The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

[godelian]

So do you suppose that Allah is an "abstract Platonic being"?

ChatGPT: Is the view that God is an active abstract being compatible with Islam?

The view that God is an "active abstract being" can be partially compatible with Islamic theology, depending on how the terms "active" and "abstract" are defined.

In Islamic Theology:

God (Allah) is understood as:

Absolutely One (Tawhid) — unique and indivisible.

Transcendent yet Immanent — beyond creation but also close to His creation ("Closer than your jugular vein" - Qur’an 50:16).

Active — God is constantly involved in creation; nothing happens without His will. This is essential in both Sunni (Ash'ari, Maturidi) and Shia theology.

Not material or physical — so in this sense, God is abstract (not bound by physical properties), but also not impersonal or conceptual like a Platonic Form.

Compatibility Analysis:

"Active" — Yes, compatible. God’s continuous involvement with the world (creating, sustaining, guiding) is central in Islam.

"Abstract" — Depends on your meaning:

If you mean non-physical, non-material: Yes, that fits Islamic understanding.

If you mean impersonal or purely conceptual, like a deistic or philosophical force: No, that contradicts the Islamic view of a personal, willful, and responsive God who speaks, commands, and judges.

Summary:

Compatible if:
You mean God is non-material, transcendent, and active in the world.

Not compatible if:
You mean God is only a concept, or not personally involved with creation.

If you want, we can dig deeper into how specific Islamic schools (like Ash‘ari, Maturidi, or Sufi traditions) interpret God's nature in relation to this view.

The problem with the term "Platonic" is that Plato viewed God as limited to an abstract concept. I do not share that view. I believe that the difference between other Platonic objects and God, is the belief that God is active and takes the initiative. Besides that, there is no difference with other abstract Platonic objects.

[Immanuel Can]

So do you suppose that Allah is an "abstract Platonic being"?

ChatGPT:

Now, now...don't outsource your brain. Try to think for yourself, rather than through a machine another man has programmed.

The problem with the term "Platonic" is that Plato viewed God as limited to an abstract concept. I do not share that view.

Oh. You said you did. In fact, you said that having to give up that status was why you thought God could not become a man.

What's your better answer to that, then? Can God "take the initiative" to become a man?

[godelian]

Oh. You said you did. In fact, you said that having to give up that status was why you thought God could not become a man.

What's your better answer to that, then? Can God "take the initiative" to become a man?

That amounts to saying that God would commit suicide in order to become a man. I reject that possibility.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. You said you did. In fact, you said that having to give up that status was why you thought God could not become a man.

What's your better answer to that, then? Can God "take the initiative" to become a man?

That amounts to saying that God would commit suicide in order to become a man. I reject that possibility.

No, it doesn't amount to any such thing: a "man" is not a dead thing, he's a living being.

Is not Allah supposed to be infinitely powerful? Then we must ask, why would it be impossible for him to incarnate as a human being? If he is said to be the creator of all men, then how could he be less than to be able to create the same for himself?

[godelian]

Is not Allah supposed to be infinitely powerful? Then we must ask, why would it be impossible for him to incarnate as a human being? If he is said to be the creator of all men, then how could he be less than to be able to create the same for himself?

The problem is that in order to become human, it requires simultaneously the removal of the abstract being. I do not believe that this is supported.

[Immanuel Can]

Is not Allah supposed to be infinitely powerful? Then we must ask, why would it be impossible for him to incarnate as a human being? If he is said to be the creator of all men, then how could he be less than to be able to create the same for himself?

The problem is that in order to become human, it requires simultaneously the removal of the abstract being. I do not believe that this is supported.

A "abstraction" is something that only exists as concept, as something imagined, not real...very much like the Platonic "ideals."

If God is "abstract," it would mean he's not real and actual; he was only a concept, and not real. And about a purely abstract entity, anything that's possible to imagine may be true, because nothing is actually true of such.

So your worry is gone: nothing is being said about Allah, because then, you wouldn't be believing he really exists at all...he's just a concept, an idea in the minds of some Islamists. And if Allah is different in different minds (because he's only a concept), then why balk if an Islamist thinks Allah could become a human being? That's his concept. And it's as good as anybody else's, because Allah's just a concept.

[godelian]

Is not Allah supposed to be infinitely powerful? Then we must ask, why would it be impossible for him to incarnate as a human being? If he is said to be the creator of all men, then how could he be less than to be able to create the same for himself?

The problem is that in order to become human, it requires simultaneously the removal of the abstract being. I do not believe that this is supported.

A "abstraction" is something that only exists as concept, as something imagined, not real...very much like the Platonic "ideals."

If God is "abstract," it would mean he's not real and actual; he was only a concept, and not real. And about a purely abstract entity, anything that's possible to imagine may be true, because nothing is actually true of such.

So your worry is gone: nothing is being said about Allah, because then, you wouldn't be believing he really exists at all...he's just a concept, an idea in the minds of some Islamists. And if Allah is different in different minds (because he's only a concept), then why balk if an Islamist thinks Allah could become a human being? That's his concept. And it's as good as anybody else's, because Allah's just a concept.

When you look at an abstract object such as the number 19, you can prove its existence by counting till 19.

So, you have a ritual, i.e. counting, that leaves an ephemeral computational trail, that in turn proves the existence of the abstraction. The sequence in which this happens is: ritual behavior and then computational trail.

The idea is that if an abstract object has the ability to take the initiative and produce a computational trail, it can lead to ritual behavior. So, if the ephemeral computational trail of the abstract number 19 is supplied to a person, it could trigger behavior, such as counting till 19.

So, an abstract object could trigger behavior, if it were active. That would effectively reverse the sequence of (ritual behavior, computational trail) into (computational trail, ritual behavior).

Hence, the idea that God is an active abstract object that has the ability to reverse this sequence. Besides that, it is not much different from the abstract number 19. It is mostly of the same nature. This is how I see the nature of God. According to mainstream Islamic theology, God uses this capability all the time. I think that this could certainly be true.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is that in order to become human, it requires simultaneously the removal of the abstract being. I do not believe that this is supported.

A "abstraction" is something that only exists as concept, as something imagined, not real...very much like the Platonic "ideals."

If God is "abstract," it would mean he's not real and actual; he was only a concept, and not real. And about a purely abstract entity, anything that's possible to imagine may be true, because nothing is actually true of such.

So your worry is gone: nothing is being said about Allah, because then, you wouldn't be believing he really exists at all...he's just a concept, an idea in the minds of some Islamists. And if Allah is different in different minds (because he's only a concept), then why balk if an Islamist thinks Allah could become a human being? That's his concept. And it's as good as anybody else's, because Allah's just a concept.

When you look at an abstract object such as the number 19, you can prove its existence by counting till 19.

You can prove the existence of 19 objects. But you're not proving the independent existence of the number 19 itself. A number is an abstraction...and you can tell, because it can be applied to any objects without changing the meaning of the number 19 itself, at all...19 cats, 19 emus, 19 pencils, 19 bridges, 19 days...and so on.

The idea is that if an abstract object has the ability to take the initiative

That's the problem: no abstraction has any ability to "take any initiative." The number 19 does not "initiate" or cause the existence of cats, or emus, or pencils...it's an abstraction used to quantify the cats, emus and pencils after the fact, after they already exist.

When was the last time "the number 19" made you do something?

So is Allah a mere abstraction? If so, he's incapable of making you do anything? He doesn't then seem like he's very potent...not really a "god" at all. No wonder he can't become human...apparently, he can't do anything at all.

[godelian]

You can prove the existence of 19 objects. But you're not proving the independent existence of the number 19 itself. A number is an abstraction...and you can tell, because it can be applied to any objects without changing the meaning of the number 19 itself, at all...19 cats, 19 emus, 19 pencils, 19 bridges, 19 days...and so on.

The term "proof" means that the sentence necessarily follows from the axioms. It is therefore an abstract symbolic computational trail:

ChatGPT: How do you prove the existence of the number 19?

Great question — deceptively simple but actually pretty deep when you dig into it. Let's look at a few ways you can approach proving the existence of the number 19, depending on the level of mathematical rigor or philosophical perspective you're going for:

1. Intuitive (Everyday Use) Perspective

We "see" and "use" 19 in daily life — there are 19 pencils, 19 people, 19 dollars. From this point of view, 19 exists because we can count it, name it, and apply it.

But that’s not really a proof. So let’s go deeper.

2. Set-Theoretic (Mathematical Logic) Perspective

In formal mathematics, especially in foundational systems like Peano Arithmetic or Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory (ZF), numbers are defined constructively from simpler elements.

Here's a simplified idea:

Start with 0, which is defined as the empty set:
0 = ∅

Define the successor of a number n as S(n) = n ∪ {n}.

So:

1 = S(0) = {∅}
2 = S(1) = {∅, {∅}}
...
You keep doing this 19 times, and the result is a specific, well-defined set. That set is 19.

Therefore, 19 exists in the formal mathematical system because we can construct it explicitly from axioms.

3. Peano Axioms Perspective

Peano Arithmetic defines the natural numbers using axioms:

0 is a natural number.
Every number has a unique successor.
There’s no number whose successor is 0.

If a property holds for 0, and holds for the successor of a number if it holds for the number, then it holds for all natural numbers (induction).

Using this system:

Start with 0.
Apply the successor function 19 times.
The result is defined as 19.

So again: 19 exists because it can be reached through a finite number of applications of the successor function, which is justified by the axioms.

It is no coincidence that the proof in ZF looks the same as in PA. As long as you do not assume the existence of the fully-inducted set of natural numbers (and reject that idea), set theory (ZF) is bi-interpretable with arithmetic theory (PA).

The explanation by ChatGPT above, is how to produce a computational trail that proves the existence of the number 19. All you need to do, is to ritually count till 19. It is a very simple and straightforward ceremony.

[Immanuel Can]

You can prove the existence of 19 objects. But you're not proving the independent existence of the number 19 itself. A number is an abstraction...and you can tell, because it can be applied to any objects without changing the meaning of the number 19 itself, at all...19 cats, 19 emus, 19 pencils, 19 bridges, 19 days...and so on.

The term "proof"...

Not relevant to the objection. Don't waste our time, please. You still can't show anybody "a 19" without making it into something concrete, like a symbol, or some collection of 19 objects. On its own, considered apart from everything material (i.e. as "abstract") you can't even find your "19".

And 19 doesn't cause things to happen.

So Allah, if he is a mere abstraction, neither has independent existence, nor can cause anything. Content with that analogy?

[godelian]

You still can't show anybody "a 19" without making it into something concrete, like a symbol, or some collection of 19 objects.

Which symbol? There are an infinite number of ways to represent the number 19. The representation is not the thing, or as Alfred Korzybski famously argued, "The map is not the territory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80 ... y_relation

On its own, considered apart from everything material (i.e. as "abstract") you can't even find your "19".

Just like all other abstractions, the number "19" exists eternally:

Gemini: mathematical Platonism

Mathematical Platonism is the philosophical view that mathematical objects (like numbers and sets) exist independently of human minds, language, and thought, and are abstract and eternal.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Abstract Objects:

Mathematical Platonists believe that mathematical entities are not physical or mental, but exist in a realm beyond space and time.

Independent Existence:

They argue that mathematical truths are not created by humans, but rather discovered, existing independently of our knowledge or language.

Realism:

Mathematical Platonism is a form of realism, suggesting that mathematical entities are real and objective, not merely constructs of the human mind.

And 19 doesn't cause things to happen.

The number 19 is deemed a passive abstract object. It cannot reverse the ritual/proof sequence. God is deemed to be the only active abstract object which can successfully reverse the sequence.

So Allah, if he is a mere abstraction, neither has independent existence, nor can cause anything. Content with that analogy?

Wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

The representation is not the thing...

Right.

But I can't see the relevance. If Allah is an abstraction, then he doesn't exist in the real world. He exists only as an idea, a concept, an imagining.

the number "19" exists eternally:

That's what Plato supposed, but only "eternally" in that any number of disparate objects could be associated with "19"-ness. He was not silly enough to imagine there actually was some other reality where "19" could be found floating, unattached to any particular objects of even a symbol.

That's the problem with abstract things like mathematical quantifications: they have no independent existence, and don't make anything happen. Is Allah like that?

[godelian]

If Allah is an abstraction, then he doesn't exist in the real world. He exists only as an idea, a concept, an imagining.

Abstract objects leave their shadows in the physical world. For numbers and statements about numbers, we know that they leave behind computational trails as shadows. Such computational trail is proof for their truth. These shadows are eminently capable of triggering change in human behavior.

In an interpretation of physics in which the physical universe is considered to be one large computational device, these shadows would also be capable of triggering change in physical dynamics. I don't study this subject particularly much, though. So, I cannot elaborate on this.

An active abstract object does not wait for anybody to perform a ritual to trigger its shadows. It actively does that on its own initiative.

So, a correctly performed ritual leads to the production of a proof that triggers the shadows of an abstract object. Vice versa, by leaving its shadows in the physical universe, the active abstract object triggers the performance of rituals or other behavior.

[Immanuel Can]

If Allah is an abstraction, then he doesn't exist in the real world. He exists only as an idea, a concept, an imagining.

Abstract objects leave their shadows in the physical world.

It's the other way around, actually. The physical world is what gives us belief in numbers. Numbers are an idea "abstracted from" reality. That's what "abstract" implies, actually. It's only when you have sheep, or coins, or emus, or pencils, that you have an application for the idea of "19-ness." Plato understood that.

So from what is the concept "Allah" abstracted? If he's a "shadow," what object casts that "shadow"?

[godelian]

If Allah is an abstraction, then he doesn't exist in the real world. He exists only as an idea, a concept, an imagining.

Abstract objects leave their shadows in the physical world.

It's the other way around, actually. The physical world is what gives us belief in numbers. Numbers are an idea "abstracted from" reality. That's what "abstract" implies, actually. It's only when you have sheep, or coins, or emus, or pencils, that you have an application for the idea of "19-ness." Plato understood that.

So from what is the concept "Allah" abstracted? If he's a "shadow," what object casts that "shadow"?

It's the other way around. What we see with our eyes are just shadows in the cave. In order to see the truth, i.e. the abstractions, you have to use pure, blind reason.