Classical Theism
-
Apologizes for huge picture, dont know how to make it smaller. By the way Monorealism is on the right.
-
Apologizes for huge picture, dont know how to make it smaller. By the way Monorealism is on the right.
OOPS! My mistake it's on the left. Sorry! -[
-
Better way of showing how our existence is projected. It is much better than how people usually describe it. Thank you.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Better way of showing how our existence is projected. It is much better than how people usually describe it. Thank you.
Be well
Qarael AmenuelWell it is quite interesting. You can say that Monorealism is actually the original Monotheism. In fact this article came in to my mind https//www.linkedin.com/pulse/allah-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%DB%81-falsely-derived-from-root-word-idol-deities-dr-kashif-khan?trk=mp-reader-card
-
-
I do not agree with the article though about the derivative root of Allah. The root is the same one used for the prefix AL but a so-called "full root" namely Alef-Lam-Lam, and it has the third person singular suffix on it. The third person plural is and is used in Quran which would be spelled if the was part of the root, which is remarkable that so-called scholars cannot perceive since it is grammar rules.
Plus there is never any form of it which is (your "god" which demonstrates there is something special about the usage of Allah.
The simple answer is that you cannot write it because the grammar would be wrong with a third person singular one it since the ALL refers to the Heh itself.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
I do not agree with the article though about the derivative root of Allah. The root is the same one used for the prefix AL but a so-called "full root" namely Alef-Lam-Lam, and it has the third person singular suffix on it. The third person plural is and is used in Quran which would be spelled if the was part of the root, which is remarkable that so-called scholars cannot perceive since it is grammar rules.
Plus there is never any form of it which is (your "god" which demonstrates there is something special about the usage of Allah.
The simple answer is that you cannot write it because the grammar would be wrong with a third person singular one it since the ALL refers to the Heh itself.
Be well
Qarael AmenuelIm a bit lost here since i know nothing about arabic grammar.
-
Sure you know about the famous AL prefix though. Allah is just with one additional letter to form the so-called "full root". , with our without hamza (since the hamza diacritic is an invention) is just the AL prefix hooked unto the Arabic third person singular, as simple as that.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
Sure you know about the famous AL prefix though. Allah is just with one additional letter to form the so-called "full root". , with our without hamza (since the hamza diacritic is an invention) is just the AL prefix hooked unto the Arabic third person singular, as simple as that.
Be well
Qarael AmenuelNot really. Sorry
-
Very well then, but you can easily read yourself to it.
-
Well i want to hear what the others say about this.
-
On the left diagram If we eliminate the circle line, then it is close to how the ancient israelites sees YHVH and how the vedic people sees Brahman.
The concept then evolve into math concept of (infinity) as commonly though in any algebra classes in today's school.
And that's the reason on the need to 'eliminate' the circle line, since the supreme is infinite, has no boundaries, limits or border in all dimensions.
This in turn gives the reason why there's only can be one . Given only / = 1
And there could be many cosmos as well, as described by the theory of multiverses..
Nowadays; cosmologist tends to visualise 'everything' to be like thishttp//raszl.com/sites/default/files/multiverse2.jpeg
Our universe with it's trillion of galaxies might be only one 'bubble' in the mist of trillion (or unlimited number) of other bubbles... each with it's own peculiar 'law of nature', space time fabric (some might have none or totally different space time fabric) and dimension.
-
On the left diagram If we eliminate the circle line, then it is close to how the ancient israelites sees YHVH and how the vedic people sees Brahman.
The concept then evolve into math concept of (infinity) as commonly though in any algebra classes in today's school.
And that's the reason on the need to 'eliminate' the circle line, since the supreme is infinite, has no boundaries, limits or border in all dimensions.
This in turn gives the reason why there's only can be one . Given only / = 1
And there could be many cosmos as well, as described by the theory of multiverses..
Nowadays; cosmologist tends to visualise 'everything' to be like thishttp//raszl.com/sites/default/files/multiverse2.jpeg
Our universe with it's trillion of galaxies might be only one 'bubble' in the mist of trillion (or unlimited number) of other bubbles... each with it's own peculiar 'law of nature', space time fabric (some might have none or totally different space time fabric) and dimension.
Huh...interesting what wonders lies beyond of what Allah/God (SWTAY)
-
On the left diagram If we eliminate the circle line, then it is close to how the ancient israelites sees YHVH and how the vedic people sees Brahman.
Isn't that Hinduism?
-
Nice diagram
This is why we should not associate anything with Rabb, because it will just create images, which necessarily are incorrect.
The human mind is very fond of personifying everything, even God. Disaster, or at least delusion, is the consequence.
We even associate things with ourselves that have nothing to do with our real selves. We limit ourselves and others, and so bloodshed, supremacy and the like come as a natural consequence.The way out of our human condition is to learn about our real nature, or at least approach it as much as possible. Unfortunately, religion doesn't seem to teach this anymore. To the contrary, religion is just a huge identity masturbation, which effectively takes us away from reality.
-
On the left diagram If we eliminate the circle line, then it is close to how the ancient israelites sees YHVH and how the vedic people sees Brahman.
The concept then evolve into math concept of (infinity) as commonly though in any algebra classes in today's school.
And that's the reason on the need to 'eliminate' the circle line, since the supreme is infinite, has no boundaries, limits or border in all dimensions.
This in turn gives the reason why there's only can be one . Given only / = 1
And there could be many cosmos as well, as described by the theory of multiverses..
Nowadays; cosmologist tends to visualise 'everything' to be like thishttp//raszl.com/sites/default/files/multiverse2.jpeg
Our universe with it's trillion of galaxies might be only one 'bubble' in the mist of trillion (or unlimited number) of other bubbles... each with it's own peculiar 'law of nature', space time fabric (some might have none or totally different space time fabric) and dimension.
There is no need to eliminate the inner circle, it is showing the difference between visible reality and what lies beyond. The diagram is accurate.
-
A border is required in an illustration, but if the outer circle illustrates 100% it can still portray infinity, as it is just an illustration.
