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)

It's a dawn of a new day

zaman, if one may believe in god who does not physically exist, then one should be allowed to NOT believe in mother-in-law who physically exists ...

If I can imagine god INTO existence, then why not imagine mother-in-law OUT OF existence?

This argument is my only chance of dealing with the witch ... do you think I have a case?

#69 its worse than that - there is 4 billion years of zero sum game that life has played on earth and to which mankind is heir to. the negativity on chowk illustrates this.

Re: # 68
sattar2...
first, you have to treat your mom-in-law as god...then.....

there is no god. seeing how we behave i can only suggest that the dna of life on earth was dropped into our oceans by some extra terestrail flying saucer, and we are leftovers of some strange experiment that life forms of superior intelligence conducted.

#68

God is either/or, based on your belief. God by definition does not belong in the physical realm, your mother-in-law does. You CAN pretend away your mother-in-law by ignoring that witch (a “witch� by your definition – remember, everything is “relative� – and the pun is intended). You CANNOT pretend away God. God is either/or, your mother-in-law isn’t.

re #67 ... I wish this applied to my mother-in-law also. Then I could simply ignore the witch and pretend she doesn't exist :)

God exists if you believe He does, he doesn't if you don't. Arguing about it is just a waste of time.

The man behind the mask

A Surya Prakash

As he comes to the end of his term as Prime Minister, Mr Manmohan Singh has decided to serve up a daily dose of vitriol in order to convince the people of India that he is not a weak Prime Minister. But, not everybody is taken in by his strident denunciations and what many regard as his unrighteous indignation. How will history judge him, specially when it evaluates him through the prism of constitutionality and the rule of law? Let us seek answers through the stories of four men — Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Mr Navin Chawla — and guess what future generations would make of his prime ministership.

The Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, which investigated the anti-Sikh pogrom unleashed by the Congress following the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi, has provided gory details of the large-scale massacre of members of a small religious minority by this party’s goons. The report says that in all 2,732 Sikhs were killed in those riots — 2,146 in Delhi and 586 in some other towns in north India. Thousands of others were grievously injured. Congress supporters roamed the streets and torched every known Sikh establishment including factories, businesses, homes and motor vehicles. But, how did the ‘secular’ Congress, which was at that time presided over by the ‘secular’ Rajiv Gandhi, respond in the face of this barbaric assault on the Sikh community?

The Nanavati Commission says that in Delhi, just 587 First Information Reports were filed in police stations in respect of these incidents. Of them, 241 cases were filed as ‘untraced’ by the police and 253 cases ended in acquittals. The police obtained convictions in just 25 of the 587 cases!

After Justice Nanavati submitted his report in February, 2005, the UPA Government headed by Mr Singh presented the mandatory ‘Action Taken’ Report to Parliament. In reality, it was a report on inaction and the irony is that it was presented by a Government headed by India’s first minority Prime Minister, and one who happened to be a Sikh. For example, when the commission said, “There is credible evidence against Shri Jagdish Tytler to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organising the attacks on Sikhs�, Mr Singh’s Government desperately clung to the words “very probably� and said no person can be prosecuted simply on the basis of ‘probability’.

Similarly, in respect of Sajjan Kumar, the commission concluded that “there is credible material� against him and that witnesses had accused him of inciting people to kill Sikhs and loot and destroy their properties. Yet, Mr Singh silently watched as his party nominated Sajjan Kumar as a candidate for the ongoing Lok Sabha election.

The Congress announced the party’s tickets to Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar on March 22. The Prime Minister remained a passive spectator and even pretended that he was unaware of the clean chit that the Central Bureau of Investigation had given Tytler. Mr Singh’s shocking acquiescence to something so dreadful and unjust provoked a Sikh journalist to take the law into his hands. Eventually, this journalist’s ‘soleful’ riposte bestirred the soulless Congress and forced it to cancel their tickets. Yet, Mr Singh wants us to believe that he is a sensitive man; that he is a ‘secular’ man; and that he is not a weak Prime Minister!

Let us now turn to Ottavio Quattrocchi, Ms Sonia Gandhi’s Italian friend who got a commission of $ 7.3 million when we bought field guns from Bofors for our Army. The money first came to Quattrocchi’s Swiss Bank account and when non-Congress Governments began dredging up the truth, it was transferred to bank accounts in London. The National Democratic Alliance Government headed by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee moved the UK authorities and ensured that those accounts were frozen. Mr Singh quietly unlocked Quattrocchi’s London bank accounts and ensured the Italian knocked off the commission.

His Government also dragged its feet on Quattrocchi’s extradition after the latter’s arrest in Argentina. It even hid information about Quattrocchi’s bail from the Supreme Court. The CBI claimed that it had not been informed about it by the Foreign Office. So, while in Jagdish Tytler’s case Mr Singh claims that the CBI never told him that it was giving the man a clean chit, in the Quattrocchi Case, the CBI said it was kept in the dark by the Foreign Office.

However, Mr Singh would like us to believe that he is an honourable man; that the country’s defence establishment is safe in his hands; that under him, the rule of law prevails at all time; and he is only concerned about the ‘aam admi’ and not about 10 Janpath’s ‘khaas admi’!

The third example is that of Mr Navin Chawla, the Secretary to the Lt Governor of Delhi during the dreaded Emergency in 1975-77. Mr Chawla displayed fascist tendencies when he ordered the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to “bake� Mrs Indira Gandhi’s political opponents in cells with asbestos roofs. The Shah Commission of Inquiry, which examined the systematic assault on democracy during the Emergency, said Mr Chawla had behaved in an “authoritarian and callous� manner. It indicted him and two other officers and said, “They grossly misused their position and abused their powers in cynical disregard of the welfare of citizens and in the process rendered themselves unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others.� In its concluding remarks on the conduct of Mr Chawla and other officers, the commission said, “...tyrants sprouted at all levels overnight — tyrants whose claim to authority was largely based on their proximity to power....�

However, this very person, who was declared “unfit to hold any public office� and who was virtually described a tyrant by Justice Shah, was appointed as Election Commissioner by Mr Singh in 2005. Mr Chawla assumes the charge of Chief Election Commissioner this week. Please note: Mr Singh is an honourable man; he is a man of character; and our democracy and our Constitution is safe in his hands!

So, how will history remember Mr Singh? As an honourable, ‘secular’ man as his shrill declamations would have us believe or as a Prime Minister who lacked the moral fibre to stand up for the Sikh community, of which he was himself a member? As a man who enforced the rule of law or as one who ducked responsibility to help the Italian friend of his mentor? Finally, will history remember him as a man who had deep respect for constitutional and democratic values or as one who sacrificed these values at the altar of political survival and admitted an unfit person to the sanctum sanctorum of democracy — the Election Commission ? Let us leave it to history.

God is same, god is different - which is true? Here’s another way of viewing the issue, this time through mundane examples and without involving the abstract notion of an invisible god.

An incident … any incident … may appear differently to observers depending upon their viewing angle. Furthermore, as one observer narrates the incident to others who were not present, and the account is narrated over and over again, from one person to another, across the dimension of time, details change. Over time an almost infinite number of accounts appear, each with its own set of distinct details.

And all this started with a single event, which was perhaps as mundane as a traffic accident between a car and a motorcycle on a busy street.

Considering varying human experiences and biases, it would be surprising if there was consensus regarding notions of the divine.

Re: # 24; Shoaib

you are right ... Dawkins said the following:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully."

this could easily be extrapolated to HIS arabised version too!

then we have people trying to give it 'philosophical' bend and attemting to fudge over the reality ... the only people they fool is themselves! ... especially with confused remarks such as "one" doesn't inply a "numerical" figure as we mere mortal humans understand it!! unbelievable ... if there is such great divide between God and his creation, why do we need him in the first place? he can live happily in his domain and leave us in ours ... this is essentially what justifies the existence of these individuals ... if it hadn't been for their confused 'explanations', we'd be happy enough ... they operate under the garbs of 'enligtened' philosophers (with circular easonings), mullahs, priests, rabbis etc ... that is the only way they can maintain a living ... by teaching the masses that the whole thing is far too complex for the ordinary man to cmprehend! then they come in pretending to 'explain it all'!! as if God's message needs an 'intermediary' to interpret/decipher its 'true' meaning

to be honest, I can't be asked to be arguing with retards anymore ... like I said before, they are welcome to their delusions as long as they leave others alone (from a political perspective).

dear author,
that is some insight. so u have found the answer, long though it may have been in coming. i assume, i mean i should accept (shouldn't i?) without question or even shadow of a doubt that this answer is definitive --- no ifs and buts about it. the poor guy up there with the long flowing beard (i wonder if it is sharia compliant?) is no more than a piece of human imagination.

isn't it ironic though that the bible teaches us the same thing; that verily man/woman made god in his/her own image? i hope yours adheres to proper hijab per the standards that soon likely to be upon us!

Re: # 25

I was wondering when `Religion' was going to appear because GOD is clearly a lot more than religion. The spiritual messages of Buddha, Mahavirs, Jesus, Muhammad and other great souls were not religions. They became religions when their followers formalised these into scriptures, rituals and religious customs that were practiced in their places of worship. Sadly however the thoughts of the founders have been universally twisted by the Monks, Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests who claimed to be the `sole selling agents’ of their brands of GOD because all religions are big businesses trading on the gullibility of their devotees.

The founders of all religions were simple human beings who had love and compassion for all humanity. Professional priests later mythified these prophets, apostles, saints, sages, etc., and raised them to a sacred status to enhance their own power usually by attributing miracles and distorting the words and actions of the founders into the sacred scriptures that they wrote centuries after the founders or prophets. Most of the `gurus’, `pirs’ and `babas’ deserve the same skepticism because many, despite their huge followings, are often surprisingly narrow-minded and ignorant. So it is refreshing to read an article uncluttered by all their claptrap.

#55, we need to stop making a fuss over these things. Spies are killed all the time.

Every religion on this planet at its core is/was monotheistic. It is the adherents who have added gods to satisfy their own inadequacies. Even Hinduism which boasts about 900 million dieties and counting was originally a monotheistic religion. It is their priests who corrupted the religion to what it is now.

This proves that Allah has sent 124,000 prophets to every nation in this world at different times to convey to them the message of monotheism. There is only One God. Allah-o-Akbar.

If God is the Same then Why is God Different?
It is elementary dear Saima. God is the Same because he has a center in all of us, in all consciousness.

Then Why is God Different? Because God has no CIRCUMFRENCE

Re: # 57

I certainly misspelled Stephen Hawking.

Anil writes "Yes, it is quite clear that I do not understand the issues that are with the initial condition, then I am in a company that includes Stephen Hawikins and several others.."

Anil sahib learn to spell Hawking. You might be in his company only to the extent of being unscientific when he pontificates multiverses. I am in the company of bigger giants if we are counting names and those are listed on the site you mention.

You should be able to say what you have to say in a couple of posts rather than write a dozen pieces of nonsense. Get a hold of yourself man.

TNITC masadi

Re: # 55

what a disgusting video! made my stomach churn.

Folks! Prepare yourselves for something grossly disturbing. You do not have to watch it necessarily. A friend of mine forwarded this link to me. SERIOUS VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED!



http://islamabadobserver.com/2009/04/20/taliban-slaughtering-acc used-like-animals/

The idea of God arises from the question "Is there a God?" The question arises from our intelligence, and our intelligence in turn arises from God. The idea of a benevolent God may come from hope. Since we acknowledge that God exists and is all powerful, we'd much rather have a God who is benevolent than someone who is merciless.

Imagine we were garden plants. We would be living and have the ability to interact with our surroundings, but have no ability to comprehend the actions of man. We don't even know man exists, only that some mysterious power gives us sustenance in the soil, sometimes chops us down, makes us flower and bear fruit, and makes us wither away and die. The tree could never hope to comprehend man - the tree simply does not have the tools to see or feel us. We may be like garden plants and God may be like us, in so much as our dimensions don't interact except at the margin, and our intelligence and our senses don't allow us to comprehend and incredible truth.

Beyond all this, it is possible that all of the great prophets of the world actually communicated with God because they had an ability that many of us didn't have. And that their words are those of a God whose dimensions, nature and size we can scarcely comprehend.

masadi

stop monkeying around with God and tell me this: What has Islam and the Muslims have done in the last 500 years to the betterment of our planet? And no, don't give me an excuse of "Oh, we're the innocent victim of the white people aggression".

Philosopher:

You do present interesting point of view.

Re: # 45

Masadi sahib:

"...For further reading http://god.rationalreality.com ..."

I have read you wrote there on your web-site and a while ago on Chowk. All I can say is nothing can be more irrational and ignorant attempt to write in a few paragraphs what has taken humans thousands of years of probity, questioning, reasoning, and rationalizing.

You debunk entire Science or a simple science that I understand debunks you. Alhtough my belief system (God's creation, v Man's imagination) allows you to believe whichever way you want.

Re: # 47

Masadi sahib:

Yes, it is quite clear that I do not understand the issues that are with the initial condition, then I am in a company that includes Stephen Hawikins and several others. Limitation of quantum mechanics, among others may prevent from understanding these issues. That is why Greene's et al are talking of new mathematics is needed to even study this. I know that I had talked about Godel's theorem, it presents limits because the next cannot be studied without assumptions about beyond. Stephen Hawkins has proposed non-scaler dimension of time among others.

It all comes down to the belief system you believe in. In my life time and in yours too, we can live with our belief systems (God creation vs Man's imagination). No one can prove or disprove. Knowledge is limited, even if they find God's particle that gives mass is found at CERN. It will only raise more questions.

Scientific methods require the proposer of a hypothesis also present methods to disprove it. Right now there is no one who has come up with methods to disprove Big Bang among many other explanations of theoretical physics.

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

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

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

Re: # 40

Masadi sahib:

Please do not take explanations and theorizing of initial condition as a case for initial condition. No case has been made to support these initial condition. Please do not confuse issues.

#43, there is proof, ample proof it is listed in my previous posts, evoking a multiverse to get around the paradox that necessitates God itself PROVES that nature as we know it (not as it might exist in other universes) necessitates God.

TNITC masadi

For further reading http://god.rationalreality.com

#41. Ours is just the universe we would expect. Time is relative so your 10 billion years means nothing, time itself came into existence at the point of the big bang, a timeless God is not restricted by time, and how can you say a better way existed when no alternatives have factually materialized, it is all speculation on your part. The fact that the odds of life existing or of a universe that evolved to make life possible as ours did tells us that there was intelligent setting of the parameters. This is not my discovery but ALL cosmologists are agreed on this with the ONLY alternative being a multiverse which renders the whole endeavor unscientific.

Read a book or two on the subject, I have read over a dozen

TNITC masadi

Re: # 40

"...Nature necessitates God, no questions about that. .."

There is neither any proof, nor evidence to support the above. However, a case can be made that "Man's imagination can result in God".

Masadi sahib:

"...If it stays at the animal level like 99% of Chowk members then it is no different than a baboon or a rock, a mere consumer and therefore morally underdeveloped...."


Good to know that you included yourself in it too, as there are really not 100 people who write or post at Chowk. Welcome Masadi sahib.

Re: # 40
Our universe is not the universe we would would expect if there is a "personal god". A personal God who is in love with his creation would not take around 10 billion years to produce the condition necessary for carbon based life. It should have been a universe full of life and very friendly as well. but what we find is a universe 99% filled with "lethal to life " radiation and universe in with 99% of the matter is used up in creating black holes ( a perfect black hole generator) not life bearing worlds. This is exactly the universe we should expect if there is no "personal God". Moreover we have no good reason to believe in a personal force as all the forces of nature that we know are impersonal.

I agree with Hegel, the conscious being (man/woman) links God to its creation but only if it uses its consciousness potentialities, realizing its 'species-being' through its creativity potential, realizing yourself through transforming nature. If it stays at the animal level like 99% of Chowk members then it is no different than a baboon or a rock, a mere consumer and therefore morally underdeveloped.

Nature necessitates God, no questions about that. The initial conditions that led to a particular type of universe evolving and the evolution of life on earth reveals conscious 'monkeying' with the constants, there is no way they could have happened by chance unless you have a infinite number of universes where all odds are tried- a conclusion that is a violation of occam's razor and scientifically speaking plain gibberish.

TNITC masadi

Saima
I am glad to find someone with a natural explanation. Religion came natural to humans, as an endeavor to understand and come to terms with the world around us. It was never meant to be a intellectual exercise, as it was all about social justice. Nobody doubted the existence of God because it self-evident. the problem was which God to go for. For the Jews Yewah turned out to be the better god as he led Moses out of the exile. Abraham's God was a friendly God , which would sometimes come down and wrestle with Him. We see a different nature of God with Yewah(moses' god) as he is quite remote. Allah was always a reality for Arabs. The problem was to accept Allah as the only God, so the existence of God, as such, was never a problem.There were no concept of " modern atheism" at the time of Prophet Mohammad. In old days whoever use to have different belief was considered a "non-believer" by others. The domain of religion is different from the domain of science, its about creating an just society. The problem occurs when one religion claims to be the only true religion. Either all of them are true or all of them are false. As for me , I think prophets were very sensitive people and wanted to create a just society.
It would be very time consuming at pointless to discuss the arguments "for or against the existence of God". I think the poor homo-sapiens is incapable of understanding it. I am more comfortable accepting the fact that humans have limited knowledge than to believe in a supernatural being, to fill that gap.

Saima:

The idea of God differs from region to region depending upon the inclination of the region's people. The Asian concept of God is very different from that of the Abrahmic God which is very different from the Indic God.

The Abrahmic God also differs somewhat from its various adherents: The God of New Testament is a kind entity which sent his son to earth to suffer and be crucified for the sake of his other children. The God of old testament is a very angry God; the Islamic Allah is in the same mould but he is also extremely jealous; he can't bear the thought of his children worshiping anyone else and is prepared to send him to eternal hell for so doing; he can be merciful and forgiving but only if you repent your earlier act of worshiping others. He is also very unjust; he seals some people's ears from receiving his message and then sends them to hell for listening to the message against which he had sealed their ears.

It is difficult to describe the Indic god or gods because they are all over the place. But most of the adjectives used for him - pita, kripalu, dayalu, sanghi, sahai, etc. are generally benign. But there is also the concept of the destructive Shiva who destroys the whole world with his Tandav dance; although he is also depicted as simpleton (bhola) who is the easiest to please and gives easy boons not only to good guys but also to the bad guys (rakshas) who pray to him.

In general, the above proves the saying that man created god and, in different regions and different periods, man has created gods in his own respective image.

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

Re: # 34
is in response to regards #32

Re: # 34
is in response to regards #32

hank u very much for enlighetening my dark soul sir.I find words to poor to express the joy of Intellect that your post has brought to me.

ladies and gentlemen...have u noticed that one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the history of ideas has just been witnessed in the interact #32 on this board??

Now be hopefull....Now the age old intellectual questions would get their answers. Now the dark human minds will see the light of Knowledge.#32 has solved the greatest mystry of human knowledge. Now nothing can stop man from conquering the forces of Nature.

Ilam ka ya charagh jo roushan huaa hai oos se jahliaat ka ikhtamaam ho ga.aur insaan fitrat kee quwaaton ko musakhar kernay ke liye uth khara ho ga.

Kiya tum insaan se maayoos ho? tau aayo #32 parh lo,aur jaan lo ke insaan kiya kuchh ker sakta hai.

aisay hee nabgha roazgaar hastioon ke aisay hee ilmi kaarnamon ke baray mein iqbal ne farmaya tha ke;

urooj-e- aadam-e khaaki se anjam sehmay jaatay hain.

#32 has provided the starting point in the devolopment of the latest paradigm and the methodology of the epistemological structre.it proves what man is capable of doing if he keeps pursuing the truth.

aayen...hum sab mil ke #32 ke ilaam ki azmat ke hazoor jhook jaain.

This is the historical moment...catch it.remeber it.you are lucky enough to tell ur future generations that u had witnessed this great intellectual discovery with ur own eyes.feel proud and privileged to be here.

subhannallah

testing

#25,#26,#27,#28,#30
Bla bla bla... of speculations, a hundred years old at least.

Philosohpy and world has moved on. Please update your logic

And also please spare us more...

Our Gods are not same. Indic and bedu gods has as much in common with each other as fire and water. We, as people, are not same either. You guys have so much noor about you that we can easily distingish between an Indian and Pakistani.

Re: # 28 khurram
Absolutly brilliant.You never disappoint me.I wish i had enough time to be on board.I have got only 30 minutes.more on it tomorrow.

anyways...welcome back..i would be glad if PM and masadi also join this debate tomorrow.It would bring back the golden memories of the past debates,among four of us.

"Personal God" is the God whom you love like your lover!

Your relationship with him at purely 'personal' level. He cares for you and takes care of your personal needs, he is the ultimate sobbing shoulder. He takes away your pains, he fulfils your desires. He does not demand anything from you. You just love him like you love your lover. And you cry when you find him/her removed for any reason. He also does not demand any loyalty from you- he just wants you to open yourself to him and communicate in pure love.

This is the "personal God" .

Read more about it in Narad's "Bhakti Sutra".

"God is a metaphor ......."

What is the reality behind the metaphpor that is being symbolized?

"a person’s concept of their highest self" is an inadequate description. One must also pay attention to the attributes of the metaphor - Transcendent, Infinite, Unconditional.

Re: # 25 in addition to that;

Sometimes later, i would discuss other issues and questions that u have raised in your article such as"If God is the Same then Why is God Different?" this kinda quetsion is the result of the misunderstood concept of the "oneoness" of God.Quran has never suggested this "oneness" in the mathmatical or analogicalsense.more on it tomorrow.

Re: # 25 in addition to that;

Sometimes later, i would discuss other issues and questions that u have raised in your article such as"If God is the Same then Why is God Different?" this kinda quetsion is the result of the misunderstood concept of the "oneoness" of God.Quran has never suggested this "oneness" in the mathmatical or analogicalsense.more on it tomorrow.

saimashah
(((The idea that there is an external God, a man in the sky is a myth created to restrict the masses journey towards enlightenment.)))

It wasn't the result of the idea of "an external God" or the socio-political manifestation of the Religion rather it was the immediate implication of the derivative thinking which has direct relation with the authoritarianism in the social realm. This "analytical"(in the technical sense)thinking always manifests itself self in the institution of clergy.

About 200 years after the advent of Islam, Muslim thinking came under the influence of the Aristotelian laws of logic and the propositional form of reasoning.The Muslim mindset responded to it in two significant ways,(a) the response of the philosophers was conflicting to the categories of the propositional logic for being the deductive in nature, whereas Islamic thinking in the first 200 years was inductive in its epistemological perspective.
That's why the Muslim philosophy received only that part of Aristotelian logic which was relevant in the formalization of epistemological structure and rejected its view of the formal construction of the so called attributes of God and constructing a "coherence theory of truth" in view of the allegorical cum categorical structure of the Quranic language dealing with the existential and phenomenological truths of the transcendental reality.

b) the theological response which was traditionally(judo-christian tradition) deductive in nature grabbed it with both hands and converted the entire existential structure of the Quranic language into propositional statements which was based on the modus pones of the Aristotelian laws of thought. This paradigm was used to justify to construct the formal(in the Aristotelian sense) view of the attributes of substance and was used as an "objectively" justified ethical system of the ruling elite.On the intellectual level it was the result of the fear of the "chaos" in the Muslim world which it witnessed just after the demise of the Holy Prophet(pbuh).The whole structure of jurisprudence was based on this methodology and the formal nature of the theological construction had to be there all the time to justify the political manipulation of the different Ideological tendencies.

Theologian being completely unaware of the difference b/w existential and formal truths, termed every alternative view as being heretic and even kufar(unislamic).

But fortunately, it is one of the characteristic of Islamic religion that it has always shown a living awareness of contemporary intellectual issues.So this formal construction of the attributes of the substance was bound to be countered and that's exactly what Muslim philosophers did(imam ghazali, ibn arabi ,ibn Rushd).Ever wondered why Ghazali is so much maligned by the Non-technical minds who are completely clueless of his original work and even the basic tenets of the incredibly complex philosophical issues?

If the response of the muslim philosophers was primarily epistemological in nature, the response of the muslim sufis and mystics was even more profound. The sufi methodology was phenomenological(in the philosophical sense) and existential in nature.The fallacy of the theological approach which had converted the
non-propositional structure of the Quranic epistemology into the propositional statements, was countered by the sufis and mystics on the basis of the existential discourse of the Quranic language and its distinction between the allegorical and categorical statements.

One of the most important distinction in this regard was between the "Belief" and Imaan. Quran doesn't only deal imaan as an existential truth and phenomenological methodology to comprehend the mystery of it also made a very important distinction between "islam" and "imaan" as well. Belief and Islam are two propositional terms whereas the Imaan is a non-propositional term.The sufi methodology was primarily was based on this distinction of the two forms(in the literal and ordinary sense) languages dealing with the two different universes of discourse.

It so happens that certain notions become the inevitable categories of thought through which other things are seen.The formal categories borrowed by the Greek laws of thought became so strongly the inevitable categories of the masses and the political thinking that it was impossible to comprehend the above mentioned difference unless you are deeply indulged in the Philosophical activity and have a highly perceptive and sophisticated mind and methodology to deconstruct the formal structure of those categories.

Based on these categories the political and theological thinking totally rejected the sufi's methodology for the comprehension of the transcendental universe of discourse. Because of this formal nature of the muslim theological structure, the Islamic theology had always been seen in the light of the logically derivative outcome of the attributes of the substance by all kinds of anti-islam tendencies and orientalist image of islam.

Based on this methodology was another complicated and extremely vague view of the Ethical interpretation the religion.This view served as the double edged sword. On the one hand the ethical system was derived from the attributes(which were formally constructs) and given the "objective" validity which led to the problem i have quoted from your article.However the ethical view of the Quran doesn't claim to be objective in that sense. Moralities in the Quran are nothing but the guiding principles as the part of the broader epistemological paradigm of the Quran.(more later on this particular issue)

On the other hand, the sufi methodology(with few exception like, ibn-e-Arabi, Ali hajveri and maulana Rumi etc) which was comparatively much relevant paradigm got misled by this ethical paradigm in the final analysis. It divorced itself from the social activity which was necessary to get rid of the delusion caused by the solitary contemplation.

It won't be relevant to mention another problem with the logic,though a slightly different one from the academic debates, that if a person is not a doctor he would never claim to be one but there is huuuuuuuuuge problem with logic i.e everybody on this planet considers himself a logician.There are many complex psycho-social factors behind which deserve a special consideration,but this approach denies every distinction in the realm of knowledge with such ease and confidence that even a the great logician won't dare to reject them(out of fear of being insulted off course),no matter how complex philosophical technicalities it carries.

This is the reason why you would see people giving judgments on these highly philosophical of which they have got absolutely no clue of.

P.S: this is obviously not an exhaustive post on these issues.It is impossible to discuss these incredibly complex intellectual issues in one post,however given the time and energy i would like to explain these points in a detailed artilce sometime soon.A few days back i had typed an article on these issues but got it deleted just when i was going to submit it.I couldn't save a copy of it on my PC.It wont be a surprise for those who know the kind of lazy ass i am.
More later

Cheema saab,

What is this 'personal God' thing? How is it different from the plain vanilla product?

Also, you dissapoint me Cheema saab. I thought you, of all people, would tear into this article. :P

One lecture of Dawkin (I remeber one where he really goes after how cruel 'Yahweh' is) would be enough for this line: God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self

Shoaib

even akcheema ji has no answer. i have found myself. i akcheema ji likes he can discuss with me.

nb ji, i had been,(but not now), so perturbed by this question before that i could go to anyone. but none has any answer. i have found its answer now. i raise this question to peepul just to tease them. ha ha.

#8 Samar, you could discuss this with akcheema!

Re: # 19

like I said ... it was an assumption .. I may be wrong in making that assumption ... only Saima can elaborate her position to clarify

as for my 'atheism' ... I always thought when one says it, it is quite self-explanatory in itself ... the rest is simple detail ... I have always maintained that believing in a 'supernatural' god(s) is quite a retarded idea ... and retards are welcome to their delusions as long as they keep it to themselves (in political terms)

[coming around to MY point of view ]

I donot know what your point of view is apart from the your stating that you are an atheist?

Re: # 17

[And what is your point of view?]

about what?? ... apart from what I wrote before ...

Re: # 16 I am new and just read her "al-lah" article. There is movement, but the precise direction is something which I am yet to discern.

And what is your point of view?

Re: # 15; BW

[why do you find the idea of a personal god aliean and naive?]

because it never came 'naturally' to me even as a child

[You seem to be agreeing with Saima Shah's statement regarding god and personal metaphor, yet you go on to contradict yourself.]

NO ... what I am saying is that she (might be) coming around to MY point of view (rather than the other way around) ... clearly she isn't there yet! ... as evident in her previous article on 'al-lah' that I checked out since posting here ... so yes my theory about Saima was based on an assumption (yet hope remains!)

Re: # 14 akcheema, why do you find the idea of a personal god aliean and naive? You seem to be agreeing with Saima Shah's statement regarding god and personal metaphor, yet you go on to contradict yourself.

There is something which does not add up here?

[God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self.]


overall a good and thought provoking article Saima ... well written with a 'balanced' viewpoint which is hard to find at times

as an ardent atheist, I can't say I had an 'internal desire' to be looking for anything! if there was ever any indication of a 'search', it was 'provoked' by the society I lived in rather than 'internal' so I'd have to disagree on that. But I do think I had to reconcile this growing up with societal pressure to come to a sort of 'external (or outwardly)' balance ... mostly for 'display' in an attempt to conform if you will

as for a 'personal god' of religion (any), I fully subscribe to the Einsteinian notion that, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

... the feeling (quite positive)I get from your article is that you may not be far of that state of mind yourself!

Well assembled arguments. It could have been put totgether better though.

However, such an article coming from a muslim! I do hope you know what you are doing? Many others who have said this, have not managed to get away. Please be careful!

Saima Shah:The answer to this question came after many years of searching. God is same because we humans are the same, and different because each of us thinks that he or she is different from others or wants to be better than others. .... God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self. The idea that there is an external God, a man in the sky is a myth created to restrict the masses journey towards enlightenment.

Welcome to the Hindu view of things Saima Shah! I am yet to read the rest of the article. But thisfirst paragraph caught my eye, and the ret should be as interesting. though what would be more interesting is to see
(a) the rest of the article
(b) the brick-bat and Bouquets and the curve-balls and the fatwas making their way towards you after this....

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

sunil ji, i cant be sure if there is god or no god. and in both the cases it is useless to think about it, fighting wars, committing atrocities on others having different views. in my opinion that is the uselessness of GOD.

God is a fruad coined by shrewd and businesslike humans on the gullible masses, there is nobody observing,recording our actions,nobody maintaining heaven and hell, fruad is severest in case of islam, as in other religions people have come out of godphobia,it is easiest to rule massess and make them work promising everything in afterlife and almost nothing here,mullah who promises 72 hoors to a jihadi may be having them for himself on earth and very well knows that god does not have stock of virgins

i have simple question. if there is god and if he is as described in quran like he is all powerful, knows everything and is merciful etc etc then why is there need to pray him, why is there need to ask for pardon and why he should pardon us being the best judge. its like equating him with your boss who will reward you when you butter him or overlook your mistakes.

How do you reconcile the following:

'God is a metaphor for a person’s concept of their highest self.'

'for others God is angry and punitive who prescribes unbreakable rules of conduct.'

Is God that important?? Its OK to believe in God till He enriches you spritually.

I dont think God has relevance more than that. There is no point making a Lassi out of Him.

Great! Beautiful. Thanks.

Indeed, we all need a personal God (Ishta Deva) - a personal deity that cares and loves you like you lover.

A school master or a benevolent Jailor view of God is perverse and so brutal that one can never love such a perverse deity who 'tests' you all the time and is in constant re-assurance about your love towards him.

I think this argument is for people who do believe in God. Not for atheists...

Anyhoo - people have been making this argument of "one god for all" for a long time - hasn't made much difference to a large number of people... a "universal faith" is still a far cry, despite all the inter-faith dialogue and what not...

"The atheist’s call that, ‘’But, I didn’t find god, and therefore god does not exist�, is an affirmation of the search and an important milestone in the search."

As a atheist I can quite happily say.. I was not at any time looking for god.. at all and found the idea totally ridiculous ab-initio. I think it rather unwarranted that you tar atheists with the same brush as the religious monkeys.

God represents nothing except a human fear of death, a basis to extract money out of idiots and justify wars.

Writer:

It's a waste of time to look for "God". If you look for it, you will never find it. Do whatever you are supposed to do and FORGET ABOUT GOD. Based on your silly article, you have no clue about God, nor you ever will.