Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 3/6/2017 at 3:16 AM, 313 Seeker said:

Salam,

not sure if somebody said that before on the 4 pages, but this has a simple solution to me.

 

- First of all no human actually knows what energy is, or has every seen it. All we see is the result and influences thereof.

Name of Allah ( Al-Batin - The Hidden; the All Encompassing )


- Secondly, one form of Energy is "Light". And even though we can only 'see' within a certain spectrum, we know that light has practically a limitless spectrum. Also, in essence all forms of energy, be they sound, x-ray, etc .. are the same.

Scientists study them nowadays by imagining they are either waves or packets of imaginary energy called quanta; hence, wave and quantum theories. 

Name of Allah ( al-Nour - the Light )

 

The Light is eternal and has always existed, and always exist. So I would go so far as saying that Allah is the Energy. Therefore it does not contradict the law claiming that 'it' can be neither destroyed or created. 

 

From a purely logic perspective:

 

1. Light = Energy

therefore,

2. Energy = Light

 

  • the Light =   al Nour = al Lah = the God

 

 

That's how I see it ..

 

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth." :love:

 

 

 

 

Salam,

It seems you are saying energy is immaterial.  But how so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2017 at 2:17 AM, eThErEaL said:

So what is eternal?  Think of:  

1 + 1 =  2  

This is an eternal truth because there is no situation or circumstance that can make this statement false.  This statement is true in all situations and in all circumstances.  It is therefore eternally true and can never be otherwise.  

I am merely disagreeing with this statement of yours and I will try and explain my reasoning.

I believe that 1+1=2 is a convenient shortcut we humans use. It can be true and false.

5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So, 1+1 = 2 is only true in our minds and will only be true inasmuch as "we think about it".... but not true in the natural world?  So, we all just think "1 + 1 = 2"?  There is absolutely nothing objective about 1+ 1= 2?  

So we can't really count things in the natural world?  So when you look at one apple and then you look at another apple, they don't necessarily equate to 2 apples.  They only equate to 2 apples so long as you think they equate to two apples? 

Is there a difference to you between knowing  something and thinking something?

Do you know that 1 + 1 = 2 or do you merely think that 1 + 1 = 2?

what does it mean tin"KNOW" anything at all?  Is knowledge of things  just mere thinking about things?

The two apples are not 'precisely the same' they do not 'equal' each other in either colour or shape but you are welcome to conclude that they do. 
If you add a river to a river does it make two rivers?.. Or a desert to a desert?

It really depends on how you define "have existence". I define "having existence" in the sense that can be understood by the statement, "Santa Clause does not exist."
He exists in the mind but not outside the mind. Hence I claim that he doesn't exist but you are welcome to believe that he does.

Also knowledge is not eternal, as you claim, it does not come from a "knowledge bank" of nature. It comes from our brain. Knowledge cannot exist without somebody experiencing and confirming.

In the beginning there was no knowledge whatsoever. In fact, our entire universe existed and operated for multiple billions of years before knowledge ever existed for the first time.

Knowledge does not exist until it is known by a sentient being. 
Anything that happens without a sentient being observing it is occurring without any knowledge whatsoever.

Knowledge is all that is known. The unknown is everything else.
The sets are mutual exclusive.
While knowledge can be false, the unknown can never be false. For something to be false it must be known.

Just my opinion, you don't have to buy it. :)

wslm.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why there is still fuss regarding this topic. You see, there are 2 basic forms of energy: 1. Kinetic Energy ( This type of energy is spoken of with any material thing in motion (which entails both space and time, since there cannot be movement of an object without space and time.

             2. Potential Energy ( Any type of this form of energy is stored energy in a potential field (which again, entails space.

My point: ANY type of energy from those two (basic) forms I mentioned, CANNOT exist without space-time. So if space-time began to exist, then energy started to exist shortly after space and time came into existence. This is derived from both basic logic and knowledge of what energy actually is.

What physicists like Einstein mean(t) with '' Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only transitioned from one form to another'' is one of the many physical laws, but if space-time did not begin to exist yet (which is the framework of physicality) it becomes MEANINGLESS to say that energy exists magically 'before space-time'.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

It seems you are saying energy is immaterial.  But how so?

 

Wasalaam

Material is energy as well. Atoms are just fields of energy that we describe as a negative surrounding (electron(s) ) with a positive core (protons). Everything is energy. The drawings people make of electrons spinning around a little sphere are just for our imagination. All we know is from measurements that there is a negative and positive. Duality of everything. 

Edited by 313 Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Quisant said:

I am merely disagreeing with this statement of yours and I will try and explain my reasoning.

I believe that 1+1=2 is a convenient shortcut we humans use. It can be true and false.

The two apples are not 'precisely the same' they do not 'equal' each other in either colour or shape but you are welcome to conclude that they do. 
If you add a river to a river does it make two rivers?.. Or a desert to a desert?

It really depends on how you define "have existence". I define "having existence" in the sense that can be understood by the statement, "Santa Clause does not exist."
He exists in the mind but not outside the mind. Hence I claim that he doesn't exist but you are welcome to believe that he does.

Also knowledge is not eternal, as you claim, it does not come from a "knowledge bank" of nature. It comes from our brain. Knowledge cannot exist without somebody experiencing and confirming.

In the beginning there was no knowledge whatsoever. In fact, our entire universe existed and operated for multiple billions of years before knowledge ever existed for the first time.

Knowledge does not exist until it is known by a sentient being. 
Anything that happens without a sentient being observing it is occurring without any knowledge whatsoever.

Knowledge is all that is known. The unknown is everything else.
The sets are mutual exclusive.
While knowledge can be false, the unknown can never be false. For something to be false it must be known.

Just my opinion, you don't have to buy it. :)

wslm.

*

So 1 + 1 = 2 is both true and false?

 

Everything you have said about two apples not being identical is trivial and obvious.  Of course no two things are identical.  I don't think anyone would ever claim such a thing.   

To answer your questions....

If you add two deserts to each other then you get two deserts (and the same for two rivers).   if you mean "putting two deserts or two rivers together" then that is not "adding" because putting two together also means eliminating each of their intrinsic identities for what they are.  If you mean "putting together" you might not be adding two different rivers or two different deserts but you will certainly be adding two different quantities of water or of sand (respectively).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Popular Contributors last week! Congratulations! @LeftCoastMom @hasanhh @Sirius_Bright @Smiles786 @Kazemi @Mohamed1993 @Jebreil @.InshAllah. @laithAlIRAQI @E.L King @Son of Placid @AmirAlmuminin Lover @kirtc @Darth Vader  
    • Salam brother, If you want to be a shia of imam Ali(as), then it is better you take after his akhlaq, he had respect for the the wife of the Prophet(S) as shown in the battle of Jamal, lets also have some level of respect in honor of our 1th Imam(as) and our Prophet(S) and let Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى be the judge.
    • ـ الإمام الصادق (ع): امتحنوا شيعتنا عند ثلاث: عند مواقيت الصلوات كيف محافظتهم عليها ، وعند أسرارهم كيف حفظهم لها عن عدونا ، وإلى أموالـهم كيف مواساتهم لإخوانهم فيها. Imam al-Sadiq (AS) said, ‘Test our Shi`aa with regard to three things: the prayer times to see how well they observe them, their secrets to see how well they guard them from our enemies, and their wealth to see how they help out their fellow brothers with it. [Bihar al-Anwar, v. 83, p. 22, no. 40]
    • When Hezbollah or any group helps Palestine, they're helping them because they're oppressed. Who they choose to consider heroes is their choice, our part is to bring justice; to bring back the land to its true owners. Whatever is done in the land is up to its people.
    • This image of palestinians unveiling a memorial of Saddam the dog is going around. It made me think, we as shias have shown the most support out of any other nation. Hezbollah has sacrificed thousands of men for their freedom. Yet they backstab us by supporting our killers and joining ISIS
×