Knowledge of God in Islam

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby sgttomas on Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:40 pm

So regarding the profane or the divine.

...there is a lot of good and valid things to be said here, but first as part of the game, we can explore two different "channels" that the game can traverse.

This, or This?

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby sgttomas on Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:36 am

QuantumTroll, you should probably read this: post.

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby QuantumTroll on Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:55 am

To put it succinctly: I don't get it. It doesn't seem like you've addressed my question at all. To me, it seems like you're doing almost exactly what Metacrock does with his Ground of Being argument for rational warrant. Assuming that I understand them, that argument and yours, have a serious problem of disconnect between the logical structure arising from the axiomatic foundations and the meaningful God of personal experience. It seems to me that you're aware of this disconnect, but not its true nature. To you, it seems, the logical foundation acts as a sort of launch ramp that directly points at its target, and one only needs to step in and follow the ride to its destination (the moon, say). To me, the logical foundation is a launch ramp, but it points straight up. It could shoot you to the moon, but it's far more natural for it to shoot you into space. You're taking the ramp, land on the moon, and say "if you go high enough, the universe is moon". Sure, but the moon is a very special case. There's a gazillion times more not-moon than moon in the launch ramp's range.

Please ignore where this analogy fails (e.g. the moon is visible from earth and provably exists, etc), it's only purpose is to convey how I feel about the current discussion. For me to continue to take it seriously, I need some more parameters on the launch ramp. Where to place it, when to shoot, etc, analogy-wise. In the actual discussion it makes no sense for the axiomatically defined unity to interact with peculiarly animated swirls on a planetary surface in a way that's meaningful to those swirls. Telling me that believing this is just a possible choice is... not helpful. I'd much more easily believe that the planet upon which we're swirling is interacting with us in a god-like manner.
User avatar
QuantumTroll
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby Metacrock on Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:37 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:To put it succinctly: I don't get it. It doesn't seem like you've addressed my question at all. To me, it seems like you're doing almost exactly what Metacrock does with his Ground of Being argument for rational warrant. Assuming that I understand them, that argument and yours, have a serious problem of disconnect between the logical structure arising from the axiomatic foundations and the meaningful God of personal experience. It seems to me that you're aware of this disconnect, but not its true nature. To you, it seems, the logical foundation acts as a sort of launch ramp that directly points at its target, and one only needs to step in and follow the ride to its destination (the moon, say). To me, the logical foundation is a launch ramp, but it points straight up. It could shoot you to the moon, but it's far more natural for it to shoot you into space. You're taking the ramp, land on the moon, and say "if you go high enough, the universe is moon". Sure, but the moon is a very special case. There's a gazillion times more not-moon than moon in the launch ramp's range.

Please ignore where this analogy fails (e.g. the moon is visible from earth and provably exists, etc), it's only purpose is to convey how I feel about the current discussion. For me to continue to take it seriously, I need some more parameters on the launch ramp. Where to place it, when to shoot, etc, analogy-wise. In the actual discussion it makes no sense for the axiomatically defined unity to interact with peculiarly animated swirls on a planetary surface in a way that's meaningful to those swirls. Telling me that believing this is just a possible choice is... not helpful. I'd much more easily believe that the planet upon which we're swirling is interacting with us in a god-like manner.



the being itself thing is really what's left of a whole philosophical system that was vast and complex. It's like a foreign langue now becuase it's from a pre scientific age. In fact its even pre scholastic. It can't just spit it out. every time I talk about it I'm learning it too.

I can see how when I get wound up on that stuff and I'm talking about it I'v left you behind in the sense of knowing what it means. I still find it odd that you say "have a serious problem of disconnect between the logical structure arising from the axiomatic foundations and the meaningful God of personal experience"

It's direct, phenomenological and inattentive. "ground" = not just origin or cause but also power and meaning. so the whole nature of what being is apart from the being of a particular being is summed up in ground of being. It's made obvious to us in a direct and intuitive way.

just the immediate sense that God is the ground of being is obvious. but explaining what it mean is hard. there are synanmies Tillich uses for ground:


power
meaning
depth



That being has depth is a clue to the meaning of “the ground of being,” or “being itself.” The depth of being is also related to the notion of the “power of being.” These are all saying the same thing or very closely related things. To really understand what Tillich is saying we have to understand what the depth of being is and relate that to the power of being. The context of the phrase “depth of being” and the quotation above about that comes form Tillich’s sermon, converted into a small book, The Shaking of the Foundations (op cit). In the chapter entitled “the depth of existence,” Tillich tells us that he is using the term “depth” as a metaphor to indicate an attitude taken form spiritual experience. Depth symbolizes both special relation and spiritual quality. Deep implies a profundity (the opposite being “shallow”) and there is also a sense in which “deep” is used for suffering (the depths of despair for example). I said above that being having depth means things are not merely as they appear on the surface, there’s more to reality than just the way things appear. In the Shaking of the Foundations Tillich confirms that this is what he had in mind:


All visible things have a surface. Surface is that side of things which first appears to us. If we look at it, we know what things seem to be. Yet if we act according to what things and persons seem to be, we are disappointed. Our expectations are frustrated. And so we try to penetrate below the surfaces in order to learn what things really are. Why have men always asked for truth? Is it because they have been disappointed with the surfaces, and have known that the truth which does not disappoint dwells below the surfaces in the depth? And therefore, men have dug through one level after another. What seemed true one day was experienced as superficial the next. When we encounter a person, we receive an impression. But often if we act accordingly we are disappointed by his actual behavior. We pierce a deeper level of his character, and for some time experience less disappointment. But soon he may do something which is contrary to all our expectations; and we realize that what we know about him is still superficial. Again we dig more deeply into his true being.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby sgttomas on Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:30 pm

That's a fantastic reply Metacrock.

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby Metacrock on Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:01 am

sgttomas wrote:That's a fantastic reply Metacrock.

-sgtt


O thank you. that's a section from my erstwhile ground of being book that may not see the light as a book.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby met on Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:56 am

We all want to read that one, you know!
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby Metacrock on Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:16 am

met wrote:We all want to read that one, you know!



O thanks. maybe if I'm lucky the same 12 people will buy that one. :mrgreen:
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9914
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby met on Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:46 am

U SOLD twelve copies?!? :shock:

Man, that's a LOT! We dream of selling twelve copies! :o

. . . What are u doing RIGHT???
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Postby sgttomas on Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:50 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:To put it succinctly: I don't get it. It doesn't seem like you've addressed my question at all. To me, it seems like you're doing almost exactly what Metacrock does with his Ground of Being argument for rational warrant. Assuming that I understand them, that argument and yours, have a serious problem of disconnect between the logical structure arising from the axiomatic foundations and the meaningful God of personal experience. It seems to me that you're aware of this disconnect, but not its true nature. To you, it seems, the logical foundation acts as a sort of launch ramp that directly points at its target, and one only needs to step in and follow the ride to its destination (the moon, say). To me, the logical foundation is a launch ramp, but it points straight up. It could shoot you to the moon, but it's far more natural for it to shoot you into space. You're taking the ramp, land on the moon, and say "if you go high enough, the universe is moon". Sure, but the moon is a very special case. There's a gazillion times more not-moon than moon in the launch ramp's range.


This is actually a brilliant reply, QuantumTroll.

The issue you are pointing to is how one interprets God. This spatial analogy has no coherence with God, because God is an arbitrary object and arbitrary space has no intentional structure. As for God I have arbitrarily assigned those exact properties so it isn't some huge coincidence. The intentional and meaningful associations that I have with God, are notGod. God is responsible for my intentional and meaningful associations that I have with God.
QuantumTroll wrote:Please ignore where this analogy fails (e.g. the moon is visible from earth and provably exists, etc), it's only purpose is to convey how I feel about the current discussion. For me to continue to take it seriously, I need some more parameters on the launch ramp. Where to place it, when to shoot, etc, analogy-wise. In the actual discussion it makes no sense for the axiomatically defined unity to interact with peculiarly animated swirls on a planetary surface in a way that's meaningful to those swirls. Telling me that believing this is just a possible choice is... not helpful. I'd much more easily believe that the planet upon which we're swirling is interacting with us in a god-like manner.


Define god-like.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
User avatar
sgttomas
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron