Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 08:47 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 12, 2025, 09:05 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 11, 2025, 02:52 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 09, 2025, 09:33 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 09, 2025, 01:34 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Berlin car crasher
by zeca
December 21, 2024, 11:10 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The expanding universe

 (Read 20751 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #90 - February 08, 2011, 06:31 PM

    My point was basically this.  If most people think X means Y, don't use X unless you mean Y :-)

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #91 - February 08, 2011, 07:40 PM

    @ Zebedee

    Quote
    But of course, there's more to the specifics of the theology than this, like the exact relationship and interaction(s) between the cause and the effect and so forth, but that's another, and no-doubt long-winded, discussion.

    Of course.


    Quote
    Well, I'm not crazy about the ambiguous terms 'perfection' or 'projection,' as we'd need to know exactly what we mean when using these words in this context, and we could spend a long time trying to define them. But, just as it stands, we're essentially on the same page, it seems, so 'yes' to your tentative definition.

    Well, in that case, you believe in a conscious intelligent God. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #92 - February 08, 2011, 07:43 PM

    My point was basically this.  If most people think X means Y, don't use X unless you mean Y :-)

    If I am referring to this thing which is not linked to todays religions, I call it a creator, otherwise I call it God.  But I suppose a pan(en)theistic God is not a creator, nor is Zebs 'existentialist' one.  We cant even call it the unknown, as some people believe it can be known.  Hmmm.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #93 - February 08, 2011, 07:49 PM

    @ Islame

    if I understand Zebeede correctly, he believes since you are a reflection of God, then you must immediately realize He exists.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #94 - February 08, 2011, 07:59 PM

    God is not identical with any particular entity/object/property or collection of the aforementioned. These contingent objects are merely derived from the Divine, they do not encompasse it. At the same time, I don't believe in two realms, completely detached from each other, as in the dualist conception. And as for being agnostic, no. The kind of 'God' that I imagine is one that is immediately known, being the basis of existence, al-Dhat al-Wajib, as you might say? It is not something that one has 'faith' in.

    Quote
    Some may think that I'm simply redefining 'existence.' I say, let them.

    You say "let them" - what does that mean?  Do you concede to their point that you're simply redefining existence or is there more to it?

    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #95 - February 08, 2011, 08:04 PM

    If I am referring to this thing which is not linked to todays religions, I call it a creator, otherwise I call it God.  But I suppose a pan(en)theistic God is not a creator, nor is Zebs 'existentialist' one.  We cant even call it the unknown, as some people believe it can be known.  Hmmm.


    I just say "the cause of the universe" as this has no preconceived notions attached to it. What that cause was is still open to debate, I am still waiting for the evidence to come in.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #96 - February 08, 2011, 08:15 PM

    But there are a number of verses and surahs that I find moving in some way, to name a few:

    Surah al-Sharh, Surat al-Kaafiroon, Surah al-Ra'd, 9:111, 2:208, 30:30, 28:88, 25:61, 55:1-9, 57:3, etc., etc.


    Thanks, I'll take a look at them so I want to see what people mean by the beauty of the Quran

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #97 - February 08, 2011, 08:21 PM

    I give up.  I looked up a few of these & still fail to see any beauty in them. In fact they suck. I guess my heart is truly sealed  mysmilie_977


    Quote
    [9:111]
    Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

    [2:208]
    O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.

    [30:30]
    So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not -

    [28:28]
    He said: That (is settled) between thee and me. Whichever of the two terms I fulfil, there will be no injustice to me, and Allah is Surety over what we say.




    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #98 - February 08, 2011, 08:24 PM

    @ Islame

    if I understand Zebeede correctly, he believes since you are a reflection of God, then you must immediately realize He exists.

    I  believe he is onto something here, because whenever I look in the mirror I always see God  cool2

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #99 - February 08, 2011, 08:29 PM

    Quote
    I  believe he is onto something here, because whenever I look in the mirror I always see God   

     

    i usually never laugh reading comments on this forum and feel guilty about it except when reading blasphemies by Hassan and Iblis.

    You just made me feel guilty, damn you!

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #100 - February 08, 2011, 08:49 PM

    @debunker

    Quote
    Well, in that case, you believe in a conscious intelligent God. Correct me if I’m wrong.


    No. This is exactly the problem with using ambiguous (and therefore essentially meaningless) words like 'perfect.' I guess you probably believe that consciousness is a requirement of perfection, and hence God must be conscious. I, of course, do not share your assumptions.

    Quote
    if I understand Zebeede correctly, he believes since you are a reflection of God, then you must immediately realize He exists.


    No. Firstly, again with the ambiguous terms, I object to the word 'reflection.' God, the necessary being, is the fundamental order by which everything else is manifested. Any 'creation,' be it a human, a star, a plant, is nothing more than a consequence and culmination of the interaction between the different aspects of the primal order, once it manifests itself in a particular way.

    A 'creation' is like speech. The words, sounds and sentences do not exist by themselves, disembodied, they are simply temporary phenomena caused by the interaction of certain (in this example, physical) objects, e.g., air, vocal articulators, etc. Obviously, the necessary being, as it is unique, doesn't fully compare to an individual uttering words, or to a physical process, but nevertheless the example is only to show that the words and the speaker, as with creator and creation, are dissimilar; mere words cannot be said to be a 'reflection' of the speaker. The speaker is the solid, corporeal object, whereas the words are mere utterances. The two are hardly comparable, and the words cannot be said to even come close to encompassing the nature and complexity of the speaker, let alone be said to reflect the nature of God, such an entity being unlike any property or object.

    And as for immediately realising that God exists, again, no. Any acknowledgment of God's existence is a psychological process that a person may or may not undergo, it's a perspective that a person may or may not adopt. Even if it is the case that all things are, necessarily, manifested by the Divine, it doesn't at all follow that any given person should acknowledge this.
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #101 - February 08, 2011, 08:55 PM

    ok, so the words don't say anything about the speaker?

    and what did you mean then when you said earlier that God must be immediately recognized.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #102 - February 08, 2011, 09:00 PM

    @arx

    You say "let them" - what does that mean?  Do you concede to their point that you're simply redefining existence or is there more to it?


    It means that I couldn't be bothered writing a load of stuff in response to the accusation when I wrote that post.

    But with this, it could largely be just a matter of perspective. The strict atheist may look at existence and see nothing but randomness and chaos, whereas one with such as I might look at it from a holistic perspective, seeing everything in it as an intrinsic, necessary and inextricable part of it; not necessarily chaotic but a coherent and almost living entity. An atheist may see the evolution of man as a mere accident, a fluke of chemistry and biology, whereas I might see it as a necessary and almost 'intentional'  consequence of the primal order.
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #103 - February 08, 2011, 09:03 PM

    Quote
    I guess you probably believe that consciousness is a requirement of perfection, and hence God must be conscious. I, of course, do not share your assumptions.


    strictly speaking, i believe only god is truly perfect and no one can grasp absolute perfection, but yes, i would presume conscienseness is a necessary condition for perfection.  

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #104 - February 08, 2011, 09:17 PM

    @debunker

    Argh! Need I get sucked into a dispute about theology? I have other things I need to do. Thinking about this kind of stuff makes me cross-eyed, and my thoughts on it are far from definitive as it is. But...

    Quote
    ok, so the words don't say anything about the speaker?


    Of course, I didn't mean that they say nothing about the speaker. Of course they do, just as the 'creation' may be said to say something about the creator. But to say that they 'reflect' the creator, as though they were mirror images of it; it, which is like nothing, this confounds the matter greatly.

    Quote
    and what did you mean then when you said earlier that God must be immediately recognized.


    I said:

    Quote
    The kind of 'God' that I imagine is one that is immediately known, being the basis of existence, al-Dhat al-Wajib, as you might say? It is not something that one has 'faith' in.


    If one develops the 'perspective' of which I speak, then one will see all things as manifested by God; and seeing and understanding these manifestations leads one to knowing something, however limited, about that God.

    At the same time, the transcendent, I believe, may well be another means by which one 'knows' something of God. Take the example of Yoga, 'union,' or meditation. It is believed by the eastern mystics, among others, to enable one to attain 'union' with God. Indeed, the experience of the transcendent is real, it is something that one immediately feels and knows, it is not an extraneous object in which one places faith of its existence. I would argue that the transcendent likwise enables one to have an understanding of the nature of God, and that nature is 'nothing.'
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #105 - February 08, 2011, 09:19 PM

    Yes, well, I suppose it may depend on the depth of analysis you put into it, or whether you can, in any way, relate to the work, or a particular interpretation of it. But I find there are rather interesting aspects to it, particularly linguistically, and the broad range of possible meanings and understandings that one may give to the use of even a single word.

    For instance, does the use of the word 'zakaah' refer to the giving of alms or to purification, as is one alternative meaning? Does 'Islam' refer to the idea of submitting one's will to a sociopathic celestial narcissist or does it bear more semblance to 'peace'; '...adkhuloo fis silmi kaafah,' 'enter into peace/Islam completely.'

    Excellent Zeb.
    Imagine what a psychoanalyst/philosopher could do with it.

  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #106 - February 08, 2011, 09:28 PM

    strictly speaking, i believe only god is truly perfect and no one can grasp absolute perfection, but yes, i would presume conscienseness is a necessary condition for perfection.  


    Yes, well, it seems to me that you have created your own definition of 'perfect' and then attached it to God. God need not follow either your or my conceptions of what it should be like. But then, this coming from me, who's written some amount on trying to put a specific conception of God into words, an amorphous conception though it is. Can't we just call it quits and say, 'laisa kamithlihi shay'?'
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #107 - February 08, 2011, 09:44 PM

    @Islame

    Quote
    I give up.  I looked up a few of these & still fail to see any beauty in them. In fact they suck. I guess my heart is truly sealed


    Quote
    [9:111]
    Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

    [2:208]
    O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.

    [30:30]
    So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not -

    [28:28]
    He said: That (is settled) between thee and me. Whichever of the two terms I fulfil, there will be no injustice to me, and Allah is Surety over what we say.



    Lol. For a start, those are translations.  Tongue

    Secondly, you will not relate to the same things that I relate to, and you will not interpret the words in the same way I do. The words don't mean to me what they do to you, and like all art really, it's how it is understood and interpreted subjectively that gives it its beauty.
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #108 - February 08, 2011, 09:46 PM

    @ zebedee

    I understand you're busy, so i don't expect a response, but here goes:

    Quote
    Of course, I didn't mean that they say nothing about the speaker. Of course they do, just as the 'creation' may be said to say something about the creator. But to say that they 'reflect' the creator, as though they were mirror images of it; it, which is like nothing, this confounds the matter greatly.

    Ok, I see, you took the default meaning of the word reflection (so did Isalme in his joke), but a reflection is generally a projection/transformation of the original image (this could have been understood from the context of my comment, since Islame is only one tiny instance of creation).   

    Quote
    If one develops the 'perspective' of which I speak

    Ok, but seeing that we, ourselves, are conscious beings, and assuming that we share your perspective, then how come we shouldn’t necessarily immediately decide that God is conscious? 

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #109 - February 08, 2011, 09:48 PM

    wait, ignore that last question.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #110 - February 08, 2011, 10:06 PM

    @debunker

    Since you were kind enough to answer my questions, I'll answer yours, but if you've got any more, I'll have to respond to them another time.  yes

    Quote
    wait, ignore that last question.


    Lol, did you re-read it and then notice that it has, as MAB might put it, holes in it so large that one could pass through it with four horses and a carriage?

    Quote
    Ok, but seeing that we, ourselves, are conscious beings, and assuming that we share your perspective, then how come we shouldn’t necessarily immediately decide that God is conscious?


    Speaking just purely on what we understand about the universe... The universe is, apparently, not conscious, but yet this same universe has managed to produce, through natural processes, conscious beings; humans and other animals. But even so, I don't think it follows that because the universe produced a conscious entity that therefore, the universe itself possesses consciousness, and indeed, it's the same with any other predicate. We feel pain, it doesn't follow that God or the universe do likewise.

    As for deciding that God is necessarily unconscious, you well know that I've said no such thing. I cannot definitively prove that God is necessarily without consciousness. At least, I have no argument to that effect at present.

    I've simply been arguing from the perspective of what I believe God could be, if it indeed exists. I hardly have definitive arguments, certainly not as yet. Such arguments may not even be possible. Some things just can't be proven.

    I know you said to ignore the question, but I thought I'd share my immediate thoughts on it anyway.  yes

    Edit: Hm. I may have misunderstood your use of 'necessarily' in the above. Sorry if I have, but either way, I stand by what I said about (dis)proving definitively a conscious God.
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #111 - February 08, 2011, 10:08 PM

    Quote
    Lol, did you re-read it and then notice that it has, as MAB might put it, holes in it so large that one could pass through it with four horses and a carriage?


     yes

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #112 - February 08, 2011, 10:11 PM

    @ zebedee,

    one last simple yes/no question: have you ever been an atheist since you joined this forum?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #113 - February 08, 2011, 10:22 PM

    @debunker

    LOL

    Quote
    one last simple yes/no question: have you ever been an atheist since you joined this forum?


    My ideas may have changed a little, but I don't think I've been a proper, strict materialist atheist in some number of years. So I'll just say, no.
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #114 - February 08, 2011, 10:28 PM

    thanks, Zebedee, for your patience!

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #115 - February 09, 2011, 09:48 AM

    What if thinking is a flawed process? What if something which performs this entire task flawlessly requires no conscious?

    I think it's easy to assume that any entity more perfect than us will at least be as capable as us and therefore have the ability to think, as if having more is better.  There's a saying in software development: "Perfection is not attained when you can no longer put features in, but when you can no longer take them out".


    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #116 - February 09, 2011, 09:55 AM

    I just say "the cause of the universe"

    But a panentheistic God is not the creator, but is the universe 

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #117 - February 09, 2011, 11:05 AM

    But a panentheistic God is not the creator, but is the universe 


    Well, there's another assumption in my statement I suppose.  When people say "the universe" most really mean "the universe as far as we can currently observe it" and do not entertain the idea of something extra being on the other side of the singularity (e.g. the white hole end of a black hole.)

    So let me rephrase

    "The cause of the known universe" - that limits it to whatever caused the bit we are currently trying to explain Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #118 - February 09, 2011, 11:09 AM

    I wish my Arabic teacher hadn't suspected me of being part of an MI5 plot to frame him as a terrorist Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The expanding universe
     Reply #119 - February 09, 2011, 11:20 AM

    that limits it to whatever caused the bit we are currently trying to explain

    I was attempting to find an umbrella term for everybodys Gods

    Quote
    So let me rephrase

    "The cause of the known universe" -:)

    but a panentheistic God is the universe (so it cant be its creator unless you assume it created itself) -  I think they would be more likely to say its always been around

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »