition would lead to the paradox that is non-existence.

So let's assess your definition to see if it's paradoxical or not. To see if it's rational or not.

Existence is the ability to interact

Is it in line with omnipresence exclusively or not? I have the ability to interact. I am existing in Existence but I am not Existence. Agreed?

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar.
I only see technicality, I have no issue if one does not know name or description or anything about "the one who existed first" to say " Existence" but the context of what is meant by "Existence" should be in the statement.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Right, without context, except names of things, entities, all words are meaningless voices including the word "Existence".