Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - nimnimak_11

Pages: [1] 2 3
1) We cannot understand impossibilities (things that can never exist such as married bachelors)

2) That which is not an impossibility either necessarily exists (necessity) or at the very least can come into existence (possibility). Where necessity or possibility is not the case, impossibility (round square) or meaninglessness (sdfjksdfj) is necessarily the case and vice versa.

3) We understand human and unicorn. Given 1-2, either p) humans/unicorns exist (necessity) or q) humans/unicorns can come into existence (possibility). With humans we know that both p and q are true. With unicorns we don't know if p is true, but we know that q is true because unicorns are hypothetically possible as opposed to hypothetically impossibile.

4) Like human and unicorn, we understand omnipotence (almightiness). Therefore either p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity) or q*) something omnipotent can come into existence (possibility)

5) Nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. This is because omnipotence logically requires reach and access to all things. This requires true omnipresence (to be all-present). Since nothing can become truly omnipresent without being truly omnipresent in the first place, nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state. Also, that which is truly omnipresent cannot magically shift from being non-omnipotent to being omnipotent. That would be a case of something coming from nothing (which is absurd)

6) Given the fact that we cannot understand impossibilities, and given the fact that we understand omnipotence, then either p* or q* or both must be true. 5 shows that q* is logically impossible, therefore; p*) something omnipotent exists (necessity). In other words, neither impossibile, meaningless or possible; therefore necessary.

You can change omnipotence to true Perfection (God/Allah) and you will still get the same result.

In my previous blog posts I outlined the nature of Existence as necessarily Being Perfect (Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolant) I also outlined that reason categorises all things into four categories: The necessary, potential, unknown and absurd. With these things in mind, I outlined the foundation of morality apriori (pure reason).

Given the nature of this topic, I will use different words to label the same semantics as I feel this increases the depth and breadth of what I?m trying to convey. Please note, I will use the labels God and Existence interchangeably. They denote the same thing. They both denote that which is Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolant. They denote that which is AlRahman (Perfect) AlRaheem (Constantly Giving/Providing).

In a nutshell, I argued that Existence Exists Perfectly and everything that It does, amounts to instances of maximum goods all things considered. We?d have to be Infinite to be able to do the calculations. This trait/capacity and ability is exclusively God?s/Existence?s. This is manifestly evident with regards to free-will. This post will try and further demonstrate this apriori point.

Pure apriori reasoning dictates that regarding free-will, religion is perhaps the only empirically suitable source that metaphorically demonstrates this to us in the form of Adam, Eve and Satan. It is impossible for us to fully/truly determine in a final/decisive manner who is good or evil. That is for God to do. Only God/Existence is Infinite so only it can do the calculations. So, S) For those who are not content with the apriori (pure reason), religion provides empirical (aposteriori) demonstrations which serve to strengthen belief in this apriori fact. Remember point S as it is the outline for why Adam and Eve descended from paradise and how/why they were forgiven by God and Satan wasn?t.

Regarding religion, I will be focused on the religion of Islam. The following is a quick overview on what this religion amounts to according to my understanding: Once the Perfection of Existence is sufficiently acknowledged, trust in the Perfection of Existence follows. Once trust in the Perfection of Existence is sufficiently in place, surrender to the Perfection of Existence follows. With sufficient trust and love in the Perfection of Existence, effective surrendering to a maximally good outcome occurs. To doubt God?s Perfection and Providence at any given point in time is absurd. It will not take away from the maximally good outcome being brought about, but it will takeaway from how much the free-willed agent enjoys or not enjoys and suffers or not suffers in the process. If any agent is so absurd that they are against a maximally good outcome (one that is best for all all things considered), then the maximally good outcome will still be brought about, but this will be done against the absurd agent?s will. So agents that embrace any form or element of absurdity, have embraced pain and suffering in some way. Absurd as it is on the irrational agent?s part, it is the absurd agent?s own decision. It (the maximum good) will still be brought about but at the expense of the absurd agent suffering. This is the absurd agent?s own doing. This is the absurd agent?s own fault. It rejected Existence?s Perfection, so it occupies the position that it occupies.

Regardless of how things look, so long as one has not been irrational, and so long as this trust and love is sufficiently in place such that no doubt enters into one?s heart regarding the Perfection of Existence and it bringing about the maximally good outcome for all its servants/those who seek to exist well, then rationally speaking, there is no room for grief. Grief would be absurd in such a scenario. I will focus on what this religion?s final scripture (the Quran) says with regards to the origins and purpose of humanity. This in turn will hopefully provide some examples and an insight into what the purpose of free-willed agents are and how they can exist maximally well.

So let?s start with Adam. According to the Quran, God told the angels It is placing a successor on Earth. The angels questioned this at first asking why create/place a being that would cause corruption in it. The implication of this verse is that the angels did not understand how this would amount to a maximally good outcome. The reply from God was I am Omniscient you are not. So when the time came, per God?s command, Adam demonstrated to the angels that it knew the names of all things (something the angels did not know) The angels were then asked to yield to Adam. All acknowledged with the exception of Satan/Iblis. It was asked of Satan why it did not yield to God?s command. It replied ?I am better than Adam?. This was an instance/example of rejecting God?s Perfection. A disregard of the apriori. This lead to humanity?s greatest fault as will become clear further on.

Any instance of failing to deal with things the best way, in other words, any instance that amounts to less than fearlessly upholding reason with trust in the Perfection of Existence and love for what it Provides (That which is truly best for everyone all things considered/maximally good outcomes all things considered), is an instance of transgression. The depth and breath of transgression can vary amongst free-willed agents. I say free-willed, at this point, it might be worth asking yourself this: How free-willed is an agent that has not willingly surrendered to the Perfection of Existence? How free-willed is an agent that has not fully surrendered to the rationally necessary maximally good outcome all things considered? Is it anything other than less free than it would have been if it had fully surrendered?

On one end of the spectrum you have people who on the surface of things despair because they think they?ve not made the right choice when faced with what for them was an overwhelming circumstance aposteriori (empirically). The primary layer is worth mentioning here: Existence is Perfect, the best outcome will happen no matter what. Trust and love in the Perfection of Existence is the absolute priority. If one is? devoid of this on any level, then they are at fault. The more devoid of this they are, the more they are at fault.

So what happens when a testing circumstance presents itself to agents who adhere to this layer? These agents should simply uphold reason as best as they can and then maintain trust and love in the Perfection of Existence. If they?ve made mistakes, and they are sincere, they will learn from it. Their grasp and dealings with the apsoteriori will improve.

Per the dictates of reason, we were all positioned in such a way as to bring about the maximum good all things considered. That?s all relations, potentials and interactions and any other other additional factors considered by God. If you?ve not gone so far astray as to be utterly mad (see pure evil/absurdity), then you can see how repentance and reform (improving yourself in relation to this primary layer and upholding reason effectively) is possible. It is simple but true. No matter how things look or feel, so long as your grasp of the primary layer and reason is sufficiently in place, you will neither despair, nor grow exultant. You will have a strong bond that will be difficult to break.

So this is in no way an advocation of the abandonment of the effort to strive and reason well in any given situation. This is simply a reminder that when the apsoteriori takes anything away from this primary layer (when evil/irrationality starts to become evident and nothing rational is done to address it) it does not matter how potent the aposteriori/immediate appearance of things are, it is an injustice done by the free-willed agent to hold for even one millisecond or less or more, the belief that what has occurred, was ultimately unjust or that it was less than the maximally good outcome all things considered. I literally cannot emphasise this enough; no matter how potent the immediate appearance of things are (you could witness what appear to be the most horrific things or the opposite) to think for a second that it?s not Just all things considered, or that it was not for the best all things considered, is to hold an absurd, unjust, inaccurate, blasphemous, damning view of God/Existence.

Let it be noted, in no way am I saying that we ought not to strive to deal with the aposteriori in the best way. If someone tells you to jump off a cliff, you may be at odds with the apriori to do it, in which case you would have done wrong. But again, if your intention was not pure evil, do not worry. Just make sure you go back to the core as soon as you have any doubts whatsoever. The lesser this bond, the greater the self-inflicted harm. The stronger an agent?s ability to tame the aposteriori?s attempts at taking anything away from the apriori (God?s Perfection/Existence?s Perfection), the greater this agent?s capacity as a free-willed agent) Some relevant verses to consider here from the Quran that reflect this:

2:285 God does not impose a person (free-willed agent) beyond its capacity. For it is what it earns, and against it is what it earns?

Simply put, do your best to be good (as in uphold reason fearlessly with regards to the future. Trust in the Perfection of Existence fully) That is all. What matters most is the potency of good you manage to checkpoint and the standards you set and raise which can only be done by improving your acknowledgement of Existence Being Perfect. If no good options are available to you and doing nothing comes across as lazy or inappropriate, it is simply because you are not sufficiently rational in relation to the apriori. When things just seem to get worse, so much so that you think there is no way they can amount to something maximally good, reject this premise immediately. It is absurd and only the work of the devil/that which seeks to take away from pure reason. There are endless ways things can amount to a maximally good outcome. Just because you haven?t seen the ending, doesn?t mean it?s not coming. There is no way things ever amount to less than the maximally good outcome. Anything less than the maximally good outcome, is absurd.

To my understanding, if one is seeking maximum competence and benevolence in Existence, then ultimately, such a soul ought to expect to have to deal with the most potent form of aposteriori assault on their apriori reasoning (the foundation of which is Existence is Perfect). Souls that despair so much as a result of the aposteriori whilst refusing to descend in sentience potency or seek refuge with God (Souls that insufficiently recall apriori that Existence (not them) is Perfect, and that it is Existence that is ultimately responsible for the maximally good outcome all things considered), will either strengthen in their ability to handle/tame the aposteriori in an apriori manner (effective remembrance of Existence being Perfect and that the maximally good outcome will happen no matter what, whilst dealing rationally with their situation), or, their apriori will become more and more tainted and their potential suffering more and more potent so much so, that they become exultant to the point of actively harming others susceptible to harm in Existence. That is those who are gullible to the belief that Existence is not Perfect and will not bring about a maximally good ending for the righteous.

The more gullible one is in relation to this, the less fortunate they are. The less free they are. The more potently things end up happening against their will in an ultimate sense. When all is said and done, the righteous will be happy and the unrighteous will be the opposite. This is the nature of Existence. It is Perfect. It will not allow for good people to suffer unless they are irrational with regards to Its nature or their own situation. It will allow bad people to suffer because they went against Its nature. The more they did/do this, the more they suffer.

If you position potent evil such that it takes on potent good, what will be the outcome? Which will be victorious? What can good do that evil cannot? What can the rational do that the irrational can?t? You give evil the means to maximise its own benefit and give it a pretend simulation to see if there was an eternal hell wherein which it would benefit at the expense of the pain and suffering of others, what do you think it would do? If it?s pure evil, it would maximise the pain and suffering of others just so it can benefit. It would create Hell just so it can benefit maximally. It would do what is grossly in opposition to the nature of Existence.

Pure evil is when a being is so potently in opposition to God/ Existence such that it would endlessly harm as many beings as possible in order to benefit itself in some way. Do you think God would allow for such absurdity to truly come to pass at all? If people are sufficiently good, such that when pure evil threatens them with eternal hell, they see the potent absurdity in such a suggestion (thereby almost amounting to comedy if it were not so grossly offensive to witness. Imagine a grown adult being given a water gun and then it going to everyone and? threatening them with killing them with his water gun. The absurdity is funny at first but enraging when it actually demonstrates it would kill for its own benefit)

Simply put, at any given point in time, when you are forced to deal with the aposteriori, deal with it with the aforementioned priority in mind. One you?ve made a decision, do not worry about whether the maximally good outcome will be brought about or not. It will be brought about. This is apriori guaranteed. So for example, if you think your decision has lead to harming someone innocent whilst being truly sincere and moral (so no self-righteousness or selfishness in the decision you made) then you will not suffer during the process of the maximum good being brought about. If you then allow worry to enter your heart with thoughts like (what if this happens, what if that happens) you?d be making a mistake. If it?s for the best, it will happen. If it?s not for the best, it will not happen. You are only responsible for making sure that your morality has been sufficient with the primary layer in place. For how can you view Existence as Perfect if you?re morality is weak? And are you not hypocritical in your view of it if you allow any element of doubt or worry to enter your heart regarding a maximally happy/good ending all things considered?

As love is perhaps the hardest thing that tests us aposteriori (the fear of losing loved ones or seeing our loved ones in pain) then simply put, given God?s Perfection, if our loved ones are sufficiently good, they will not be lost at all nor will they be susceptible to any kind of suffering or unhappiness. If they endure suffering or unhappiness, it is ultimately because it?s for the best (they will improve as a result of it). I believe the story of Abraham?s sacrifice is in relation to this. He trusted in the maximally good outcome all things considered despite it appearing to him as though he?d be sacrificing his morally good son for the sake of righteousness.

If one has not positioned the statement ?Existence is Perfect and does Perfectly? appropriately in their belief system or approach to any matter, then some level of failure/loss of good is inevitable on their part (as in they would have a lesser portion of glory or happiness with regards to the final maximally good ending. Again, for the soul is what it earns, and against it is what it earns. If one desires righteousness then they must volunteer righteousness. This is rationally pursuing causes that amount to benefiting people in some way. Those who fight against oppression and injustice are prime examples of those who volunteer righteousness.

Once again, the empirical (how things look) will test the apriori (how things truly are). There is good to be had in the empirical (how things look) provided that it does not contradict the apriori (how things are/ought to be).

There are examples where religions are taken too far because some try to ?glorify? God or make sacrifices/offerings due to some misguided notion that amounts to being at odds with reason on some level. This often manifests itself in the form of self-righteousness. For example, some muslims cut themselves and deliberately cause themselves pain to try to generate grief over what history tells them to be the tragic death of a hero. Alternatively, some Christians think that they have the ability to takeaway from another?s sins via superficial means (such as baptising or simply saying God forgives you without doing anything rational in terms of repentance and reform).

These are gross instances of absurdity. They are potently blasphemous. If Jesus Christ ever volunteered to endure pointless pain and suffering (and I strongly doubt he ever did such a thing), or if he ever thought he could take away the sins of others on his own, he would have been in a blasphemous state. The fault would have been his own and he would?ve needed God?s forgiveness to prevent him from despairing or growing exultant. Just like the muslims that cut themselves for absurd ?reasons?. Neither their blood or their flesh reaches God. It is immensely at odds with the aforementioned first layer.

So, there are no tragedies in Existence except the ones that we choose to embrace contrary to the apriori. Secondly, only Existence/God is:

Alrahman/Alraheem (Perfect and constantly Providing in the best way/manner)

Al-Ghaffar/forgiving (Gh-Fa-Ra = protect, cover over, hide, shield, helmet, forgive, pardon, to ask for protection/forgiveness.)

The aforementioned examples of things amounting to absurdity (meaninglessness, pointlessness) are such that it can be said that it?s as if such people with their potent will-power have consented to God positioning them in such a way so that they burn when they could simply have not burnt in relation to the maximum good being brought about.
The absurdity is theirs. They do not take away from the Perfection of Existence, they take from their enjoyment of the maximum good being brought about with their embrace of the absurd. This worldly life demonstrates our greatest mistake (rejection of God?s Perfection) in a variety of ways. Those of us that strive to overcome this absurdity, will flourish. The greater our quality in overcoming this absurdity (evil) the greater our flourishing.

There are two verses in the scripture that to my understanding emphasise this particular point:

Neither their meat nor their blood reaches God, but what reaches It is the righteousness from you. It was thus that It made them in service to you, so that you may glorify God for what It has guided you to, and give news to the good doers. (Quran 22:37)

So those who think they?re glorifying God based on superstition (examples include female genital mutilation, touching wood, cats bringing luck, making sacrifices to God (unnecessary as God/Existence is Infinite) essentially, anything that is rationally at odds with the Perfect Existence.

?O people of the Book, do not overstep in your system/religion, nor say about God except the truth. Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of God and Its word, which It cast to Mary, and a Spirit from It. So believe in God and Its messengers, and do not say: ?Three.? Cease, for it is better for you. God is only One god, be It glorified that It should have a son! To It is all that is in the heavens and the earth; and God is enough as a Caretaker (Waw-Kaf-Lam = to entrust, confirm, give, charge, dispose affairs, lean upon, reply upon)? (Quran 4:171)

So to me, this is in relation to those who want to strive for more in terms of righteousness but end up being irrational as a result of the aposteriori (how things look). I would describe those who are never irrational, or those who are hardly ever irrational, as being: guarded, inaccessible/unapproachable, chaste (where chaste is defined as: without unnecessary ornamentation; simple), strongly fortified, difficult to access, preserved, protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.

Examples of self-righteous people include those that assume omniscience in some way. Those that forget that God is enough as a Caretaker. In essence, any theory that considers it ok to take/harm an innocent life in order to save/benefit more lives, or believes that it?s ever ok to ?commit evil for the ?greater good'? given its lack of Omniscience and inability to determine the greater good all things considered, is committing to absurdity/sin/irrationality on some level. Again the maximum good will be brought about, but such irrational agents will have blood on their hands.
Only God can truly determine when and how it?s maximally good to pit good against evil and when it?s best to separate them.

Only God can fully know what each free-willed agent is capable of and how best to position them in relation to each other such that when reason is upheld effectively, there are no ?tragedies? and the maximum good is achieved. Disregarding this does not alter the outcome in the maximum good being brought about except for the being that disregards it. If a being disregards it, then the maximum good is brought about against its will. As may have become evident by now, to my understanding, upholding apriori reason with maximum effeciency is to be maximally righteous/the best that one can be.

I feel like I cannot emphasise this enough. apriori reason is the only thing that must be upheld religiously. I use the adverb religiously as to me it implies potent will-power. So when this potent force is used for the wrong reason (the failure to uphold apriori reason) less than the maximum good for the irrational agent occurs. It?s the agent?s lack of sincerity to reason that has made it deserving of suffering. If it chooses to be potently sentient in the process of the maximum good brought about, then its suffering is maximised for it has denied apriori reasoning to descend in terms of sentient potency (take sedatives, or just resign or retire from that which causes them pain in the most apriori manner) and it has made no attempts to seek God?s Forgiveness, Guidance or Providence in a rational manner.

Another appropriate verse to quote: ?Any good that befalls you is from God, and any evil (loss) that befalls you is from yourselves?? (Quran 4:79)

Continuing with the story of Adam and Eve, it was then clarified to Adam that Satan is an enemy to it and that avoiding it was necessary (again, put in different words, avoiding absurdity is rationally necessary regardless of how things look). The key characteristics of Satan/Iblis amount to excess in exultance/despair. These are traits that ultimately disregard the Perfection of Existence and the Omniscience of God in some way (an instance of absurdity). Despair and exultance amount to doubt with regards to God?s Providence, Planning, Positioning and Organising, which, given it Being Perfect, are done to Perfection. It ultimately amounts to doubting the Perfection of Existence and it Existing Perfectly. It amounts to doubting a maximally good outcome all things considered. It is paradoxical at its core and as already highlighted, leads to Hell.
Because of God?s Perfection and constant Providence, free-willed agents achieve immense things when their reason is exercised appropriately, adequately and with sufficient will-power. Whenever this is abandoned or not exercised strongly enough (wherein which warnings are ignored and Satan/Iblis is followed) a lesser quality of existing for free-willed agents such as emptiness, despair and hopelessness tends to ensue. The greater the sentience of the being at hand, coupled with the greater the being?s opposition to reason (it amounts to being in opposition to God), the greater the despair and anxiety it is capable of generating.

Another verse in the scripture states that God did not find in Adam the will-power:
?And We had made a pledge to Adam from before, but it forgot, and We did not find in it the will-power.? (Quran 20:115)

In this state and at this point in time, Adam was susceptible to Satan. Satan had the means (the appearance of things aposteriori) to manipulate Adam in such a way as to cloud his judgement. Done to a sufficient level, the semantics of evil is met.
A quick summary before continuing with the story might be beneficial here (please note, that this is my interpretation and that it could be wrong. The reader is reminded to uphold reason at all times and verify things for themselves)
1. God told the angels it will place a successor on Earth

2. The angels questioned this due to their limited knowledge which told them that this would not amount to a maximally good outcome

3. God told them that It is Omniscient and that they are not

4. God taught Adam the names of all things

5. God then displayed the same to the angels and they could not understand. They acknowledged this. God reminded them that it is Omniscient

6. The angels were then commanded to yield to Adam

There are cases where one?s failure to use reason primarily harms his or herself. Rational agents are hardly ever alone. They interact with the world and their interactions are effected by one another either directly or indirectly. On initial glance, it may seem that Q) our world is set up such that another human being can truly harm another truly innocent human being. It is important to ask, what is it to truly harm something and what is it for something to be truly innocent? To be truly innocent is to be maximally rational all things considered (for one is only to blame when they have failed to consider all things appropriately and adequately) What about truly harming something?

My understanding of harm is as follows: anything that suffers negativity of any sort, has been harmed. So for example, x harming the economy means that x has made the economy less well off. Economy is a complex example as it involves many free-willed agents. So all things considered, the total sum of irrationality must be sufficient of a society or community for its economy to experience harm.

It is clear that things can dip into the negative as well as the positive in terms of existing effectively or being effective. When comparing two things that are of related nature, we can measure them in terms of good and bad. For example, a comparison of gold and silver clearly highlights the superiority of gold as a more durable substance than silver. Both gold and silver can be ?harmed? if they are sufficiently exposed to chlorine. So if I have a gold ring and I expose it to chlorine, then I have truly ?harmed? the gold ring in terms of how effective a gold ring it is. I?ve not made it better with regards to its function of being a durable and aesthetically pleasing substance, I?ve made it worse. So, the harmed gold ring has gone from a valuable substance to a less valuable substance. Given the hierarchy of things, goals, and functions, this is a trivial matter as will become clear with my next example.

Free-willed agents are different to gold. We have a rich understanding of gold, it?s potential, what it?s good for, and so on. Regarding sentient beings, we do not have as rich an understanding. As highlighted in previous blog posts, the nature of free-will is something that we have very little knowledge of. I would argue that the core ingredient to free-will is something that amounts to semi-infiniteness of some sort. I say this because our imagination, language, and our access to reason (organising endless things and being able to focus and hone in on things amidst endlessness) demonstrates semi-infiniteness of some sort. I believe this is what gives rise to free-will and it is this that clearly distinguishes us from artificial intelligence (AI) which is by definition, always finite.

Whilst we are clearly mortal in this worldly life, what our minds and imaginations have access to is endless. This implies semi-infiniteness. Furthermore, in the scripture we are told that that which is Infinite (God), blew of its spirit into us, which to me further hints at semi-infinitness given God?s Infiniteness. We look at computers and AI and what they?re capable of and we clearly recognise their finite capacity in terms of imagination and so on. Yet regarding us, this does not hold true.

So the relevant question to ask here is what is it for a free-willed (linguistically capable rational agent) to exist well? The immediate answer is to exercise free-will maximally well. How well the agent can do this is dependent on two factors. 1) The quality or potential of the agent and 2) The quality of the environment or situation the agent is exercising free-will within.

The first thing to consider with regards to the environment is the presence of other free-willed agents. If the agent lives in isolation, then the agent is limited to interacting with non-sentient things. If other free-willed agents inhabit the environment, then the depth and breadth of interaction is potentially boosted. Factors necessary for consideration in relation to bringing about the maximum good are whether or not the free-willed agents are morally good (attempt to contribute to existing well) or morally evil (attempt to exist well at the expense of everything else, or don?t attempt to exist well at all) and how they are positioned in relation to one another given their strengths and weaknesses.

In relation to positioning good-free-willed potential and evil-free-willed potential, I believe the primary factor to consider is how to make them the best that they can be in relation to generating goodness. This would require an assessment of how each free-willed potential would react in all given situations. So when all situations are considered (Only God can do this), then and only then can a precise and accurate calculation be made as to whether it is at all hypothetically possible for a particular free-willed agent to improve or not. So ultimately those that progress (those that follow the guidance/those that uphold reason sufficiently), are blessed by God (positioned such that they end up contributing to the maximum good willingly on a potent level) whilst those that choose not to uphold reason are positioned such that they end up contributing to the maximum good against their will. Regarding good, it is clear that it is best to maximise it as much as hypothetically possible. What about evil? Given that it has chosen not to be good/does not have the free-willed potential to be/do good willingly, is it justified to place/position it in Hell? Would it not be better to just deactivate it?

The outline is simple. If evil is deactivated whilst it has the potential to contribute to good, then it?s potential contribution to good is also deactivated. Rationally speaking you never inflict pain and suffering on that which does not have the potential to harm anything else willingly. However, you?d be absurd to deny that it is justified to inflict pain and suffering on that which has willingly harmed others and demonstrated the potential to continue to harm. This is provided that it is not in excess of its wilful evil potential/intent and provided that this generates something good. If all these conditions are satisfied, pain and suffering against the will of a free-willed agent amounts to something good and ought to be brought about simply because anything less than the maximum good is paradoxical given the dictates of reason.

Before continuing with the story of Adam, Eve and Satan, let?s forget the fact that Satan did not yield to Adam. What would have been the benefits in relation to the maximum good if it had indeed yielded to Adam? The outline is clear without a doubt: Yielding to Adam would have been in its best interest simply because God always brings about the maximum good all things considered. So had Satan yielded, the maximum good would have been achieved. Alternatively, had Satan not yielded, the maximum good would still have been achieved. The maximum good is alway achieved willingly or unwillingly. If it is done willingly, it is in the free-willed agents? best interest. If it is not done willingly (as in if it is done unwillingly), it is still in the free-willed agents? best interest. In all cases, Existence maintains its Perfection.

The nature of free-will is such that it generates something highly valuable. So, to let any of it go to waste and not contribute to the maximum good is in opposition to the Perfection of Existence. Hence, if free-willed sentience will not contribute to good in one way, it will contribute in another way. Willingly or unwillingly, free-willed sentience will contribute to good as much as it?s sentient potential allows in relation to free-willed agents. In all cases, free-willed sentience?s contribution to good will be done with maximum potency all things considered.

Going by the scripture, to my understanding, once Adam demonstrated to the angels that it knew the description/definition of all things, the justification for why the angels were told to yield to Adam was clarified to them. Now, let?s continue with the story:

7. All yielded with the exception of Satan

8. It provided its reason (I am better than Adam) This distinguished Satan from the rest of the angels such that Satan ?became arrogant, and became of the rejecters/those who embraced absurdity?

9. It was then Told ?Descend from it, for it is not for you to be arrogant here; depart, for you are disgraced.?

10. It (Satan) requested respite

11. God granted it respite (per the dictates of reason, this would only be done if it amounts to a maximally good outcome)

12. Satan blamed God for its positioning: ?For that which You have caused me to be misled, I will stalk for them on Your straight path. Then I will come to them from between their hands, and from behind them, and from their right, and from their left; and You will find most of them unthankful.? (Quran 7:16-17)

13. God said: ?Get out from this, you are despised and banished. As for those of them who follow you, I will fill Hell with you all!? (Quran 7:18)

14. ?And O Adam, reside you and your mate in the paradise, and eat from it as you both wish, and do not come near this tree, else you will be of those who have wronged.? (Quran 7:19)

So at this point in time Adam and Eve were in paradise, their position such that all angels (minus Satan) were yielding to them per the command of God (I think this is contained in 7:11-13). As I understand it, 7:19 implies that Adam and Eve were to do whatever they wanted in line with reason, the core of which is: Existence is Perfect. So going near the tree meant going near anything that amounted to irrationality/contradiction/paradox or opposition to this core (The Perfection of God). So their reasoning was sufficiently good to warrant paradise at that point in time until:

15. But Satan (Shiin-Tay-Nun (root of shaytan) = become distant/far/remote, enter firmly, become firmly fixed therein / penetrate and be concealed, turn away in opposition (from direction/aim), devil, one excessively proud/corrupt, unbelieving/rebellious/insolent/audacious/obstinate/perverse, rope, deep curved well, it burned, became burnt, serpent, any blameable faculty or power of a man) whispered to them, to reveal to them what was not apparent to them of their bodies (Siin-Waw-Alif = to treat badly, do evil to disgrace, be evil/wicked/vicious, ill, anything that makes a person sad and sorrowful, bad action, mischief and corruption, sin, evil doer, wretched or grievous, vex, annoy. su?atun (pl. suat) ? corpse, external portion of both sexes, shame) and it said: ?Your Lord did not prohibit you from this tree except that you would become angels (From the root word Miim-Lam-Kaf = to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority, king, kingdom.), or you would be more potent/vigorous (from the root word: Kh-Lam-Dal = To remain/stay/dwell/abode, to remain or continue incessantly/always/endlessly/forever/perpetually, to adorn another with ornaments, to be slow in becoming hoary (when advanced in age), endowed with perpetual vigour) beings.? (Quran 7:20)

As I understand it, 7:20 ultimately means Satan?s first attempt to demonstrate his superiority to Adam came in his attempt to cloud Adam and Eve?s judgement/reasoning by suggesting to them that Existence is not Perfect; initially via unknowns (whispering) then via absurdity (Existence is not Perfect which is contained in Satan?s suggestion that God lied to Adam and Eve in relation to what was in their best interest) It is clear that only the aposteriori (how things look) can take one away from the apriori (how things truly are). I believe this is what Adam and Eve were warned about.

Satan did not sufficiently succeed in deceiving Adam and Eve the first time round. It then reiterated its point:

16. And he swore to them: ?I am giving good advice.? (Quran 7:21)

It?s almost as if he reiterated his argument in a more advanced aspoteriori form. This is perhaps implied by the use of the words promise (Qaf-Waw-Lam = to say/speak, to call, to be named, word/speech, utterance, a thing said, greeting, discourse, one who says/speaks. To inspire/transmit/relate/answer/think/profess, emit an opinion on, indicate a state or condition or circumstance. qa?ilun ? speaker, indicator) and swore (Qaf-Siin-Miim = to divide, dispose, separate, apportion, distribute. qasamun ? oath. qismatun ? partition, division, dividing, apportionment. maqsumun ? divided/distinct. muqassimun (vb. 2) ? one who takes oath, who apportions. qasama (vb. 3) ? to swear. aqsama (vb. 4) ? to swear. taqasama (vb. 6) ? to swear one to another. muqtasimun (vb. 8) ? who divides. istaqsama (vb. 10) ? to draw lots. tastaqsimu ? you seek division)

The latter (swore) is a stronger saying than the former (promised). So to my understanding, Satan first exploited the non-omniscience of Adam and Eve. It then provided aposteriori arguments regarding the unknowns that amounted to absurdity (Existence is not Perfect). His first attempt at getting absurdity to enter Adam and Eve?s heart was perhaps insufficient. So he reiterated his argument in a stronger manner. It was then, that Adam and Eve fell:

17. ?So he misled them with deception (Gh-Ra-Ra = deceived, beguiled, inexperienced or ignorant in affairs, act childish, exposed to perdition or destruction without knowing, danger, hazard; deficiency of, imperfect performance of; vain things, vanities) and when they tasted the tree, their bodies became apparent to them, and they rushed to cover themselves with the leaves of the paradise?? (Quran 7:22)

So Satan?s deception worked on Adam and Eve (I think this is the same as saying it entered into their hearts that things do not amount to a maximally good outcome all things considered) Their inability to handle the aposteriori effectively, or their excessive focus on the aposteriori (how things look) at the expense of the apriori (how things truly are) took away from what was most important (Existence is Perfect).

As a result of this, the potential for worry and anxiety presented itself. Had their imperfections/shame not been so immediately apparent to them (aposteriori before the apriori as opposed to apriori before the aposteriori), their condition would have been sufficiently suitable for paradise to endure.

To me, it appears clear that the nature of both Adam and Eve?s focus on the immediate at that point in time, was such that it was at odds with the apriori (The best possible thing will happen all things considered and that nothing can get in the way of this)

Consider again what Satan did to Adam and Eve. He first brought unknowns into focus which revealed their imperfections. He then provided an absurd argument regarding the unknown. He then reiterated this argument in a stronger format.

Going back to his disobedience of God?s command; he first questioned God?s Omniscience (as did all the angels perhaps), God then provided a demonstration via Adam which resulted in all the angels yielding to Its command of ?yield to Adam?. Even after this demonstration, Satan still rejected. When asked by God why it would not yield to Adam, it argued that it is better than Adam. It rejected God?s Calculation that his (Satan?s) positioning was both in his best interest and Adam?s all things considered. He persisted to argue, asking for respite.

If my understanding is correct, the argument he gave to God, was then allowed by God to be given to Adam. This was the logical consequence of Satan requesting respite and Adam not being sufficient in willpower:

And We had made a pledge to Adam from before, but he forgot, and We did not find in him the will power. (Quran 20:115)

The only logical reason that I can think of for Satan wanting respite, is to prove his point. I take two points away from this:

1. Satan had free-will (how else would he question God?)

2. All things considered, Satan being granted what he chose willingly was not absurd. It did not contradict the Perfection of Existence. The maximum good would still be brought about. If my understanding is correct, given what has been said so far, this logically implies that there were at least three ways of bringing about the maximum good.

A) Satan yielding with the rest of the angels (obeying God the first time round) = maximum good

B) Satan descending without requesting respite (disobeying God?s first command but obeying God?s second command) = maximum good

C) Satan requesting respite instead of descending (disobeying God?s first command and second command) = maximum good

If any of the aforementioned ways would not have amounted to the maximum good, then they would never have been allowed or considered. I will attempt to explain A, B and C in more detail:

Had A happened, all free-willed agents would have been happy all the time. Paradise would have held in the most effective way via way A. Had B happened, all free-willed agents would have been happy all the time. Satan would have descended (what this amounts to will become clear later) and it?s descending would have happened in such a way as to ensure that the maximum good is still achieved. So perhaps in this way, the maximum good is still achieved via the rebalancing or redistributing of free-willed potential in a different way. Way B.

Before discussing C in more detail, more needs to be said of the story of Adam, Eve and Satan.

Logically, Satan?s argument essentially amounted to the following: ?God is not Perfect? (contained in rejecting God?s Omniscience). Since Satan did not see absurdity hit after Adam?s demonstration, and he was still ?attempting to use reason?, then Satan must have still held onto the belief that there are better things than God (again, this is contained in denying God?s Omniscience and asserting that he knows better than God). Pure absurdity. Circular but false. Unyielding to reason absolutely.

He sought respite, which was granted by God. Let?s not forget, God warned Adam and Eve: ?And O Adam, reside you and your mate in the paradise, and eat from it as you both wish, and do not come near this tree, else you will be of those who have wronged.? (Quran 7:19)

So the aforementioned paragraph conveys what happened when God questioned Satan the first time round. Let?s look at what happened to Adam when God questioned it, the first time round:

18. ?and their Lord called to them: ?Did I not prohibit you from that tree, and tell you that the devil is your clear enemy?? They said: ?Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!? (Quran 7:22-23)

This is perhaps the key distinction between Adam and Satan. Whilst Satan rejected God?s command the first time (did not yield to Adam) and the second time (asked for respite despite being commanded to descend), Adam and Eve did the opposite. They recognised that without God?s Forgiveness (Root of this word is: Gh-Fa-Ra = protect, cover over, hide, shield, helmet, forgive, pardon, to ask for protection/forgiveness)
 and Providence (Root of this word is Ra-Ha-Miim = Rahima ? He favored, benefited, pardoned, or forgave him. To love, have tenderness, mercy, pity, forgiveness, have all that is required for exercising beneficence.?Tarhamu ? He had mercy, pity, or compassion on him; he pitied or compassionated him much.?Arham ? Wombs (singular) womb, i.e. place of origin. The receptacle of the young in the belly. ?Ruhmun ? Relationship, i.e. nearness of kin, connection by birth; relationship connecting with an ancestor. A connection or tie of relationship.?Rahman ? it is active participle noun in the measure of fa?lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness.?Rahim ? it is in the measure of fa?il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving.
they would be of the losers (those that contribute to the maximum good with less willingness) they would be of the losers.

So whilst Satan sought respite instead of descending immediately when commanded, Adam and Eve sought forgiveness for their first disobedience. They did not reject the second command (which to my understanding appears to apply to both Adam, Eve and Satan) The command was:

19. ?Descend; for you are enemies to one another; and on the earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.? (Quran 7:24)

So Satan had rejected God twice, whilst Adam and Eve had rejected God once. Adam and Eve sought God?s Forgiveness and Providence whilst Satan sought respite.

?So, the devil caused them to slip from it, and it brought them out from what they were in, and We said: ?Descend; for you are enemies to one another; and on the earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.? (Quran 2:36)

20. Adam then received words from his Lord, so It forgave him; It is the Forgiver, the Merciful (Quran 2:37)

Peace all

This is from some blog posts that I wrote here if anyone's interested:

Consider the following challenge: Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?

The argument in a nutshell, is as follows:
(1) There is existence/x exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This is what makes it a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. For example, no square-circles can ever exist, such a phrase is absurd and makes no sense)
(6) ?infinity?, ?eternal?, ?almighty? and ?all knowing?, are all rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become almighty, or 6b) Something has always been almighty and will always be almighty.

Only that which is all-existing can be almighty and all-knowing because you can't be almighty if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of existence. So:

7) Only Existence can be almighty and all knowing

Existence has always existed and will always exist and nothing can ever take its place or substitute it in any way. Existent beings cannot expand to become that which is all-existing/omnipresent/Existence. Given 7, Nothing can ever become almighty from a non-almighty state. So 6a is impossible/absurd. But the concept of almighty has meaning and we have an understanding of it. It is not like the concept of a square-circle which is clearly an absurdity/contradiction/paradox/non-existence/nothingness.

THEREFORE, Existence must accommodate the concept. So given that it can't be 6a, this leaves 6b. So 6b is necessarily true.

In language and reason, everything belongs to the following 4 categories:

Necessary (Existence, omnipotence, omniscience etc.)

Potential (Anything that can be brought about, so all hypothetical universes, creatures and beings that don't contain any absurdity, contradictions or paradoxes in their definition. An infinite Existence can accommodate all hypothetical possibilities)

Absurd (Absurd is anything that is necessarily non-existent or nothingness; something that have never existed and will never exist, like a square-circle or a married-bachelor)

Unknown (What we can't classify as either of the aforementioned three goes here. For example a 10th sense. There may be beings that have a 10th sense in existence or which would mean existence accommodates it; or, there the phrase 10th sense may be an absurdity like a married-bachelor. Essentially it's unknown to us and so irrelevant in our application of language and reason to it. As in we can't say its necessary, potential or absurd)

Again, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
« on: September 18, 2018, 11:24:42 AM »
I wrote a blog post about how the imagination, reason and logic are all related. I then later found that it correlates with:

2:31   And He taught Adam the names of all things, then He displayed them to the angels and said: "Inform Me of the names of these if you are truthful."

Organising semantical gaps using reason

There are many different languages in the world and whilst they sound different, ultimately, they?re all doing the same thing. They all label semantical gaps. In this blog post, I will begin by giving an explanation of what I mean by semantical gaps before arguing that any use of language or method of communication either produces something absurd, potential, necessary or unknown.

Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available. Anything meaningful that one can think of is either a semantical gap, or various semantical gaps that is/are being focused on by the mind at any given point in time. When you consider the nature of existence and the mind and what it can imagine, there being an infinite amount of semantical gaps available in existence starts to become clear.

It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.

Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven?t created this concept, I?ve essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.

To be fair, even the label unidragon that I?ve attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you, you can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You?d require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.

In my previous blog posts, I argued that anything that has meaning (essentially any semantical gap) needs to be accommodated by existence as all minds are entirely dependent on existence and there is nothing outside of existence for the mind to obtain. In order for reason to be adhered to and paradoxes avoided (such as the paradox of something coming from nothing) existence needs to accommodate all semantical gaps. Just as it needs to accommodate all potential sounds, pitches, colours and shapes that can be produced, it needs to accommodate all semantical gaps.

Any use of language will either produce something absurd, unknown, potential or necessary. Let?s start by looking at the absurd category:


For example the phrase square-circle is absurd as is a married bachelor, a bendy straight line and so on. Even the idea of a super task: A task that consists in infinitely many component steps, but which in some sense is completed in a finite amount of time (Manchak and Roberts) is absurd. These are all paradoxical, contradictory phrases. They don?t have any meaning but reason can be applied in a way that conclusively rules them out of existence. They have never existed and can never exist. Conclusively, existence does not accommodate them.


Almost all semantical gaps fall under this category. They are things whoes potential to exist has always been there and will always be there.  Examples include: Unicorns, dragons, unidragons, trees, humans, galaxies, universes and so on. They can change from one thing to another. They are hypothetical possibilities (as in the potential for them to exist is always there) Unlike absurdities such as a square-circle which we rationally know can never exist, we know rationally that potentials such as a unidragons can exist. Try the following thought experiment: Try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything?


Concepts that don?t fall into absurd or potential but have meaning, fall into the category of necessary. The most obvious example of which is Existence. The sentence ?the potential for existence to come into existence is there? is absurd. Existence is not something that is hypothetically possble, rather, it necessarily is. It?s not a potential. Either existence has always existed and will always exist or it never existed and will never exist. Also absurd is ?Existence can go in and out of existence?. Existence has clear meaning, therefore if it is not absurd and not a potential/hypothetical possibility, it is necessary; as in necessarily existent; has always existed and will always exist and is not amenable to change. Things within it may change but it itself cannot. For example, I am in existence, a part of existence. I can change, but that which is all-existing/omnipresent (whatever it may be) cannot.


For example the phrase 20th dimension or the 20th sense, are unknown. There may be a 20th sense in existence that we have no awareness of or a 20th dimension that we are unaware of. We don?t know if they exist or if they can ever exit. These phrases don?t have any meaning, but unlike a square-circle we don?t know if they are paradoxical or contradictory, so we cannot apply reason to them to rule them out of existence or rule them as potential or necessary. Unknowns are simply unknown. Reason can?t be applied to them and so they are irrelevant to the exercise of reason.

When discussing potentials, I said try to think of something or imagine something that has meaning but can never exist. Can you produce anything? If you?ve attempted this and concluded yes I can, I will attempt to demonstrate how your conclusion is problematic.

We can all imagine what a triangle is. Having straight lines is part of the definition of a triangle. Consider the following two sentences:

1) Triangles can exist.
2) Triangles can exist in our universe.

There is nothing wrong with the first sentence but the second sentence is absurd. Our universe has gravity and gravity is such that it does not allow for straight lines therefore triangles cannot exist in our universe. Sentence 2 is absurd. It is just like saying the bendy straight line.

To sum up, anything that is absurd, can never exist and will never exist. So a straight line can never exist in an environment that does not allow for straight lines. Some movies or thoughts of imagination contain contradictions. There is nothing wrong with the movie from a visual perspective or an active thought of imagination. But when you fully flesh them out, whilst the visuals or the image stays the same, their rational credibility goes from potential to absurd.

Consider the sentence: Superman lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. We can all imagine superman lifting something as heavy as a bus. Our imagination can produce the images and Hollywood can also produce a scene that visually shows superman doing this. A reality or universe existing wherein which this happens is entirely possible given existence being infinite and eternal. There is nothing absurd about this because the definition of superman, or the semantical gap that superman points to, entails that he is sufficiently powerful enough to lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds. The maths and the science add up fine so this sentence goes in the potential category. It is something that Existence can bring about.

Now consider the sentence: Nelson Mandela lifts a 25,000 pound bus. Now picture it. Again we can all picture Nelson Mandela doing this and Hollywood can produce a video clip where Nelson Mandela is lifting a 25,000 pound bus. However, given the traits we associate with Nelson Mandela, given the definition of Nelson Mandela, and given the semantical gap that is Nelson Mandela, we cannot coherently imagine Nelson Mandela doing this. If we saw an advert that shows this, we automatically assume special effects or some other kind of mechanism wherein which the images of Nelson Mandela doing this have been produced. As in we change the semantics of the sentence somehow. For example we could alter the semantics of the bus in question. So we think something like maybe it was a picture of a bus that Nelson Mandela actually lifted. Nelson Mandela cannot lift a 25,000 bus, the math and science don?t add up, so it goes in the absurd category unless you alter semantics appropriately and adequately in some way.

The ability to imagine absurdities is impossible. A being lifting something so heavy that it does not have the sufficient force to lift (which is what the Nelson Mandela example amounts to) is an absurdity. It is because potentials are so amenable to change that the mind is able to consider and picture so many different hypothetical possibilities/potentials. There are so many hypothetically possible ways where in which Nelson Mandela can lift something that weighs more than 25,000 pounds, but they all require that the science and the math add up. So maybe Mandela?s physiology changes overnight to the point that he has the sufficient strength to lift something heavier than 25,000 pounds. Ultimately though, the semantical gaps focused on would have to change for absurdity to not ensue. So again, with this in mind, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?


John Manchak and Bryan W. Roberts, Supertasks, 5th of April 2016, Stanford Encycplopaedia of Philosophy

Peace all

This may be of interest to the forum:

To discover things that are certain, we must use doubt maximally. This is what the process results in:

1) Logically the meaning of doubt cannot be doubted as its meaning is needed for its application. Therefore doubting doubt is paradoxical. Thus the first outcome of trying to apply doubt to everything is that the meaning of doubt cannot be doubted.

2) Logically, for the idea of doubt to have meaning, there needs to be an existence because without an existence, there is non-existence/nothingness and doubt cannot be possible within nothingness.

3) Everything that is a part of existence, whether fictional or non-fictional, is ultimately tied or rooted in reality (the imagination, dreams, virtual words and so on, are all dependent on the real world) This logically entails that existence and reality both encompass all worlds/things. This is equivalent to; reality and existence are omnipresent. Anything outside of this omnipresent thing is non-existent/nothingness.

4) There is a clear distinction between parts of reality (different worlds, things, beings) and reality as a whole. Simulations of one or more parts of reality are possible as suggested by dreams, imagination, virtual worlds and so on. The whole of reality or existence cannot be simulated.

5) How can we rationally distinguish between what to associate with reality and what to associate with simulative parts of reality? One way we could determine things about reality or existence as a whole, is by looking for items of thought or concepts that cannot be wholly simulated because reality and existence cannot be wholly simulated. Only parts of it can be simulated.

6) Aside from reality, existence and omnipresence, there are plenty of other concepts that fit the requirements of 5. This includes: omni-matter, omni-thought, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-green and so on. Any item that can meaningfully take the suffix "omni (all/complete)", is in line with premise 5?s requirement. So how do we rationally determine which of these concepts should be attributed to reality/existence?

7) Despite the definition of these ideas meeting 5?s requirement, all ?omni? ideas are problematic in some way with the exception of three: omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

Possible objection to premise 7: Reality or existence being omnipresent is a logical necessity. Saying reality or existence is omnipotent and omniscient is arbitrary and not necessary.

Possible defence: All other ideas that fit 5 either cancel each other out (existence is necessarily either omni-matter/corporeal or omni-thought/incorporeal) contradictory (existence cannot be omni-green as there are other colours) or rationally absurd (existence cannot be omni-shaped as the notion of something omni-shaped, is absurd and makes no sense at all)

8 ) Therefore the only ideas that are left that fit the requirement of premise 5 are existence, reality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. These concepts denote the same thing.

9) Therefore there is rational motivation for considering existence or reality to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent and omniscient.

In conclusion, based on 1-3: That there is existence and reality, is a certainty. Based on 4-8: rejecting omnipotence and omniscience as an aspect of reality/existence/omnipresent entity is biased and more counter to reason than accepting it.


In short, it is argued that within the Quran there is a class of people known as Ma malekat Aymunkum (MMA) which literally means those whom your oaths possess and that sex with this group is permissible by the Quran as implied by certain verses:

23:5-6 (We can unguard our private parts to the MMA)
4:23-25 (We cannot marry the Muhsinat or Fatayat women unless/until they are MMA)

4:23 begins by saying who are forbidden for marriage.

4:23    Forbidden for you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and the sisters of your father, and the sisters of your mother, and the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, and your foster mothers who suckled you, and your sisters from suckling, and the mothers of your women, and your step-daughters who are in your lodgings from your women with whom you have already consummated the marriage; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and those who were in wedlock with your sons who are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Then it forbids the muhsinat women unless they are of MMA status

4:24    And the independent (muhsinat) from the women, except those maintained by your oaths (MMA); the book of God over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be independent, not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with, then you shall give them their dowries as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree on after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.
4:25    And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths of the believing young women.

From the above verses alone, I conclude that MMA at least entails something like a fianc? or girlfriend of some sort. Specifically when we look at how a Muhsinat must be of MMA before being permitted for marriage.

The strongest proof against MMA exclusively meaning fianc? or girlfriend in my opnion is the following (which i have quoted from Aalmakto?s post)

This is what he posted:
33:53    O you who believe, do not enter the homes of the prophet unless you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. And when you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a narrative. This used to bother the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. And if you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not for you to harm the messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him. This is indeed a gross offence with God.
33:54    If you reveal anything, or hide it, God is fully aware of all things.
33:55   There is no sin upon them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those who are maintained by their oaths. And be aware of God, for God is witness over all things.
Basically what I am getting at is. It is not pure for men to ask the Prophet's wives "something" unless behind a barrier....EXCEPT for the Prophet's Wives fathers, sons etc. and MMAs (see the Arabic, it is clearly about them). So verse 33:55 is implying that the Prophet's wives had MMAs!

Looking at this, I don?t think that it would make sense for MMA to exclusively mean a girlfriend/boyfriend or fianc?. That would then mean that the prophet's wives had boyfriends, which appears to make no sense. It has been suggested that MMA has multiple meanings. I agree and i think that a finace or boyfriend/girlfriend could be one of the meanings it entails. I think this because I cannot see MMA to mean gf/bf in 33:53-55 whilst I cannot see it to mean anything other than gf/bf when we look at 4:23-24 with regards to the muhsinat.

In short, MMA can mean various things. A girlfriend/boyfriend is amongst the possible things that an MMA can entail. All things with an MMA are possible, so long as it does not count as lewdness (fahisha)

Another verse that was posted as an objections was 24:33 More specifically this part:
24:33 ?....And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty.?
What someone takes as abstain here is another limitation of MMA. If you take abstain as sex, then no sex with MMA. This is subjective and some may have a stricter view such as minimal physical contact or possibly a less strict view than sex such as abstaining from the kind of sex that leads to kids (unprotected sex).

Savage_carrot suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible.
The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 24:33 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty" I don't think one's increase in bounties corresponds to witness, documentation and so on.

If abstain understood as not referring to marriage, an answer needs to be given with regards to what it is that we are supposed to abstain from. If we say sex, then it must be asked then what exactly is the purpose of un-guarding one's private parts to their MMA. Is it just to show one another? Is contact allowed? how much?

Another verse to consider is 2:237:
And if ye divorce them before tamassūhunna, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.

The root of tamassuhunna:
Miim-Siin-Siin = To meet or touch or feel a thing with the hand, touch a thing without intervention or interference, strike or smite, afflict or befall, be distressing or difficult of accomplishment.
You might also want to check out the following links for more details on the potential meanings of this root: (start at the far right of this page when it begins with Mim-Siin)

In 2:237 the word tamassuhunna is important. If the word means touch, then we need to determine what kind of touch is being talked about here. It would be highly unreasonable to think that any sort of physical contact is constituted as tamassuhunna in the context of 2:237. Here is a cross-reference of the term in the Quran:

In 3:47 it is clear that Mary is referring to the sort of touch that potentially leads to a child:
?She said: "My Lord, how can I have a son when no human hasyamsasnī (touch(ed)) me?" He said: "It is thus that God creates what He wills, when He decrees a command, He merely says to it 'Be,' and it is.??

Thus from this we might say that in 2:237, tamassuhunna refers to the sort of touch that leads to a child. This means unprotected sex. However since protected sex does not 100 percent guarantee to prevent potential pregnancies and is thus not 100 percent protection, then it might be the case that it is not a sufficient measure.

Despite 2:237, it can still be argued that sex is not exclusive to marriage. This verse highlights that should it be the case that one marries, then these considerations and guidelines will enter. If one however does not marry, then these consideration to not apply. But I think it more reasonable to place the limit of 100% protection on sex with MMA then not and 2:237 can be used to defend this.

Another issue that came up was on how to distinguish who the Quran was addressing when the term nisa occurred rather than zawj:

For example:
2:222 And they ask you about the menstruations? Say: "It is harmful, so keep away from the women (nisa) during the menstruations, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.

Is this verse exclusive to marriage or does the usage of the general women instead of zawj mean that it also applies to MMAs? I can't see how this would not also apply to MMAs. It would be absurd to say that we can approach our MMAs during their mensturation but then once they become our wives we cannot approach them during their mensturations.

then later on you have:

2:226 For those who yu'lūna (swear (off)) from their women (nisa), they shall be given four months. If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here instead of zawj or some other like term that establishes the exclusivity of this verse for married relations only, the term nisa is used again which. Does that mean that those who are in an unmarried relationship should also wait for four months before separating? The words

I think based on earlier discussions, marriage is not something that is done overnight. By the time one finds the right person and verifies that they fit the purposes for marriage in relation to themselves, it is something that takes a while and there is an implication that that relationship wherein which the individual is ready to prepare for nikah is one where the bond is close. Thus it would make sense here to have a four month waiting period to make sure that the decision being made is the right one and not one out of haste. I don't think this can be applied to say a short relationship with an MMA. Now whether there was any sex during that short time or not, may change things. Perhaps the term yu'lūna (swear (off)) can better clarify in what context, based on what action, and what conditions and relationship status between the man and woman, is the man supposed to have a waiting period of 4 months before seperating 

then later on:

2:230 So if he divorces her again, then she will not be lawful for him until after she has married a different husband (zawj); if he divorces her; then there is no sin that they come back together if they think they will uphold the boundaries of God. These are the boundaries of God, He clarifies them for a people who know.

Here the word talaq and zawj is used as well as nikah. I'm not sure why zawj is used here since they don't qualify for the status of zawj until after the marriage has taken place and not before.

Either way 2:230 seems to establish that it is with regards to zawj and marriage. The question is which of the verses that lead up to this were also referring to a married relationship. I think that 2:226 is with regards to marriage but 2:222 i don't think so mainly because it would be absurd unless we assume that that kind of approach which is prohibited during the mensturations is exclusive to marriage. If so then we need to like outline what exactly constitutes that kind of approach towards the women.

Johan suggested that the purpose of marriage is inheritance. With marriage everything is documented and thus it is obvious to whom a child belongs to. Thus to whom goes the inheritance of a father or mother.

In conclusion it appears that sexual acts are permitted with MMAs so long as they do not result in children. Further questions: What constitutes an oath when we talk about those whom your oaths possess. An implicit agreement like that of a girlfriend and boyfriend? a promise? or must there be documentation?

Please do not discuss anything in this thread. If anything important has been missed from the original thread that should be part of the summary, then please add it in this summary thread.

If anyone wants to discuss anything from the above, then please post your points in the following thread:

This summary in this thread is an outcome of the discussion that took place in the other thread.
Also for a more detailed look at certain points (such as Johan's proposal of inheritance as the main purpose of marriage (pages 46-50 of the thread)) then follow the link to the original thread.

For more info:

IAMOP's point of view on the relation of zina and MMA:

and Bigmo's points of view on MMA in light of past scriptures:


Peace all

Can you refute this? I can't see a way.

1) In any existence there is at least a thing.
2) Within an existence a there may be another existence b. Dreams, mental content virtual realities and so on are perhaps examples of this.
3) Existence b is necessarily encompassed, entailed and dependent on existence a.
4) Given 3, the content in existence b must be dependent on the content in existence a. In other words it is impossible to have something in existence b that cannot be possible or accommodated in existence a.* Furthermore it is impossible to have something in existence b that is entirely independent of content from existence a (For example a Unicorn is finite, has shape. This is an example of how existence b is dependent on content from existence a. If existence a is entirely shapeless, then there would be no possibility of something with shape or something that is finite. Perhaps this is better illustrated by considering dimensions. You cannot have a 3D (space dimensions) existence within a 2D existence since there isn?t a third space dimension to draw from in the encompassing 2D existence. 

5) In the mind there are simple and complex concepts: Simple* = foundational. It is itself and it is built up of no other concept      Complex* = Built up of a combination of simple concepts
6) Whilst the mind has the capacity to create and come up with various complex concepts by combining or manipulating simple concepts, it cannot do the same with regards to simple concepts.
7) Given 3 and 4, the simple concepts in the mind must be derived from the existence in which the mind is encompassed by.
8 ) We have the concept of Perfect.
9) Perfect is a simple concept.
10) Given 7, Perfect must be in the existence in which the mind's existence is encompassed by.
11) Only that which is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient (it sustains and provides for other than itself), can be Perfect while all else is by default imperfect*
12) Therefore an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient being exists.

5* Examples of simple concepts include: Determined, in-determined, finite, infinite, imperfect, sight etc.     Examples of complex concepts include: Unicorn, wizard, human etc.

11* Because all else will lack one of these attributes, they cannot be perfect. For example we may say that the perfect human would have attributes xyz. However a human by definition is limited and that which is perfect cannot be defined or found within imperfect boundaries. To say the perfect human is to say the perfect imperfect. Or to say the perfect instance of an imperfection. But to say this is to make the word Perfect = to the best possible human. Whilst that which is perfect is necessarily the best possible being, it is also more.

For example if the perfect was not in existence. Then the best possible being may have been and omniscient but not omnipotent god. This would then be an imperfection thus the best possible thing in such a case would not be perfect and we would not have the concept of perfect. Hence the difference between the concepts of best possible and perfect.

Note that you cannot have two perfect entities. For example both cannot be almighty. It would be a contradiction.

Peace all

I had a question on 41:11 Then He settled to the heaven, while it was still smoke, and He said to it, and to the earth: Come willingly or unwillingly. They said: We come willingly

How can they respond with we come willingly if there are without freewill? Or are they with freewill?

Any ideas?

General Issues / Questions / Alrahman and Alraheem (the root)
« on: October 19, 2011, 01:23:38 PM »

I've been trying to better understand the meanings of alrahman and alraheem. So i cheked the root of the word on PRL and Lane Lexicon and found something which I don't understand:

Rahman - it is active participle noun in the measure of fa'lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness.
Rahim - it is in the measure of fa'il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving

What is fa'lan and fa'il? Is the root of these two words: ف ع ل

Any help would be much appreciated

Salat & Zakat (The Contact & Purification) / Issue with Salat timings
« on: October 14, 2010, 05:56:05 PM »
Peace All

Fajr and isha. There are places in the world in which the day or the night is continuous for up to 6 months.
How can we apply fajr and isha to such places?

If there is no merging of the day into the night or the night into the day for possibly up to 6 months, does that mean no salat??

Should we not possibly seek alternate meanings to fajr and isha or is that too farfetched to even consider?

Pages: [1] 2 3