IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Open for debate  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Open for debate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>
Author
Message
Tim the plumber View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim the plumber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 2:27am
If you want to use a science fiction metaphore you could use the idea of a familure or avatar where, say in an Ian M Banks book (Very good reads all of them), a hyper inteligent computer, normally a ship, will often have a human biological bit of it freely wandering around as a human. Fully human but the brain inside is inhabited by the mind of the computer.

The ship's remote wroker drones it uses to repair stuff around and about are the same sort of thing but they are mechanical.

The ship's human avitar is, in this science fiction setting, both fully human and fully a machine intelligence.

Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 9:49pm
Hello Niblo. As I said, I believe we agree which is hardly an argument.

The Christian answer to "Can God create another god like himself?" is no, because God was not created. It is a nonsensical question. It is like asking, "Can God create a circle with three sides and three angles?"
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
Niblo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 01 September 2016
Location: Leeds; UK
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Niblo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:43pm
Originally posted by Al Masihi Al Masihi wrote:

That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect. The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has two natures (Human and Divine) united in one personhood. If we were to say that Christ’s human nature was His Divine nature or his divine nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don’t say that. Since there are two natures there is no contradiction. Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature. Thus when we say of Christ “that is a man” and we say of Christ “that is a Divine Being” we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect.


Of course there’s a contradiction.

You are assuming that the incarnation is true in order to prove that it’s true. You are assuming that Christ has two natures in order to prove that he has two natures. You are assuming that Christ is a ‘Divine Being’ in order to prove that he is a divine being. In every case your premises assume the truth of your conclusions. This is circular reasoning; a logical fallacy in itself.

Would you argue that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is both wholly man and wholly donkey (see my reference to Aquinas)? Of course not. Then why would you think that he is both ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’? The second statement is just as ludicrous as the first; just as much a contradiction; and just as impossible.

Ponder this: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Aquinas: Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

Very best regards.
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
Back to Top
Niblo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 01 September 2016
Location: Leeds; UK
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Niblo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:45pm
Originally posted by Tim the plumber Tim the plumber wrote:

If you want to use a science fiction metaphore you could use the idea of a familure or avatar where, say in an Ian M Banks book (Very good reads all of them), a hyper inteligent computer, normally a ship, will often have a human biological bit of it freely wandering around as a human. Fully human but the brain inside is inhabited by the mind of the computer.

The ship's remote wroker drones it uses to repair stuff around and about are the same sort of thing but they are mechanical.

The ship's human avitar is, in this science fiction setting, both fully human and fully a machine intelligence.



Hi Tim.

A 'hyper intelligent computer', having a 'human biological bit of it freely wandering around as a human' is a compound. Machine plus a bit of human.

The avatar is a human with a brain that is inhabited by the 'mind of the computer' Therefore the avatar is also a compound. As you describe it, this avatar is not ‘fully a machine’ at all...only a certain function of its brain, its machine intelligence, can claim that distinction. We have to assume, since the avatar is human, that those parts of its brain that control its bodily functions are as human as yours and mine.

I’ve not read Ian Banks; but am happy to accept that he does a good job.

As you say, his books are works of fiction; exactly the same genre as the doctrine of the incarnation, some might say! I wish him every success.

Very best regards.
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
Back to Top
Niblo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 01 September 2016
Location: Leeds; UK
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Niblo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:53pm
Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

Hello Niblo. As I said, I believe we agree which is hardly an argument.

The Christian answer to "Can God create another god like himself?" is no, because God was not created. It is a nonsensical question. It is like asking, "Can God create a circle with three sides and three angles?"


Hi David

You wrote this: ‘There is nothing God cannot do. I believe this is accepted in Islam as well as Christianity.’

The article I quoted included these words:

‘That which is impossible does not exist, because it cannot exist, so it is nothing, even if the mind can imagine it. It is known that the mind can assume and imagine the impossible, the mind can imagine two opposites, such as something existing and not existing, at the same time.

‘The verse states that Allaah has power over “things” but that does not include things that are inherently impossible, because they are not things, rather they do not exist and they cannot be brought into existence.

‘Hence more than one of the scholars have stated that the power of Allaah has to do with that which is possible, for the reason that we have mentioned, which is that that which is non-existent and impossible is not a “thing”.

I wished only to demonstrate that your statement ‘I believe this is accepted in Islam as well as Christianity.’ is incorrect. We certainly are in agreement (you and I) when we say that God cannot do the inherently impossible, such as creating ‘a circle with three sides and three angles.’

Very best regards.
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
Back to Top
airmano View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote airmano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2018 at 1:31pm
Quote Niblo on "Trinity"

...This means that there are certain ‘intrinsically impossible’ things that even an omnipotent God cannot do.   He cannot be finite and at the same time infinite; absolutely immutable and at the same time changeable; omnipotent and at the same time powerless. 

To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie. 

Indeed, you bring up a very important point here. I once tried to "help the Christian view" by comparing the Trinity concept with the 2-dimensional projection of a body which -in the case of a cone for instance- can lead to a circle or a triangle, depending on the observer. So the same object can have two "contradicting" appearances albeit in a lower dimension. 
Well, it didn't go down well at the time...

To the point: I think the concept of an eternal, omnipotent and omniscient being leads in itself to unsolvable conflicts.

My thoughts on this one go like this:

A) An omniscient being must (by definition) know everything, including the past, and future and everything about itself.

B) Therefore this being can not change his mind nor take any decision since these alterations are consequences of new insight, thus something the being could/did not know before.
This is obviously in conflict with A)

C) Therefore this being must be fully static for eternity. 

Some people call [an entity in] this state simply "dead". 


Airmano
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
Back to Top
airmano View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote airmano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2018 at 1:47pm
@DavidC

Quote Hello Niblo. As I said, I believe we agree which is hardly an argument.
The Christian answer to "Can God create another god like himself?" is no, because God was not created. It is a nonsensical question. It is like asking, "Can God create a circle with three sides and three angles?"
If I see your point correctly you argue that logic exists outside the realm of God. It was thus not created [by him] nor can it be overruled by God either.

Do I interpret you correctly ?


Airmano
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 May 2018 at 6:04am
Not exactly but true in part. I do not know if God created logic, but I suspect it is part of the 3D world he created. Aristotle, who defined human logic, states logic is only applicable to physical things.

God, angels, djinn and other elohim are not subject to logic as they are not physical. Neither is anything in the emotional realm.

God is not constrained by time, but does appear to function sequentially.

Reason, not logic, is useful in approaching God. Logic is rarely applicable. We can infer, but we cannot deduce because we cannot define the limits of God. The classic error in amateur intellectualism is a failure to adequately examine the basis of axioms and postulates before building upon them.

Aquinas did the early Christian theological work on the logic of God using apophatic logic, but truly this was more a pragmatic way of defining where logic and reason are not useful in theology, Aquinas is dogmatic in this area and not doctrinal.

Al Ghazzali wrote extensively on this topic from an Islamic perspective in 'A Niche for Light' and 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'. These are essential reading which demonstrate Islam is a sound theology and not a superstition.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.