Does God follows any Religion ? - Logical Analysis

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by blank_quest, Sep 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blank_quest

    blank_quest Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Likes Received:
    927
    Arguments


    --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+--


    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    ==Assumptions==

    lets name God as 'G' // ** God=(G) **//
    && let that Religion be named 'R' // ** Religion={R} ** //

    By.......>
    --- 'Thiest'(Th) = means Believe in "some-GOD"(sG). ==> // Th ==>{sG}.//
    --- 'Athiest'(Ath)= means Not to Believe in "some-GOD" i.e. no-GOD(nG).==> // Ath ==>{nG}.//




    ====================================================================================================================
    ==A==
    //Yes God(G) follows a Religion R// ==> {R}

    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    Whats the Nature of Religion 'R' that God (G) Follows?

    // by 'Nature' it implies to ask whether Religion 'R' is Religion with "some-GOD" {sG} or "no-GOD" {nG}//

    Nature of Religion depends on the Believe of God(G) here.
    =---------, If God(G) is theist, then the Religion 'R' that God(G) follows has "some-GOD" {sG}---------------------=
    =---------, If God(G) is atheist, then the Religion 'R' that God(G) follows has "no-GOD" {nG}----------------------=

    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    let that Religion 'R' be-

    'Theistic'-i.e. with "some-GOD"{sG} if God(G) is Theist // Don't equate "some-GOD"(sG)==God(G) here now,we will
    do it later.....................................//
    'Atheistic'-i.e. with "no-GOD"{nG} if God(G) is Atheist.

    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=

    i.e.
    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    Case- T- -- God(G) is theist. ==> {R,Th} ==> {R,sG}


    Case- At- -- God(G) is atheist.==> {R,Ath} ==> {R,nG}

    =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    ====================================================================================================================
    Case-T

    1.1 God(G)==>{R,Th}==>{R,sG} and (G)!=sG. // God(G) is not same as some-GOD{sG} //



    so This Religion is a Religion 'R' with "some-GOD"{sG}// As this Religion must be Theistic as God(G) follows {R,Th}
    --i.e. Beliving "some-GOD"//

    now If this is a Religion 'R'that God(G) follows, it means God(G) must believe in "some-GOD"{sG} of religion 'R',


    lets suppose That "some-GOD"{sG} is--GigaGod (GG) and or MegaGod(MG)

    .i.e.sG={{GG || / && MG} && != (G)}// i.e. Different from God(G) //

    =------so it means that God(G) is a false or pseudo-God,As God(G) believes in some other SuperGod SG or MegaGod MG--=
    or
    =------God(G) will not follow any other GOD if God(G) believes to be true GOD. so follows some Godless Religion.----=
    =-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=
    Case-T

    1.2 God(G)==>{R,Th}==>{R,sG} and (G)==sG. // God(G) is same as some-GOD{sG} //

    Lets now Suppose God(G) follows a Religion whoes "some-GOD"{sG} == God(G)

    so How can God(G) be his own GOD?? ......// Logic fails. in this case.//

    =-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=




    So,applying the logic to say that God Follows any religion might be foolish from a Theist point of view.its all faith.

    =====================================================================================================================

    Case-Ath

    1.3 God(G)==>{R,Ath}==>{R,nG} and (G)!=nG. // As God(G) can not be equal to no-GOD{nG} //


    As God(G) itself is GOD, How can God(G) follow any non-God Religion??
    =-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=

    :confused::confused::confused:

    and If God does Not follows any religion , Why do we Follow?????:frusty:
     
  2.  
  3. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    Because intelligent people (who want power) want to fool the feeble minded idiots. nothing better than to use religion.
     
  4. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    You, probably used it for 5 minutes.

    Use time for development.
     
  5. blank_quest

    blank_quest Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Likes Received:
    927
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    because people are uneducated thats why they are fooled!
     
  6. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    The "logical analysis" is based on a false premise (that God exists in the first place).

    Since you can never scientifically prove that God exists, the whole thread is useless.
     
  7. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    Can you scientifically disprove the existence of God? :)
     
  8. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    Actually there are various types of God. God as brahmaan, paramatma, bhagwan, abrahmic God etc.
     
  9. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    Does God follows any Religion ?

    -- Thats like asking "If your belief has any belief ?"
     
  10. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    This has probably been mentioned a million times, but, the burden of scientific evidence is on the theists to prove the existence of God.

    No scientist can 'disprove' the claim that there is an alternate universe populated entirely by pink unicorns and narwhals.


    You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
     
  11. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    10,317
    Location:
    India
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    You mean God is available in many flavours?
     
  12. Razor

    Razor CIDs from Tamilnadu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    4,515
    Location:
    ഭരതം (Bharatham)
    Re: --=+. Does God follows any Religion ? .=+-- (Logical Analysis)

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    God is not God's name. That's right. The God of the universe has a name, but "God" isn't it. "God" is what God is. "Human being" is not your name, "Human being" is what you are. You also have a name. Whether it is "Barbara" or "Ken" or "Tom" or "Debbie", you have your own personal name. So does God.

    "And what is God's name?" Glad you asked. This writing will help you to recognize the answer.

    Before we get too deep into things, here are some hints to get you started. You already know God's name. Oh, yes, there are many, many names people have given to God, but He/She picked one and only one for Him/Herself. God's Real name is the same for all people everywhere. It matters not at all which religion or cultural heritage you are from! Truth transcends all boundaries we seek to erect. And no matter who you are or where you are from, you have known this Name from the day your mind first began to awake. You see it and hear it each and every day.

    The problem with God is not that He's so far away that we can't see Him. Rather, He is so close that we overlook Him. Our quest for God is just like fish in search of water. So don't be surprised if you start to recognize God's name everywhere.

    Helping you do that is the purpose of this writing.

    But God's Real name is not in this document! How's that for strange? Most of this document is about God's personal name, which reveals His Real name, but God's Real name can't be written down in any book.

    YHWH's name, the "I AM", reveals the fullness of His being. All of His nature and attributes are embodied in His name. In other words, rather than a cryptic mystery, "I AM" tells us everything that can be known about YHWH (yahweh). I know that sounds like a bold statement, but I hope to be able to convince you of at least part of it.

    The main concept here has to do with the elusive term "being". Some things "are", while others "are not". If you want a fancy word, this is an ontological issue.

    I'd like you to think about a coin. It exists, right? Right. And coins have two sides, heads and tails. They are opposite but equal, in that both exist. Philosophers say that "heads" and "tails" have the same ontological status, which is a convenient way to say that they both exist in the same degree and the same manner.

    Now what other things can we think of that are opposites with equal ontological statuses? Let's try these:

    Left and right
    North and south
    Front and back
    Male and female
    Open and closed
    Sweet and sour
    However, there are many pairs of opposites that do not share the same ontological status.

    Like what?

    Light and dark, for one.

    You may be surprised. We experience two seemingly (at first) opposite states, but they are not ontologically equivalent in the same way that heads and tails are. Why not? Because light IS. Darkness is not. Light IS. It is an energy. It can be measured, quantified, analyzed, seen, felt. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

    "Heads" is real. So is "Tails", and equally so. "Tails" is more than the absence of "Heads". Erase all the figures on the "heads" side and there is still something on the "tails." But remove all the light, and what is left?

    Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And the nothing we call darkness.
    Light IS. Darkness is the absence of what is. And YHWH is light. YHWH IS. Light is. Darkness is not.

    Over the years I have found a great many people have difficulty grasping this. But it is very important, so I'm trying to be as clear as I can, even at the risk of redundancy. And I want to try it one more way.

    Imagine yourself in a pitch dark room. You turn on the switch and light floods the room. An actual energy appears. Photons (the stuff light is made of) stream out of the bulb and illumine the room. Turn the switch again, and the photons disappear. It is not as though something different is now coming out of the bulb which we call "darks" that are "darkening" the room the way the photons were lighting it. It's just that the photons are gone!

    No one on the earth knows what light is. We know it moves in waves and we know that it is made of particles, and we know that particles can't move in waves and that waves can't contain particles. But that's what light is. But whatever light is, it is!

    "I AM THAT I AM." God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all!

    Two more points about this light and dark business:

    First, there is an absolute limit to darkness: 0 photons present. Light, however, has no limitation. There is no theoretical limit to the number of photons that can be present in a given space. Go to the center of a star and you'll find a whole bunch of 'em. So, pitch dark is the zero point, and light grows to infinity. This is a statement of quantity.

    Second is a statement of quality. While pitch dark has only one color and shape (nothing and none), light has an infinite realm of possibilities for different colors and shapes. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

    If you are comfortable with this concept, then you can begin to see very deeply into the meaning of "I AM THAT I AM", and why I say that all of YHWH's nature and attributes are embodied in His name. Find the ontological opposites and YHWH is revealed by the one that is.

    Let's try some more.

    YHWH is life. Life, whatever it is, is. Death is simply the absence of life.

    YHWH is light (energy/matter). Energy is. Light is just one form of energy. Matter is. We know, in fact, that energy and matter are opposite sides of the same coin. We can change matter to energy and vice versa, but the total amount of energy/matter can't be changed. It is. And it is YHWH.

    YHWH is truth. Truth is a statement of what is. Falsehood is a statement of what is not.

    In these few paragraphs we have seen that the personal name of God, YHWH, I am Who I am, embodies all matter, energy, life, and truth.

    But there is more. Much more.

    Remember that one of the ways YHWH has been translated is "The Self-Existent one." What does this mean?

    Something is self-existent if it can exist all by itself, without any dependencies whatsoever. Everything we encounter in life is dependent on something else. Life needs air. Air needs molecules. Molecules need molecular cohesion. Molecular cohesion needs.......and so on. Where does the chain of dependency end? What is the "ontological anchor" of the universe?

    YHWH, the I Am that I Am, the creator of the universe, depends only on Himself for existence. He is the source and origin of all that exists. In Him we live and move and have our being.

    That is why YHWH is sometimes translated the self-existent one.

    Hopefully you can begin to understand why I say that all of YHWH's nature and attributes are embodied in His name. He is the ultimate ground. We are the figures. He is infinite subject. We are object. He is the source. We the proceeds. God, the creator of the universe, is. And that is-ness is not dependent on any other reality.

    Extract from

    http://www.yhwh.com/gingn/gingn.htm
     
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    God
    Metaphysics of God: God as One Infinite Eternal Substance

    .. the ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God. .. God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

    Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. .. Everything, I say, is in God, and all things which are made, are made by the laws of the infinite nature of God, and necessarily follows from the necessity of his essence. (Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics, 1673)

    I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ... I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

    Many philosophers and scientists of the past have understood God as One Dynamic Substance. This is conducive to the pantheist conception of God as the Universe / Nature / Reality. The purpose of this website is to explain God from the new scientific paradigm of the Metaphysics of Space and Wave Structure of Matter. Thus according to WSM God is Waves in Space.

    +++++

    Below you will also find an informative article on God (including etymology, different names and religions, popular arguments for and against God and definitions). We hope you find it interesting!

    Sincerely,
    Geoff Haselhurst, Karene Howie, Email

    God

    This article focuses on the monotheistic concept of a singular God.

    The term God is ordinarily used to designate a singular, universal Supreme Being.

    However, there are countless variant definitions of this God. For example:

    Many religious and philosophic systems consider God to be the creator of the universe.
    Some traditions hold that the creator of the universe is also the sustainer of the universe (as in theism), while others argue that God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).
    The common definition of God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. However, not all systems hold that God is necessarily morally good. Others maintain that God is beyond the limited human understanding of morality. Negative theology argues that no true statements about attributes of God can be made at all, while agnostic positions argue that limited human understanding does not allow for any conclusive opinions on God whatsoever. Some mystical traditions ascribe limits to God's powers, arguing that God's supreme nature leaves no room for spontaneity.

    The concept of a singular God is characteristic of monotheism, but there is no universal definition of monotheism. The differences between monotheism and polytheism vary among traditions.
    Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender and particular names, while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts.
    Belief in God is often connected to concepts of absolute morality or truth, and sometimes to claims of exclusivity.
    There are variations on defining God either as a person, or not as a person but as an ambiguous impersonal force. Also at stake are questions concerning the possibilities of human/God relations. There are countless variations in traditions of worship and/or appeasement of God.
    Some espouse an exclusionist view, holding to one sole definition of God. Others hold an inclusionist view, accepting the possibility of more than one definition of God to be true at the same time.
    There are also atheistic explanations for the concept of God that can include psychological and/or sociological factors.

    Etymology of God
    The word God continues Old English/Germanic god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, Gott in modern German). The original meaning and etymology of the Germanic word god have been hotly disputed, though most agree to a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form hutom which is a passive perfect participle from the root *hu-, which likely meant "libation", "sacrifice". Compare:-

    Vedic Sanskrit hu- = "to sacrifice".
    Greek khu-, kheu- = "to pour".
    Common Germanic strong verb geutan (Anglo-Saxon gēotan) = "to pour", English in-got.
    The connection between these meanings is likely via the meaning "pour a libation". Another possible meaning of hutom is "invocation", related to Sanskrit huta.

    The word God was used to represent Greek theos, Latin deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas.

    Names of God
    The generic term God is the proper English name used for the deity of monotheistic faiths. Different names for God exist within different religious traditions.

    Allah - Islam/Arabic.
    Jehovah, Yahweh (based on the Hebrew name YHVH (יהוה) and Elohim are some of the names used for God in the Christian Bible
    The Holy Trinity (meaning The Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit/"Holy Ghost") - A name used primarily in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox prayers and liturgy.
    Most Hindus worship the personal form of God or Saguna Brahman, or Hindu trinity, as Vishnu, Shiva, or directly as Brahman through the Gayatri mantra. A common prayer for Hindus is the Vishnu sahasranama, which is a hymn describing the one thousand names of God.
    Sikhs worship God with the name Waheguru.
    Jah is the name of God in Rastafari.
    God is called Xavier in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
    Some churches (United Church of Canada, Religious Science) are using "the One" alongside "God" as a more gender-neutral way of referring to God.

    History of monotheism
    The religions widely thought of as monotheistic today are of relatively recent origin historically, although Eastern religions (notably religions of China and India) that have concepts of panentheism are difficult to classify along Western notions of monotheism vs. polytheism, and sometimes have claims of being very ancient, if not eternal.

    In the Ancient Orient, many cities had their own local god, but this henotheistic worship of a single god did not imply denial of the existence of other gods. The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant adapted this practice to a nomadic lifestyle, paving their way for a singular God. The cult of the solar god Aten is often cited as the earliest known example of monotheism, but even if Akhetaten's hymn to Aten praises this god as omnipotent creator, worship of other gods beside him never ceased. Early examples of monotheism also include two late rigvedic hymns (10.129,130) to a Panentheistic creator god, Shri Rudram, a Vedic hymn to Rudra, an earlier aspect of Shiva, which expressed monistic theism, and is still chanted today, the Zoroastrian Ahuramazda and Chinese Shang Ti. The worship of polytheistic gods, on the other hand, is seen by many to predate monotheism, reaching back as far as the paleolithic. Today, monotheistic religions are dominant (mainly due to the missionary efforts of Christianity and Islam), but polytheism, and to a lesser extent also animism, survive.

    Arguments for the existence of God
    Arguments for or against the existence of God date back to classical times.

    Ontological arguments argue God exists by necessity or definition — that God's existence can be determined from consideration of God's nature alone.

    Cosmological arguments, or First Cause arguments, contend that the existence of the universe requires a self-sufficient prime mover, which can be called “God.”

    Teleological arguments, or Arguments from Design, argue that the universe and its component parts display a complex and purposeful functionality that can only be the result of a designer, which can be called “God.”

    Arguments from morality contend that human recognition of 'good' and 'evil' can only come from God, and therefore implies the existence of God.

    Arguments against the existence of God
    Alternately, there are a variety of arguments against the existence of God.

    The problem of evil argues that the existence of suffering is inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.

    The argument from inconsistent revelations argues the diversity of different religious beliefs makes the 'truth' of any particular viewpoint on God highly improbable.

    Incompatible-properties arguments contend that many of the properties often assigned to God are logically inconsistent with each other.

    Burden of proof is the logical position that the existence of a God is an extraordinary claim that should be rejected until proven to exist by extraordinary evidence.

    Argument against the Cosmological argument: The universe is a cause and effect system. Therefore, it is logical that the universe had a cause. One can extend the argument, however, as, If God created the universe who created God? In other words, if everything must have a cause then what or who came before God? If God could exist without a cause then so can the universe. That is, if God can be self-caused or exist w/out a cause (a priori), and then have caused the universe, so, is the argument that the universe may be self-caused or exist w/out a cause (a priori), and therefore be not caused by God, equally valid. (In fact, by Occam's Razor a.k.a. minimum message length, being a simpler explanation, the latter possibility is a more reasonable/reliable/usefull model. This relates to the burden of proof argument.)

    Argument against a logical definition of God: The definition of God assumes omnipotence. Logically, if the term "omnipotence" means "able to do all things", an omnipotent being can create another being more powerful than itself. But this is a paradox. Therefore, an omnipotent being cannot exist.

    Fideism
    Fideism maintains that all attempted proofs and disproofs of God's existence are misguided, as belief in God must depend on faith rather than any rational arguments or proofs. This argument makes the existence of God a spiritual "question" as opposed to an intellectual one. Fideists often quote scripture as support for their claim, such as Hebrews 11:6.

    Conceptions of God
    Jewish, Christian and Muslim conceptions

    Judaism, Christianity and Islam see God as a being who created the world and rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the properties of holiness (separate from sin and incorruptible), justness (fair, right, and true in all His judgements), sovereignty (unthwartable in His will), omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), omnibenevolence (all-loving), and omnipresence (all-present).

    Jews, Christians and Muslims often conceive of God as a personal God, with a will and personality. However, many medieval rationalist philosophers of these religions felt that one should not view God as personal, and that such personal descriptions of God are only meant as metaphors. Some within these three faiths still accept these views as valid, although many of the laity today do not have a wide awareness of them.

    In Eastern Christianity, it remains essential that God be personal; hence it speaks of the three persons of the Trinity. It also emphasizes that God has a will, and that God the Son has two wills, divine and human, though these are never in conflict. The personhood of God and of all human people is essential to the concept of theosis or deification.

    Biblical definition of God

    The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) characterizes God by these attributes: "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:6–7)

    The Hebrew Bible contains no systematic theology: No attempt is made to give a philosophical or rigorous definition of God, nor of how God acts in the world. It does not explicitly describe God's nature, exemplified by God's assertion in Exodus that "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live". Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are the words omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent used to define God in a systematic sense.

    Although Scripture does not describe God systematically, however, it does provide a poetic depiction of God and His relationship with people. According to the biblical historian Yehezkal Kaufmann, the essential innovation of Biblical theology was to posit a God that cares about people, and that cares about whether people care about Him. Most people believe that the Bible should be viewed as humanity's view of God, but theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel described the Biblical God as "anthropopathic", which means that one should read the Bible as God's view of humanity, and not as humanity's view of God.

    Similarly, the New Testament contains no systematic theology: no attempt is made to give a philosophical or rigorous definition of God, nor of how God acts in the world. The New Testament does, however, provide an implicit theology as it teaches that God became human while remaining fully God, in the person of Jesus, and that he subsequently sent the Holy Spirit. In this view, God becomes someone that can be seen and touched, and may speak and act in a manner easily perceived by humans, while also remaining transcendent and invisible. This appears to be a radical departure from the concepts of God found in Hebrew Bible. The New Testament's statements regarding the nature of God were eventually developed into the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Kabbalistic definition of God

    Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created? This question prompted Kabbalists to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God who created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind in a personal way. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another.

    God as Unity or Trinity

    Jews, Muslims, and a small fraction of Christians are unitarian monotheists. The vast majority of Christians have been and still are Trinitarian monotheists.

    Unitarian monotheists hold that there is only one "person" (so to speak), or one basic substance, in God. Some adherents of this position consider Trinitarianism to be a form of polytheism.
    Trinitarian monotheists believe in one God that exists as three distinct persons who share the same substance/essence; the Christian version of this is called the Trinity, the Hindu version Trimurti. Trinitarians hold that the three persons have the same purpose, holiness, and sovereignty, and therefore each can be worshiped as God, without violating the idea that there is only one God to which worship belongs.
    Mormons believe that there are three separate divine personages. One of these personages is a spirit without a body referred to as the Holy Ghost. The other two personages are spirits with perfected or glorified (often called celestial) bodies referred to as Heavenly Father (or less commonly "Elohim") and his son, Jesus Christ. Mormons hold that God is a Holy Man who advanced to his divine status through a repeatable process of progression. They believe that by following their religion's teachings, humans can literally become gods (sometimes phrased as "become like Heavenly Father") at some point after death and resurrection; this is also called Exaltation.
    Rastafarians believe that Haile Selassie is both God the Father and God the Son, made manifest in human flesh as the reincarnation of Jesus, while the Holy Spirit is seen to dwell within all believers (of Rastafari), and within all people (believed by some).
    Hasidic Jews hold that there are ten Sefirot (emanations) of God. Each of these are more distinct than a characteristic, but less distinct than a separate personage.
    Monism is the metaphysical position that all is of one essential essence, substance or energy, that being a pantheist, or panentheist, immanent God. Monism can be inclusive of other interpretations of God.
    Dualism is the idea of two, nearly equal divine entities, one being the good God, and the other being an evil god, or Satan. All beings are under the influence of one side, or the other, if they know it or not. Zoroastrianism is an example of dualism.

    Aristotelian definition of God

    In his Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses the meaning of "being as being". Aristotle holds that "being" primarily refers to the Unmoved Movers, and assigned one of these to each movement in the heavens. Each Unmoved Mover continuously contemplates its own contemplation, and everything that fits the second meaning of "being" by having its source of motion in itself, moves because the knowledge of its Mover causes it to emulate this Mover (or should).

    The Ultimate

    Arguably, Eastern conceptions of The Ultimate (this, too, has many different names) are not conceptions of a personal divinity, though certain Western conceptions of what is at least called "God" (e.g., Spinoza's pantheistic conception and various kinds of mysticism) resemble Eastern conceptions of The Ultimate.

    Philologically, Gk. theos is said to be akin to Zeus, the chief god in Greek mythology, who has Dios in a genitive form. L. Diespiter means Jupiter, chief god in L. mythology, dies + pater, day + father. In Skr. deva is a god, as derived from the root div, heaven, and diu denoting day, shine and brightness (L. niter).

    Hindu Conceptions of God

    In Shaivism and Vaishnavism, Hindus believe that God, whether in the form of Shiva or Vishnu has six attributes. However, the actual number of auspicious qualities of God, are countless, with the following six qualities being the most important.
    The number six is invariably given, but the individual attributes variously listed are Jnana (Omniscience), defined as the power to know about all beings simultaneously; Aishvarya (Sovereignty), which consists in unchallenged rule over all; Shakti (Energy), or power, which is the capacity to make the impossible possible; Bala (Strength), which is the capacity to support everything by His will and without any fatigue; Virya (Vigour), or valour which indicates the power to retain immateriality as the Supreme Being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations; and Tejas (Splendour), which expresses His self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by His spiritual effulgence.; cited from Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapasyananda.
    Other six characteristics are listed as Jnana (Omniscience), Vairagya (Dispassion), Yasas (Fame), Aisvarya (Sovereignty), Sri (Glory), Dharma (Righteousness). Other important qualities attributed to God are Gambhirya (inestimatble grandeur), Audarya (generosity), and Karunya (compassion).
    Chanted prayers, or mantras, are central to Hindu worship. Among the most chanted mantras in Hinduism are the Vishnu sahasranama (a prayer to Vishnu that dates from the time of the Mahabharata and describes Him as the Universal Brahman), Shri Rudram (a Vedic hymn to Rudra, an earlier aspect of Shiva that also describes Him as Brahman) and the Gayatri mantra, (another Vedic hymn that initially was meant as a prayer to the Sun, an aspect of Brahman but has other interpretations. It is now interpreted as a prayer to the impersonal absolute Brahman). Another famous hymn, Lalitha Sahasranama, describes the 1000 names of Devi, worshipped as God the Divine Mother, or God's Shakti or Power personified by Hindus.

    Modern views of God
    Mathematical definitions

    The mathematician Georg Cantor identified God with the mathematical concept of the Absolute Infinite.

    Kurt Gödel's "ontological proof" is a mathematical formulation of Saint Anselm's ontological argument.

    Process philosophy and Open Theism definition of God

    Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). Open Theism, a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.

    In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. See the entries on process theology, panentheism, and Open Theism.

    Posthuman God

    Similar to this theory is the belief or aspiration that humans will create a God entity, emerging from an artificial intelligence. Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer, said in an interview that: It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.

    Another variant on this hypothesis is that humanity or a segment of humanity will create or evolve into a posthuman God by itself; for some examples, see cosmotheism, transhumanism, technological singularity.

    Metaphysics of God (as One Infinite Eternal Substance)
     
    blank_quest likes this.
  15. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    A Mountain appears different to each climber.

    But the view from the top is the same!
     
    blank_quest likes this.
  16. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    A religion may appear polytheistic on the surface, but it is an expression of devotion through a pantheon of deities symbolic of God.

    This gives a secular choice of a personal deity for humans to worship God.
     
  17. farhan_9909

    farhan_9909 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    496
    Location:
    Abbottabad,Bannu
    creator never follow any rule

    the creation is suppose to follow the rules and the 2nd name of those rules is religion
     
  18. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Someone deleted this thread, but then this thread can open up vistas of philosophy and metaphysic provided it does not spiral down to stupidity that these type of threads normally tend to happen.

    That happens because intellect to understand the complex is found to be begging!

    And one liners or merely a statement without amplification leads to confusion and even misunderstanding resulting in tailspins.

    Maybe the one who deleted the thread is more wise and so I will not delete but close the thread so that the pearls of wisdom can still be read.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2012
  19. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Thread is now closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page