i understand that in the hausa translation of the bible the word allah is used is this true

thehomer:

Of course that too could be a possibility.

Excellent. I am happy we agree on this.

Why must it be singular? Why not multiple or none? To clarify, a person can trace their origin to four grand-parents

This does not apply when one is speaking of the ultimate cause. The very term "ultimate cause" logicaly denotes a single final cause.

To explain: the four grand parents you mentioned are not an ultimate origin since they also have origins. If we were to limit the causative chain to life on earth, the ultimate cause would be perhaps that single molecule that existed in whatever pre-biotic soup life was generated from. but that is nevertheless just a rough example because in reality even such molecules in turn had a cause. When we speak of the ultimate cause, any multiplicity would in itself logically contradict the word "ultimate." An ultimate cause is perforce singular.

I would have very much liked to set out in further detail the philosophical rationale for the necessity of an ultimate cause being perforce singular, but i have noticed that you do not like philosophical discourses. You perhaps disdain such as "unscientific."

thehomer:

while floating castles can be traced to no entities.

Floating castles do not exist as we know. This alone shows up the flaw in your thinking. You trace such to no cause since they do not exist: that reveals that if there was no cause, then similarly the world would not exist.

You thus inadvertently accede to the existence of a Cause for all things - and stretching the logic further, since YOU claim that time had a beggining, then its cause could not be itself, and as such must be timeless. A timeless thing is eternal and as such you therefore accept the existence of an eternal cause of all things.

Unbeknownst to you, you are already on the cusp of being a Theist or Deist.

this question of an ultimate cause is that a function of the human mind or of reality after all it will only be valid as long as TIme does exist
is time a perceptual or an absolute reality??

aribisala0:

this question of an ultimate cause is that a function of the human mind or of reality after all it will only be valid as long as TIme does exist

The human mind itself could not exist uncaused. As such we cannot claim that the ultimate cause of all things is a figment of the human mind - which itself required causation.

is time a perceptual or an absolute reality??

Time is THE reality. We live in an infinite circular instant: one united moment of eternity that permeates all things.

Hmmmm, 'infinite circular instant'. O kare.

Pastor AIO has attempted to argue that the references to Allah, Brahman and Olodumare and not references to the same entity.

Pastor AIO:

I wonder why Allah is not called Brahman in India.

I have offered a differing view which i believe seizes upon the core element of what each entity is understood to be  -

Deep Sight:

In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of the primordial Being Hiranyagarbha and all subsequent Creation. Brahman is conceived as personal (with qualities), impersonal (without qualities) and supreme depending on the philosophical school.

The word "Brahman" is traditionally derived from the verb ((brh)) (Sanskrit: to grow), and connotes greatness and infinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

"Say, ‘He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not Nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.’’’
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

It is, to my mind, beyond cavil that there exist some clear similarities in the concept of God as delivered by the Jews, Muslims and Hindus. There are also differences.

However the theme of an eternal and absolute nature seems unshakeable in all of these traditions.

I think it is important to understand that notwithstanding that people have had tribal deities which they worshipped, and from which the names they gave to God arose, this has not stopped people from conceiving of the core attributes of the ultimate cause within their conception of GOD. Thus the names are altogether irrelevant, and what remains relevant is simply the collection of attributes which form a conception of the Godhead.

Deep Sight:

And in light of this -

"Olòrún is the Yorùbá name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems), Who is either the sole entity in monotheism, or a single entity in polytheism. Eitherway, It is regarded as a Self-Existing Being.

Commonly addressed as Olódùmarè, It is often regarded as the infinite ruler of the heavens; all-encompassing, and said to be the owner of all heads. No gender is typically assigned. Hence, It is commomnly referred to as "It" or "They" (although this is meant to address a somewhat singularity). The divine creator and source of all energy, It is often thought to be the conduit through which the thoughts and actions of each person in "Ayé" (the world) interact with those of all other living things, including the universe itself.

Olòrún has also been variously conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation and the "greatest conceivable existent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

- - - with regard to the highlighted portions of the above, i will find a very hard time agreeing with you that the same precepts are not at play in the conception of Olodumare as is within the conception of YHWH, Allah and Brahman.

That there are differences in conception is well acknowledged, but the core precept in all remains that of a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

. . . The Oneness of Infinity. . .

- - - If the Yoruba, tha Arabs and the indian, each refer to Olodumare, Allah and Brahman as the ETERNAL ABSOLUTE ELEMENT WHICH CAUSED ALL EXISTENCE - - -

Can we really claim them to be references to different entities? - - -regardless that each tribe of course interpolates its idiosyncracies into the ontology of that entity?

you are making assertions but really that is  your opinion or belief . i have no doubt you are an intelligent fellow but there are other intelligent folk who might have the opposite view.
i do not know if you are right or wrong and i am not saying either.
all i am saying is if somebody says the exact opposite to what you have just said there is no logical reason  FOR ME to prefer either position .

i prefer to have a DIscussion rather than an indoctrination or lecture. that means there is no presumption that one participant knows more than the other and any claims must be justified by EVIDENCE

aribisala0:

you are making assertions but really that is your opinion or belief . i have no doubt you are an intelligent fellow but there are other intelligent folk who might have the opposite view.
i do not know if you are right or wrong and i am not saying either.
all i am saying is if somebody says the exact opposite to what you have just said there is no logical reason FOR ME to prefer either position .

i prefer to have a DIscussion rather than an indoctrination or lecture. that means there is no presumption that one participant knows more than the other and any claims must be justified by EVIDENCE

Well I am sorry if i have come across as though i am attempting to indoctrinate you. That is certainly not my intention. You asked a question, and I offered my view: that is all there is to it.

However let me just say this: a logical chain of thought is itself evidence of that which it asserts so long as the premises and conclusions therein stand firmly within the rules of logic. So if you find disagreement with any view i have offered, by all means do go ahead to point out the logical lapses therein.

@ Aribisala0

You might not be aware of the fact that Deepsight is a lawyer. This might influence the manner in which he discusses and tries to force an agreement out of people.

I just thought that I ought to let you know.

Deep Sight:

The human mind itself could not exist uncaused. As such we cannot claim that the ultimate cause of all things is a figment of the human mind - which itself required causation.

Time is THE reality. We live in an infinite circular instant: one united moment of eternity that permeates all things.

these are very strong and categorical statements. it is not clear exactly what they mean and a bit off the topic of the thread.

however good logic from two people can lead to two opposite ways of doing things like driving on the right or left hand side .
i believe that the igbos have a proverb that says where one thing stands another thing will stand besides it. igbo kwenu!

aribisala0:

these are very strong and categorical statements. it is not clear exactly what they mean and a bit off the topic of the thread.

Well do you regard the human mind to be uncaused?

Even evolution itself surely indicates a cause. So if that is a categorical statement, it very well should remain so.

however good logic from two people can lead to two opposite ways of doing things like driving on the right or left hand side .
i believe that the igbos have a proverb that says where one thing stands another thing will stand besides it. igbo kwenu!

I certainly agree with this.

However let us carefully note as follows -

If there is a tea cup orbiting the planet saturn and -

Man A believes it is there -

Man B believes it is not there -

Neither the belief or disbelief of either man will have any bearing on whether it is in fact there.

Pastor AIO:

@ Aribisala0

You might not be aware of the fact that Deepsight is a lawyer. This might influence the manner in which he discusses and tries to force an agreement out of people.

I just thought that I ought to let you know.

Lol, Pastor, but this will not be enough reason to avoid making a response to Post No # 101 above.

Deep Sight:

Lol, Pastor, but this will not be enough reason to avoid making a response to Post No # 101 above.

How many traits do two things have to share before they are considered Identical? Is it enough just to be Eternal? Or perhaps when you add 'absolute' to the description (whatever is meant by absolute) then 'perforce' they must be identical.

^^^ No really what I think is cardinal is not just being eternal and "the greatest conceivable existent" - which is shared by all - but cardinally: the fact that they identify and describe it as the creator and source of ALL existence.

Would you then say that in spite of that they are referring to different entities?

Please do note carefully like i said -

- - -regardless that each tribe of course interpolates its idiosyncracies into the ontology of that entity?

firstly for our purposes here you need to define what you mean by caused and causation.
if there is no man A or B or no men at all is there a planet??

aribisala0:

if there is no man A or B or no men at all is there a planet??

Surely you are aware that the Earth is many millions of years older than mankind on it. That is a scientific fact. There were once dinsaurs around here, you know. So our absence did not invalidate the reality of the earth's existence even when we were not here to perceive it.

The Earth is also much older than ANY living creature on it. As such the absence of any conscious beings did not invalidate the reality of the Earth's existence.

Same goes for the solar system and the entire universe.

Perception is not reality. Perception is only the cognitive reality of the perceiver.

aribisala0:

firstly for our purposes here you need to define what you mean by caused and causation.

A cause is any factor or element which activates another factor or element. Causation is the process or act of that activation. We can work with this definition if it is ok by you.

i do not mean to be obtuse but your definition only raises another question.
exactly what is activate.
i remember when i studied chemistry the word activate came up when we defined the term Catalyst
just a consideration.

we have had a series of uprisings in africa recently. a young man set himself on fire in tunisia and this to me appeared to activate uprisings which have swept across the region.

can we say that young man caused the fall of mubarak and the current situation in libya

these scientific facts as you call them were established by man from his brain. if there was no brain can there be facts??

Cause/Causality is a lot more complicated than most of us seem aware of, including many of our respected scientists and thinkers.

Aribisala. If there was no brain there would be no facts perceived.

This does not mean that the universe would cease to exist. It simply would not be perceived.

As regards the young man, we may say that he is part of a causative chain.

so is there any way for us to know that the universe actually exists outside perception?

as we proceed you introduce more terminology . please explain causative chain how is this differnt from cause

aribisala0:

so is there any way for us to know that the universe actually exists outside perception?

You might be interested to check out the Hindu notion of Maya.

The word origin of maya is derived from the Sanskrit roots ma ("not" and ya, generally translated as an indicative article meaning "that". The mystic teachings in Vedanta are centered on a fundamental truth that cannot be reduced to a concept or word for the ordinary mind to manipulate. Rather, the human experience and mind are themselves a tiny fragment of this truth.

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true, unitary Self — the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. The concept of Maya was introduced by the great ninth-century Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara.[2] He refuses, however, to explain the relationship between Brahman and Maya.[3]

Many philosophies and religions seek to "pierce the veil" of Maya in order to glimpse the transcendent truth from which the illusion of a physical reality springs, drawing from the idea that first came to life in the Hindu stream of Vedanta.

Maya is a fact in that it is the appearance of phenomena. Since Brahman is the only truth, Maya is true but not the truth, the difference being that the truth is the truth forever while what is true is only true for now. Since Maya causes the material world to be seen, it is true in itself but is untrue in comparison to the Brahman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29

Aribisala. You asked if there is anyway for us to know that the universe exists outside perception. I understand your concern and i answer as follows.

We are indeed limited by perception. However we can perceive certain things which give us to know that other things exist even if we did not perceive those things at the time of their existence. A simple example will be to say that the observation of fossils enables us to understand that dinosaurs existed even at a time that we did not exist in this world to perceive or observe them. Thus, the fact of our absence did not invalidate their existence.

In the same way the Earth exists within a larger universe. Much of the universe was not observed by ancient men, and yet that did not stop modern men from discovering that inspite of it's non observation, the universe has indeed existed for billions of years. In the same way the planet Neptune only came to be observed at a certain point in time, and yet it has existed long before we observed it. It would be absurd to suggest that it only came into existence at the point of it's observation because if that was the case, then it would not be there to be observed at all. A logical conundrum.

What this shows us is that things exist even if we do not observe them. In the same way as your child did steal a cookie from the cookie jar even if you did not observe him do it.

There is a deeper aspect to our perception which I would like to comment upon and which Pastor AIO has already hinted at. There is a God consciousness in every human being which is at the root of his perceptive faculties. In being very careful, i may say that that God consciousness enables man to know and perceive reality and apprehend the things of God and the spirit.

who is we?? i believe you can only speak for yourself unless you have some data that you want to share
otherwise you are just stating your opinion . which you are entitled to and which i respect but if one person says it is good to drive on the left and the other says no the right is better where does that leave us??ultimately all this talk about god,in my opinion which is neither better or worse ythan yours is guessing.

all that cookie jar scenario cannot exist without a perceiver and we know that perceptions are unreliable and prone to disagreement.
my point is that people can believe what they like.
but talk about god is personal it is impossible to convince everyone by logic or reasoning.

^^^ Do you really mean that it cannot exist without a perceived or to be more accurate: that it cannot be perceived without a perceived.

You need to be very careful here. Because the implication of what you are saying is that perceiving a thing is what creates the thing.

Whereas it is trite that many things exist outside that which men have perceived. Sometimes only future generations detect their existence.

In short, such micro organisms as amoeba, viruses, cells etc all never existed until the micro scope was invented to perceive them? I hope you realize that no microscope could have been invented to observe them if those mico organisms which form the building blocks of life did not already exist.

my question is more fundamental than that even now do they exist??
when you dream it seems real and then you wake up which one is real and which one is the dream
are we actually  characters in a dream or not

i think when we reflect deeply on these thing we ought to be very slow to draw conclusions but rather to keep an open mind

Both this world and the dream world do exist. Anything that has a nuance or a form no matter how intangible does exist. Even thoughts are real existent things.

If you are concerned that you do not exist, then that is very easily solved. Simply lie down and stop moving or doing anything whatsoever. It would not matter since you probably do not exist.

Has it occured to you that there is a mind here responding to what you post, and that that mind is someone you have not seen. Hell, who knows, maybe i am just a computer program responding to your posts. How do you know that i am not.

my thoughts and feelings are of no consequence. we know that these are unreliable and transient.
really what you are saying is doctrinal and has been said before severally. my point is you choose to believe that in the same way that i do not. i met a man that was convinced that all world leaders are lizards who are able to take the human form. there was nothing i could say to change his mind. i do not think his idea is of a different nature in terms of its fixity and non-amenability to discussion to other ideas about god. so my point is let us recognize the difference between our beliefs and those positions which we can agree on based on a mutual system of logic.

aribisala0:

my thoughts and feelings are of no consequence. we know that these are unreliable and transient.
really what you are saying is doctrinal and has been said before severally. my point is you choose to believe that in the same way that i do not. i met a man that was convinced that all world leaders are lizards who are able to take the human form. there was nothing i could say to change his mind. i do not think his idea is of a different nature in terms of its fixity and non-amenability to discussion to other ideas about god. so my point is let us recognize the difference between our beliefs and those positions which we can agree on based on a mutual system of logic.

, . AH! That man must be one of 2 men. Either a certain deceased Fela Kuti. Or a certain David Icke.