What, in your belief, is the nature of God?

[313_Waiter]

23 hours ago, MexicanVato said:

313_Waiter akhi, I think your views are more in line with this Sufi master than Ibn Arabi

That quote by Ibn Sab’in at 6:31 reminded me of this quote by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) (I have also heard Sheikh Hamza Yusuf attribute it to him but I can’t seem to find a reference):

Quote

in everything i see, i see allah before it, i see allah in it, and i see allah after it.

 

[Shahrukh K]

On 4/5/2021 at 6:08 AM, 313_Waiter said:

how can I read the Quran like you?

I want to tell you another story, this is called Zen koans....

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

My friend @313_Waiter empty your cup.

[313_Waiter]

1 hour ago, Shahrukh K said:

My friend @313_Waiter empty your cup.

It is almost impossible. We are driven by society, biases, culture etc.

[Dave follower of The Way]

On 6/16/2021 at 9:58 PM, Shahrukh K said:

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

I think this story shows the difference between Eastern religion and faith in the Great Creator God.  Zen is about empting yourself of your own ideas and self.  Whereas God the Almighty calls us as we are - valuable people with a unique identity - to come to him and allow him to work on us like a potter with the clay and transform us into a new creation made in his likeness with his charactaristics but still contained in the jar of our uniqueness.

We need what is in us from our life and experience to be able to engage with God.  Yet we come humbly allowing God to speek and listening to his guidence.

[Dave follower of The Way]

@Shahrukh K Potter, Spider, dreams

All nice pictures and mataphores with the normal short comings that dirive from metaphore.

Each one has strengths and weaknesses.  The great thing is your first comment

On 5/26/2021 at 1:13 PM, Shahrukh K said:

In the beginning before the universe was created only Allah existed.

This is such a fundamental starting point.  It lifts God above our own intellectual struggles to understand the universe and its beginnings.

We cannot know or understand with our created minds how God went about the creation.  But we know, as people of faith, that through the power of his words what we now call 'reality' came into existence.

I understand the role of God's revelation of himself through the Holy Books is not to tell us 'how' but to invite his creation into a closeness and an intimacy with himself. 

As a follower of Jesus, I see God as a relational being.  He created in order to relate.  His very being is relational and so out of his being came the desire and realisation of another relational being (as Genesis says 'made in God's image').  We are missing a vital core of our humanity if we are not in intimate relationship with the God who made us to know him and walk with him for eternity.

[Abdul-Hadi]

On 6/22/2021 at 6:13 AM, Dave follower of The Way said:

As a follower of Jesus, I see God as a relational being.  He created in order to relate.  His very being is relational and so out of his being came the desire and realisation of another relational being (as Genesis says 'made in God's image').  We are missing a vital core of our humanity if we are not in intimate relationship with the God who made us to know him and walk with him for eternity.

I used to believe this. I spent many years in high school and beyond trying to have that "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" that Christians talk about. I went to the altar calls, I said the prayers, I read the bible every day (matter of fact, I've probably outread many of them when it comes to the bible), but I could never get to that point that all of the other Christian kids seemed to get to where they had that "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".  It just didn't ever happen and I still felt empty inside, was still chasing after the things of the world and definitely had no desire to convert people by leaving tracts or "witnessing" to them, which is something that is non-negotiable in evangelical Christianity... you're always supposed to be trying to fill seats in your church and for what? What do you really do at those churches the two or three times a week that you go?

You sit in a big auditorium and listen to a guy give his thoughts on maybe three of four verses of the bible for maybe a half an hour, then the hat gets passed around and you're expected to cough up money, he gives the sales pitch and the "sinners" are supposed to go up to the front and repeat a prayer and then BOOM! All of their spiritual problems are supposedly solved and it doesn't matter how many people they killed or how many times they've fornicated, they're going to heaven. Maybe someone takes a dunk in a special pool/tub and this symbolizes that they're "officially christians" (or is how they're actually saved, depending on the flavor of the church). Some alternative rock songs are performed both in the beginning and at the end and people hold their hands over their heads and close their eyes to symbolize how "saved" they are... It just never did anything for me and it all felt horrendously contrived and fake and this made me feel objectively horrible because I was like "Why can't I get what these people have? What is so bad about me that I can't be like these people?"

Maybe it's because I grew up in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, with all of it's pageantry and sacred mystique of the man dressed as a wizard and his magic rituals that the standard American church offered nothing to me because it didn't "feel" like what I had expected church to feel like, but the fact that it felt like nothing to me and felt contrived always made me feel awful about myself, like there was something wrong with me. I went to many of the youth conferences too, including Acquire the Fire, which was the Republican National Convention of youth conferences in the late 90s and early 2000s (the exact time that America evangelical christianity began to decline and die in relevance, believe it or not). None of it felt the way that a religious experience was supposed to feel-- it felt more like a rock concert combined with a conservative political rally, as there was so much talk of "battle" this and "struggle" that. Of course the people who I went with were crying and holding each other, hands above their heads, eyes closed, some across the way making random noises supposedly speaking "in tongues".

But I never felt what I was supposed to feel with all of this, so I began looking for God in other places. Only years after this did I begin to find out the truth of what scholars believed about the bible, and it crushed me, because the veracity of the stories within were still something that I believed to be (mostly) true, particularly the gospels. I had no idea that these four books were not written by anyone who had actually been there with Jesus and that the authors were pretty much unknown. Then I learned that there were other gospels that exist and that were not included in the Bible, and finally, I learned that the myth of the Bible being "the word of God" was just that: a myth. Early Christians did not have what we know as being "the bible" and the bible did not exist until around the third century after Jesus. This destroyed me inside, because everything I had been taught was that the Bible just basically came down to man along with Jesus and that you had to have the Bible to really have a relationship with god. Then as I looked further into it, I discovered that the Bible wasn't translated into English until the year 1611 and that many Baptist churches believe that this 1611 KJV of the Bible is the "authoritative" version despite it lacking 7 of the books that the Roman Catholics and even more that the Orthodox use.

[Ali bin Hussein]

On 4/10/2021 at 6:10 AM, Shahrukh K said:

How ?

From where he brought all the material to create this universe ?

From nothing ?

[Ali bin Hussein]

On 4/3/2021 at 2:52 AM, 313_Waiter said:

Salaam / Hi,

What, in your belief, is the nature of God? Please also explain why you believe this is so. 

Do you believe in (note: they may not be mutually exclusive):

• Pantheism: everything is part of God who encompasses all things. 
• Panentheism: God is everywhere, but at the same time transcends all things. The universe could be seen as a manifestation of God (like the sun and its rays, or the ocean and the waves of the ocean or like clothing and individual threads...). Other forms of panentheism may assert that the universe is contained within God. 
•  

Great post.

Can you explain the difference between 

Pantheism and Panentheism as both seem like they are not mutually exclusive 

[Mohamad Abdel-Hamid]

I don't know if this has been mentionned before, but this reminded me of the debate Imam al-Rida (عليه السلام) had with a Sabian in the court of Ma'moun, about the existence and nature of God. Here's his reply:

إن الله المبدئ، الواحد، الكائن، الأول لم يزل واحدا لا شيء معه، فرداً لا ثاني معه، لا معلوماً ولا مجهولاً ولا، محكماً ولا متشابهاً، ولا مذكورا ولا منسياً، ولا شيئاً يقع عليه اسم شيء من الأشياء غيره، ولا من وقت كان ولا إلى وقت يكون، ولا بشيء قام ولا إلى شيء يقوم، ولا إلى شيء استند، ولا في شيء استكن، وذلك كله قبل الخلق إذ لا شيء غيره، وما أوقعت عليه من الكل فهي صفات محدثة، وترجمة يفهم بها من فهم

“Certainly, God is the Only Initiator, and the first Ever-Being. He has always been One without anything to accompany Him. He is One and there are no seconds for Him. He is neither definite nor indefinite. He is neither decisive nor allegorical. He is neither mentioned nor forgotten. He is not a thing such that a name of things can fit Him. There is no time for the beginning of His Being. And there is no time until which only He will last. He has not been standing upon anything else, nor will He be standing upon anything. There is nothing up until which He is. There is nothing on which He leans. He had all these attributes before creating anything when there was nothing but Him. Whatever you attribute to Him will be originated attributes which are only means for understanding Him, which anyone possessing understanding can comprehend."

For those who are more interested in the debate in Arabic: https://ar.wikishia.net/view/مناظرة_الإمام_الرضا_عليه_السلام_مع_الصابئة

In English, pages 113-120: http://www.jaffaribooks.com/books/UYUN AKHBAR AL-REZA VOL 1(rev).pdf

 

[313_Waiter]

10 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

From nothing ?

If by no-thing you mean non-existence, then non-existence (by definition) does not exist, is not, was not and will never be.

[Ali bin Hussein]

4 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

If by no-thing you mean non-existence, then non-existence (by definition) does not exist, is not, was not and will never be.

I mean the absence anything we as humans can perceive from the senses or imagine from the mind.

from a current science point of view that would be energy,matter, dimension of space, and time.

Definition of thing

1)an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.

2)an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

so I do mean no-thing from the definition of "thing"

thesaurus for exist:

liveb, be alive, be living ,have life

breathe ,draw breath ,be, have being

So I think saying no-thing is non- existence is a dishonest use of English.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Ali bin Hussein

[313_Waiter]

 

On 6/24/2021 at 7:34 PM, Ali bin Hussein said:

I mean the absence anything we as humans can perceive from the senses or imagine from the mind.

from a current science point of view that would be energy,matter, dimension of space, and time.

 

 

Sorry, you are not making much sense to me. Are you saying that God brought about “creation” from His own energy, power? 

On 6/24/2021 at 7:34 PM, Ali bin Hussein said:

So I think saying no-thing is non- existence is a dishonest use of English

Allah knows I was not trying to be dishonest. 
إِنَّهُ عَليمٌ بِذاتِ الصُّدورِ

Rather, the philosophical definition of nothingness (or at least “true nothingness”) is:

Quote

"Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

This, to me is a common understanding of nothing. When I say I have nothing in my pockets, it is not commonly thought to mean that I have “matter” in my pockets, it means my pockets are empty.

Thus the definition of thing as “anything” or “an object / entity” is applied here.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by 313_Waiter

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

 

Sorry, you are not making much sense to me. Are you saying that God brought about “creation” from His own energy, power? 

Allah knows I was not trying to be dishonest. 
إِنَّهُ عَليمٌ بِذاتِ الصُّدورِ

 

Sorry brother I didn't mean dishonest as you had a bad intention. Maybe it was a poor choice if words on my part.

I can't use the term energy as by my understanding, energy is part of the material world and can be used and manipulated by the creation and itself is a creation of Allah.

Allah is not composed of energy and does not need energy. 

Allah created energy.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ali bin Hussein

[Ali bin Hussein]

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

:

This, to me is a common understanding of nothing. When I say I have nothing in my pockets, it is not commonly thought to mean that I have “matter” in my pockets, it means my pockets are empty.

Thus the definition of thing as “anything” or “an object / entity” is applied here.

 

 

That empty pocket is understood as no sold or liquid in your pocket. Everyone will justifiably ignore air/gas in the context of speaking about your pocket.

The analogy doesn't help with my/ your use if "nothing".

Also I never used the term nothingness.

I said "nothing" which I have defined both scientifically and linguistically.

So I'll emphasize my belief

Allah created everything from nothing.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ali bin Hussein

[313_Waiter]

23 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

Sorry brother I didn't mean dishonest as you had a bad intention. Maybe it was a poor choice if words on my part.

I can't use the term energy as by my understanding, energy is part of the material world and can be used and manipulated by the creation and itself is a creation of Allah.

Allah is not composed of energy and does not need energy. 

Allah created energy.

Thanks for clarifying brother, I appreciate it.

So I assume you affirm Dualism as per the definition in my OP?

It does not make sense to me how dualism could be true if Allah (azwj) is using His own power to create creation. It doesn’t make sense to me to envision creation like bricklaying, where the bricklayer uses something “separate” (as understood commonly) to “create” something. If we affirm this understanding of creation, well then where did this “separate” material come from? 

It also doesn’t make sense to me how if we affirm our existence, we naturally assign a portion of Existence to ourselves and another portion to Existence to Allah (azwj). Would this not mean that God is finite?

 

22 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

That empty pocket is understood as no sold or liquid in your pocket. Everyone will justifiably ignore air/gas in the context of speaking about your pocket.

The analogy doesn't help with my/ your use if "nothing".

Also I never used the term nothingness.

I said "nothing" which I have defined both scientifically and linguistically.

So I'll emphasize my belief

Allah created everything from nothing.

I understand your perspective. Though I always thought that when people talk about nothing they meant the philosophical nothing (non-existence). You’re right in that there is no such things as non-existence since even the pockets contain gas or space, I just don’t think people are aware of this or pay much attention to it.  Though I may be wrong and am happy to admit it.

Though I have seen the atheist Lawrence Krauss use the term “nothing” in the way that you use it since he has a book called “A universe from nothing”. Allah knows best his intentions though.

 

I’m not sure most theists, when they talk about Creatio ex nihilo, are affirming your understanding of nihilo.
 

Wallahu A’lam

[Dave follower of The Way]

On 6/29/2021 at 10:36 AM, 313_Waiter said:

Sorry, you are not making much sense to me. Are you saying that God brought about “creation” from His own energy, power?

I'm not sure where this discusion is getting us.

In my understanding God creating from nothing is emphasising that God is above and beyond and different from everything else.

This elevates God to the only being worthy of worship and service.  I sense in discussing the finaries of what is "nothing" and how did God create we are missing the vital point that there is a God who wants to enage with humans and that he is the source of our life and being.

The amazing thing to me is that this great creator God who holds the universe in his hands (metaphorically of course) whats to enter into relationship with people and has chosen to reveal himself to us in a way we can relate to.  Particularly through the person of Jesus the Messiah who lived amongst us to show us clearly what God is like.

[Northwest]

I was browsing through the archives and noticed this thread.

Ambivalently I adhere to a Deistic—necessarily dualistic—view: while not precluding Divine intervention, I find that God’s transcendence and impersonality pose problems for the notion of communicability. If God is utterly unlike His creation, then He is not relatable; if so, human concepts and/or means do not seem applicable. I.e., human language (‘pleasure’/‘displeasure’) and causality do not work; however, the Quran and Bible (partly?) imply otherwise.

Another issue is that there is no logical reason as to why the All-Sufficient (hence All-Knowing) would create at all or wish to be (made) known. Such a Being, Unique, would not have a motive to relate to anything else; all else would be inferior. There is evidence to support His existence, but less to demonstrate His relatability, in my view. So the Abrahamic, even Islamic, conception of God still appears to be internally inconsistent, though I might be missing something.

If God is incomparable, then His actions, like His essence, cannot be described; human emotions cannot be used as referents. Somewhat contradictorily, the Bible and Quran insist that God is inconceivable yet relatable. If He is indescribable, then nothing can mirror Him, even indirectly, so one cannot point to creation as proof of His intelligence, for then He would be relatable. Man would be perceiving God through the prism of his own self.

Nevertheless I believe in a Creator, but I do not dare to divine (no pun intended) His purpose, if any.

[Eddie Mecca]

On 3/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, Northwest said:

I find that God’s transcendence and impersonality pose problems for the notion of communicability. If God is utterly unlike His creation, then He is not relatable; if so, human concepts and/or means do not seem applicable. I.e., human language (‘pleasure’/‘displeasure’) and causality do not work; however, the Quran and Bible (partly?) imply otherwise.

God is absolutely transcendent and distant and unmoved and remote...for example, He's The Eternal, The Absolute...Allah is above His Throne and above and beyond all His creation...but Muslims are taught that He's simultaneously, "near", "aware", "cognitive", "intelligent", "involved" etc....Also, He's "kind", "caring", "loving", "merciful", "beneficent", "compassionate", "forgiving" etc....He's Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent...He's absolutely equitable and fair...He can be "wrathful" and "angry" and "angered"...the attributes used to describe Him are sometimes juxtaposed in the Qurʾān...some are general and some are specific...some are literal and others are meant to be descriptive...they're often side-by-side and complementing one another...Muslims realize that human language is being used, and no matter how lofty or refined, it can never capture the true essence...the various descriptions are estimates...the Most High cannot be truly captured and recounted...but revelation attempts to paint a portrait or snap a panoramic photograph of the unimaginable and unfathomable...descriptions found in revelation are an approximation of the divine...this is more-or-less the understanding of every traditional Muslim...the Salafi interpretation is much more anthropomorphic and literal..."He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed. He is the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise." Chapter 59, Verses 22-24

Edited March 28 by Eddie Mecca

[Northwest]

On 3/28/2025 at 9:05 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

God is absolutely transcendent and distant and unmoved and remote...for example, He's The Eternal, The Absolute...Allah is above His Throne and above and beyond all His creation...

@Eddie Mecca This has always been my conception of the Absolute as well: it is closely tied to the Abrahamic view of God’s essence. Nevertheless, a Creator Who is fundamentally Other than, and apart from, His creation, in my view, is well beyond human comprehension. In other words, His attributes cannot be likened to (those of) anything that He has created. At precisely this point, somewhat unexpectedly, I run into problems with the Abrahamic vision, finding it internally contradictory where it also asserts the following:

On 3/28/2025 at 9:05 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

He's simultaneously, "near", "aware", "cognitive", "intelligent", "involved" etc....Also, He's "kind", "caring", "loving", "merciful", "beneficent", "compassionate", "forgiving" etc.... He can be "wrathful" and "angry" and "angered"...

^ Given that God is Who He is, analogies such as these do not seem to hold. After all, His “intelligence” cannot be likened to that of any creation, nor can human emotion or animal behaviour—and its language—be used as a referent. Moreover, if God is perceived as doing something, or as reacting, He is perceived as a Mover, when in truth He is Unmoved. Human perspective ends up “framing” God, one way or another: yet God, by His nature, is Unframed. Maybe I am being pretentious, but I feel that God is too Holy (that is, the Sacrosanct Other), Separate, to really be described, even tentatively or approximately, lest the creature’s ego serve as a lens.

On 3/28/2025 at 9:05 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Muslims realize that human language is being used, and no matter how lofty or refined, it can never capture the true essence...the various descriptions are estimates...the Most High cannot be truly captured and recounted...but revelation attempts to paint a portrait or snap a panoramic photograph of the unimaginable and unfathomable...descriptions found in revelation are an approximation of the divine...this is more-or-less the understanding of every traditional Muslim...

On the one hand, a Creator seems self-evident; on the other, so does the insurmountable gap between Creator and creation. If not for the former, the latter would arguably point toward atheism: but I think the conundrum is better solved by a Deistic (not Deist—I am not so dogmatic as to categorically preclude Divine intervention!) perspective. In my view, God is the Unbounded One Who is not tied to His creation in any way. Being utterly Other, He does not expect His creation to communicate with Him, or vice versa, nor does either party demand anything of each other, being too unlike.

The problem with this, of course, is the same problem I have with the Abrahamic conception: I do not understand why the All-Sufficient would create at all. The divide between Creator and creation further buttresses my perplexity. All the research I have done over the years, here and elsewhere (I am bookish), has not led me to enough certainty on this and certain other matters of fundamental importance. I am still open-minded, of course, so I am willing to change, pending more evidence or better understanding.

[Eddie Mecca]

On 3/30/2025 at 12:51 PM, Northwest said:

He does not expect His creation to communicate with Him

Yeah, but we do naturally and inately and without coercion:

"The big questions of life" refers to fundamental, philosophical inquiries about existence, purpose, meaning, and destiny, often explored in various fields like philosophy, religion, and personal reflection. 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

What are they?

These are questions that delve into the core of human existence, such as our origins, our place in the universe, and the nature of reality. 

Common examples:

"Where did I come from?" 

"Who am I?" 

"Why am I here?" 

"How should I live?" 

"Where am I going?" 

"What is the meaning of life?" 

"Is there an afterlife?" 

Edited April 3 by Eddie Mecca

[Northwest]

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Yeah, but we do naturally and innately and without coercion:

"The big questions of life" refers to fundamental, philosophical inquiries about existence, purpose, meaning, and destiny, often explored in various fields like philosophy, religion, and personal reflection. 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

What are they?

These are questions that delve into the core of human existence, such as our origins, our place in the universe, and the nature of reality. 

Common examples:

"Where did I come from?" 

"Who am I?" 

"Why am I here?" 

"How should I live?" 

"Where am I going?" 

"What is the meaning of life?" 

"Is there an afterlife?" 

@Eddie Mecca All this does not address the crux of my post, nor the specific points it addresses. The fact that man may be able to ponder existential matters does not, by itself, prove that communication between the Other and creation is feasible. An Entity that is utterly Other and the All-Sufficient is neither relatable nor has a logical reason to create spacetime. (After all, the act of creation presupposes a “need,” if not human-like “intelligence,” and human-like “thought” itself implies movement, even if internal; yet God is the Unmoved Other. Moreover, creation implies a purpose and hence some form of interdependence.) Moreover, frames of reference differ utterly. Apples and oranges, though distinct, are comparable; Creator and creation are not. Any attempt by man to communicate with or describe God would seemingly fail.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/30/2025 at 8:21 PM, Northwest said:

The problem with this, of course, is the same problem I have with the Abrahamic conception: I do not understand why the All-Sufficient would create at all. The divide between Creator and creation further buttresses my perplexity. All the research I have done over the years, here and elsewhere (I am bookish), has not led me to enough certainty on this and certain other matters of fundamental importance. I am still open-minded, of course, so I am willing to change, pending more evidence or better understanding.

Hi this is your misunderstanding about "the All-Sufficient" which you have presumed that he have created everything for himself & using it for himself which it's contradictory with being "the All-Sufficient" while in holy Quran he has not created anything for himself or using it by himself which he doesn't need to use his creation so therefore he is totally independent from his creation but all of his creation is totally dependant to him  so therefore "the All-Sufficient" which you have misinterpreted it by comparing him with a human being ; which he is source of everything as most highest point of everything  ; which an  example for better understanding he is likewise an eternal fire which it doesn't need a source for burning which all other forms of fires have been taken from it which taking another forms of fire from the eternal fire doesn't cause any decrease in the eternal fire which totally independent from  any forms of extracted fires in order to continue burning while  on the other hand all extracted fires from it are dependant to it in order to continue burning which in similar fashion he is totally independent creator even from any material which his attribute of creation is about Allah's total perfection and flawlessness which he creates due to being the  most prefect & flawless not due his imperfection & flaw .

Quote

The attributes of divine beauty and majesty are a term in theology and theoretical mysticism for categorizing the attributes of  Allah. "Glory"جلال "Jalal" means greatness and grandeur, and theologians consider the attributes that indicate Allah's perfection and flawlessness to be "the attributes of glory." "Grace"جمال "Jamal" also means beauty, and the attributes that indicate a perfection of Allah's perfections are considered to be the attributes of "beauty." In the eyes of theologians, this term is another interpretation of the division of Allah's attributes into fixative and Forfeiture.

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/صفات_جمال_و_جلال_الهی

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/صفات_ثبوتیه_خدا

 

[Abu Hadi]

On 3/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, Northwest said:

I was browsing through the archives and noticed this thread.

Ambivalently I adhere to a Deistic—necessarily dualistic—view: while not precluding Divine intervention, I find that God’s transcendence and impersonality pose problems for the notion of communicability. If God is utterly unlike His creation, then He is not relatable; if so, human concepts and/or means do not seem applicable. I.e., human language (‘pleasure’/‘displeasure’) and causality do not work; however, the Quran and Bible (partly?) imply otherwise.

Another issue is that there is no logical reason as to why the All-Sufficient (hence All-Knowing) would create at all or wish to be (made) known. Such a Being, Unique, would not have a motive to relate to anything else; all else would be inferior. There is evidence to support His existence, but less to demonstrate His relatability, in my view. So the Abrahamic, even Islamic, conception of God still appears to be internally inconsistent, though I might be missing something.

If God is incomparable, then His actions, like His essence, cannot be described; human emotions cannot be used as referents. Somewhat contradictorily, the Bible and Quran insist that God is inconceivable yet relatable. If He is indescribable, then nothing can mirror Him, even indirectly, so one cannot point to creation as proof of His intelligence, for then He would be relatable. Man would be perceiving God through the prism of his own self.

Nevertheless I believe in a Creator, but I do not dare to divine (no pun intended) His purpose, if any.

For the first point, i.e. whether God is relatable despite being unlike His(s.w.a) creation, I would add the following.

I don't know if you are familiar with IT terminology or not, but in programming, there is something called an Interface. The interface allows other parts of the code to access this part of the code in a structured way, without being aware of it's details. God has an interface thru which human beings can interact with Him(s.w.a) and can know something about Him(s.w.a). This is called religion and it's one of the main reasons God(s.w.a) sent religion to mankind and prophets. We know about God what he says about Himself(s.w.a) thru Divine Books and Prophets. We say God is merciful because that is what religion teaches us. This was revealed to us thru Prophets and Divine books. We can related to this because the quality of mercy is something that is known to us and is present in certain, but not all human beings. Same thing with the other qualities we Muslims call the 99 names. These qualities are more comprehensive in God vs what they are in human beings but they are still the same qualities. 

As for the assumption that God wouldn't wish to be known, this is an assumption. We can know God(s.w.a) but only what He(s.w.a) tells us about Himself(s.w.a). Once we go beyond what is revealed to us thru religion and start making assumptions about what God thinks or how He(s.w.a) feels (besides what we are told about this thru religion), we are on a slippery slope which leads to disbelief in God altogether. We cannot relate to God in the way that we relate to human beings, it is not a 1 to 1. The obvious reason is because human beings are limited, i.e. they have a limited amount of dimensions to their existence (space, time, thought, desires, wants, etc). God is infinite and His(s.w.a) existence is infinite and has infinite aspects to it, some of which we can comprehend, and some of which we cannot comprehend. In order to 'get into the mind of God', we would have to reduce these infinite dimensions and infinite existence down to the finite, i.e. like us. This reduction that we have created would not be God, but would be merely a product of our own imagination about God. Then we would make assumptions based on this imagination and this would lead us down a dark path which, again, ends in atheism or disbelief. So it is better not to make these assumptions. 

BTW, we have hadiths that say that God wanted to be known, and that is why He(s.w.a) created everything, including us. Why God wanted to be known or what was the motive behind this actions is something we can never know and something we should not make assumptions about. 

In short, the limited and finite (all of us and all of creation) can only understand the infinite and unlimited (God) to a certain point. Beyond that point, we have no ability to understand because of our nature (limited and finite). At the same time, we can understand many things about God which are similar (though not the same) to qualities we have as human beings, because the source of these qualities in the infinited (i.e. God). 

Edited April 5 by Abu Hadi

[Northwest]

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

For the first point, i.e. whether God is relatable despite being unlike His(s.w.a) creation, I would add the following.

I don't know if you are familiar with IT terminology or not, but in programming, there is something called an Interface. The interface allows other parts of the code to access this part of the code in a structured way, without being aware of its details. God has an interface thru which human beings can interact with Him(s.w.a) and can know something about Him(s.w.a). This is called religion and it's one of the main reasons God(s.w.a) sent religion to mankind and prophets. We know about God what he says about Himself(s.w.a) thru Divine Books and Prophets. We say God is merciful because that is what religion teaches us. This was revealed to us thru Prophets and Divine books. We can related to this because the quality of mercy is something that is known to us and is present in certain, but not all human beings. Same thing with the other qualities we Muslims call the 99 names. These qualities are more comprehensive in God vs what they are in human beings but they are still the same qualities.

@Abu Hadi Your analogy does not seem to fit. An IT interface is created by and for humans, dealing with human concepts—on human terms. Re: qualities: I don’t think that one can apply language such as “mercy,” or human qualities in general, to God. By doing so we end up framing God, using human language as a referent. “Mercy” etc. is only conceivable to human nature. Since God is not human, or even comparable to man (or anything He created), I do not think that human concepts can be used of Him. He would then become a man-like God.

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the assumption that God wouldn't wish to be known, this is an assumption. We can know God(s.w.a) but only what He(s.w.a) tells us about Himself(s.w.a). Once we go beyond what is revealed to us thru religion and start making assumptions about what God thinks or how He(s.w.a) feels (besides what we are told about this thru religion), we are on a slippery slope which leads to disbelief in God altogether.

Re: “slippery slopes”: I do not identify as a Muslim (yet), so apostasy is not an issue for me. While God might wish to be known, there seems to be no basis for doing so, aside from the claims of His worshippers. Moreover, as I said, the claims of His adherents seem to contradict themselves. On the one hand God is the All-Sufficient and Unrelated; on the other He willingly binds Himself to His creation, i.e., through commitments. At any rate, there seems to be no medium by which an inconceivable Entity, the Other, can communicate with His creation.

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

We cannot relate to God in the way that we relate to human beings, it is not a 1 to 1.

^ This is precisely why I question the whole notion of being able to relate to God. I base my view on the Abrahamic tradition itself, i.e., its claims about the nature and essence of God: His utter transcendence and uniqueness, for instance.

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The obvious reason is because human beings are limited, i.e. they have a limited amount of dimensions to their existence (space, time, thought, desires, wants, etc). God is infinite and His(s.w.a) existence is infinite and has infinite aspects to it, some of which we can comprehend, and some of which we cannot comprehend. In order to 'get into the mind of God', we would have to reduce these infinite dimensions and infinite existence down to the finite, i.e. like us. This reduction that we have created would not be God, but would be merely a product of our own imagination about God. Then we would make assumptions based on this imagination and this would lead us down a dark path which, again, ends in atheism or disbelief. So it is better not to make these assumptions. 

BTW, we have hadiths that say that God wanted to be known, and that is why He(s.w.a) created everything, including us. Why God wanted to be known or what was the motive behind this actions is something we can never know and something we should not make assumptions about.

Let me clarify: I am coming to organised religion as an outsider. The burden of proof, therefore, is on religion—in this case Islam—to provide convincing answers to fundamental questions. I find at least some of its answers contradictory.

15 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

In short, the limited and finite (all of us and all of creation) can only understand the infinite and unlimited (God) to a certain point. Beyond that point, we have no ability to understand because of our nature (limited and finite). At the same time, we can understand many things about God which are similar (though not the same) to qualities we have as human beings, because the source of these qualities in the infinite (i.e. God). 

^ God is utterly distinct from His creation, so how can these be similar, hence comparable?

[Abu Hadi]

6 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Abu Hadi Your analogy does not seem to fit. An IT interface is created by and for humans, dealing with human concepts—on human terms. Re: qualities: I don’t think that one can apply language such as “mercy,” or human qualities in general, to God. By doing so we end up framing God, using human language as a referent. “Mercy” etc. is only conceivable to human nature. Since God is not human, or even comparable to man (or anything He created), I do not think that human concepts can be used of Him. He would then become a man-like God.

Re: “slippery slopes”: I do not identify as a Muslim (yet), so apostasy is not an issue for me. While God might wish to be known, there seems to be no basis for doing so, aside from the claims of His worshippers. Moreover, as I said, the claims of His adherents seem to contradict themselves. On the one hand God is the All-Sufficient and Unrelated; on the other He willingly binds Himself to His creation, i.e., through commitments. At any rate, there seems to be no medium by which an inconceivable Entity, the Other, can communicate with His creation.

^ This is precisely why I question the whole notion of being able to relate to God. I base my view on the Abrahamic tradition itself, i.e., its claims about the nature and essence of God: His utter transcendence and uniqueness, for instance.

Let me clarify: I am coming to organised religion as an outsider. The burden of proof, therefore, is on religion—in this case Islam—to provide convincing answers to fundamental questions. I find at least some of its answers contradictory.

^ God is utterly distinct from His creation, so how can these be similar, hence comparable?

I think it is a good analogy. You cannot 'see' God in the way we see other things around us, just as you cannot 'see' the code you are using when you use an interface, yet you can use it, i.e. you can get the functionality out of it that you need to make your program run and work. If you are a fan of the Abrahamic traditions, then you know that ALL of the Abrahamic traditions, including Islam have this exact same concept. There are verses in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran that discuss this. If we cannot 'know' God or interact with God(s.w.a) due to the transcendant and eternal qualities then how is it that this concept has been communicated over millennia to billions of people by God via the Prophets and they understand it ? Communication is interaction, and interaction in a human like fashion via an 'interface', i.e. a Prophet and divine book. Here is an example from the Quran. This incident is also recorded in the Bible. 

وَلَمَّا جَآءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَـٰتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُۥ رَبُّهُۥ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِىٓ أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَىٰنِى وَلَـٰكِنِ ٱنظُرْ إِلَى ٱلْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ ٱسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُۥ فَسَوْفَ تَرَىٰنِى فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُۥ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُۥ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا فَلَمَّآ أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَـٰنَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا۠ أَوَّلُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

 And when Moses came [to Mount Sinai] at the time set by Us, and his Sustainer spoke unto him, he said: 'O my Sustainer! Show [Thyself] unto me, so that I might behold Thee!' Said [God]: 'Never canst thou see Me. However, behold this mountain: if it remains firm in its place, then - only then - wilt thou see Me.  And as soon as his Sustainer revealed His glory to the mountain, He caused it to crumble to dust; and Moses fell down in a swoon. And when he came to himself, he said: 'Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! Unto Thee do I turn in repentance; and I shall [always] be the first to believe in Thee!

Holy Quran 7:143

This verse is show that even the prophets had this desire to see God, like they see everything else around them. The difference is that the prophets also had an incredible level of faith, such that when it was proven to them that there is no way to 'see' God in that way, i.e. with the eyes, this actually increased their faith rather than destroyed it. 

If you want the logic behind this verse, it is that God cannot be 'seen' the way that we see other things. Anything that we can 'see' with our eyes is limited and finite. Also, anything that we can fully comprehend with our mind is also limited and finite. If we can see it with our eyes and fully comprehend it with our mind, that means it is not God, it is something else. 

When I talk about the slippery slope, I am saying that it is extremely easy to disbelieve in God altogether (you don't have to be a Muslim, or even a Jew or Christian to disbelieve altogether) because of the fact that God cannot be fully comprehended by the mind or seen with the eyes. God understands this about human nature, i.e. the desire in human beings to disbelieve in God based on this fact. That is why He(s.w.a) sent Prophets, Messengers, Divine book, and by extension ulema, good people, and people who could make rational arguments in favor of these things as a means to know God. Knowing God doesn't mean full and total comprehension, but it means following the signs that point to Him(s.w.a). Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) has a wonderful hadith about this which I have posted many times. Here is the hadith as a video. 

God is utterly distinct from His creation, so how can these be similar, hence comparable?

I think the above video explains this one 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 4/3/2025 at 5:32 AM, Northwest said:

. The fact that man may be able to ponder existential matters does not, by itself, prove that communication between the Other and creation is feasible.

Why does man possess the capability to ponder such matters in the first place if we're nothing more than purely materialistic beings as per the Marxian model of human nature? Why the need to philosophize? Why do we pray? Why do we sing? Why do we dance? Why the need to create artwork? (And no, I'm not talking about the kind of carnal dancing and provocative singing used to sexually attract a potential mate) Why do these things exist? Why does music have a profound effect on brain activity? How do these actions contribute to the survival of the fittest model? The atheist can never truly explain the Tai Chi practitioner dedicated to his morning routine...nor the painter who deeply stirs the emotions during an art exhibit...nor the poet who moves a crowd to tearful ecstasy...spiritual expression shouldn't exist according to the materialistic worldview...it serves no purpose...we should be colorless, one-dimensional drones collecting firewood, raping, eating, killing etc. without giving it a second thought...no consciousness, no transcendence, no sense of morality

Edited April 15 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

Arguing God From Being - Seyyed Hossein Nasr - 4 minutes 40 seconds 

 

[Northwest]

On 4/15/2025 at 7:53 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Why does man possess the capability to ponder such matters in the first place if we're nothing more than purely materialistic beings as per the Marxian model of human nature?

@Eddie Mecca As a Deistic observer, I am not a strict materialist, so Marxism is irrelevant. As to the question: I don’t pretend to have an answer, other than remarking that it neither proves nor disproves anything. Our mere ability to do something does not presuppose a design or purpose. An example: I can think about flight, so therefore I can fly (e.g., by flapping my hands). Similarly, our ability to ponder existential questions does say anything about our ability, if any, to communicate with the Absolute.

On 4/15/2025 at 7:53 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Why the need to philosophize? Why do we pray? Why do we sing? Why do we dance? Why the need to create artwork? (And no, I'm not talking about the kind of carnal dancing and provocative singing used to sexually attract a potential mate) Why do these things exist? Why does music have a profound effect on brain activity? How do these actions contribute to the survival of the fittest model?

Not all religious traditions rely on song, music, or dance (orthodox Islam arguably does not), and philosophy’s role varies wildly, so some of your examples seem inapplicable. Moreover, some communities may treat them as possible deviations from a primordial faith. The very fact that cultures are so variable and distinctive, if anything, points to the absence of a personal God (not the absence of God per se). Religious conceptions diverge more than they converge among cultures, hence diverse forms, rituals, and so on.

On 4/15/2025 at 7:53 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

The atheist can never truly explain the Tai Chi practitioner dedicated to his morning routine...nor the painter who deeply stirs the emotions during an art exhibit...nor the poet who moves a crowd to tearful ecstasy...spiritual expression shouldn't exist according to the materialistic worldview...it serves no purpose...we should be colorless, one-dimensional drones collecting firewood, raping, eating, killing etc. without giving it a second thought...no consciousness, no transcendence, no sense of morality

^ Maybe man thinks he is more a ‘moral’ being than he actually is, masking his amorality—and animality—behind diverse institutions, creeds, and practices...? After all, both the Bible and the Quran make clear that the Truth has always been the preserve of a minority. If the Truth is innately perceptible, being consonant with man’s nature, then it does not seem to concur with observable reality (i.e., history). More people might have come across it—that is, all the tribes and clans that never had an inkling of Moses, Jesus, and so on...

[Eddie Mecca]

Carl Sagan On The Existence Of God - 5 minutes @Northwest

 

[Northwest]

On 4/21/2025 at 8:29 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Carl Sagan On The Existence Of God - 5 minutes @Northwest

@Eddie Mecca If there is a personal God, then presumably religious belief would converge more than it has. God would have sent revelations (i.e., apparitions, visions, and dreams) to isolated communities and informed them about the Truth. Instead, I see more evidence that culturally distinct, geographically disjunct groups report occurrences that reinforce preexisting beliefs and practices. I.e., medieval European Christians encountered “miracles” that buttressed Catholic dogma rather than, say, point to Islam or Judaism. Even today I see parallels. (A good example: Jordan Peterson’s wife felt that praying the Rosary aided her medical recovery and thus convinced her that Catholicism must be the Truth.) Believers of all backgrounds report “miraculous” experiences that more often than not “confirm” their creed. If so, then maybe God is more universal and less particularistic than people believe—something I find less credible than the possibility that, whatever the veracity (or nature) of “miracles,” God is far less personal than man pretends.

^ How do you, personally, account for apparent realities such as these?

[PureExistence1]

45 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@Eddie Mecca If there is a personal God, then presumably religious belief would converge more than it has. God would have sent revelations (i.e., apparitions, visions, and dreams) to isolated communities and informed them about the Truth. Instead, I see more evidence that culturally distinct, geographically disjunct groups report occurrences that reinforce preexisting beliefs and practices. I.e., medieval European Christians encountered “miracles” that buttressed Catholic dogma rather than, say, point to Islam or Judaism. Even today I see parallels. (A good example: Jordan Peterson’s wife felt that praying the Rosary aided her medical recovery and thus convinced her that Catholicism must be the Truth.) Believers of all backgrounds report “miraculous” experiences that more often than not “confirm” their creed. If so, then maybe God is more universal and less particularistic than people believe—something I find less credible than the possibility that, whatever the veracity (or nature) of “miracles,” God is far less personal than man pretends.

^ How do you, personally, account for apparent realities such as these?

Salaam, 

Quran 2:186:

"And when My servants ask you, concerning Me – indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.'

This verse is seen as a profound statement of God's immanence and nearness—not just in physical proximity but in spiritual presence.

The verse emphasizes that God is closer to the SERVANT than anything else, accessible without intermediaries, and always attentive to the sincere call of the HEART.

The call (du'a) is not just verbal supplication but an existential turning of the heart toward God. Responding to God ("let them respond to Me") is understood as aligning one's soul and actions with divine guidance, and belief in God is seen as an experiential knowledge (ma'rifah) that leads to true spiritual guidance.

The verse invites the seeker to realize God's nearness through inner purification and direct spiritual experience, highlighting that the path to God is open and immediate for the sincere.

The verse doesn't say He answers the call of the Shia, or the Sunni, or the Christian, or the Jew, etc...The only prerequisite is that the person be a sincere SUPPLICANT / CALLER from the heart.

God is much more vast than to confine Him (I even dont like saying "Him" but Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does in the Quran  so I have to...) to 1 particular religion and therefore say He only answers duas from that particular religion. Even Hindus with their thousands of gods have prayers accepted. Sure, people believe all sorts of things, however, there is only 1 God who makes all things possible, so the only "help" and answers to prayers come from Him regardless of what religion a person associates themselves with. 

My mercy encompasses all things.”
(Quran 7:156)

------------------------

" Oh mankind, remember the favor of Allah upon you. Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and earth? There is no deity except Him, so how are you deluded?”
(Quran 35:3)

-----------------------------

“And He is the All-Forgiving, the All-Loving.”
(Quran 85:14)

-----------------------------

He provides for all, including those who reject faith in Him, or even those who defy Him. Allah is everybody’s God even though if people don’t turn to Him... God is continuously in concern and protection of all beings no matter what.
(Explanation based on Quran 35:3 and the concept of God’s mercy)

----------------------------

The Quran repeatedly affirms that God’s mercy, care, and provision extend to all of creation, not just believers. His mercy encompasses everything, He provides for all, and He responds to the prayers of any who call upon Him. His name “Al-Wadud” (The All-Loving) and the phrase “My mercy encompasses all things” further highlight His universal love and compassion.