Whether God could create a God?
-
Peace truthseeker11
It is always a pleasure to talk to thinking minds. I appreciate your understanding.
Strawman fallacy.
I never called It "a physical entity". Infinite Intelligent Energy is not a physical entity. All physical entities are a manifestation of a tiny part of the Intelligent Infinity, but the Intelligent Infinity as a whole is not a physical entity.No strawman fallacy.
I asked a question "Is God a physical entity, not that you call Him a physical entity.When you say "Him" you perceive the Intelligent Infinity like something.
When you say "consciousness" you perceive the Intelligent Infinity like something.
When you say "we can feel" you perceive the Intelligent Infinity like something.
When you say God you perceive the Intelligent Infinity like something.By your logic we cannot use any human word as an attribute of the Intelligent Infinity because it will be perceiving like something.
When I said "Him" I used an English word for "HUA" which is used in Qur'an e.g. in 1121
Sahih International
Say, "He is Allah , OneWhen I say "consciousness" or "we can feel" I understand it as awareness and not an object.
When I said "God" I used an English word for as used in Qur'an
There is nothing else in existence that can be equalized with the combination of the 3 words "Infinite Intelligent Energy".
I respect your understanding.
I didn't say "intelligent" alone; that would be equalizing with something.
I didn't say "energy" alone; that would be equalizing with something.
I didn't say "creator" alone; that would be equalizing with something.I called It the "Infinite Intelligent Energy", or the "Infinite Creator", an attribute just like "al-rahman" or "al-raheem".
Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem are among the attributes of The Creator made known to us in Qur'an but "Infinite Intelligent Energy" is not.
I respect your understanding and gave my humble opinion and I pray to The Creator to help us understanding His book.
Peace.
-
Hello RG Marshall,
welcome
Well .. Some questions can be put wrong, like how God is created, or how God created himself, or like your question, can God create a God. These questions are logically wrong because they assume that logic existed before God, and that of course is a wrong assumption. God created logic, He was there before logic and reason existed, so how could we discuss the existence of God based on something He made exist?
-
Peace Novice,
It is always a pleasure to talk to thinking minds. I appreciate your understanding.
Likewise; it is always a pleasure having a discussion with you, and thank you for sharing your understandings.
No strawman fallacy.
I asked a question "Is God a physical entity, not that you call Him a physical entity.You quoted me and started your comment with that question and another question. The second question was relevant to my quote. Since both questions were asked together, the first question appeared a strawman fallacy. May I ask why you quoted me and then started questioning whether God is a physical entity when I didn't say that? It seemed to come out of nowhere!
When I said "Him" I used an English word for "HUA" which is used in Qur'an e.g. in 1121
Sahih International
Say, "He is Allah , OneHuwa 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.
Because "huwa" can also mean "it", and since the god does not have a sex, when "huwa" is used for the god you should translate to "it" and not "he" to satisfy 4211 that you quoted against me.
When I say "consciousness" or "we can feel" I understand it as awareness and not an object.
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.
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.
When I said "God" I used an English word for as used in Qur'an
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.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16710.msg182966#msg182966
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16710.msg180723#msg180723
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605535.msg333628#msg333628
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600414.msg277101#msg277101Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem are among the attributes of The Creator made known to us in Qur'an but "Infinite Intelligent Energy" is not.
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?
Infinite intelligent energy, infinite creator, intelligent infinity are some words that I use to remember, praise and glorify the god in my own way, along with quranic words such as al-raheem, al-khaliq, rabb etc.
I respect your understanding and gave my humble opinion and I pray to The Creator to help us understanding His book.
I respect your understanding as well and hope you take my humble opinions constructively rather than as criticism.
May the infinite creator guide us to the truth.
-
Rabb is the "name" of GOD or at least personal address. No one calls upon GOD by Allah in Quran who is among righteous and knowledgeable people.
Allah is more of a collective, realm which people who are of affinity belong to. Hence the narration often speaks in plural as to say "We". It is not a mistake but that is because Allah is not a personal (singular) address for GOD.
Thus none of your examples are correct, the god or GOD, but I still use GOD because it may symbolize good and no one is good but GOD. I take it for what the word is meant to symbolize and not because people claim there are multiple gods. The one who chooses to hace the same affinity is good, thus GOD. It is not too bad instead of Allah, even if they are not synonymous. Perhaps AlRahman is better to mark GOD. The one who is, is, and why they are attributes and not proper nouns.
Allah, the word, is unspecifically saying the one who is that is. It has a long history, probably at least 4000 years. And lots of falsehood has emerged concerning it too. The AL prefix is attached to it thanks to the function of Arabic grammar, but it is supposed to be Elah without that prefix originally and has the same meaning except that Allah is stronger emphasis on "to be" Elah (to be which is). You can say it is double incentive.
But I understand that this is hard to accept for those who make GOD a clearly distinct separate image.
Salaam
-
Peace Man of Faith,
Rabb is the "name" of GOD or at least personal address. No one calls upon GOD by Allah in Quran who is among righteous and knowledgeable people.
You are completely wrong
326 Say "O the god ............
5114 Jesus, son of Mary, said "O the god ............
1010 Their saying in it is "Be you glorified, O the god ...........
3946 Say "O the god ...........
Additionally, "rabb" is not a proper name; it is an attribute of the intelligent infinity, meaning "sustainer/caretaker/maintainer/developer".
My humble suggestion to you is to back up everything you say by evidence, instead of deliberately misleading others by deception and conjecture.
May the infinite creator guide us to the truth.
-
Salaam truth,
No. It may look like I am wrong on a first glance, but there is a grammatical reason why the language is formed like that. I have studied the phenomenon of Allah for too long to not say something I am not knowledgeable about. If I was less confident I would not speak like I definitely know.
Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 26
Say "O Allah! Lord of Power (And Rule)
Source From traditional Quran translation
This interpretation is wrong.
The Allahem refers to the attribute reference of Malek that proceeds the word, by following "To Be Which It Be" + argument given, i.e. malek Al-Malek. This grammar form is very similar to how Jews/Children of Israel refer to the phenomenon Elohim and in this form it refers to Which Thereby Be as a collective possession.
Again I tell you, no righteous person in Quran would call upon GOD by Allah.
And Rabb is the personal address for GOD, regardless of being a name or not. I think I wrote "name" for that sake unless I missed it. Every righteous person says either Rabb or Ya Rabb in Quran when addressing GOD.
Allah can only be spoken of indirectly and passively since it is the consciousness of GOD like the realm one chooses to be part if they do, and it is counted in plural because those included are many, i.e. prophets, angels, righteous people etc.
Salaam
-
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