If God is the Same then Why is God Different?

The concept of God is the same, different names for God comes from having different ideologies.that is all.

Hi Saima,
Wanted to say, i really like the simplicty in which this article has been written. It depicts God very beautifully (through the mystical view point) - can surely relate to it!

Cheers
Khwagay

rashid_s #86

{{It is said that once a student knocked on Bertrand Russell’s door early in the morning and handed him a piece of paper and ran away.
Russell stood reading what was on the page ---“the statement on the other side is false� it said–- -
so he turned it over, it read--- “ the statement on other side is false�}}

It may not be central to the discussion, but the case you have mentioned above isn't the problematic one.

Let the truth values for the statements on the two sides of the paper be v1, v2 respectively. Then a (v1, v2) assignment of (T, F) works perfectly well for the case you narrated; as does (v1, v2) = (F, T).

The paradoxical case is where one side reads “the statement on the other side is TRUE� and the other reads “the statement on other side is FALSE�. It is easy to verify that there is no consistent truth value assignment to (v1, v2). This is of course a variant of the Liar paradox.

Re: # 73
sattar...
I have already answered...this rule ( conditional existance) applies only to god...so, better treat your mother-in-law as god...then her existance will depend upon your wish...

If God is the Same then Why is God Different?
It is said that once a student knocked on Bertrand Russell’s door early in the morning and handed him a piece of paper and ran away.
Russell stood reading what was on the page ---“the statement on the other side is false� it said–- -
so he turned it over, it read--- “ the statement on other side is false�
I have not read a solution to the above any where, but the heading of this article falls in the same category.
The fact that Author uses one word GOD for ‘same’ and ‘different’ must have in it the answersome where.
God, Got, Barabhu, Mungu, Allah etc are words, with ‘association of ideas’ given to the user, who are brought up in different “religions� which had designed various and different concepts.
For example, it is a trend lately amongst the ‘born again Muslims’ not to use Khuda and insist that the name is Allah and should be so used , as if the name is registered, like that of a new born child, in some Government Births, Death and Marriage Bureau!
Rashid

Re: # 83

enough said from my side for now ... if anything I am more likely to (and will) defend the rights of people to have their delusions and maintain them too ... I doubt I could say the same if the shoe was on the other foot!

will continue this another time ... gtg

by the way someone has flagged your post, it was not I.

Mr cheema, you cannot be in touch with your human side when you condemn so many of your fellow human beings because they adhere to some religious beliefs that are not in tune with the structure of present day society of which atheism is the new religion (by fact or practice). The crimes of the present secular regimes are no less than those of the religious regimes of old, yes these atrocities are committed using religious legitimations for segments of the population but underlying it all are deeply athiestic convictions and motives, having nothing to do with God whatsoever.

Mills writes on a subject he is an expert on and qualified for. Dawkins is not an Old Testament or religion scholar and science is in no position to dissect religions that are located in a culture.

As nature can be scientifically studied, the literary word can allude to the structural reality that depicts it- so can the Quran be decoded in my humble opinion.

God is not jealous just as truth is not jealous of falsehood. That falsehood leads to the evil that religion becomes and what you decry that is why the exclusivity sought by the Quran in relation to God. Of course you might have a problem with truth conquering falsehood (does not mean through force of arms but by the nature of truth), I don't

Have a nice day and study the Quran if you find some time to do so, not to believe it but to argue with it...

Re: # 81

correction

*WELL done

apologies

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 78; masadi

let me clarify

1 - I am very much in touch with the human inside me ... and have a much better track record in human terms than any self-righteous 'God-fearing' person I have comeacross in daily life ... I simply follow the golden rule that one shouldn't do to anyone what one wouldn't want done to oneself ... and that is all the morality I need to live a fulfilling life

2 - you alluded to 'nature' ... which is not the same as a 'living God' who, every so often, 'speaks' to or through people in various languages, with his latest 'edition' of unalterable word ... that's a deluded concept and only the mentally deranged would actually believe that to be the 'ultimate truth'

3 - I like Dawkins as a good reference point to what positive atheism is about ... no different to you quoting Mills et al at will to prove your own stance on various things ... but most of what I express is a result of my own thinking and not that of anyone else ... call it my 'experimentation' with ideas ... which is a fluid state of affairs though does appear rigid in a contemporaneous sense

4 - I agree that atrocities against humanity are not just the domain of the religious ... many 'seculars' have committed them too ... but NEVER IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM ... there is NO ATHEIST CONVENTION/CONSENSUS/MANIFESTO that dictates how people treat their fellow humans ... good people do good things and bad people do bad things ... but RELIGION IS something that has the capacity/capability to make good people (by nature) to do bad things and the motivation is justified through THEIR INTERPRETATION of their theological sources

5 - if you (or anyone else) wants to give a collective name to what exists in nature and its workings, and call it 'God', I have no objection to this idea at all ... but this 'God of the philosopher/scientist/thinker/humanist' is lightyears away from the 'Omnipotent, jealous God' of religion (especially the Biblio-Quranic religion) ... a God who is 'jealous' of others is no different in the Old testament or the Quran ... they are the same 'person' ... lets not forget it was this very God who couldn't tolerate the 360 images within 'His' house in Mecca ... at the chants of "ja'al haqqa wa zahaq'al baatil, innal baatila kaana zahooqa"

take care

Ref: echo's ilog

echo sahib it would still not answer the contention of the atheist why God allows evil to materialize if he is all powerful, evil is relative as the Quran eloquently states that you might consider something evil in which God has placed much good. The process of discovery of good and evil itself is human growth that wouldn't be possible were evil not to exist.

#64 akcheema, Dawkins is not an old testament scholar to come up those conclusions that represent varied writings at various time periods with various alterations. Further you cannot simply translate from the OT to the Quran, both are qualitatively different documents and represent different histories as well. Just because adherents to organized religion happen to act in dispicable ways, does not mean you use their behavior to condemn God or dismiss the idea of God. Many secular people have committed great atrocities following various ideologies, condemning others just because they differ with your belief system as the so-called atheists and other liberal secularists do reveals that they are just as 'religious' as they folk they condemn

Discover the humanity in yourself and in others, a humanity that cannot sever its link to nature, a nature that leads directly to God. In other words get an education.

TOAO

Tahir:
Qutb-ud-din Aibak

Chowk staff, as a member I am interested in reading Tahir's views. Please release his article. His earlier piece about the flight attendant was fascinating. The person has talent, you are suppressing it. It is not fair. Thank you for your kind attention.

TOAO

Sattar

You ARE allowed to not believe your mother-in-law physically exists

You CAN imagine your mother-in-law does not exists

Hinduism tells its adherents that their physical existence is maya - an illusion. That makes your mother-in-law an illusion – a non-reality.

But how do you wake up from this dream – nightmare in your case - to rid of her? You've got a problem and YOU figure out a solution. Looking for a solution of a problem of this nature beyond your own self will not help you.

Mr. Prakash, India's sex ratio is not the same as Pakistan's, it is much higher, there are 6 to 7 more males per 100 females in India among the younger ages which signifies number born. India selectively aborts female fetuses.

Adding marital rape to the definition of rape did not swell the rape stats in the U.S. they actually went down per capita beginning at the time period that marital rape began to be considered rape. Further just because something is considered a crime does not mean it is prosecuted. You need to get an education. You cannot match the every 60 seconds a woman is raped in the U.S. with, the Taliban were lashing a girl so let's attack Pakistan. That is not a valid comparison definitely, rather the U.S. is oppressing women so Canada should liberate US women.

Every obfuscating point you have rasied has been dismantled, yet your hate for Pakistan keeps you making connections where none exist. The U.S. on the other hand commandeers global institutions that keep feudal relations intact by selectively preventing the industrial development of nations or supporting militaristic regimes. Therefore any women's rights issues in the developing world have 'made in usa' stamped on them.

TOAO (The old and original)