Monistic Panentheism
-
Hello nehdia,
This being the case, I no longer feel the need to bind myself to the dictates of any one scripture, or any scripture at all.
I am impressed with your insight into the connections between the worlds religions. I have myself being arguing on this forum that "transcendence" is the key to human spirituality, and the reality that many have called "God", "Allah", "Nirvana", "Tao", "Brahman-Atman" are derived from the human experience of "transcendence". All scripture is therefore is an interpretation in limited human language of a "transcendent" reality that lies beyond reason and language. This has also been the insight of the Great Seers, Sages, Prophets, Mystics and Meditators. But it has been hard to make others see this connection that you have made on your own.
I have also argued that "God" is not an OBJECTIVE fact but has always been a SUBJECTIVE experience of the individual. Even Prophet Muhammad did not rise up to highest heavens for the revelations but rather he descended to the very core of his soul in a "meditative-trance" to meet his "maker". Therefore "Revelation" is an event that happens in each individual soul and therefore every individual is capable of having an experience like the Prophets. This experience is had via meditation.
As for myself I have not progressed enough in my meditation to "confirm" any of this "trascendence" yet. But I have so far achieved a "sense" of "infinte space" and "unity" within myself in my meditation sessions. I would like to believe, however, I am on the right track and perhaps one day it may lead to enlightenement. I will just have to remain patient, courageous and dedicated and continue to cultivate and nurture compassion for my fellow human beings and for myself too.
I am glad that your spiritual transformation have helped you to deal with your sexuality and the abuse. My spiritual transformation has allowed me to connect with humanity regardless of their religious beliefs as opposed to connecting myself to a certain scripture or set of beliefs. I now celeberate the best of humanity and also come to terms with worst of humanity through understanding. But I have not reached the end yet. I am still learning, I am still continuing with my spiritual journey but I am glad that I have met another traveller on this lonely spiritual path -)
Regards,
-
Peace Nadia,
Good to hear from you )
You stated,
I would like to know more about the soul being infinite as infinity as a rule has no limits...because a soul is created it has a starting point. This beginning/starting is a limit. You could call it indefinite but not infinite...Is there a difference between 'the soul being the Infinite' and 'the soul being infinite'?
Here's some questions to think about that may or may not help...
Is the soul created or is this life a metamorphasis?
Can you think of any examples of something coming from nothing?
Is there any seperation between you and any atom in the universe?Peace,
Tay -
Is the soul created or is this life a metamorphasis?
Yes. By Allah.
Can you think of any examples of something coming from nothing?
No.
Is there any seperation between you and any atom in the universe?
Define seperation. If you're talking of atoms then I'd assume you don't mind going down to the quantum level and in that case quantum entanglement get's mixed up in the argument.
Oh, btw, god must be seperate from this universe.
-
Peace Tay,
Good to see you around, after your post on AP's thread, I thought thats it D
Neo has already answered the questions the way I probably would, so I'll avoid redundancy... It would be good to discuss this...
I don't know if a seperate topic should be started for this as it might be considered off topic?!?
-
Science = proof by disassociation
Spirituality = anathema to proofAnyone who tries to combine them is not worth my time.
Neo, try telling that to some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as
Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrodinger
Werner Heisenberg
Louis de Broglie
James Jeans
Max Planck
Wolfgang Pauli
Arthur Eddingtonpeace nehdia.
You forgot Richard Feynman and David Bohm!
Maybe "organized religion" and science are incompatible, but I would agree that physics and spirituality are quite complimentary. In quantum mechanics, there are principles that must be accepted on blind faith, as it were, yet are highly accurate and useful.
There is a function that yields a finite exterior in the shape of a cone, which has an infinite interior. My memory fails me here, since I haven't done calculus for a long time, so I can't remember the series that produces this object. However, I do remember, when I first heard of it, I thought this mathematical paradox sounded very much like a human body that contained an infinite soul. )
-
peace nehdia.
You forgot Richard Feynman and David Bohm!
On the contrary sir Feynman was vehemently against the use of religion in scientific practices. He always maintained that his faith and his practice existed on two seperate realms. As with most notable scientists throughout history.
Maybe "organized religion" and science are incompatible, but I would agree that physics and spirituality are quite complimentary.
Lol.
In quantum mechanics, there are principles that must be accepted on blind faith, as it were, yet are highly accurate and useful.
No. Quantum physics accepts nothing on blind faith.
There is a function that yields a finite exterior in the shape of a cone, which has an infinite interior. My memory fails me here, since I haven't done calculus for a long time, so I can't remember the series that produces this object. However, I do remember, when I first heard of it, I thought this mathematical paradox sounded very much like a human body that contained an infinite soul. )
If you could remember it, that would be good.
-
Peace Neo, Nadia,
Nadia, I apologize if my post to Apple Pie was vague. It was a turning point for me, one which was long overdue, that resulted in my conscious effort to withdraw from any theological debate or even defense. For that matter, any discussion that I do not find either enlightening or entertaining, I am doing my utmost to avoid, despite my mind's practically insane desire to get involved in things. I didn't mean to sound as if I was leaving the forum. Hope that makes sense wink
Neo & Nadia,
I asked
"Is the soul created or is this life a metamorphasis?"and you replied
Yes. By Allah.
I can't argue with the answer, but I can point to a paradox of sorts. If the Hereafter is eternal, then we are infinite, however, according to this understanding, the infinity that we currently represent had a starting point and is thus rendered atleast partially finite. This leads to Nadia's question - How can a soul be infinite if it did not exist at some point? The easy answer would be, "Because God said so, and God can do anything." Is this really what the Qur'an is telling us?
I asked, "Can you think of any examples of something coming from nothing?"
You answered
No.
Does Allah not ask us, via the Qur'an, to verify all information? How does one verify without a reference or similitude?
What you'll find in nature is evidence that nature does not spontaneously spawn life nor does anything truly decay. Everything is constantly changing form. The universe is in a constant state of flux. This brings to mind the problem I was having with the supposed covenant we made before birth. I think there's more to uncover here.
I asked,
"Is there any seperation between you and any atom in the universe?"You answered
Define seperation. If you're talking of atoms then I'd assume you don't mind going down to the quantum level and in that case quantum entanglement get's mixed up in the argument.
I say let's keep it simple for now for the sake of progress, unless you feel inclined to dig deeper. That's fine also. For now, here's my rephrased question
Is there any seperation between the carbon atoms in your body and the carbon atoms on, say, the planet Neptune?
Peace,
Tay -
Tay, first of all I'd like to say that I try to analyse all things philosophical from a strictly logical perspective (hence some of my rather 'crude' replies in this thread because I simply do not adhere to obfuscated thoughts). Now, on with it...
I can't argue with the answer, but I can point to a paradox of sorts. If the Hereafter is eternal, then we are infinite, however, according to this understanding, the infinity that we currently represent had a starting point and is thus rendered atleast partially finite. This leads to Nadia's question - How can a soul be infinite if it did not exist at some point? The easy answer would be, "Because God said so, and God can do anything." Is this really what the Qur'an is telling us?
Well, god having the ability to do 'anything' doesn't mean god can do 'the impossible'; it means god can do anything that is possible. If you dictate god as an entity that can do both the 'possible' and 'impossible' then there's no point in debating anything, and furthermore you create a logical contradiction within the attributes of god (if you want to read more about this I can link you to various sources which discuss this in detail). Thus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
Does Allah not ask us, via the Qur'an, to verify all information? How does one verify without a reference or similitude?
Apologies, I assumed "no" was enough for the question "can something come from nothing" since it is the fundemental axiom of all logical concepts.
What you'll find in nature is evidence that nature does not spontaneously spawn life nor does anything truly decay. Everything is constantly changing form. The universe is in a constant state of flux.
Agreed. However, that does not make the universe infinite. But yes, something can not come from nothing, it is logically inconsistent.
This brings to mind the problem I was having with the supposed covenant we made before birth. I think there's more to uncover here.
Like?
Is there any seperation between the carbon atoms in your body and the carbon atoms on, say, the planet Neptune?
For the sake of practicality I would say they are seperate because they are discreet entities but like I've said before, it depends on what level of detail you want to penetrate.
I would also like to add that nature is not continuous because then it creates a fundemental contradiction that should, if true, mean nothing exists. Why? Becuase if nature is continuous then one can divide, say, an atom into infinite parts and thus we would all be made of 'infinitely small' parts, with infinitely small meaning 0/undefined, thus we would be made of 'nothing'/'undefined'. When you're doing any sort of calculation in physics, if you yeild infinite as an answer that's a flag telling you that you are wrong. This is the fundemental problem of classical physics, it's the reason why it breaks down in the picoscopic world because it works with point particles as opposed to QM's more accurate discreet particles.
-
Peace Tay,
Nadia, I apologize if my post to Apple Pie was vague. It was a turning point for me, one which was long overdue, that resulted in my conscious effort to withdraw from any theological debate or even defense. For that matter, any discussion that I do not find either enlightening or entertaining, I am doing my utmost to avoid, despite my mind's practically insane desire to get involved in things. I didn't mean to sound as if I was leaving the forum. Hope that makes sense
Sometimes I feel the same, makes a lot of sense )
Excellent points in neo's post...this discussion cover some very interesting ground...much anticipation
-
Peace Neo,
Thanks for the heads-up on your technique.
You stated
Well, god having the ability to do 'anything' doesn't mean god can do 'the impossible'; it means god can do anything that is possible. If you dictate god as an entity that can do both the 'possible' and 'impossible' then there's no point in debating anything, and furthermore you create a logical contradiction within the attributes of god (if you want to read more about this I can link you to various sources which discuss this in detail). Thus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
I'm not sure which side of the fence you're on at this point. My "Because God says so" comment was rhetorical. Rather than getting lost in sidetracking, please answer the following...
You say that we are created by Allah. You also say that ithe nfinite cannot be equated to partial infinity or the indefinite. How do you describe the human soul? Is it infinite or finite?
My position is that the human soul is infinite, and was not created but is simply a metamorphasis of energy. I haven't worked out the logistics, and I may not ever be able to with a human mind, but this avenue seems the most likely, in my opinion.
Thanks,
Tay -
You say that we are created by Allah. You also say that ithe nfinite cannot be equated to partial infinity or the indefinite. How do you describe the human soul? Is it infinite or finite?
Rhetorical? Oops...didn't pick up on that.
Anywya, I'd have to say the soul, if it were to exist, would be finite.
My position is that the human soul is infinite, and was not created but is simply a metamorphasis of energy. I haven't worked out the logistics, and I may not ever be able to with a human mind, but this avenue seems the most likely, in my opinion.
Thanks,
TayWhat makes you think it's the most likely?
-
On the contrary sir Feynman was vehemently against the use of religion in scientific practices. He always maintained that his faith and his practice existed on two seperate realms. As with most notable scientists throughout history.
True. In that the practice of science and the practice of religion are different. I think the point is that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to the person who practices both.
No. Quantum physics accepts nothing on blind faith.
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
They have theories about how and why things work, and from those, they develop equations that predict outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. Therefore, they have faith in their equations and methodologies without any proof that the theories or ideas behind those equations and methodologies are actually correct The math says so, the evidence says so, and the outcomes of experiments say so...but no no one really understands why.
When it comes to God, I see things the same way. I see evidence that God exists, and I count on my belief that God exists...beyond that, I cannot explain why or how.
Okay, I found the function. It's f(x)=1/x, x>1. As a series, Integrating around the x-axis from 1 to infinity, it is divergent.
But I had things backward...thanks to my aging memory. (I had it mixed up with a funnel that has both infinite surface and infinite volume.)
Anyway for the integral of f(x)=1/x...the surface of the 3D shape that can be plotted is infinite while the volume it contains is finite (equal to pi to be exact). According to my notes, I can fill up the object with pi amount of paint; however, I need an infinite amount of paint to cover the surface of the object.
Interestingly enough, the object is called "Gabriel's Horn." shock
-
Peace Neo,
I'd have to say the soul, if it were to exist, would be finite.
Fair enough. Would this then lead you to believe that the Hereafter is also finite?
What makes you think it's the most likely?
The example of nature, and the paradox of the alternative, as stated earlier.
Peace,
Tay -
True. In that the practice of science and the practice of religion are different. I think the point is that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to the person who practices both.
I never said anyone who's a scientist is an atheist by default. I simply said one cannot use science to cover their faith is all.
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
They don't 'understand'? What are you talking about? Which part of quantum mechanics (most of which is observable) escapes the 'understanding' (I use this word loosely here, since it is not a necessity) of modern science?
They have theories about how and why things work, and from those, they develop equations that predict outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. ]Therefore, they have faith in their equations and methodologies without any proof that the theories or ideas behind those equations and methodologies are actually correct The math says so, the evidence says so, and the outcomes of experiments say so...but no no one really understands why.
That's how all science works. But the one thing that differentiates science from faith is that science will never be able to accept anything without empirical evidence (as seen by the 'long time' it took for people to fully accept Einstein's notion of grabity). And they don't really have 'faith' in their equations and methodologies - this was the case some 50 years ago (and only because it agreed with observed reality, thus they had to conform) but now there's conclusive 'reasoning' behind said equations and methodologies as well. However, that isn't to suggest that science knows everything - it never claimed to. Not knowing is not the same as accepting something on blind faith. IMO, science is limited and faith/religion is 'not' (because science is limited to our 5 senses, whereas faith/religion is only limited by our mind), so that itself is an ode to science and religion's incompatibility.
Okay, I found the function. It's f(x)=1/x, x>1. As a series, Integrating around the x-axis from 1 to infinity, it is divergent.
But I had things backward...thanks to my aging memory. (I had it mixed up with a funnel that has both infinite surface and infinite volume.)
Anyway for the integral of f(x)=1/x...the surface of the 3D shape that can be plotted is infinite while the volume it contains is finite (equal to pi to be exact). According to my notes, I can fill up the object with pi amount of paint; however, I need an infinite amount of paint to cover the surface of the object.
Interestingly enough, the object is called "Gabriel's Horn." shock
Pi is an irrational number and is 'infinite' in its own right (it shares many qualities with 'infinite', such as undefinable, not properly divisible, it is used as a limit, etc.); anyway, that makes sense because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region (and thus keeping a 'finite' volume, even if it's not an exact volume). My counter to this point would be that 1. nature isn't continuous (I explained why before, because I knew something like this would come up) and 2. This analogy isn't sufficient to explain a soul which is said to be infinite, but enclosed within a body which is finite. Nonetheless, gabriel's horn does sound interesting and I'll be using some matlab to check it out some more. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Fair enough. Would this then lead you to believe that the Hereafter is also finite?
To answer this would be purely speculative on my, and everyone else's part. However, I believe an educated guess would be that the hereafter would be in 'god's realm' - but I can't prove that with any level of certainty.
The example of nature, and the paradox of the alternative, as stated earlier.
Allah creating the soul and the soul being indefinite isn't paradoxical. I merely said that god can't do the impossible to avoid future encounteres where we justify anything by saying "but god can do whatever" is all.
hus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
I can see why you'd be confused here as I didn't phrase myself clearly. What I meant was, strictly logically speaking the indefinite is not the same thing as the infinite. Therefure the soul, by definition, is indefinite and not infinite/eternal and thus saying "god made the soul infinite because god can do anything" does not suffice. However, it's perfectly logically reasonable for god to create souls and for the souls to be henceforth indefinite.
-
Peace all,
I would have some questions
Is it correct to define the soul as the part in us that "knows", that has memory, like a hard drive, storing everything about the person's experiences? Is it "ar-rooh" or "an-nafs"?
What would then be the mind? the CPU (central processing unit)?
--
-
Peace all,
I would have some questions
Is it correct to define the soul as the part in us that "knows", that has memory, like a hard drive, storing everything about the person's experiences? Is it "ar-rooh" or "an-nafs"?
What would then be the mind? the CPU (central processing unit)?
--
No, the brain stores memories and by extension, experience.
-
Peace Neo,
To answer this would be purely speculative on my, and everyone else's part.
Of course, and I have no problem with speculation considering the topic.
I believe an educated guess would be that the hereafter would be in 'god's realm' - but I can't prove that with any level of certainty.
Do you perceive this realm as seperate from our current existence? Perhaps a parallel?
Allah creating the soul and the soul being indefinite isn't paradoxical. I merely said that god can't do the impossible to avoid future encounteres where we justify anything by saying "but god can do whatever" is all...it's perfectly logically reasonable for god to create souls and for the souls to be henceforth indefinite.
I understand your position, I think. Indefinite, by definition, is undecided. It is a "may or may not" description. Is this what you feel the Qur'an portrays regarding the Hereafter? Do you feel we may or may not live eternally?
Please understand, and perhaps this is an unnecessary disclaimer, but I am not dissecting your argument, only trying to get to the bottom of it to further my own understanding. As the Qur'an states, we should listen to all angles and choose the one that fits best.
So far, I've read nothing in the Qur'an that states or even eludes to the Hereafter as anything less than eternal. The only indefinite I've come across is how we choose to spend the Hereafter bliss or agony.
Peace,
Tay
