On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 29 Jan 2015, at 11:12, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:46, Samiya Illias wrote (to Chris): >>> >>> >>> Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and >>> Everything Else that is or may exist? >>> >>> >>> Very good, and common, definition. It is in most of my theological >>> dictionaries. Note that the Universe is itself among the things which may, >>> or may not, exist. >>> >>> Glad you agree. Most people are okay with Creator but not okay with >> Sustainer... >> >> >> I think that without God, we get 0 = 1 in a second. >> >> I have more problem with creator. But don't mind. It is very technical. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The raison d'être of everything? >>> >>> OK. >>> >> >> :) >> >>> The unanswerable and unexplainable first reason? >>> >>> >>> This is saying more than needed, but I agree, and it follows from the >>> definition above if we assume computationalism. >>> >> >> Hmm.. >> >> >> Do you agree that God has either to submit to Truth, or to be Truth? >> > > Al-Haq is among the many names or attributes of God. Though generally > translated as The Truth, the word al-Haq encompasses a range of meanings, > and as contrasted to baatil [falsehood], the primary signification the word > ‘haq’ is suitableness to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right, or > rightness, truth, reality, or fact. The state, or quality, or property, of > being just, proper, right, correct, proper. Lane’s Lexicon covers around > six pages: http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ > Al-Haq is merely one of the aspects of Allah (God) who is much more than > any word or concept that we can imagine or relate to. Another name of God > is Al-Khaliq (The Creator). This link has a list of names/attributes > mentioned in the Quran: > http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/ > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Who chooses to remain hidden but Whose presence cannot be denied? >>> >>> >>> OK. We might be able to explain why "he chooses to remain hidden", once >>> we agree on some definition and axioms. >>> >> >> My favourite text does contain some clues such as: >> 1. that God is the 'noor' [spiritual light?, radiation?, ??? >> http://quran.com/24/35 ] of the Heavens and Earth; >> 2. vision perceives Him not but He perceives all [http://quran.com/6/103 >> ]; >> 3. that when Moses asked to see God, he was told that if the mountain can >> bear to see God, then perhaps Moses might be able to see God [ >> http://quran.com/7/143 ]; >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> >> >> 4. it is not for any 'bashr' [mortal?] to communicate with God except by >> revelation >> >> >> But with computationalism, in the case of the sound machine, revelation >> are kept silent. >> > > Well, that’s a limit of computationalism’s sound machine. Perhaps > computationalism is only leading you towards a higher truth, but like all > things we can study, this is a also a ‘creation’, perhaps a primary > creation that you are able to theorise about, and not the Creator. > >> >> >> >> >> or from behind a veil or through a messenger [http://quran.com/42/51] >> >> >> >> Who will decide its authority? >> >> This is dangerous, the people with bad intention (stealing, controlling >> others) can use that idea. >> > > Will you also discourage the use of heat or electricity for domestic or > industrial use as some people may use it for harmful purposes; or the > consumption of food or medicine as it may be used in a poisonous way be > some people; … revelations are a precious need for us humans as they > provide the teleological rationale for our existence. > >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. and that God's command descends through the entire creation, and He >> has encompassed everything in His knowledge [http://quran.com/65/12 ] >> >> >> >> Well, a lot. Omniscience is self-contradictory. But take that remark as >> "academical", as "omniscience" makes sense for large domain, just not >> *everything*. >> >> >> >> >> >>> The question that nobody can begin to answer?! >>> >>> >>> I can agree, but to be honest, I am not always sure you do agree >>> yourself with this, due to some attachment you illustrate with literal >>> interpretation of some human text. >>> >> >> Some attachment? Great attachment!!! I am quite convinced that it not a >> human text, >> >> >> >> May be it is not a human text. But how can you be convinced on this? >> >> The Quran is a divine poem. Nothing in a poem should be taken literally. >> > > The Quran is not a poem. If we do not take a scripture or any piece of > writing literally, then we can interpret it in several ways, > I don't think even literalism can escape this conundrum -- a byproduct of the limitations of language. > some of which the author may not have intended. I think its far more > dangerous and detrimental to the purpose of the scripture to not to take it > literally than to take it literally. When you take it literally, you can > have an opinion of whether you do or do not agree with the author; however > when you do not take it literally, you first imagine what to interpret, and > then refute your own imagination, and then blame it on the author. > Did you not previously admit on this list to having to interpret various parts in different ways, and having your underdstanding of its true/intended meaning change as your understanding and study of it increased? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
