(May 4, 2016 at 9:59 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: You can call it whatever you want. You can call it God (with a capital G) if you feel like it (the word "God" is, after all, pretty vague in its meaning). Personally, I just call it a deity. I like to say "the DOTV proves the existence of a deity with such and such qualities (the aforementioned qualities that were traced by Ibn Sina)." You can also call it Allah. The Arabic word "Allah" predates Islam, and it literally means "the awe-inspiring" (or, according to others, "the deity"). Since I find this entity to be the only deity known, and I also find it awe-inspiring, I can call it Allah (I do, after all, speak Urdu and Arabic and such vocabulary would come naturally to me).

But unless by deity you mean a person in a sense that entails, albeit equivocally, cognition and/or intentionality, then you're being disingenuous, and particularly so if you're arguing for something which you call Allah--knowing that your definition bears only a superficial resemblance to what has been traditionally associated with the name--which gives unwarranted cover to obviously false and even patently absurd ideas about the nature of this substance and its relation to human beings. I find the term Nature to be a far more honest and accurate representation of the qualities that, you have argued, must apply to our reality, and not this wholly distinct substance implied by the idea of God.

You cannot just say, "Well, if you want to call this weather event a thunderstorm, or simply 'the wrath of the gods,' it makes no difference. I mean the latter is pretty vague anyway." No, words have meaning.

(May 4, 2016 at 10:37 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:

(May 4, 2016 at 9:59 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: You can call it whatever you want. You can call it God (with a capital G) if you feel like it (the word "God" is, after all, pretty vague in its meaning). Personally, I just call it a deity. I like to say "the DOTV proves the existence of a deity with such and such qualities (the aforementioned qualities that were traced by Ibn Sina)." You can also call it Allah. The Arabic word "Allah" predates Islam, and it literally means "the awe-inspiring" (or, according to others, "the deity"). Since I find this entity to be the only deity known, and I also find it awe-inspiring, I can call it Allah (I do, after all, speak Urdu and Arabic and such vocabulary would come naturally to me).

But unless by deity you mean a person in a sense that entails, albeit equivocally, cognition and/or intentionality, then you're being disingenuous, and particularly so if you're arguing for something which you call Allah--knowing that your definition bears only a superficial resemblance to what has been traditionally associated with the name--which gives unwarranted cover to obviously false and even patently absurd ideas about the nature of this substance and its relation to human beings. I find the term Nature to be a far more honest and accurate representation of the qualities that, you have argued, must apply to our reality, and not this wholly distinct substance implied by the idea of God.

You cannot just say, "well, if you want to this phenomena a thunderstorm which is perfectly understandable and open to further inquiry, or simply "the wrath of the gods", it makes no difference. I mean the latter is pretty vague anyway." No, words have meaning.

Your idea of the word "Allah" is unfortunately tinged with qualities from Islamic literature, which is often filled with anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah according to Sunni Islam (the majority of Muslims, about 90%, follow Sunni Islam - which explains their larger share in Islamic literature).

I, however, think of "Allah" in a way more accurately confined to the word's linguistic and literal Arabic meaning.

The DOTV, coupled with some of Ibn Sina's attribute tracings that I found sound, proves the existence of an entity that is necessary, eternal, one-and-only, immaterial, omnipresent, self-subsisting, independent, primary, absolute/infinite, unrestricted, unique, formless, ineffable, uncaused, without rivals, and has all things else depending on it for their existence (the last attribute seems valid only if the principle of causality for contingents is taken as a premise). If you include my additional arguments regarding consciousness, this entity can be called conscious.

In light of the above description, I am satisfied in calling such an entity a deity. And the connotation that I get from the word "Allah" fits this description perfectly. Others may get a more anthropomorphic impression from that same word (e.g. Sunnis), others may harbor a more pantheistic impression (e.g. Imam Khomeini and Ibn Arabi), others may get an impersonal impression from it (e.g. Arabic deists), and yet others may even get a more polytheistic impression (e.g. pre-Islamic Arabs). It is simply a matter of perspective and semantics, not of being disingenuous.

(May 4, 2016 at 10:48 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: Your idea of the word "Allah" is unfortunately tinged with qualities from Islamic literature, which is often filled with anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah according to Sunni Islam (the majority of Muslims, about 90%, follow Sunni Islam - which explains their larger share in Islamic literature).

We don't live in a world where "Allah" means anything but that which has been traditionally associated with the monotheistic entity whom sometimes uses messengers to speak with human beings. You're attempt to pretend that your usage of God, deity, or more specifically, Allah, does not unnecessarily conflate the metaphysical monster you've put forth with these other petty monarchs imagined to concern themselves with the lives of men doesn't correspond to reality.

(May 4, 2016 at 10:48 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: I, however, think of "Allah" in a way more accurately confined to the word's linguistic and literal Arabic meaning.

The DOTV, coupled with some of Ibn Sina's attribute tracings that I found sound, proves the existence of an entity that is necessary, eternal, one-and-only, immaterial, omnipresent, self-subsisting, independent, primary, absolute/infinite, unrestricted, unique, formless, ineffable, uncaused, without rivals, and has all things else depending on it for their existence (the last attribute seems valid only if the principle of causality for contingents is taken as a premise). If you include my additional arguments regarding consciousness, this entity can be called conscious.

In light of the above description, I am satisfied in calling such an entity a deity. And the connotation that I get from the word "Allah" fits this description perfectly. Others may get a more anthropomorphic impression from that same word (e.g. Sunnis), others may harbor a more pantheistic impression (e.g. Imam Khomeini and Ibn Arabi), others may get an impersonal impression from it (e.g. Arabic deists), and yet others may even get a more polytheistic impression (e.g. pre-Islamic Arabs). It is simply a matter of perspective and semantics, not of being disingenuous.

I'm speaking of the necessary being you've argued for in this thread. Those additional attributes you'd wish to attach to Nature would require additional arguments (I didn't find your argument for "infinite consciousness"--whatever that means--or the claim that a necessary being cannot manifest attributes which include extension such as the cosmos, the world, etc., valid or persuasive).

Does anyone want to tell me what the difference is between a god, and an arbitrarily powerful non-god?

Is it simply a matter of what they have accomplished so far regarding creative projects? Like, they have graduated?

Or is it some specific attribute they have to have?

(May 5, 2016 at 3:32 am)robvalue Wrote: Does anyone want to tell me what the difference is between a god, and an arbitrarily powerful non-god?

Is it simply a matter of what they have accomplished so far regarding creative projects? Like, they have graduated?

Or is it some specific attribute they have to have?

The arbitrarily powerful entity is a stepping stone in the evolution of the concept into an all-everything god.
They think they're working on it from the bottom-up..... but, in reality, the end point is set in stone, in their minds. It's just a matter of getting some neat pieces to build the puzzle and get there.
Usually, they think that, as long as they remain "logical" and "non-contradictory", they're fine.

But building castles in the clouds does have a problem.... foundations.

As long as the foundations are hidden from the planning, you can draw all the blueprints you want for the castle and put the shiny roof on the highest tower.

(that's my metaphor of the day.... enjoy!)

That's a good metaphor!

I want to know what stops me being a God, if I create an artificial reality (say a computer program) that manifests somehow and has self-aware elements.

I created it. I set all the rules. I can alter it however I want (all powerful). I can read off any information I want about it (all knowing). What more do I need? I could even transfer parts of the self aware program to other areas of the program (after lives).

Notice how I can be super powerful with regard to that reality, but it doesn't follow that I have the same power in my own reality. And the fact that I made a reality doesn't mean I made every reality. But from their point of view, I'm "God" just as much as whatever runs our reality (if anything) is God. People never seem to think about what reality God is in, and where that came from. If they did, they'd realise what a non-answer it is. Why is it always our reality, then God, then nothing? Why exactly 2 layers?

(May 5, 2016 at 6:20 am)robvalue Wrote: That's a good metaphor!

I want to know what stops me being a God, if I create an artificial reality (say a computer program) that manifests somehow and has self-aware elements.

I created it. I set all the rules. I can alter it however I want (all powerful). I can read off any information I want about it (all knowing). What more do I need? I could even transfer parts of the self aware program to other areas of the program (after lives).

Notice how I can be super powerful with regard to that reality, but it doesn't follow that I have the same power in my own reality. And the fact that I made a reality doesn't mean I made every reality. But from their point of view, I'm "God" just as much as whatever runs our reality (if anything) is God. People never seem to think about what reality God is in, and where that came from. If they did, they'd realise what a non-answer it is. Why is it always our reality, then God, then nothing? Why exactly 2 layers?

Because it hurts the brain to think of an infinite regress?

(May 5, 2016 at 6:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: Because it hurts the brain to think of an infinite regress?  

Here's my problem. I find an infinite ANYTHING to be beyond my comprehension. Calling it "Bob" and saying it sometimes talks to people doesn't make the concept of infinity any less mind-boggling or troublesome.

I figure if I'm going to be troubled by reality, I might as well be troubled by the infinity that is already suspected thatn the one that is anthropomorphized as a solution to. . . infinity.

How can I trust the Shiites when they can't even agree with each other on something as basic as how many Imams there are supposed to be Mahdi?

(May 5, 2016 at 3:32 am)robvalue Wrote: Does anyone want to tell me what the difference is between a god, and an arbitrarily powerful non-god?

Is it simply a matter of what they have accomplished so far regarding creative projects? Like, they have graduated?

Or is it some specific attribute they have to have?

I think only one theist ever addressed this, and he said that there would be no way to tell the difference between them, if I remember right. So in that case, it doesn't even mean anything.

It's quite amazing how little information I can get out of people for a word that is thrown around like nobody's business. Well, coherent information, anyway.