Does God follows any Religion ? - Logical Analysis

[blank_quest]

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??
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=



and If God does Not follows any religion , Why do we Follow?????

 

[The Messiah]

and If God does Not follows any religion , Why do we Follow?????

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

 

[Oracle]

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??
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=



and If God does Not follows any religion , Why do we Follow?????

You, probably used it for 5 minutes.

Use time for development.

 

[blank_quest]

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

because people are uneducated thats why they are fooled!

 

[civfanatic]

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.

 

[trackwhack]

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.

Can you scientifically disprove the existence of God?

 

[Singh]

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

 

[nrj]

Does God follows any Religion ?

-- Thats like asking "If your belief has any belief ?"

 

[civfanatic]

Can you scientifically disprove the existence of God?

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.

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

You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[rock127]

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

You mean God is available in many flavours?

 

[Razor]

Can you scientifically disprove the existence of God?

 

[trackwhack]

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.

Which is also why atheism is as stupid as theism. We are stupid until we can theorize as well as conclusively prove it one way or the other. Both sides vehemently arguing with major holes in both theories is a wasted argument. From a theists perspective the burden of scientific evidence is on the scientists. After all god is at a metaphysical state by their own admission. And man is yet to achieve scientific or technological expertise to measure, let alone analyze such concepts.

 

[civfanatic]

From a theists perspective the burden of scientific evidence is on the scientists.

Which makes no logical sense, since atheists themselves claim nothing. Atheists simply refuse to accept the claims made by theists unless proper scientific backing is provided. The mere fact that a claim has been made and cannot be proved 'wrong' does not equate to any kind of veracity for the claim. I can claim that there is a secret Pakistani nuclear weapons factory in the Earth's core, and you cannot prove me wrong.

God does exist, but only in peoples' minds. God exists for those who want Him to exist.

 

[trackwhack]

God does exist, but only in peoples' minds. God exists for those who want Him to exist.

I'd put it as, If god exists, it is currently outside of human comprehension.

 

[Nagraj]

 

[Tronic]

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

Nope. It goes both ways. God is still a valid theoretical concept which has not been disapproved. It's as plausible a theory as the Big Bang! Neither has been scientifically proved, nor disapproved, hence, still valid concepts. Even Einstein, though himself stating that he personally felt the idea of a personal god to be misplaced, ridiculed the atheists!

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

Simply because the proposition of pink unicorns and narwhals populating an entire universe cannot be pragmatically theorized, as the concept of God has been.

 

[Tronic]

That's actually a perfect cartoon depicting why Theists and Atheists are both flawed in their premise.

Taking your above cartoon:

Theists: Yes, he has a baseball!
Atheists: No, he has no baseball!
Logically pragmatic: He may have a baseball!

i.e., God may exist!


Cheers!

 

[ashdoc]

French people are vain enough to believe that God is French and normally converses in the French language

 

[A chauhan]

If I claim that God exists and others have "problems" with it then it's their Burden to disprove it why should I prove the existence of God on first hand? I mean why are you bothering about with my personal belief, are you defending a civil suit against you ?

Back to the topic,

Religion is for Humans and not for God !

 

[Ray]

To my mind God by Himself/ Herself is religion!

I Am that I Am (Ehyeh asher ehyeh) or YAHWEH (YHWH).

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 already know God's name. Oh, yes, there are many, many names people have given to God. It 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.

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. 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.

(from a religious discourse)