"God" vs Allah
-
Let us set aside semantics this time.
When asked what created the universe, the religious inevitably answers "God", but when asked what created "God", the religious screams at the question being sophism, and answers that "God" was ever and will ever be. By his answer, the religious presents the possibility of a force always being as plausible and correct.
This is the ultimate philosophical flaw. We can therefore say, that the universe always was as well, because the possibility of "always existing" and "never being created" is a possibility that is accepted by the religious himself.
Knowing this, I would really like to understand why some muslims refuse to simply accept that we are all one , emanated, and persist in saying that there is an external God that has created the whole ?
-
Not really logical.
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.
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.
Allah simply said it originates and ends with him. I subscribe to that philosophy.
-
We are all one, emanated but from what source? Doesn't the word emanate imply that we all came from something? Dictionary meaning of emmanate To come or send forth, as from a source light that emanated from a lamp; a stove that emanated a steady heat.
Do you mean immanate - that God is imminent within all of us, God is equally us and we are equally God? -
Peace, lordfox.
I have solid proof that a message has been sent to us( Humans) from the Creator.( Check the mathematical proof that the last scripture-Koran- could not have been authored by other than GOD.) This Creator says
5016 We created the human and We know what he whispers to himself. We are closer to him than his jugular veins.?
5117 The earth is full of signs ( about your Creator) for those who are certain, and within yourselves. ( your own body and organs) Can you see?.?
5235 Were they created from nothing or are they the creators??
5236 Did they create the heavens and the earth? They have no certainty. ( About GOD)
5237 Do they possess the treasures of your Lord? Are they in control??
5243 Do they have another god beside GOD ? ( that creates better creations) God be glorified. Far above having partners!?
5526 Everyone on earth perishes.?
5527 Only the presence of your Lord lasts. Possessor of Majesty and Honour.?
5657 We have created you, if only you could believe!?
5660 We have predetermined death for you. Nothing can stop Us. ( from carrying it out!)
5661 We substitute new generations in your place, and establish what you do not know!?
5662 You know about the first creation, do you not remember??
5924 HE is the ONE GOD; The Creator, the Initiator, the Designer; To HIM belong all the good names. Glorifying HIM is everything in the heavens and the earth. HE is the ALMIGHTY, the MOST WISE.?
He always existed, He creates but was not created. I have not seen other proof contradicting HIS message. Therefore I personally believe.
Peace again -
Let us set aside semantics this time.
When asked what created the universe, the religious inevitably answers "God", but when asked what created "God", the religious screams at the question being sophism, and answers that "God" was ever and will ever be. By his answer, the religious presents the possibility of a force always being as plausible and correct.
This is the ultimate philosophical flaw. We can therefore say, that the universe always was as well, because the possibility of "always existing" and "never being created" is a possibility that is accepted by the religious himself.
Knowing this, I would really like to understand why some muslims refuse to simply accept that we are all one , emanated, and persist in saying that there is an external God that has created the whole ?
The philosophical flaw is the use of fallacious reasoning to say "we can therefore say the universe always was" (non sequitur) along with a straw man argument about what some un-named "religious" person must accept or does accept.
God says this universe and every thing in it was created by Him, and it is temporary. To be created means it did not have a prior existence nor was it eternal or possess an always existing state and it will someday all be returned to Him. (2050, 2210, 1940, 2464, 3011, 5720 etc.)
God says He is the source of everything and all existence is dependant upon Him to exist and that He alone is Eternal, Everlasting, without beginning or end. (3541, 573 and many others)
What exactly are you trying ask or say?
-
Let us set aside semantics this time.
When asked what created the universe, the religious inevitably answers "God", but when asked what created "God", the religious screams at the question being sophism, and answers that "God" was ever and will ever be. By his answer, the religious presents the possibility of a force always being as plausible and correct.
This is the ultimate philosophical flaw. We can therefore say, that the universe always was as well, because the possibility of "always existing" and "never being created" is a possibility that is accepted by the religious himself.
Knowing this, I would really like to understand why some muslims refuse to simply accept that we are all one , emanated, and persist in saying that there is an external God that has created the whole ?
Shalom Aleikhem,
I would like further explanation from you to understand what is it that you are suggesting and most do not understand.
Are you suggesting that
Things + Allah = Everything
Like.. we are all physically parts of what makes up Allah ? It would be nice if you wrote more explaining what it is that you propose and others simply dont get.
Peace
------------- Student of 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.