Quran's use of the word name (Ism)

[Mazhar]

You don't prioritise the Quran over reason. You use it to supplement reason to aid and benefit reason. You verify it with reason.

Again, if you don't acknowledge Existence as omnipresent/all-existing, given everything else in our conversation so far, our conversation will bear no fruit. If you can think of any other possible definitions for existence, then by all means share. But as I have argued, anything other than Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent, is absurd.

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.

A man is born in a state that he does not know anything about the physical realm. As he grows he gets knowledge and perception of the physical realm around him. This is all what seems to him Existence - reality in the real sense of the word.

Our knowledge is dependent upon the existence of matter and awareness of its name-code, which verbally mirrors it through words composed with letters and consonants of a language making us cognizant of it. Cognizant is he who can verbally mirror the image of that thing for others.

So the First Reality or First Existence is the Word and the object observed and perceived by sentient - human.

Word, whether spoken or written, is a meaningful articulated sound. Written word is the first sound-recorder known to humans.

First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.

What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?

[nimnimak_11]

First question a thinking brain will ask is --- whether the word (Ism as you mentioned in first post) which mirrors an object is first in existence or first was the object itself.

What will be conclusion of a reasoning mind?

Peace Mazhar

So long as there are no absurdities/paradoxes/contradictions, It makes no difference to me to be honest.

[Mazhar]

Peace Mazhar

So long as there are no absurdities/paradoxes/contradictions, It makes no difference to me to be honest.

The question is how to perceive Omnipresent existence without these things. Saying and proving are two different things.

[Mazhar]

There are no other conclusions to jump to. Anything else is absurd/paradoxical/contradictory/non-existence. You can have more than one reality, but all realities have to exist in existence. You cannot have more than one existence. What separates the two existences? Non-existence? Doesn't reason dictate this to be absurd?

[nimnimak_11]

The question is how to perceive Omnipresent existence without these things. Saying and proving are two different things.

Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.

[Mazhar]

Paradoxes resulting from the wrong belief or definition, and only one definition not containing paradoxes and being understandable and coherent, is sufficient proof.

This is no answer to the question except floating in circle.

Pl connect it to the caption of the thread.

[nimnimak_11]

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.

[Mazhar]

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.

[good logic]

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.

[nimnimak_11]

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.