On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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? > Yes, of course. It is natural for a human to understand better as we continue our study. Allow me to explain with an analogy: students study science in school, and though the basics remain the same, they go on to further study and change their understanding as they progress through higher levels. The understanding of science at graduate level and the understanding at a post-doctorate level varies in depth and comprehension, would you not agree? When we start off with studying the scripture, we do have a baggage of pre-conceived notions about what we 'believe' the religion teaches. With every reading of the scripture, we refine our understanding. Also, getting rid of the 'baggage' is also not easy. It takes a leap of faith to abandon the pre-conceived notions and to let the scripture 'speak' to you. I think this is common across most religions and even cultures. We tend to see/read only what our minds are willing to comprehend. Also, please read my reply to PGC a little while ago to see what I mean by interpreting the different, apparently contradicting verses/directives. I hope the example given there clarifies my approach. Samiya > 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. > -- 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.
