yandex99
Mistral
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2023
- Posts
- 2,016
- Reputation
- 1,844
comment I wrote on Unz.com on one of andrew anglin's articles to a muslim arguing for 'Allaah'.
Read Nagarjuna,namely his mulamadhyamakakarika.Nihilistic nihilism is the truth,reality is a mirage.it’s true that ‘if’a divine being were self-sufficient,he couldn’t be made up of two parts and thus there couldn’t be multiple dieties,those two parts being a shared and peculiar essence which would make him composite and thus contigent,but a divine being cannot exist.
if a divine being existed,his essence would be permanent,but then what causes his changing cognitions,desires and how can a essentially self-sufficient being even have cognitions,since he is dependant on the objects he cognizes to cognize said objects?
Knowledge by correspondance is always a feature of a contigent thing.something still is inert,something moving is essentially changing,thus impermanent.either way nothing can be self-sufficient and thus permanent.
something still must have endurance and thus movement to be permanent,as existance is an act.
so the God of the neoplatonists cannot exist.
something moving is in potentiality so it has no permanence,as if something were inherently existing it couldn’t change,and go in and out of existance,or thus change it's nature.
Allah being both permanent and having impermanent parts refutes both his oneness(and thus self-sufficiency) and his essence being self-coherent and non-contradictorary.
Read Nagarjuna,namely his mulamadhyamakakarika.Nihilistic nihilism is the truth,reality is a mirage.it’s true that ‘if’a divine being were self-sufficient,he couldn’t be made up of two parts and thus there couldn’t be multiple dieties,those two parts being a shared and peculiar essence which would make him composite and thus contigent,but a divine being cannot exist.
if a divine being existed,his essence would be permanent,but then what causes his changing cognitions,desires and how can a essentially self-sufficient being even have cognitions,since he is dependant on the objects he cognizes to cognize said objects?
Knowledge by correspondance is always a feature of a contigent thing.something still is inert,something moving is essentially changing,thus impermanent.either way nothing can be self-sufficient and thus permanent.
something still must have endurance and thus movement to be permanent,as existance is an act.
so the God of the neoplatonists cannot exist.
something moving is in potentiality so it has no permanence,as if something were inherently existing it couldn’t change,and go in and out of existance,or thus change it's nature.
Allah being both permanent and having impermanent parts refutes both his oneness(and thus self-sufficiency) and his essence being self-coherent and non-contradictorary.