Quran's use of the word name (Ism)

Mazhar

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?

nimnimak_11

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.

Mazhar

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.

nimnimak_11

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.

Mazhar

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.

good_logic

Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quote

And 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.

nimnimak_11

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.

Mazhar

Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quote

And 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.

Mazhar

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(&#601ns/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

nimnimak_11

Perhaps you are not getting the point.

omnipresence
mnprz(&#601ns/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.

Mazhar

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.

good_logic

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 Existence

Why 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.

Mazhar

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 Existence

Why 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.

good_logic

Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say here

Concrete 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.

Mazhar

Peace Mazhar.
What if one does not know its state and characteristics? like you say here

Concrete 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.

good_logic

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.

nimnimak_11

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.

I don't think you know how to use reason effectively. Avoiding paradoxes is necessary. I'll try and teach you

Reason is always right when used correctly because anything other than this is paradoxical. Is this circular, correct, false, circular but correct, circular but false or none of what I've just mentioned?

I gave a definition of omnipresence, asserted that any other definition is paradoxical, and then demonstrated the various paths that any other definition would lead to the paradox that is non-existence.

So let's assess your definition to see if it's paradoxical or not. To see if it's rational or not.

Existence is the ability to interact

Is it in line with omnipresence exclusively or not? I have the ability to interact. I am existing in Existence but I am not Existence. Agreed?

Mazhar

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.

Right, without context, except names of things, entities, all words are meaningless voices including the word "Existence".