Stigma✞

Thank you for the spectacular public concession @muslimorthodoxy You have just admitted your deity is a spatially-bounded, composite object. Rejecting the word ‘jism’ does not save you from the inescapable physics of your own theology. First, your claim that inferring 3 dimensions is "unjustified" is geometrically illiterate. You say God is spatial and concrete. 1If X is spatial, then X has a spatial presence. 2Space (even in a relational account) is inherently 3-dimensional. 3Therefore, X has a 3-dimensional presence. You cannot adopt the physics of space and then reject the math. You simultaneously affirm that God is spatial, possesses distinct parts (2 Eyes, Face, 2 Hands, Fingers and Feet) that do not overlap and occupy mutually different spatial locations, and has a limit (Hadd). If an entity has a 3-dimensional presence, limits, and spatially non-overlapping parts, it mathematically necessitates height, width, and depth. What is your alternative? Is your deity a 2-dimensional flat plane? Furthermore, your explicit admission that God has a "Hadd" (limit) at both ends is a fatal metaphysical error. A limit means there is a physical boundary where your deity’s spatial extension begins and ends. Your deity’s spatial extent is a finite number. Anything with a specific boundary and finite extension such as 3 dimensions each with a hadd is finite, arbitrarily limited and requires an external Specifier (Mukhassis) to determine why its limit is exactly that and not some other number. You have reduced the infinite Creator to something finite and externally determined. Second, you admit God has parts (‘lesser than the subject’) but try to save this by saying they aren't "separable like Legos." Physical separability is a biological defense to a metaphysical problem. The logical issue is mereological dependence: a whole mathematically depends on its parts to be what it is. By affirming parts, you strip God of absolute Aseity (independent self-existence) and make Him a dependent composite. You’re as bad as a Social Trinitarian except they have less deity parts than you. Ironically, once you concede this, you completely lose the metaphysical high ground to attack Christians for the Trinity of 3 inseparable divine persons or the eternal generation of the Son. You, like a Christian, are defending composite deity that lacks absolute aseity. Finally, your attempt to weaponize ‘modal collapse’ against Absolute Divine Simplicity completely misses the mark. As a necessitarian, I don't concede modal collapse - I assert it and champion it. It is a feature, not a bug. See my journal article on the topic. The alternative you defend requires positing brute contingencies. If you reject necessitarianism, you introduce ungrounded, brute facts into reality either within the divine or the creaturely levels, destroying the Principle of Sufficient Reason and utterly undermining the foundation of monotheism. You haven't defended the Absolute Creator; you've merely described a giant, mathematically measurable, finitely bounded object and labeled it "Allah."