Pulwama: Migrant Worker Shot Dead, Second Targeted Attack in 24 Hours in Kashmir

[delta2]

Ferrari is creation of a human ingenuity..just like the creator.

Human invented God to serve themselves..to give them mental solace, to keep themselves in check, to create a society based on divine law...literally to put fear of something greater than selves in their fellow man.

It's Ironic, how some humans created the concept of God to serve humanity. Now their descendants serve the same imaginary God.

What is more complex? A Ferrari or a star?

Where does the human mind find the metal to build that Ferrari? Did the human mind invent the metal? How about the air?

 

[delta2]

Allah is a construct of the human mind, which is why it's referred to as one. Anything described as singular or one can't inherently be the creator because the concept of "one" is a human construct in itself.
Hinduism describes God as "advait," signifying something beyond enumeration, lacking any tangible physical reality detectable by human senses. This understanding is why Hindus express that God is not limited to a single form, not because they believe in multiple gods, and the statues represent an artistic interpretation of the divine, not the divine essence itself.

Islam is not Hinduism. Hinduism is a set of paganistic and animist beliefs that cause one to worship rats! You are confused comparing the two.

You are saying that THE God is a construct yet at the same time you try to attempt to define A god that cannot be counted? Are there more than one? Is God 0 if not 1?

Form implies limitation and inherent reliance on the form itself. Assigning a form to the Creator is pure nonsense.

Allah refers to Himself as One, Unique, like no other. That is sufficient for human mind and human logic.

The word Allah means THE God. Your language lacks the word 'the', and yet you attempt to define God?

Again, even talking about "form" when referring to the Creator is anthropomorphism.

There are tribes in the Amazon that do not have a concept of counting. They do not know what 1, 2 or 3 is until they're taught and still refuse it. A Chrtistian missionary after spending 30+ years with them gave up on converting them, then he gave up on Christianity.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Islam is not Hinduism. Hinduism is a set of paganistic and animist beliefs that cause one to worship rats! You are confused comparing the two.

You are saying that THE God is a construct yet at the same time you try to attempt to define A god that cannot be counted? Are there more than one? Is God 0 if not 1?

Form implies limitation and inherent reliance on the form itself. Assigning a form to the Creator is pure nonsense.

Allah refers to Himself as One, Unique, like no other. That is sufficient for human mind and human logic.

The word Allah means THE God. Your language lacks the word 'the', and yet you attempt to define God?

Again, even talking about "form" when referring to the Creator is anthropomorphism.

There are tribes in the Amazon that do not have a concept of counting. They do not know what 1, 2 or 3 is until they're taught and still refuse it. A Chrtistian missionary after spending 30+ years with them gave up on converting them, then he gave up on Christianity.

The question arises: How can Allah be considered singular without a tangible form? In Hinduism, the concept of God delves into a realm beyond singularity or multiplicity, describing a non-dual, metaphysical absolute. This essence of divinity is devoid of physical attributes, making it beyond quantification or countability. It signifies an existence that transcends not just being singular or multiple, but rather embodies an absolute state beyond any physical reality, where traditional counting or enumeration doesn't apply.

 

[delta2]

The question arises: How can Allah be considered singular without a tangible form? In Hinduism, the concept of God delves into a realm beyond singularity or multiplicity, describing a non-dual, metaphysical absolute. This essence of divinity is devoid of physical attributes, making it beyond quantification or countability. It signifies an existence that transcends not just being singular or multiple, but rather embodies an absolute state beyond any physical reality, where traditional counting or enumeration doesn't apply.

So you are saying 0 is untangible?

The question arises: How can Allah be considered singular without a tangible form? In Hinduism, the concept of God delves into a realm beyond singularity or multiplicity, describing a non-dual, metaphysical absolute. This essence of divinity is devoid of physical attributes, making it beyond quantification or countability. It signifies an existence that transcends not just being singular or multiple, but rather embodies an absolute state beyond any physical reality, where traditional counting or enumeration doesn't apply.

"tangible form" is paganism and the first step into anthropomorphism.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

So you are saying 0 is untangible?


"tangible form" is paganism and the first step into anthropomorphism.

Hinduism doesn't conceive of God as zero, but rather elucidates the concept of God as "Advaita Brahma," denoting a non-dual, metaphysical absolute.

 

[delta2]

Hinduism doesn't conceive of God as zero, but rather elucidates the concept of God as "Advaita Brahma," denoting a non-dual, metaphysical absolute.

Then why insist on tangible?

Is "non-dual" here used to imply the meaning of trinitarian?

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Then why insist on tangible?

Is "non-dual" here used to imply the meaning of trinitarian?

When attempting to attribute a numerical value to Allah, this act transforms it into a measurable quantity within the bounds of physical reality. This is why I mentioned Allah being no different from a statue. In contrast, the Hindu interpretation of God deviates from defining God as solely one, zero, or many. It elucidates the concept of God as a non-dual, metaphysical absolute. This philosophy of God transcends numerical quantification, highlighting an abstract and singular essence that isn't confined to mere numerical identity or physical limits.

 

[delta2]

When attempting to attribute a numerical value to Allah, this act transforms it into a measurable quantity within the bounds of physical reality. This is why I mentioned Allah being no different from a statue. In contrast, the Hindu interpretation of God deviates from defining God as solely one, zero, or many. It elucidates the concept of God as a non-dual, metaphysical absolute. This philosophy of God transcends numerical quantification, highlighting an abstract and singular essence that isn't confined to mere numerical identity or physical limits.

No one is attributing anything. Allah describes Himself as One, the Unique, Like No Other.

So again, do you take non-dual to mean as more than two or less than two?

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

No one is attributing anything. Allah describes Himself as One, the Unique, Like No Other.

So again, do you take non-dual to mean as more than two or less than two?

The concept of non-dual, known as "Advaita" in Hinduism, refers to an existence beyond duality, beyond the divisions of one or many. It's not just about being one, as all numbers stem from the essence of one. It's also beyond the idea of zero, which only exists in relation to one. In a state where there's no point of reference, neither the concept of one nor zero can exist. Similarly, in a realm free from comparisons, neither the truth nor falsehood, light nor darkness, nor even matter and space can exist as separate entities. This is why Hindu philosophy portrays God as "Brahma," representing a metaphysical absolute that transcends our human constructs of the universe and goes beyond our conventional means of explanation. It encapsulates a reality beyond our comprehension, beyond the limitations of human-made ideas.

 

[delta2]

The concept of non-dual, known as "Advaita" in Hinduism, refers to an existence beyond duality, beyond the divisions of one or many. It's not just about being one, as all numbers stem from the essence of one. It's also beyond the idea of zero, which only exists in relation to one. In a state where there's no point of reference, neither the concept of one nor zero can exist. Similarly, in a realm free from comparisons, neither the truth nor falsehood, light nor darkness, nor even matter and space can exist as separate entities. This is why Hindu philosophy portrays God as "Brahma," representing a metaphysical absolute that transcends our human constructs of the universe and goes beyond our conventional means of explanation. It encapsulates a reality beyond our comprehension, beyond the limitations of human-made ideas.

In other words: like no other.

So in the end, you point to the entity being One without calling Him, The One!

Why then keep up the nonsense of worshipping idols, pictures, monkeys and rats?

The term non-dual implies a possesiveness, ie possessing non-duality. On the one hand you label an entity as possessive, on the other hand you then go on in a circular argument to say that that possessive is non-possessive?

How convoluted and illogical!

 

[Jaeger]

What is more complex? A Ferrari or a star?

Where does the human mind find the metal to build that Ferrari? Did the human mind invent the metal? How about the air?

A star is formed by nuclear fusion reaction hydrogen atoms to form a heavier helium element.

Similarly a series of fusion reactions between lighter elements end up forming metal or Iron inside the star and all other elements..including those comprising of the air we breathe.

Humans already duplicated the process of formation of a star..or nuclear fusion. ...when they conducted a their first nuclear tests ...they have the ability to create artificial star if desired...and are on the verge of achieving a sustained controllable fusion reactions here on earth itself.

Does that make humans as powerful as the "creator".

Early religions use to name their gods after forces they could not understand or feared...eg there use to be a Sun God, Wind God , God of the oceans , rain God...etc.

You do the same, what ever you do not understand, you call it God's creation.

 

[delta2]

A star is formed by nuclear fusion reaction hydrogen atoms to form a heavier helium element.

Similarly a series of fusion reactions between lighter elements end up forming metal or Iron inside the star and all other elements..including those comprising of the air we breathe.

Humans already duplicated the process of formation of a star..or nuclear fusion. ...when they conducted a their first nuclear tests ...they have the ability to create artificial star if desired...and are on the verge of achieving a sustained controllable fusion reactions here on earth itself.

Does that make humans as powerful as the "creator".

Early religions use to name their gods after forces they could not understand or feared...eg there use to be a Sun God, Wind God , God of the oceans , rain God...etc.

You do the same, what ever you do not understand, you call it God's creation.

".. is formed.."?

Assuming a process has a beginning implies a non-existence for that process. What is that assumption based on?

What conditions caused this "forming"? Where did that hydrogen come from?

 

[Jaeger]

".. is formed.."?

Assuming a process has a beginning implies a non-existence for that process. What is that assumption based on?

What conditions caused this "forming"? Where did that hydrogen come from?

Let me ask you even more basic question ..where did God come from ..who created God?

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

In other words: like no other.

So in the end, you point to the entity being One without calling Him, The One!

Why then keep up the nonsense of worshipping idols, pictures, monkeys and rats?

The term non-dual implies a possesiveness, ie possessing non-duality. On the one hand you label an entity as possessive, on the other hand you then go on in a circular argument to say that that possessive is non-possessive?

How convoluted and illogical!

The challenge an Islamist faces in understanding the non-duality of God may stem from being raised in a culture where Allah is commonly viewed as an all-powerful, singular figure (similar to Kim Jong Un). Allah is a forceful, political entity rather than a more abstract, spiritual concept. Your hostility toward Muslims, non-Muslims, or diverse faiths and cultures also arises from the concept of this political Allah.
In contrast, Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist philosophies surpass these human-constructed power structures, urging individuals to explore a deeper, more holistic comprehension that transcends the constraints of worldly authority.

 

[delta2]

The challenge an Islamist faces in understanding the non-duality of God may stem from being raised in a culture where Allah is commonly viewed as an all-powerful, singular figure (similar to Kim Jong Un). Allah is a forceful, political entity rather than a more abstract, spiritual concept. Your hostility toward Muslims, non-Muslims, or diverse faiths and cultures also arises from the concept of this political Allah.
In contrast, Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist philosophies surpass these human-constructed power structures, urging individuals to explore a deeper, more holistic comprehension that transcends the constraints of worldly authority.

What is your understanding of the term "duality" and "non-duality"?

The only challenge is to try to convince the pagan to stop plasteting his face and body with cow dung, feed rats milk that should be given to children, and washing himself/herself on the regular.

In regards to the concept, you either invent your own, and thus become a filthy pagan, or accept the reality as the Creator defines it Himself!

Spirituality is an empty meaningless thing if it is not sanctioned by the Creator.

You fear the power of your boss over a measily pay, but object to the power of the Creator of all thing?