• Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    A man asked a teacher questions. This is a portion of the document.

    1. Sir, who is God(ie)?
    A. Allah(ie) is the most powerful kinetic energy in the universe, with the most potential energy within himself, the First Cause.

    2. Why do you call him Allah?
    A. Allah is the closest word in any language to the real and true name of God.

    3. What then, is the real and true name of God?
    A. If I spoke his name to you, you would not recognize it as such nor would you understand how it could be so.

    4. Can you write his name in the sand there by your feet so that I will know and recognize his name?
    A. No letter of any language or combination of letters or symbols can truly represent the vastness and Infinity of all the Allah is, was or shall be.

    5. How then, ,will I be able to address him properly in my times of prayer?
    A. You may have already but the way to be certain is to receive and study these 360 degrees of Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding; pray and meditate, do rituals, perform ceremonies, observe the Sabbath and holy days and the tools of the master will reveal to you the Knowledge of his name, the Wisdom of his name and the Understanding of his name which would teach you how to speak his name properly in your times of prayer.

    6. Can he be seen?
    A. You are seening him now manifested before you.

    7. Sur, are you God?
    A. I am indeed but not I myself alone.

    8. Can you make his image plain and clear before me?
    A. Consider anything and everything in the universe whether abstract or concrete and you will see him, for everything in this physical dimension is a manifestation or result of himself.

    9. What is God's nature?
    A. He is the truth and he manifests righteousness in though,t word and deed

    10. What is the truth?
    A. The truth is everything and anything that exists in reality, has existed or will exist.

    11. How do you describe his origin seeing that you have referred to him as the First Cause?
    A. Allah (ie) evolved from the darkness, that massive and very very dense darkness or non-energy as likewise taught to you in Genesis 1:1.

    12. The prophet then forbad the student to ask him any more questions until the next Sun rose in the East.

    13. What is energy?
    A. Energy is the ability to do work and the ability to build or multiply.

    14. What is kineticl energy?
    A. Kinetic energy is energy already expressed or manifested.

    15. What is potential energy?
    A. Potential energy is defined in terms of the amount of energy or force or thing could possess relative to its present position or location in the universe.

    16. What is God's present position or location?
    A. He rests at the center of the universe.



    (to be continued...)
  • Banno
    76
    I'm guessing this is a hit-and-run.

    You still there, Lower?
  • Terrapin Station
    2.3k
    A man asked a teacher some questions.

    1. Sir, who is God(ie)?
    A. Allah(ie) is the most powerful kinetic energy in the universe, with the most potential energy within himself, the First Cause.
    Lower Case NUMBERS

    What does that have to do with your subject line? You don't even mention a document.
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    Terrapin Station The document itself began with Number 1. The document is only presented in part; the rest will be shared at a later date but I would rather discuss the document by presenting it in portions but there are many scientific principles in this portion alone.
    I am ready to hear arguments defending this document or disproving it making it a False or erroneous document. I'm ready to disscuss.
  • Cavacava
    752
    A man asked a teacher some questions.

    1. Sir, who is God(ie)?
    A. Allah(ie) is the most powerful kinetic energy in the universe, with the most potential energy within himself, the First Cause.

    "God(ie)" God international edition?
    How is Allah(ie) a "himself", a person, how that happen?
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    " IE" = In Example. Mother Nature is often referred to as "she" but when referred to, it is not necessarily declaring that Mother Nature is human. It is quite evident that God (ie) is a force not a man. Lindquistics is what humans use just to communicate. The word "it" often means something inanimate or non human which I would argue the negative and would say that it would be improper to refer to God(ie) as inanimate.
    But if that is what you mostly disagreed with considering all the many complex concepts within this portion of the document, then a greater point can be made about the validity of this first lesson.
  • Cavacava
    752


    I didn't see the periods, which indicate abbreviations, and given the abbreviated nature of your example I did not want to make any assumptions.

    So referring to God/Allah/? as a he or a she is merely conventional? The concept is not being anthropomorphized?
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    Was gender and linguistics the thing you are most interested in in regards to this portion of the document? This seems to be a minor point not to be majored.
  • Terrapin Station
    2.3k


    So you're not asking about the validity of a document in the vein of "Is this document legit? Is it really the document it is claimed to be?"

    For example, we come across a document that someone claims is the formal charter issued to Sir Walter Raleigh from Queen Elizabeth I with respect to colonization of North America, and then we wonder whether it really is that document. We'd be wondering if the document were really the historical document someone is clamiing it to be.

    Or less historically, we have a document that we assume covers our legal bases for filing a name change, say, and we're wondering if our assumptions are correct--is it really valid as a legal document? (Maybe we had someone's cousin prepare it for us, as we didn't want to pay for a lawyer, and the cousin in question was a paralegal who supposedly knows how to do a name change petition, but we're skeptical; something about it looks fishy to us.)

    Are you rather asking something to the effect of whether an argument is valid? (In that case, there's no need to mention a document). If so, then your initial post presents no argument, so whether it's valid is a moot point. You'd need to present an argument first.

    Of course, maybe you're not actually referring to either a document or the concept of validity, in which case, I don't know what the heck you are asking.
  • Cavacava
    752


    That's fine but answer it.
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    The word VALID means sound or well founded. I am asking for discussion on just that; it's validity AND value. I see your focus as being linquistical in nature; i.e. samantics which is not considered as an important sphere of study in philosophy
    May I ask you a question to which I desire a
    a simple YES or NO in response with predicates of explanation?
  • Terrapin Station
    2.3k
    The word VALID means sound or well founded.Lower Case NUMBERS

    No it doesn't. Validity and soundness are different in logic.

    But okay, if you're just asking for an assessment of an argument re validity, present an argument and I can let you know if it's valid.

    May I ask you a question to which I desire a
    a simple YES or NO in response with predicates of explanation?
    Lower Case NUMBERS

    Say what?

    At any rate, sure, ask anything.
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    Terrapin : Im new to this forum and couldn't get your name to auto-fill in my response box nevertheless; no one has commented on the lesson itself.
    Can you successfully disprove any of the scientific premises or concepts presented in the answer in lesson 1 that explains who God (ie) is? Yes or No?
  • Terrapin Station
    2.3k


    I wouldn't say that your initial post makes any statements even. We could turn them into statements I suppose. For example, "There exists an x such that x is the most powerful kinetic energy" . . . but my response to that would first be to clarify just what it's claiming. It's saying there's some entity that's "the most powerful kinetic energy"? I'd want to clarify what definition of "entity" is being used, what quantification method we're using for "most powerful," etc.
  • Lower Case NUMBERS
    121
    Is it very hard to get a philosopher to simply respond with a Yes or No and THEN add explanations. This is where debates fail most times because there are never connections of agreement upon which to build.
    There WAS a statement made in the document but we have strayed so far from the premise in the document which results in nothing being discussed at all.
  • R-13
    92

    1. Sir, who is God(ie)?
    A. Allah(ie) is the most powerful kinetic energy in the universe, with the most potential energy within himself, the First Cause.
    Lower Case NUMBERS

    I don't want to be personally offensive, but I'd call what's quoted above silly.

    I read it as an accidental parody of metaphysics/theology. The inclusion of pseudo-physics and the "First Cause" theme with this "Allah(ie)" really takes the cake. What's with the "(ie)"? This proposed "God" looks like the result of a cheap sophistry. In my view, we are far better of with an old-school anthropomorphic deity than we are with a scientistic confusion that's implicitly impious in its banality. While we look for "causes" in order to manipulate nature, it's anything but clear that this justifies the assumption of a First Cause. I'd say the reverse is true. Talk about the "First Cause" seems to reject the very principle of of sufficient reason that it is founded on. It's a refusal to explain (or to admit the impossibility of an explanation for reality as a whole) shabbily disguised as a explanation.
  • Banno
    76

    I blame Socrates.
  • unenlightened
    554
    I'd guess there must have been a moment of creation prior to which the First Cause, God, Allah, Brian, or whomsoever must have been potential energy rather than kinetic. Indeed it seems blasphemous to refer to the Unmoved Mover as kinetic. Whatever, or whoever set things in motion cannot possibly be kinetic.

    Ergo, the document is false.
  • Banno
    76

    "Allah" is another name for the Big Bang?
  • Thorongil
    989
    Sounds like gibberish to me.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.