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.
User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:
Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Post by QuantumTroll » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:10 am

I'll play, Sgttomas! A tennis analogy in italics! This will relate to the teensy problem of discriminating between the mundane and the divine.

I serve one question:
What is the difference between God and some other non-God "thing" consistent with your 5 axioms? In other words, suppose there is no God, yet something fulfils your axioms. I believe in that non-God thing, you know, so it's not an idle question.

After the serve, I move to centre court:
I propose that there exists one (or more) axiom(s) that is (are) consistent with God but not with something else. Perhaps (I lean to the left) it's something to do with its relationship to mankind, or perhaps (I lean to the right) it's something to do with its relationship to the individual, or perhaps (I back up, expecting a lob) it's something to do with both.

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Post by met » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:16 am

Yes, reminiscent of my childhood idol, Bjorn Borg, QT has lobbed you some good questions, ST. With heavy topspin. To win points, you're going to have make great approaches. Then hope his responses don't just fly right over your head. :o :roll:


Okay, I will play along. It just seemed like your assumptions already excluded a lot of people's ideas about "God". So I was wondering why - in this context of attempting to update our "God-language" - you opted for a fairly narrow axiomatization?

All language of God must be consistent with the following axioms. These are not rationally derived claims about reality, rather they are arbitrarily defined statements that other statements must be consistent with. .
QT, too, is basically wondering the same thing i am, I think, tho he's put it differently: "which characteristics would define the "ground" as "God" instead of "not-God" and why?
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
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:29 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:I'll play, Sgttomas! A tennis analogy in italics! This will relate to the teensy problem of discriminating between the mundane and the divine.

I serve one question:
What is the difference between God and some other non-God "thing" consistent with your 5 axioms? In other words, suppose there is no God, yet something fulfils your axioms. I believe in that non-God thing, you know, so it's not an idle question.

After the serve, I move to centre court:
I propose that there exists one (or more) axiom(s) that is (are) consistent with God but not with something else. Perhaps (I lean to the left) it's something to do with its relationship to mankind, or perhaps (I lean to the right) it's something to do with its relationship to the individual, or perhaps (I back up, expecting a lob) it's something to do with both.
Cool!

Yup both questions are perfectly valid according to the rules. So let's proceed :)

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

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:32 pm

met wrote:Yes, reminiscent of my childhood idol, Bjorn Borg, QT has lobbed you some good questions, ST. With heavy topspin. To win points, you're going to have make great approaches. Then hope his responses don't just fly right over your head. :o :roll:


Okay, I will play along. It just seemed like your assumptions already excluded a lot of people's ideas about "God". So I was wondering why - in this context of attempting to update our "God-language" - you opted for a fairly narrow axiomatization?

All language of God must be consistent with the following axioms. These are not rationally derived claims about reality, rather they are arbitrarily defined statements that other statements must be consistent with. .
QT, too, is basically wondering the same thing i am, I think, tho he's put it differently: "which characteristics would define the "ground" as "God" instead of "not-God" and why?
It's just a game. I can make any rules I like and we will just have to see if we like the consequences. This is a reframing of the core issue of profane/divine.

But that hasn't even been defined yet so you aren't capable of having feelings about it yet

;)

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

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:21 pm

1-Things undergo differentiation of states, while God does not.

The relevant way at this point to discuss games is to define the conditions. Existential reality is not pertinent here. That's a different domain and we may or may not find any interesting connection to this game.

We will define a set and one condition for entry to this set is that everything we can measure about reality is differential. Or put differently, if we can measure it then it is a thing and it is not of God. This is about how we give measure to the items in this set. It defines the mathematical relationship between differential states. The valid members in the God set cannot be defined by differentiable elements. If something is differentiable then it is not of God.

Rule number 1 takes this form. It's well defined and incomplete as a set because we can always add another element of a differentiable member that is not of the God set. This is the negation of everything that is not God.

It's just a rule to play with, nothing more.

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

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:16 pm

2-Essentially unique

Only one class of objects can be defined by these axioms, so all other statements must be structured consistently with this one, and that class of objects has only one element in its set.

This is a rule I'm imposing on the game. We don't know whether or not to like this rule, but that's not in the classification for defining the rule. This may or may not be possible to amalgamate with other statements that may come to your mind, but rule 1 doesn't violate it, so we can keep playing along.

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
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Post by met » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:52 pm

sgttomas wrote:1-Things undergo differentiation of states, while God does not.

The relevant way at this point to discuss games is to define the conditions. Existential reality is not pertinent here. That's a different domain and we may or may not find any interesting connection to this game.

We will define a set and one condition for entry to this set is that everything we can measure about reality is differential. Or put differently, if we can measure it then it is a thing and it is not of God. This is about how we give measure to the items in this set. It defines the mathematical relationship between differential states. The valid members in the God set cannot be defined by differentiable elements. If something is differentiable then it is not of God.

Rule number 1 takes this form. It's well defined and incomplete as a set because we can always add another element of a differentiable member that is not of the God set. This is the negation of everything that is not God.

It's just a rule to play with, nothing more.

Peace,
So G = ( set of all divine things) is the complement of the set of all profane things with profane things defined as anything capable of being in relation (ie in a set) with other profane things?

So.... # 1
[g (exists) G] iff [ forAll A (g (exists) A -->A=G)] (?)

And # 2

[a (exists) G ] & [b (exists) G] --> a=b

( ... I haven't done set theory in forever. Are those sufficient?)
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
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Knowledge of God in Islam

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:02 pm

Those aren't sufficient just yet.

To add to it we say that:

1-The initiator and sustainer of all existence.


Every thing is in relation to another thing by a mathematical expression of the state of that thing versus the other thing. It's arbitrary what the elements are that are chosen to define the equation. To say that "I" stop at my skin is just conventional, not necessary, and other things are possible. But everything can be parsed out in differential states - that's the definition of a thing.

So existence is what is dependent upon God for action, life, knowledge, awareness, feelings, thoughts, experiences of anything that exists. The only thing that defines a thing is a differential state equation and those are arbitrarily chosen. But also experience of being. It needs no further grounding. It's it's own ground ontologically speaking in this classification here. Existence just is a brute fact, and we have our own experience of that, and we only see what Allah permits us to see.

This relationship validates our experience of things, but also tells us that we are completely bound in the self if we do not use a referent like God to define something essentially unique from all differential things. By definition all we can *experience* is differential things.

Just like playing games is not sufficient to provide meaning, neither is our intrinsic meaning that we experience as reality sufficient to say everything necessary to account for ourselves. We do not need to "believe in God", but we just need to abide by the rules of the chosen game if we ground reality in differentiation, or if we ground it in God for being allowed and permitted and empowered to be. In practice there is a lot of similarity. Why the God-set-game is something we may or may not find fun, or desirable, we may notice that it well defines two fundamentally distinct sets: God and nonGod. This is just the consequence of the definitions.

To "believe in nonGod" doesn't really make sense - it isn't that type of thing.

To "believe in God" means that we are convinced that this model of reality accords more with what we believe about the reality of the choice. The choice is arbitrary, because evidential persuation is literally defined AFTER one has selected an ontology for structuring meaning.

In the nonGod set, "God" is a null set by definition. But this is just the God-game, so what does it really say about God? Which God? Why are you attached to your particular persuation about an arbitrary word? This impetus towards persuation is what I identify with the profane/divine classification. But note ,that this God-game is part of that classification itself. This is that strange circularity bit, but there is nothing inconsistent about this approach to knowledge. It's more like "iterative" rather than circular. But this is how to well define a basis between a grounding of reality that is not part of our experience, or else grounding reality in our experience.

We only ever experience reality of the absolute base or "grounding" as through a tinted veil. As such, we are seeing the vale, but there is something that shines through. I say "shines" because it is validated by our own subjective judgment. In other words, this reality, even behind a veil, is something you fall in love with as well as are completely humbled by. This is a human condition. We can't account for ourselves, by ourselves. That's just eternal naval gazing. But we can at an intersubjective level have a shared experience. This is "something we keep between ourselves". It is not ontologically powerful enough to express anything about a a-differential state of being. We are just having enough of a similar experience of reality - for WHATEVER reason - that we can feel close to oneanother and find that relationship a meaningful and desirable state.

That's all any of us have. Except for what God may reveal about himself.....more on this later.



Rule Number 4

4-The classes of knowledge about God **are Existential and Subjective (this is just our impression of the game) (**edited to correct a grammar mistake)

This comprises a set that is a finite subset of the set of “God” (God's Knowledge). As such, this subset is not sufficient to completely define God and is therefore not equivalent to the identity of God in any way, but neither is it outside of domain of “God’s knowledge”. We just aren’t of the same class of existence. We have no way to relate in that capacity. We experience a finite chopping of reality (this is what existence is defined as) and God's "experience" of reality isn't even a comprehensible sentence (it's not a permitted grammatical structure). But nothing prohibits God from having total knowledge about our experience. Also God's knowledge extends completely to all of the possible and alternative. Therefore, every permutation AND combination of reality is within God's Knowledge, and thus not even an infinite number of superhumans could encompass all of God's Knowledge. That's why God is of a completely different class of "being" that we don't make any literal assertions about.

There is a tremendously rich ontology and existential experience that can develop from this game.

5-A rationally warranted theorem is consistent with these axioms #1 - #4 and is justified by a person’s own subjective and existential knowledge.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Last edited by sgttomas on Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
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

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:07 pm

The first category of knowledge will be called the Ontological, and it contains the following concepts (and for each category their antonyms will be assumed, if not listed):

Ontological: necessary, sufficient, complete, and essentially incomplete (which is distinct from “incomplete” in that it is not possible to be complete, whereas another set of attributes might simply be unfinished, but may indeed be completed).

The next category will be called the Epistemological, and it pertains to what can be known about objects within an ontological domain.

Epistemological: possible, existent, axiomatic.

Next is the Existential category, which situates our knowledge in time and whether or not it pertains to something we experience as occurring from within or outside of our bodies. The only context in which something is known to occur outside of our bodies is in the current awareness of self and other. This self-referential distinction is taken as the reference point, without any inquiry into whether we are “just a brain in a jar” or other seeming paradoxes of reality. What is plainly apparent is the only relevant context in which we need to discuss our knowledge. Other than that, things that occurred in the past are now only recalled and are distinct from the events themselves (they are recreations) and things that are future oriented are only currently things imagined.

Existential: imagined, occurring (to us), recalled.

The last category is the broadest category and it contains every element of knowledge that requires a judgment of its hierarchy of importance to us. As such, we can include the previous three categories of knowledge within the domain of this knowledge, because the Ontological category may not be perceived as warranted, or desirable, or preferred, or as a probable way to approach the subject of God. Hence, the last category is called the Subjective.

Subjective: meaningful, probable, warranted, desirable, preferred.

Each category of knowledge will have a role to play in defining the concept of “God”. Each category of knowledge is necessary for a sufficient description of what will be axiomatically defined shortly. This is not the only possible definition for God, but it is one that I believe is warranted and desirable, because it is structured in the contemporary thinking of subjectivity, scientism, and skepticism. It is my preferred definition because it avoids many traditional pitfalls and paradoxes when it assumes the notion of a “proof” of God’s existence.
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

Post by sgttomas » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:17 pm

Commentary on Thermodynamics.

We have no justification for talking about thermodynamics when it comes to God. I've arbitrarily chosen to do that. It's justified post-hoc because it is consistent within the other rules of the game.

Any physical system has a thermodynamics state. This is an accounting for the following about reality: the equation of change of state. The persistence of patterns in reality is entirely arbitrary from a purely physical basis - no such description even exists. We always mediate reality through an apparatus and interpret the results. There is no justification for All of Thermodynamics being true. It isn't true in that sense. We also cannot rule out Thermodynamics from being applicable in every single way that reality can be chopped up and measured. It's just a game to play, but abiding by those rules allows incredibly accurate metaphors for "things" that are defined by the persistence of something about the change of state. Coherence of pattern and persistence of form are characteristics of any thermodynamics description - it is, in fact, the necessary outcome. The only question is about how long those things persist. Thermodynamics says that at most it will go on eternally, but that in our reality we can only defined the local system in terms of a state where all persistent patters are short lived. This is the consequence of entropy. We cannot make comprehensible statements about all of the universe through thermodyamics that is capable of describing the most minute things and the largest structures. The reason is that we can never perfectly capture the initial conditions of any thermodynamics state so that we can never actually (it's not possible in reality, because it is not a valid type of thermodynamics statement) fully know the equation defining the change of state. In other words, the future is not knowable by looking at the present moment, which is all we can do. Our knowledge of the past is mediated with apparatus that we use to parcel out bits of reality in order to define the state. This is literally the definition of a thing.

That's it. Just a structure in which to define elements of sets. It is fully capable of making every possible statement about reality without contradicting the axioms, but we don't know how, nor can we ever know how, because as soon as we have defined every conceivable property and its flux, then we can add one more question about how it is impacted by a change in the boundary conditions of the reference frame that we have imposed on the system. This is an inexhaustible process.
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")

Post Reply