The Concept of God
Nawaz
As a human bieng this has come into our mind that who has created us
and providing us the sources of survival and nourishment. Is the name
of our creator is God? if God then what is a concept of God. I hope
you will find it worth reading.
The Concept of God and Its Relevance to Human Beings :-
------------------------------------------------------
In Part 1 of this article, we will examine how different people hold
different subjective concepts of God, which, in turn, lead to conflict
and contradiction not only in our lives as individuals but as peoples
and nations as well. In Part 2, we will strive to show how the
objective concept of "One" God can remove the conflict from our minds
and hearts, can transform our characters to become harmonious with the
most beautiful colors (2:138) represented by the most beautiful
attributes of Allah Almighty(7:180). These attributes, based on the
Quranic concept of God, serve as a complete and perfect model for
attaining peace and harmony within our selves and with our outside
world.
In examining the prevailing concepts of God with a series of
questions, the intent is enquiry rather than criticism. God commands
us to examine and analyze, even the Quran, with knowledge (12:108,
34:46, 16:44). God also commands us to respect other faiths (6:108),
other prophets (3:84, 4:164, 16:36), and other places of worship
(22:40).
Questions about the nature of God, the creation of the Universe, the
creation of mankind, the purpose of creation and the relationship of
humans to God and the universe have fired human curiosity and
imagination from times immemorial.
Nature of God :
--------------
Is God immanent? Or is He transcendent? Or is He both? How can God's
presence be felt?
Did God create human beings in His image? What is meant by the image
of God? Does God have an image or is it just in our imaginations?
Does God sit on a throne above the heavens? Abu Dawud and Thirmidhi in
Hadith No. 5480 Mishkat give physical details of the throne of Allah.
According to them, Allah's throne rests on the back of mountain goats
that are standing in an ocean above the seventh heaven!
Further reading! http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_concept_of_God.htm
source: http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/index.asp
Thanks and regards
Nawaz
pund kamath
> Dear Reader
>
> As a human bieng this has come into our mind that who has created us
> and providing us the sources of survival and nourishment. Is the name
> of our creator is God? if God then what is a concept of God. I hope
My friend, tell me who created God ?
yassir
> My friend, tell me who created God ?
If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.
He becomes a creation.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Chaos Entity
If God does not need a creator, why must we?
If it is a creator, and not a creation, then it's existence must be
eternal.
If it is possible that God has always existed, then it is possible
that the entire universe has always existed.
If the entire universe has always existed, and therefore was not
created, then it is not really a creation.
If there is no creation, then there is no creator.
David Sitara
"yassir" <kha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:795650.040909...@posting.google.com...
What was it doing before he created anything? Assuming it has a dick and
also a cunt, was it fucking itself before he created anything?
Thanks bud and piss to you.
Dave
M. Ranjit Mathews
> pund_...@hotmail.com (pund kamath) wrote
>
> > My friend, tell me who created God ?
>
> If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.
Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?
> He becomes a creation.
Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.
> Wa Salaam.
> Yassir.
pund kamath
I am getting off the floor. This business of God is just confusing. I
do not need him(her!).
yassir
> What was it doing before he created anything?
He was like you ,watching porno.
Assuming it has a dick and
> also a cunt, was it fucking itself before he created anything?
the answer is in your porno fillty fucking mind.
> Thanks bud and piss to you.
Yes ,piss is all you'r full of,you can't offer
what you dont have.
Yassir.
yassir
> Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?
Can a triangle be a square ?
> Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.
A square can be a triangle at the same time!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews)
>
> > Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?
>
> Can a triangle be a square ?
Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
and a creator.
Madhu Sudhan
I think if a square can be a triangle then a riangle can be a square
as well!
Coming back to this myth about One God. One is a number, a category in
human conceptualisation. The attempt to define God in human linguistic
terms and to say that is the ultimate answer is to defy His
Omniscience and Omnipotence. We can describe for our sake but
understand its limitations, limited as we are in our language and
concept.
When you say One, you obviously mean there is a Second entity,
whatever that entity is. Hence the concept that the One created the
Second is false. The only answer to this is if you contend that the
One is without a second, in which case, the One is the Only One that
exists ever and the perception of the Second is not ultimately real as
much as the One is. The Second could be a reflection of the One and
other possibilities. In that case, where the Second and subsequent
entities(Third and so forth) are all "reflections" of the One, then it
is possible to say there is more than One, if we accord equal
"reality" status to all entities. If we do not do that, the only
answer and correct description is to say Only Entity and not One
Entity.
Hence One is incorrect. ONLY is correct.
Your turn ( or any missionary can try!).
jhone josef
Through Patience and Understanding
A Canadian Student Discovers Islam
come from a small town in Ontario. I was raised as a Christian and
attended a Pentecostal church. I stopped attending church because I
did not feel I fitted in with that setting, although I did keep
practicing Christianity.
I had no contact with Muslims, and had no idea what Islam was. My
conception of Islam was only what I heard at school, namely
stereotypes and misconceptions about the faith. This ignorance was
aggravated by a movie that I watched in the tenth grade called "Not
Without My Daughter." My teacher did not help to dispel the ideas that
were brought into our heads because of this movie, and so in my final
year in high school, I had the same teacher for a social studies
class, and once again we watched the movie.
The teacher gave us a huge essay, in which we could choose any topic
that commented on the family institution. I began looking into the
effects of religion on the family. I chose the topic because I had
gathered a small amount of information about Islam on the Internet
while chatting, and I thought it would be a perfect chance to learn
more about the religion while doing an essay on it. Allah Almighty
showed me the beauty of Islam during the four-month course of my
research. After a lot of reading, I reverted to Islam in January of
2002, alhamdulillah (all praise be to Allah)!
While doing my research for the essay, I was so intrigued by Islam
that every moment of free time I spent in non-stop reading about
Islam. When I finally wrote my essay, I strayed very far from my
thesis since I not only talked about family life but also about Islam
in general. I was so excited about all the new information that I had
learned. My essay may have helped the teacher to see what Islam really
means in sha' Allah (God willing), because in my essay I discussed in
detail how the media has misinterpreted Islam. When my teacher taught
the same class next semester, she did not show the movie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to understand things that are so foreign to you, things that
you do not know a lot about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foremost idea that caught my attention was the Islamic concept of
one God, without son or anything other partner along those lines.
Additionally, I was amazed that the Qur'an is still in its original
Arabic language and has not been altered through time. The religion
opened my eyes up to many new ideas and a new way of living that made
so much more sense to me. All the aspects of praying and being modest
just really led me to believe this was what I should be doing.
All my life I felt different from my friends: I never had any real
religious friends who were like me, but even though I practiced
Christianity I did not really understand what it meant. I could never
grasp the idea of more than one God, I did not understand why I had to
pray to Jesus (peace be upon him). Thus, when I learned about Islam,
all my questions were answered. There was no way that I could turn my
back on it when the answer was right in front of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The religion opened my eyes up to many new ideas and a new way of
living that made so much more sense to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew there was so much more to learn, but from the little
information that I had, I said the Shahadah (declaration of faith) and
tried to learn how to pray out of a book, which was an interesting
experience, for it was not until I came to university that I really
learned how to pray properly. I made my first Muslim friends in
September when I enrolled at Guelph University. They were such a
wonderful help, may Allah reward them. Now, I cannot imagine my life
any other way.
People always ask what does your family think. In truth, they are not
pleased with my conversion because they feel that I am rejecting my
culture and them. My friends were very surprised, and also not happy.
I felt like an outsider for a long time, but I could understand where
they are coming from because its hard to understand things that are so
foreign to you, things that you do not know a lot about. As time
progresses, I am trying to show them that my choice was the best for
me, Allah willing. I also try to give them information so they can
understand Islam.
I want to say to the other brothers and sisters who are reverting or
thinking about coming into Islam that it may seem so scary at first;
in fact it can be scary I cannot say that it is an easy thing. But it
is worth it. I've never been so happy in my life. Islam is the most
precious and beautiful religion, and alhumdulillah we are so lucky to
have been shown the light. When you see it and grasp its value, you
should make the struggle, because in the end you will benefit more
than you can ever imagine.
You may feel alone and an outcast, but you are not alone because Allah
is always there for you. When you feel like you cannot do it any more,
pray and supplicate to Allah and read the Qur'an: it will uplift your
spirits. You will then realize why you are doing what you are doing.
You can also pass the knowledge onto your family and friends. Through
your actions, they will see that Islam is not so scary after all. It
simply takes a little time and a little patience.
yassir
> Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
> creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
> and a creator.
Then Creator1 and creator2 are equal and the same.
is this what you'r saying?
A man create a car ,can a car create a man?
Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote
>
> > Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
> > creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
> > and a creator.
>
They wouldn't be the same any more than you and your mother are the
same. They wouldn't necessarily be equal in capability either. For
example, if Creator1 is able to (and does) create Creator2 in such a
way that Creator1 can destroy Creator2 any time he wants and Creator2
cannot destroy Creator1, then they would not be equal in capability.
> is this what you'r saying?
I haven't said they were equal.
> A man create a car, can a car create a man?
Only if man can (and does) create a car that can create a man. In the
sense that manufacturing a car is creating a car, man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).
yassir
> I haven't said they were equal.
Are you saying that creator1 is superior to creator2?
> man (Creator1)
> creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).
can creatore2 knows that it is created by creator1?
Madhu Sudhan
Creation is not and cannot be bringing into being anything that was
never existent before. "Creation" cannot arise out of nothingness.
"Creation" can only be transformation. Man cannot create anything out
of nothing. Creating anything out of nothingness is irrational and
against our experience.
Hence the concept that God "creates" can only mean God "created" out
of Himself/Herself and was preexistent and was transformed.
A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
an idea which transforms.
Creation from nothingness is a myth.
Transformation is the only possibility.
Sesh
comprehensible to ordinary Muslims. More so Muslims from outside of
India.
Let me ask you some questions. It is said in the Bhagavad Gita that
not even a blade of grass moves without the will of the lord. Now, if
we accept it as true, then, why did the lord accept the creation of so
many religions and the existence of extremism forms in them among some
people? It too must be the will of the lord isn't it? Now while I know
that the Muslims will hijack this question and adapt it to their
temperment, it is still a good question to think about. Queston two:
Why did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa validate them. Note: He did this only
after attaining nirvikalpa samadhi. Question3: Why did Shirdi Sai Baba
have to take the form(avatara) that removes differentiation from a
Islamic form of worship as taught by Sai Baba from the Hindu worship?
Religion is based on the temperment of the individual. Which is why in
Hinduism we have so many flavours/methods. We are used to this
concept. When in this thread, the author who created it says there is
one, he is merrily saying it from his temperment and its limitation.
He may not even have an idea that the "one" he says is as good as any
other name. To say "only" will in all probability fly over his head as
otherwise they will have to accept Omniscience/omnipresence and
Omnipotence of the lord in complete totality, which, I think they have
no idea about.
tripur...@yahoo.com (Madhu Sudhan) wrote in message
Chaos Entity
Why is it necisary for there to be something more to our existence?
There is a tendency to assemble elaborate ideas of dieties and
behavioral code and I can't figure out why. No matter what religion,
are we so lost that we cannot contemplate or accept a universe that
has no divine athority? Even the atheists, so certain that there is no
god, are flawed since certainty either way requires a leap of faith.
It appears likely that Man created God, for explanation and guidance
and excuses to behave the way we do. That is not to say that there is
no god, but that Man clings to the concept of dieties to such an
extent that if they find out that there are none they would either
deny it or become depressed.
I suggest that we can live a full and respectable life without
disecting our existence and filling in the blanks based on selected
teachings.
We do not need a Creator for us to exist. If the Creator can be
eternal, so can we.
We do not need a divine purpose. We are here, and as far as we can
tell we have free will.
We do not need an Afterlife or Reincarnation. I find it rather
dissapointing to assume Man must have an incentive to do good, such as
being rewarded after death. It is also not necisary to assume that we
do more than just decay when we die.
It appears that Man is lost without religion. I hope that some day we
can overcome this unfortunate byproduct of our consciousness.
Madhu Sudhan
>
> Let me ask you some questions. It is said in the Bhagavad Gita that
> not even a blade of grass moves without the will of the lord.
Please show the verses in Gita. I dont remember any grass in the Gita
although the principle expressed makes sense
Now, if
> we accept it as true, then, why did the lord accept the creation of so
> many religions and the existence of extremism forms in them among some
> people?
The Lord is all knowledge and all power, no doubt. But He is not
going to do everything for us. We have no autonomy if He does
everything. Even a mother has to let the child make some mistakes so
the child learns by his own suffering and mistakes. But she cares.
Queston two:
> Why did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa validate them.
The Paramahamsa and other saints always do what is appropriate. We
have to understand them only if we follow all of what they say. We
cannot take piecemeal, little by little. Even islam and xtianity have
some valid aspects.
Islam emphasies surrender. Xtianity emphasies love. Jainsism
emphasises ahimsa. Buddhism emphasises understanding. Judaism
emphasises a code of conduct. Which religion emphases all these?
Hinduism. Hinduism is the comprehensive religion. The others are just
an aspect, piecemeal approach. Hinduism is the ocean. The others are
ponds and lakes.
Theology is most developed, to the hisghest degree, only in Hinduism.
The others just prattle. They cant even dabble in the periphery of
vedanta
Uncle_Sinbad
> kha...@sbcglobal.net (yassir) wrote in message news:<795650.040921...@posting.google.com>...
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote
> Creation is not and cannot be bringing into being anything that was
> never existent before. "Creation" cannot arise out of nothingness.
> "Creation" can only be transformation. Man cannot create anything out
> of nothing. Creating anything out of nothingness is irrational and
> against our experience.
Comment:
I agree. If creation means creation outof nothing, then a creature can
not do that.
> Hence the concept that God "creates" can only mean God "created" out
> of Himself/Herself and was preexistent and was transformed.
Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
mattter is dependent and relative). It means the Creator does not
"play" the game as the material relative world and thus there is no
reason to believe "He" cannot create (from nothing).
Infact there are two options:
1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
it (thus God and the relative universe exist).
From observation we can perceive":
1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
depends on something else. BUt maybe everything depends on everything?
If everything in the universe is relative, then relativity itself must
be relative to something that is called the Absolute. So there is no
escape there.
2. The big bang shows the universe came into existence from
"nothingness", but still this is a conclusion based on logic and
perception.
3. That is why we say: In the end all we have is perceptions and we
can not reach the Absolute reality by perceptions of our relative
organs formed in our relative brains.
What we see is a copy formed in our brains and to find the Souce of
creation we must transcend this path. To believe in Absolute reality
is to believe in a transcendent notion, that is what people should
call God.
But this is a matter of insight. FOr the one who wants to follow his
prejidices, he/her will always find away to fool her/himself
La illaha illalah wa7dahu la sharika la :
No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
"shares" with Him
god refers to the created relative world.
God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.
He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.
> A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
> necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
> an idea which transforms.
Comment:
That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.
Wasalaam
Kamal
pund kamath
...text snipped..
> > A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
> > necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
> > an idea which transforms.
...
Um! Is God Muslim or could He(She, It) be something else?
Madhu Sudhan
> tripur...@yahoo.com (Madhu Sudhan) wrote in message news:<81b78a45.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> Comment:
> I agree. If creation means creation outof nothing, then a creature can
> not do that.
If creation means creation out of nothing, then there is no creator.
There is no creation. Not just for a creature but there is no
creation.
> Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
> cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
> mattter is dependent and relative).
If the postulate that creation cannot be from nothingness, there is no
first cause or absolute. There is no cause or effect. Hence
Cause-effect phenomenon is not ultimately real and are only
experiential from a human point of view. Talk of matter is also only
from an experiential point. Everything has to be from God, including
what we experience as matter etc even if it is seen a as dependent.
Everything is Divine. Period. There is no first cause etc. Everything
is God and is a manifestation of God. There is no other possibility.
Humans experience what is seen as relative but the "relative" is the
Absolute.
It means the Creator does not
> "play" the game as the material relative world and thus there is no
> reason to believe "He" cannot create (from nothing).
God can do what He wants. He is Omnipotent. To say He cannot is to
limit Him.
He can create out of Himself, like a spider spinning a web. The
material is Himself. The power to "create" is Himself and the
Intelligence is Himself. He can "play" in the material world but can
transcend that Himself. He can do that if that is His Will. To say He
cannot is to say He is not powerful or intelligent etc.
> Infact there are two options:
> 1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
> 2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
> it (thus God and the relative universe exist).
In fact there is only one possibility. The relative experiential
universe is the Absolute, conditioned by space-time. The relative is
an aspect of the Absolute under His power and Will. It is His tool.
The relative is just as Divine.
>
> From observation we can perceive":
> 1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
> depends on something else.
Not really. Everything is indestructible. If anything is destroyed,
something *always* remains. Nothing can be completely destroyed.
Everything only transformed.
BUt maybe everything depends on everything?
> If everything in the universe is relative, then relativity itself must
> be relative to something that is called the Absolute. So there is no
> escape there.
This is the famous circular argument. Old one. In fact, there is no
reason to say everything depends on any one thing. Many events and
entities are multicausal. We cant say child depends only on mother.
The child depends on so many factors, including father, mother, oxygen
etc! The old worn out logic presimued unicausality for things, not
interdependence. The falsehood of unicausality led to First Cause
argument.
> La illaha illalah wa7dahu la sharika la :
> No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
> "shares" with Him
Wrong concept actually. To say nothing else shares with Him implies
something other than Him exists. That is a mistake. Nothing else
exists.
> God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.
There is no creator really as expalined above. It is just a perception
and semantic convenience.
> He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.
Again inaccurate. Only He exists is correct. Not the Only One!
> Comment:
> That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
> is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
> definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.
Nearly correct. Hence relative is nothing but absolute and there is no
creation or creator.
Madhu Sudhan
God is God. Names, categories are for our convenience. We should use
categories but should never be imprisoned by them. They are tools. We
should focus on what they mean. The essence is the focus and not the
name. If you focus on the essence, then the name liberates. That is
vedanta.
Sesh
existence?>>
Its a very big question isn't it?
All these religions, and their and their-not dogmas, rules and
regulations. The wonderful thing that has happened to so many
people(charities and etc) and the so many worse things(beleiving that
"God" says kill and the genocide/ sanctified barbarism that follows
this flawed understanding or intolerence) is because of the very
question you have asked.
There is an equally important question and trust me, this question is
not easy to answer in its entiriety. The Question is "Who am I".
Transcending, time, geography, perceptons, attitudes, conditioning(of
mind), body based identity and etc the question is really puzzling.
It is in search of an answer to these questions have spawned so many
theories and understandings and debates. There is no easy answer.
Simply put, it is completely dependent on the temperment of the
individual. If you are comfortable in believing(it is still a belief)
the non-existence of God(s), so be it. If you are happy trusting the
existence then too so be it.
To clarify this belief into a fact, something you know for sure as a
fact, you need to start walking in the direction where you aquire the
knowledge for this purpose and validate the knowledge, this validation
provides experiences and the experiences does more than just
validation. This by itself is another subject and can be taken offline
if you want to.
Which is why in the way I have understood Bhagavad Gita, there is a
Yoga form called Karma Yoga. This espouses action and duty(in all
forms and is a vast subject by itself and too vast to summarise easily
and discuss in one or two threads), it does not require you to
necessarily believe in God. It says that when you are a perfectionist
in your duties which makes a positive difference, then that
perfectionist, wheather a believer or a non-believer , it is
irrelevent, is as great as the greatest devotee, or the greatest wise
sage or the greatest Yogi.
The theory of God as in a name and being, the forms and procedures are
to help the person understand and make the path twords "perfection"
that is addressed in so many ways and worshipped in so namy ways, easy
and there can be many ways twords it depending on the temperment,
maturity and other things, and this includes people who follow the
athiest forms.
- Seshadri.
chaos_...@yahoo.com (Chaos Entity) wrote in message news:<b9737995.04092...@posting.google.com>...
Uncle_Sinbad
> > Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
> > cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
> > mattter is dependent and relative).
>
> If the postulate that creation cannot be from nothingness, there is no
> first cause or absolute. There is no cause or effect. Hence
> Cause-effect phenomenon is not ultimately real and are only
> experiential from a human point of view. Talk of matter is also only
> from an experiential point. Everything has to be from God, including
> what we experience as matter etc even if it is seen a as dependent.
> Everything is Divine. Period. There is no first cause etc. Everything
> is God and is a manifestation of God. There is no other possibility.
> Humans experience what is seen as relative but the "relative" is the
> Absolute.
The relative maybe absolute in an esoteric way but that is only when
you transcnd the outward of things. exoterically, if you say the
Absolute is relative then those words have no meaning. It is like
saying "everything" is "nothing" or saying the All-powerfull is weak,
the Eternal is temporary , The All-knowing is forgetfull etc. In the
end the implication is God is man.
Those are contradictions in terms.
> God can do what He wants. He is Omnipotent. To say He cannot is to
> limit Him.
> He can create out of Himself, like a spider spinning a web. The
> material is Himself. The power to "create" is Himself and the
> Intelligence is Himself. He can "play" in the material world but can
> transcend that Himself. He can do that if that is His Will. To say He
> cannot is to say He is not powerful or intelligent etc.
If God can do anything, then can He make Himself dissapear? or Can HE
create a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift it?
Those questions are impossible to answer because they are logically
inconsistent. God can not do that because the questions are ill.
> > Infact there are two options:
> > 1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
> > 2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
> > it (thus God and the relative universe exist).
>
> In fact there is only one possibility. The relative experiential
> universe is the Absolute, conditioned by space-time. The relative is
> an aspect of the Absolute under His power and Will. It is His tool.
> The relative is just as Divine.
If you say that the relative world are manifestations of the Devine I
would agree with you. YOu can see the Absolute as the Light and
relative as a shadow. The shadow is just the absence of light but not
an independant existence. The Light however exists before and after
the shadow.
BUt to say the relative is the devine is just as non-sensical as to
claim the Absolute is relative or or Light= shadow or 1=0.
> > From observation we can perceive":
> > 1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
> > depends on something else.
>
> Not really. Everything is indestructible. If anything is destroyed,
> something *always* remains. Nothing can be completely destroyed.
> Everything only transformed.
As long as the Light wants shadows will exist. However there is no
reason to believe the shadow is eternal and all of creation will
vanish if the Light or Absolute wants, juts like a shadow can vanish
in a second.
As space is getting bigger there was a time just after the big bang
that teher was only very view matter. Before that time only energy
existed. But what was before time? Maybe this is an ill question but
if time and space are related and space had a beginning, what reason
is there that time always existed?
As sceince progresses we now have information theory that says beyond
matter and energy there is only INFORMATION. That is what people call
the Wisdom of God, The All-knowing. WHo created the universe from
relative nothing in material sense but by "everything" in His wisdom,
since everything was and is in His mind.
> This is the famous circular argument. Old one. In fact, there is no
> reason to say everything depends on any one thing. Many events and
> entities are multicausal. We cant say child depends only on mother.
> The child depends on so many factors, including father, mother, oxygen
> etc! The old worn out logic presimued unicausality for things, not
> interdependence. The falsehood of unicausality led to First Cause
> argument.
I tried to take one step before this by showing that whole circle
needs to have a cause and even if not then it's still an experience or
copy of reality that "asks" for an explanation. The shadow
(experience) is there..where is the Light (absolute Source of
experience)?
>
> > La illaha illalah wa7dahu la sharika la :
> > No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
> > "shares" with Him
>
> Wrong concept actually. To say nothing else shares with Him implies
> something other than Him exists. That is a mistake. Nothing else
> exists.
Well you are saying the same thing, read what you wrote. You say
nothing else..<--else implies another. Trying to settle the thing in
semantics or words is not working. The idea is there that Absolute is
one by definition and the relative is no other existence next to the
relative. The shahada is very clear on this. There is no other (or
else as you might wanna say) but Allah.
NOtice that shahada first denies and than accepts. -> no god but God.
Firts it denies the false concepts that accept a dualty in reality and
then ot confirms the absoluteness of reality. Reality or alHaq is one
of the names of Allah in arabic.
> > God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.
>
> There is no creator really as expalined above. It is just a perception
> and semantic convenience.
>
>
> > He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.
>
> Again inaccurate. Only He exists is correct. Not the Only One!
I can use the same argument against you. To say "only" implies
"another", just like "one" would imply a "second". This kind of
wordgames won't help us. As, I understand we are saying the same
thing. The Absolute is "One" by definition or "Only" as you want to
call it. The meaning is the same for me.
In islam we call this concept "Tawheed" or absolute "Unity".
> > Comment:
> > That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
> > is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
> > definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.
> Nearly correct. Hence relative is nothing but absolute and there is no
> creation or creator.
Again correction for you. What we perceive is a copy of reality. Even
a "perfect" copy is still a copy and not the Source. The relative
Relative is a shadow or manifestation of the Absolute. However our
spirit can transcend this relative world and find the Absolute or God.
Do not confuse the shadow with the Light. People before you have taken
men, nature and idols as gods, though confusing the relative with the
Absolute and commiting what muslims call "shirk". That is to
"Associate" with the Absolute what is not. That is why accroding to
judaic,islamic and even hindu scriptures it is forbidden to make idols
of God.
To give another eg. a physical boddy is not the soul of a person. To
mistake a person for "just" a boddy is very degrading. Same would be
or saying the soul is the boddy. For we know that Ugly (boddely)
people can have a beautiful soul.
Warm regards,
Kamal
Madhu Sudhan
> If God can do anything, then can He make Himself dissapear? or Can HE
> create a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift it?
> Those questions are impossible to answer because they are logically
> inconsistent. God can not do that because the questions are ill.
I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
again.
All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.
Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.
The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.
All talk of relative, absolute etc is just words to say the same thing
for human comprehension.
Again, there is nothing other than God, no tree, no universe, no you,
me or anything.
Hope you got it.
I hope I dont have to go over the same thing again.
There is ONLY God. There is nothing else
Uncle_Sinbad
>
> I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
> again.
> All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
> can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.
Maybe I stated it wrong. Can God make Himself to not exist. SO not
only His experience dissapears but even His essence? If yes, then God
can make Himself a non-God wich means He will not exist anymore. If
no, then God can not do everything.
The best answer is to say there is no good answer for an ill-question.
It's like asking can God make a square-circle, beying fully square and
fully circle at the same time. Obviously this can not be, because a
fully circle doesnt have corners amd flat sides and if it does then it
can't be called fully a circle anymore.
>
> Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
> mountain at the same time.
Then you are saying God can not lift a part of Himself.
> The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
> else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.
So you are saying I am God, you are God, we are all God? I'm not
omnipotent, so I cant be fully God.
Are are you saying I'm partly God? Butto be partly omnipotent is not
to be fully God and God is complete and perfect by definition. A
partly God is a non-God. God can not be devided because to devide is
to reduce His power and unity.
It is to make the Absolute relative.
> All talk of relative, absolute etc is just words to say the same thing
> for human comprehension.
Well you are using words too to explain it. But you are using the term
God, absolute and relative inconsistent.
> Again, there is nothing other than God, no tree, no universe, no you,
> me or anything.
Then how can you explain something to me if we both don't exist?
As I said b4 you are confusing the shadow with the Light.
Regards
harmony
hey samartha, agamya, poorana
moha maya dhaar
hey govinda hey gopaal hey dayalu laal
"Uncle_Sinbad" <kama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64ef55f9.04092...@posting.google.com...
Madhu Sudhan
> Maybe I stated it wrong. Can God make Himself to not exist. SO not
> only His experience dissapears but even His essence? If yes, then God
> can make Himself a non-God wich means He will not exist anymore. If
> no, then God can not do everything.
Who will judge His disappearance, including the essence?
All categories such as numbers ( one etc), triangle, square are all
human categories born out of human experience. These should not be
taken as the *real*. The color blind person's world is not less real
than the others. Nor a dog's or buterflies' world is less real than
human's. Humans think their world and their concepts and categories
are indicative, closer to *truth*. Perceptions and concepts are for
communication and convenience. They are not reflective of the
*reality*.
He could be said the have a transcendental realm and an Immanent
realm. The immanent realm is what we experience as the universe bound
in space-time-cause effect phenimenon.
God, as we can put it in human language and our limited understanding,
is the basis of all experiential world. He is *the experiential world
as well* as the author. Hence the concepts such as disappearance and
appearance, numbers do not apply in His transcendental realm. But they
apply in His Immanent realm. He can be immanent and transcendent.
Both.
To say He is only transcendent and not Immanent or vice versa is
obviously wrong.
Hence He can appear and disappear from the immanent realm. The
question does not even apply in His transcendent realm as there is no
*observer* in the transcendent realm.
>
> > Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
> > mountain at the same time.
>
> Then you are saying God can not lift a part of Himself.
God can appear in the immanent realm in Flesh and enact many roles.
That can be to be *human* and be one with human society to enable them
to interact with Him.
>> So you are saying I am God, you are God, we are all God? I'm not
> omnipotent, so I cant be fully God.
> Are are you saying I'm partly God? Butto be partly omnipotent is not
> to be fully God and God is complete and perfect by definition. A
> partly God is a non-God. God can not be devided because to devide is
> to reduce His power and unity.
> It is to make the Absolute relative.
The simple point is there is no You or Me etc to relate with God. He
alone IS.
There is no such thing really as you are God or I am God. The simple
answer is God alone IS! Just like the person is and functions thru the
body,mind, eyes,fingers etc!
Madhu Sudhan
> shouldn't all you be talking about maya at this point?
>
> hey samartha, agamya, poorana
> moha maya dhaar
> hey govinda hey gopaal hey dayalu laal
>
>
Better to avoid terms like Maya. They are often poorly understood.