How do you tell the difference?

[firedragon]

So when a hindu claim there is many gods or norse mythology does are they right or wrong, according to Islam?

If you want to discuss "mythology" Nimos, it is a completely different realm. Its mythology.

So since you brought up Hindu philosophy, can you define what Hindus claim please? You said many Gods right? What do you mean by that? Hindu's claim God is one.

Maybe you should define what you mean by God.

 

[Link]

Have you studied Quran deeply? Or it just a religious book to you because of what you've heard about it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, in certain cases reality can be weird. But as a minimum it would be irrational to claim that something is part of reality without any form of observation laying a foundation for it.

Even if you take Gods, which we have no observation of, they are still not based on nothing. They were used as explanations for things we didn't understand. Zeus throwing lightning, Thor the thunder god etc.

You don't see anyone making a new religion today, trying to claim that Opir god of weather is the one causing lightning strikes to happen. We have a pretty good understanding of how they work.

Exactly the same reason why some scientists suggest a multiverse, its not something that they just thought would be cool, but because of observing the universe, such idea might be an explanation. So reason at least in my opinion is closely related to what I would call reality.

The Many Worlds, or Multiverse interpretation of QM has traction because it solves a problem. Specifically a problem relating to wave function collapse. I won't go into all that here, and doubtless if I did @Polymath257 would be along to tell me I've misunderstood. Which perhaps I have, but so have we all, for there are many things which surpass all understanding.

Superdeterminism solves the same problem in a completely different way. And there are other QM interpretations, and very little consensus among quantum physicists as to which is the most accurate description of "reality" at the sub atomic level. Or even what the problem (of wave function) is, or what it means.

Perhaps the puzzles and paradoxes posed by QM, and looking the other way, of black holes and dark energy and dark matter, will begin to be resolved; only to be replaced with a completely different set of puzzles and paradoxes.

Meanwhile, we humans will continue to wrestle with the nature of the universe, it's first cause, and our place in it. Logic and reason are not the only tools we have been given to help us make sense of all that, or of our own little lives; there will always be a place for what has been called "The Language of the Heart".

 

[1213]

...
And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

Generally, I think the difference between Bible God and others is that the others have nothing good to say. Bible God has teachings about good and right and also knowledge about what will happen in future, it is not tied to some special person in history, but also directly for us.

But, I don’t see any reason to argue that other gods don’t exist, or are not real. For me the issue is in, I wouldn’t keep them as my God, because I don’t think they are worthy of that. People can call for example a golden calf as god and it truly can exist, I just wouldn’t keep it as my God, because it is just material that has nothing good to offer.

 

[Link]

The first premise you have to see, is the line "God is capable of revealing a sign".

God can prove his religion. This is first thing you have to accept. If you think it's impossible, no matter what signs and proofs shown, you will say it doesn't prove it.

So we have to discuss this premise first. Is God capable of revealing proofs and signs that prove his religion?

 

[sun rise]

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

For the same reason people can choose different routes to the same destination. People like to compare/contrast various intellectual frameworks. I don't need to adopt that intellectual framework when it comes to the names of God and the descriptions of divinity that are as limited as a dog trying to understand humans.

 

[Nimos]

If you want to discuss "mythology" Nimos, it is a completely different realm. Its mythology.

So since you brought up Hindu philosophy, can you define what Hindus claim please? You said many Gods right? What do you mean by that? Hindu's claim God is one.

Maybe you should define what you mean by God.

Im the first to admit that I don't know a lot about hinduism.

In Islam there is one God, Allah right?

From my understanding of hinduism is that there are several gods.

There are many Hindu deities, some with great and others with limited powers. Most Hindus focus their devotion primarily on one of these, whom they regard as supreme. The greatest deities have complex natures and are shown in art in a variety of forms and situations from narratives. They are sometimes attended by spouses or their particular animal mounts. They are often identified by physical characteristics and symbolic implements they hold or wear.

While there are many gods with myriad forms, those most popularly worshiped by Hindus in India are Vishnu, Shiva, the Goddess in her various aspects, and Shiva’s sons Ganesha and Karttikeya. According to some interpretations, all divinities are in fact a manifestation of a single godhead, divine force, or abstraction.

Is this idea compatible with the teachings of Islam? That there are female gods, lots of deities, more gods combined into one or however you want to phrase it? When you read the above, do you think that this matches what the Quran is saying?

Mythology is equally valid, as it talks about gods and religious beliefs as well.
Mythology is the study and interpretation of often sacred tales or fables of a culture known as myths or the collection of such stories which deal with various aspects of the human condition: good and evil; the meaning of suffering; human origins; the origin of place-names, animals, cultural values, and traditions; the meaning of life and death; the afterlife; and the gods or a god. Myths express the beliefs and values about these subjects held by a certain culture.

You might completely disagree with Norse mythology, but if you went back in time, these were just as real to these cultures as God of the bible is, we have just decided that they are more silly than he is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sure they can. If you have only seen one red car and are told that there is only one red car, then you are ignorant to the existence of other cars. But based on your experiences, you speak the truth. I, OTOH, have seen cars other than the one red one, therefore, I speak the truth. We both speak the truth base on our own individual understandings.

The prudent thing to do would be to state this as "based on the evidence I have come across, I believe all cars are red." And then when you are presented other evidence that contradicts this, you leave that state of ignorance behind in favor of an updated model of reality.

Unfortunately, in the case of "gods" in particular, what you most often (not always, I do realize) have is a starting ignorance of other gods, but when a person comes across other evidence for other gods, instead of updating their model of reality (because, let's face it, the evidence for those other gods is BOUND to be of the same types and caliber of their own evidence(s)!), people double-down in favor of their own version of god.

This is where the question of the OP becomes extremely pertinent. When faced with evidence for many multiple different gods - and with all that evidence just as verifiable as any other piece (meaning NOT AT ALL) - how does one possibly make a choice toward what is "most true?"

And when you simply "stick with your own god" when faced with other, equivalent evidence and accounts - isn't that EXACTLY like continuing to claim that "all cars are red" based on first-hand witnessing of red cars even though you have now witnessed all the other colors of cars first-hand as well?

 

[Link]

For the same reason people can choose different routes to the same destination.

The reason is not the same though. God's road that he has proven, leads all people no matter where they are, back to God. So there is no reason to choose different routes, while in your analogy, there would be if they are at different places.

God's religion has many levels and many ways to suit it up for yourself, not all of it is static and same for all, but there are key components that stay the same through out the journey and you improve in that, and there key things that outer form remains the same for everyone.

But the greatest difference in the analogy, is that when you go to destination, you go to a road that you know leads there. The paths people take are being taken out of ignorance as if people don't lie about God from humans and Jinn. They do lie. And lead astray others.

Not all Leaders lead back to God. Only the leaders appointed by God that have proofs from God they are appointed by him lead back to him.

I know we disagree, but I wanted to show why this analogy is false from many avenues.

 

[Nimos]

Have you studied Quran deeply? Or it just a religious book to you because of what you've heard about it?

I have read the bible and some of the Quran and Norse mythology, because that is absolutely epic But not sure what that have to do with my questions?

 

[Nimos]

The Many Worlds, or Multiverse interpretation of QM has traction because it solves a problem. Specifically a problem relating to wave function collapse. I won't go into all that here, and doubtless if I did @Polymath257 would be along to tell me I've misunderstood. Which perhaps I have, but so have we all, for there are many things which surpass all understanding.

I don't want to go into it here either. And as you say, it might solve some problems. But personally, im not a huge fan of the theory, because I don't really think it does much better than a God does. Even if there are multiverses, how did they come into existences?

Much like religious people say that God is beyond time and space and have always existed. I don't think the multiverse theory does any better in that regard.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, but it is irrational to determine truth like that.

To figuring out what you want to believe in, while not caring about whether it's possible true or not, it works. But it doesn't work if one cares about reality.

Wait, what? You're bringing rationality into the discussion?

As of right now, there exists no falsifiable, predictable, repeatable evidence that ANY god exists. Believe in god is not rational, it's faith.

 

[Link]

I have read the bible and some of the Quran and Norse mythology, because that is absolutely epic But not sure what that have to do with my questions?

I think a lot of the Bible can only be from God but parts of it I know for certain are not. I haven't studied Norse mythology. Quran I've read over 40 times. And I disbelieved in it after reading a lot for five years. But going back to it was an epic journey in itself, and reading it while doubting but not denying it, was a 2 year experience. During that time, I would wake up believing it and sleep disbelieving in it. And I would sleep believing it and wake up disbelieving in it.

Mental clarity is hard for any human, but Quran dispels all confusion regarding it, when we begin to reflect over it.

I'm not saying you have to believe in it to see it's signs. No I was seeing so much signs, but kept reverting to disbelief. I would even argue about Nubuwa with Imam Ali (A) in my dreams and then tell Ali (a) he was something my mind is making up anyways in my dreams.

Those were the days <3.

 

[firedragon]

In Islam there is one God, Allah right?

Brother. In Islam, the theology or philosophy does not make sentences like that. I already defined the concept of God to you. God is singular. Thats it.

"There is one God, Allah" is a fundamentally wrong statement. I think you should define God yourself based on your epistemology or understand the concept of God I explained to you.

From my understanding of hinduism is that there are several gods.

There are many Hindu deities, some with great and others with limited powers. Most Hindus focus their devotion primarily on one of these, whom they regard as supreme. The greatest deities have complex natures and are shown in art in a variety of forms and situations from narratives. They are sometimes attended by spouses or their particular animal mounts. They are often identified by physical characteristics and symbolic implements they hold or wear.

While there are many gods with myriad forms, those most popularly worshiped by Hindus in India are Vishnu, Shiva, the Goddess in her various aspects, and Shiva’s sons Ganesha and Karttikeya. According to some interpretations, all divinities are in fact a manifestation of a single godhead, divine force, or abstraction.

Is this idea compatible with the teachings of Islam? That there are female gods, lots of deities, more gods combined into one or however you want to phrase it? When you read the above, do you think that this matches what the Quran is saying?

Mythology is equally valid, as it talks about gods and religious beliefs as well.
Mythology is the study and interpretation of often sacred tales or fables of a culture known as myths or the collection of such stories which deal with various aspects of the human condition: good and evil; the meaning of suffering; human origins; the origin of place-names, animals, cultural values, and traditions; the meaning of life and death; the afterlife; and the gods or a god. Myths express the beliefs and values about these subjects held by a certain culture.

You might completely disagree with Norse mythology, but if you went back in time, these were just as real to these cultures as God of the bible is, we have just decided that they are more silly than he is.

Thats avatars of God in hinduism. They are not Gods. They are avatars of God.

I am just trying to work with you based on your school of thought.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't want to go into it here either. And as you say, it might solve some problems. But personally, im not a huge fan of the theory, because I don't really think it does much better than a God does. Even if there are multiverses, how did they come into existences?

Much like religious people say that God is beyond time and space and have always existed. I don't think the multiverse theory does any better in that regard.

That’s probably why I like it


I like super determinism more though

 

[Nimos]

The first premise you have to see, is the line "God is capable of revealing a sign".

God can prove his religion. This is first thing you have to accept. If you think it's impossible, no matter what signs and proofs shown, you will say it doesn't prove it.

So we have to discuss this premise first. Is God capable of revealing proofs and signs that prove his religion?

I don't know if you are talking to me or someone else? If you quote me, I get a notice and won't miss what you write, and also know what part of what I wrote you refer to. So I assume it was a reply to me.

But I don't accept your first premise "God is capable of revealing a sign", because that ignore my initial question, of how you tell the difference. Here you simply assume that God exists and all the other ones are false. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to accept this premise. Because if I did, there is no reason to ask the question in the first place, because we already established that God/Allah exist.

So a much better way would be for me to ask you, how would God reveal a sign, how do we know how to interpret it and how would we know that it was from that God specifically?

 

[Marcion]

So if I understood you correct, there is only one God and not many? So if someone claims that there are many gods, would they be correct then?

Yes, as a lover of science I can only accept the idea of a non-personal Supreme Consciousness.
I think most Hindu's think in a somewhat similar way. However, they will often also have a personal form to which they direct their devotion to that Supreme Consciousness (they call that their Ista Deva)

Religion is mostly mixed with mythology, so the second category I mentioned but also the third will have had all sorts of mythological extra's or modifications added to the personality of the original historical Guru (e.g. Jesus as a sacrificed and resurrected Son of God). The other two categories are obviously completely mythological.

The philosophical "problem" lies perhaps with the idea that a Guru can be seen as personification of God.
I think that even in Sufism the teacher is highly regarded in a similar way.
The personification of God e.g. in the form of Shiva or Krishna or perhaps even Jesus is not the same as Brahman but the devotee will nevertheless treat Him as if He was the Supreme Consciousness because the Guru is spiritually one with God.

This mystic type of respect for the guru and even deceased guru's is I think also found in Shia Islam.
God cannot incarnate in a personal body, it is illogical, but the devotional relationship between Guru and disciple or between Ista Deva and worshipper is not based on logic and reasoning. Same with Christians and Jesus.
And it works spiritually, becoming more like the Guru through a loving relationship (devotion) leads to emancipation of bondages.

The claim that there are multiple gods for me personally is only true for the returning different forms of Taraka Brahma.
But they are only very special representations of the one Brahman to me, they are not God in an absolute sense. It is very hard to have a deep devotional relationship with an abstract absolute God, I'm not sure if that would not be a rather ritualistic mechanical relationship, but I could be mistaken.
Perhaps after reaching higher spiritual states of absorption the love for God loses its personal form in a natural way.

In Tantra-Yoga both ideation on Brahma as well as devotion for the Guru are used as tools for spiritual emancipation.

 

[Nimos]

For the same reason people can choose different routes to the same destination. People like to compare/contrast various intellectual frameworks. I don't need to adopt that intellectual framework when it comes to the names of God and the descriptions of divinity that are as limited as a dog trying to understand humans.

Said in another way, you don't care about whether it's true or not? Whether its the biblical God, some hindu gods or something unknown, doesn't matter at all?

 

[osgart]

Why don't we introduce each God to all the other Gods that way they don't all have to be alone?

Having God powers why doesn't God make us all God's too instead of paupers?

If God is real then maybe God could explain true love to us all, and that would be the test of a real God?

Do we really need another God of war and vengeance in the world, or does that add to the senselessness?

Maybe God in his/her infinite power and might decided infinite power and might was too boring, and too judgmental and gave up being God and left the scene.

I think I'll worship the god that has the power to make us all into fair and just people with a totally free will, now that's real omnipotence.

At the end of the day does God create religious ambiguity, or is the path so devastatingly clear we all miss it?

Is God the ultimate excuse for branding ones hate and justice into the world because one simply couldn't let others be themselves when being themselves wasn't hurting anybody, or does one spread peace without a sword?

Is God in the human believer, or is the God all too human? Hmm! And how do you know the difference?

I'm a non believer and I love peace and love. Is that oxymoronic?

Is God that awesome feeling that nobody else has ever had for equal totally different reasons? And how do you know?

Are these not valid questions in deciding if and which God is real?

 

[Link]

I don't know if you are talking to me or someone else? If you quote me, I get a notice and won't miss what you write, and also know what part of what I wrote you refer to. So I assume it was a reply to me.

But I don't accept your first premise "God is capable of revealing a sign", because that ignore my initial question, of how you tell the difference. Here you simply assume that God exists and all the other ones are false. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to accept this premise. Because if I did, there is no reason to ask the question in the first place, because we already established that God/Allah exist.

So a much better way would be for me to ask you, how would God reveal a sign, how do we know how to interpret it and how would we know that it was from that God specifically?

The question is, if the Creator exists, is he capable of provide a clear sign/indication of his religion being true. Since you misunderstood or maybe I misunderstood how you understood the question.