Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
-
Since you had quoted an Ayah of Qur'aan in your write-up I thought you would mention the Philosophy of Existence from Qur'aan which is obviously the first source of First Philosophy.
You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.
Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.
-
You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.
Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.
The first question of Metaphysics or first philosophy is existence and first cause. So the study of metaphysics has but to start from Man's own existence.
A man is born in a state that he does not know anything about the physical realm. As he grows he gets knowledge and perception of the physical realm around him. This is all what seems to him Existence - reality in the real sense of the word.
Our knowledge is dependent upon the existence of matter and awareness of its name-code, which verbally mirrors it through words composed with letters and consonants of a language making us cognizant of it. Cognizant is he who can verbally mirror the image of that thing for others.
So the First Reality or First Existence is the Word and the object observed and perceived by sentient - human.
Word, whether spoken or written, is a meaningful articulated sound. Written word is the first sound-recorder known to humans.
First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.
What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?
-
First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.
What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?
Peace Mazhar
So long as there are no absurdities/paradoxes/contradictions, It makes no difference to me to be honest.
-
There are no other conclusions to jump to. Anything else is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/non-existence. You can have more than one reality, but all realities have to exist in existence. You cannot have more than one existence. What separates the two existences? Non-existence? Doesn't reason dictate this to be absurd?
-
The question is how to perceive Omnipresent existence without these things. Saying and proving are two different things.
Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.
-
Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.
This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.
Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.
-
This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.
Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.
Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.
If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.
-
Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.
If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.
The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
-
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quoteAnd then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
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.
-
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quoteAnd then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Salam,
The first question of Metaphysics or first philosophy is existence and first cause. So the study of metaphysics has but to start from Man's own existence.
We are aware Philosophy came first and became the basis for science. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which Aristotle called as "first philosophy". It deals with the nature of existence, the being and the world and it is a subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".
We need to know about our existence, because what else exists know quite well about us, our stature and position in the physical realm. They have their own levels of perception and understanding.
The moment a philosopher observes the relation of his existence with the existence of universe, he can deduce nothing but the fact that his being is the first cause of the existence of the universe he lives in. A philosopher cannot fail to observe that he is not the reason for the survival of the universe, but it is the universe which is sustaining him and causing his survival though he is not her creator. So his own being is the first cause of the existence of the universe. Therefore, the first point of reflection for a truthful philosopher is to find the reason why the universe is at her service. This will lead him to find the first cause of his own existence. This will instantly lead him to the conclusion that he can not be one who causes the survival of the first cause of his own existence. Thinking otherwise will be a fallacy. The first cause must be living and surviving by His own self.
-
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(əns/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
-
Perhaps you are not getting the point.
omnipresence
mnprz(əns/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.
-
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.
-
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 ExistenceWhy 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. -
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 ExistenceWhy 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.
-
Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say hereConcrete 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. -
Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say hereConcrete 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.
-
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.