Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
1
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
« Last post by Mazhar on Today at 01:27:23 PM »
I've been giving you a clear rational definition of omnipresence which means I've not just been using meaningless words. I gave you proof by highlighting that any other definition is absurd.

Perhaps you are not getting the point.

omnipresence
ˌɒmnɪˈprɛz(ə)ns/Submit
noun
the state of being widespread or constantly encountered.
"the omnipresence of the Internet in society today"

the presence of God everywhere at the same time.
"how does God's universal action prove His omnipresence?"

Omnipresence is an attribute of some entity.

You can read here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipresence

2
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
« Last post by Mazhar on Today at 01:11:26 PM »
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quote:

And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.

 What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing  to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Salam,

The first question of Metaphysics or first philosophy is existence and first cause. So the study of metaphysics has but to start from Man's own existence.

We are aware Philosophy came first and became the basis for science. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which Aristotle called as "first philosophy". It deals with the nature of existence, the being and the world and it is a subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".

We need to know about our existence, because what else exists know quite well about us, our stature and position in the physical realm. They have their own levels of perception and understanding.

The moment a philosopher observes the relation of his existence with the existence of universe, he can deduce nothing but the fact that his being is the first cause of the existence of the universe he lives in. A philosopher cannot fail to observe that he is not the reason for the survival of the universe, but it is the universe which is sustaining him and causing his survival though he is not her creator. So his own being is the first cause of the existence of the universe. Therefore, the first point of reflection for a truthful philosopher is to find the reason  why the universe is at her service. This will lead him to find the first cause of his own existence. This will instantly lead him to the conclusion that he can not be one who causes the survival of the first cause of his own existence. Thinking otherwise will be a fallacy. The first cause must be living and surviving by His own self.
3
The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.

I've been giving you a clear rational definition of omnipresence which means I've not just been using meaningless words. I gave you proof by highlighting that any other definition is absurd.
4
General Issues / Questions / Re: 12 Things I Canít Reconcile About Islam
« Last post by reel on Today at 12:53:56 PM »
That typical woman who takes men as her god(s). If she decides to stay in a sect she has to accept all of those things. I still remember my mom arguing about those same topics back when we were still sunni.

I agree with Huruf. Her questions are actually not relevant to us. Many of the questions she asked are not exactly applied in every Muslim country. But then again, Islamism of the sects is atheism. She should deal with it.


5
Peace brother Mazhar.
You are saying this, quote:

And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.

 What would your logical proof be, if you have one?
I am interested, if you are willing  to share it of course.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
6
look who's speaking!

My real passion are your serious posts. Nothing can get funnier. Specially when you spice them with the star word "palaver".

Salaam

Any argument, evidence to rebut what I have stated to refute his ill understanding of word "Yem" on which is based his paper?
7
How one can be blind to ground facts, except when one is blocked by passions and personality worship.

look who's speaking!

My real passion are your serious posts. Nothing can get funnier. Specially when you spice them with the star word "palaver".

Salaam
8
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Quran's use of the word name (Ism)
« Last post by Mazhar on Today at 12:08:39 PM »
Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.

If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.

The word "omnipresence" is in itself meaningless unless you associate it with some entity. It will become meaningful when you name an object with it. And then the question will arise to prove logically its existence.
9
This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.

Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.

Just so we're clear then, to my understanding, the reason this discussion isn't progressing, is because you want me to prove that omnipresence = that which is all existing/Existence. I've argued that per the dictates of reason there are no other hypothetically possible definitions and that any other definition is rationally absurd/paradoxcial/contradictory. You haven't countered this. I cannot meaningfully/rationally engage in a discussion where reason is not acknowledged.

If I were to prove to you that reason is right/true, I'd do it by showing how the alternative is absurd. You can't use reason to doubt reason. That is absurd. Similarly, you can't given any other definition of omnipresence, as that would be absurd. If this does no suffice as proof for you, nothing/absurdity will. The lack of reason, or absurdity can never suffice as anything let alone proof.
10
Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Hafs or Warsh
« Last post by good logic on Today at 11:34:37 AM »
Brother Imran, I think the above should be enough,but let me elaborate more on 21:87:
وَذَا النّونِ إِذ ذَهَبَ مُغٰضِبًا فَظَنَّ أَن لَن نَقدِرَ عَلَيهِ فَنادىٰ فِى الظُّلُمٰتِ أَن لا إِلٰهَ إِلّا أَنتَ سُبحٰنَكَ إِنّى كُنتُ مِنَ الظّٰلِمينَ
Why do I think this verse is indicating to us how to spell the letter N in 68:1?
There are 14 different initial letters used in Qoran, this verse is screaming  N the initial (The only one in 68:1) also is spelt like the N in this verse. Count how many N s in it?
Yes brother GOD has put exactly 14 N s in that verse  as indication. Or it is coincidence to you?
GOD bless you.
Peace.
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10