A brief proof why God does not have diverse attributes.

[Soccer]

When it is acknowledged God is the Ultimate being, it can be proven that God is One with no divisions.

God has attributes that differ from one another from our perspective. But what I mean this, is God is Ultimate essence in which there is no diversity in his essence nor divisions in his attributes, that is to say his attributes refer to the same essence and he is a complete simple unity.

One reason this can be inferred by us lowly creatures, is simply, that if he had diverse attributes, different attributes would lack what is in the other. Then God would be formed of incomplete attributes. We would say God is over all perfect with incomplete attributes, but this would be equating God and putting on par with him incomplete attributes.

God is also Ultimate Life and for love to be ultimate, it must be that God is ultimate love which is ultimate power which is ultimate sight which is ultimate wisdom which is ultimate justice etc.

Now some attributes differ in God in that wrath differs from mercy, and mercy precedes God's wrath, but in reality, this is just application of God with respect to different things. There is no difference, it's the same essence but applied to different scenarios. They differ vastly from our perspective, but are in reality, manifesting the same glory and beauty.

To see diversity in his essence, would make God formed of imperfect attributes and hence God is One with no divisions in his essence. A single essence.

Of course that essence is also something that is filled with all possible glory, beauties, and greatness, and so lacks nothing.

[Ruh Muhaccer]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have come across in a while.
So absurd I am on the brink of reporting you for trolling.

You are saying that he has "attributes that differ ... from our perspective". Is the "logical" proof you provide afterwards not something from your perspective? What is so ultimate about his essence?
"One reason this can be inferred by us lowly creatures, is simply, that if he had diverse attributes, different attributes would lack what is in the other." This is both a non sequitur and a composition fallacy. If someone is a perfect football player, it does not mean he cannot be a perfect cook and it does not mean that if he is perfect in soccer and cooking at the same time that one lack the other. Because his "soccer abilities" are complete in themselves and his "cooking skills" are complete in themselves separately.

You go on saying that "He is ultimate life, ultimate this ... ultimate that". Did you not say a sentence earlier that he does not have differing attributes? So God has no Life, no Love, no Power, no Sight, no Wisdom ... that would be imperfection according to you because the attributes would be seperate. He would according to you, just have "Godness". Nothing more.

They differ vastly from our perspective, but are in reality, manifesting the same glory and beauty.
I thought they did not differ? If you can prove with "human reason" that they should not differ, they do not differ from our perspective because our reason is not seperate from us but a lense through which we see things.
This would entail that if God is manifesting wrath he is manifesting everything else at the samte time (if we forget that wrath, mercy etc. is all an illusion according to you and just a single attribute), which is nonsense. If your point is that he shows his "Allahness" which comprises all the names, then khalas your proof is unnesscary because no one disagrees. But does it mean that every time he shows his "Allahness" he shows is "Restrictorness (Al-QaabiD)" AND "Expander "Al-BaasiT"? He does not do "BasT and QabD" at the same time. These are mutually exclusive contraries it is impossible.


To see diversity in his essence, would make God formed of imperfect attributes and hence God is One with no divisions in his essence. A single essence.
I do not know what the rawaafidah believe but I have never seen a MUSLIM who thinks there is a multiplicity in Allah's essence his dhaat. That is a Christian or Polytheistic thing but has nothing to do with Islam. So why are you refuting things which Muslims do not believe anyways.

Of course that essence is also something that is filled with all possible glory, beauties, and greatness, and so lacks nothing.
Khalas, so suddenly he does have diverse attributes? Each sentence you write refutes the one preceding it. Don't you see that what you have done is simply say that his attributes are the same as his essence now?

You seem to be truly confused, but please do not spread the confusion online, May Allah Guide you my Shi'i friend.

[Soccer]

Salam

Quran "You did not throw when you threw but Allah threw", "you did not throw" technically contradicts "You threw".

Allah (swt) obviously has all perfections.   Perfections are not only many but even infinite. Imam Zainal Abideen (a) says "o who's there is no bound to the glories of his face".

The issue is we agree but are arguing semantics. Semantics is just to convey an understanding.

Punishing is different than rewarding. Obviously that is true.

What is subtle and what I'm trying to convey, is the same exact reality that makes God compassionate and generous in rewarding believers, is the same, reality that makes him severe in punishment to disbelievers.

As you said, God's Essence is One. This is what I'm talking about. But what is the reality behind God's titles and aspects. They are manifesting his essence. 

Quran says God is one in Surah Ikhlas which is different then when it usually says God is One. When it usually says the context is there are no equals to God, but Surah Ikhlas ends with that remark, while, the truth, is God is One means his essence is single and undivided. We agree on this.

Samad though means he is filled and lacks nothing, and so this where yes, there are from our perspective diverse attributes.  But from Allah (swt) ultimate sight of himself, there is but a single essence. We need a lot of descent of glories to perceive aspects of God, but that is not to say, that his essence is actually divided.

So if we agree, then it at this point, just a dispute of how to use semantics.

It's as if to make analogy "You did not throw when you threw", to argue about whether Mohammad (s) should be said to have thrown or not. Both are true, he did throw and he did not throw, but it's about understanding what is meant by these two apparently contradicting statements that do no contradict.

I agree with you saying God is his Attributes is another way of expressing that. God punishing is different than being merciful, but it's manifesting in reality the same glory.

What I mean by his attributes all contain each other, is not that they actually each other when we think about them, but that they point to a reality of truth (God) that is referenced by all these attributes in a single undivided essence.

So we agree, and really, this is arguing about nothing at this point.