"Allah" and "God"

[Iqbal1089]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**paradox is a SEEMINGLY inconsistency or contradiction...........so, one does not have to choose sides........ *
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, it only "seems" to contradict and therefore the apparent inconsistency can be solved. A paradox is a set of mutually inconsistent propositions each of which would be perfectly plausible when taken individually. One way to solve a paradox is to see which of the propositions can be rejected or whether it can be suitably explained to quash the inconsistency.

Most so-called "paradoxes" are in fact attempts to undermine logic by presenting a non-logical statement as though it makes some sense if one digs deep enough. Throwing up a contradictory, often meaningless, statement and then arguing that it must be a paradox doesn't get one anywhere - at best it leads to great ambiguity. Although i'd still venture to say that you're sentence is closer to being an oxymoron ;).

My last post on this highly enlightening topic.

Iqbal

[NeSCio]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *

Exactly, it only "seems" to contradict and therefore the apparent inconsistency can be solved. A paradox is a set of mutually inconsistent propositions each of which would be perfectly plausible when taken individually. One way to solve a paradox is to see which of the propositions can be rejected or whether it can be suitably explained to quash the inconsistency.

Iqbal
[/QUOTE]

a paradox per definition means that the individual propositions are NOT inconsistent, because then they would be called inconsistencies, ......now they are called PARADOX because they only SEEM inconsistent, but in fact they are not.

[OldLahori]

Here is a paradox that was discovered in 1901 by Bertrand Russell:

Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves S. If S is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if S is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be member of itself.

Is S a member of itself or not? That is a paradox.

Now I do not know what is meant by "seeming to be inconsistent" and "really inconsistent" means. That is the language used by laymen, when referring to knotty problems. In logic atleast Paradoxs do not have "solutions" within the axioms of the logic they are specified in. It was only when "limits" were discovered in calculus then Zeno's paradox was solved. The axioms had to be 'expanded'!

Here is another famous one discussed long ago by the ancient greeks:
*The paradox of the liar is
This statement is false!''
Why is this a paradox? What doesfalse'' mean? Well, false'' meansdoes not correspond to reality.'' This statement says that it is false. If that doesn't correspond to reality, it must mean that the statement is true, right? On the other hand, if the statement is true it means that what it says corresponds to reality. But what it says is that it is false. Therefore the statement must be false. So whether you assume that it's true or false, you must conclude the opposite! So this is the paradox of the liar. *
So is the statement true or false?

[filhaal]

salaam

filhaal:
nice discussion,

** Dear OLdLAhori,**
the two examples you cited are classic examples of paradoxes within the realm of logic and mathematics in general....., but the part of the poem i quoted also contains a paradox, however we must view it here from a LITERARY point of view....

Paradox is a seemingly contradictory statement used often in poetry to establish an effect......because reading a poem you will at first sight stumble over this seeming contradiction, but once you think about it, the paradox increases the effect the poet intented to bring over...

e.g. J Donne says in his poem "Death, be not proud" the following words:

........Death, thou shalt die.......

this is an example of a paradox in the literary way.......

[QUOTE]

Exactly, it only "seems" to contradict and therefore the apparent inconsistency can be solved. A paradox
is a set of mutually inconsistent propositions each of which would be perfectly plausible when taken
individually. One way to solve a paradox is to see which of the propositions can be rejected or whether it
can be suitably explained to quash the inconsistency.

                          Most so-called "paradoxes" are in fact attempts to undermine logic by presenting a non-logical statement
                          as though it makes some sense if one digs deep enough. Throwing up a contradictory, often meaningless,
                          statement and then arguing that it must be a paradox doesn't get one anywhere - at best it leads to
                          great ambiguity. Although i'd still venture to say that you're sentence is closer to being an oxymoron . 

[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
an oxymoron is a special kind of a paradox. The oxymoron often occurs in the Petrarchan sonnets of the Elizabethan age. It consists of TWO contradictory WORDS, these are combined to increase the effect that the poet wants to convey......eg. "pleasing pains" or "loving hate" or " i burn and freeze"......

the part i made bold, i think here you are referring to Paradoxes from a Logical, mathematical point of view and not from a LITERARY viewpoint.........the part of the poem from Dara Shikoh i quoted is IMO a paradox........

we can discuss logic and mathematics some other time......!!

[Poodenay_Ki_Chutney]

*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *

Dear Poo-tang: You are getting confused by the stink that is you. So according to you islam is not a way of life and doesn’t include culture.

Allah, Ram, Shiva, Yehova, Indra…etc etc are the same thing. How you go about and become close to it is islam, hinduism, buddhism, judaism, christianity etc.

Get a good wash, little pooty-tang.

thanks,

CH

I think the only time oxford dictionary will use the word “dumb” and “dope” together will be when they are defining a person like u.

I never said islam doesent have a culture …yes it does …It is not a culture it is a whole set of rules for all mankind …and much more(eating,washing,praying,judicial sytem , constitutional system …and culture). It iis a way of communicating and praying to Allah (GOD). Culture is a part of islam but islam is not a part of culture.
Having cleared that a person like u who has no bearing on life or religion …comes to a foreign culture …thinks of it as a religion gets tottally bedazzeled by it and follows it full heartedly forgetting there roots .

Ps whats this fascination with POOTY, is it that ur cast back in india(shooder) used to deal with pootys evry day…nostalgia perhaps…but now chaltihai u r in the land of goras no more indian pooty only goron ki pooty.

[Chaltahai]

If washing is prescribed by islam that would make you the biggest kaffir. Dirty pooty! Pooty is your nickname I coined. Deal with it. Along with the ever popular poo-tang:D

[OldLahori]

filhaal: point well taken.

[Poodenay_Ki_Chutney]

*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
If washing is prescribed by islam that would make you the biggest kaffir. Dirty pooty! Pooty is your nickname I coined. Deal with it. Along with the ever popular poo-tang:D

Chalti hai
I would just like to say grow up…

on a second note if u want to continue this bickkering and name calling I have a very clean name for u
Chalti-hai A-Chout (shooder I mean )

[filhaal]

*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
filhaal: point well taken.

filhaal:
thanx OldLahori

[FikarNot]

"In the name of Him, who has no name"

The word "Name" could be used for atleast two purposes. One is to point at something (not necessarily we understand what that thing is) and Second, as a description/understanding of something.

According to the philosophy of Islam, no one can comprehend Allah. There really isn't an all-encompassing, all comprehensive name for Allah (and there can't be). All that we refer to is the Lights of that Source. 'Al-ilah' is nothing but a relationship of Man and Allah (Banda and Ma'bood), but not a description/comprehension of Allah. I heard a scholar said, God taught these Names as a way towards "Ma'rifat" of Him.

"Name" above has been used in the two different meanings: a) for pointing in the first phrase and b) for description/comprehension (in the second phrase). If that is clear, then I think the above quotation perfectly makes sense. 'To Him whose comprehension can't be accomplished through words'.

[PyariCgudia]

is this seriously turning into a debate?

How about someone does an ishtikara on this - we can find out if "da man" is just as good a name as "Allah" or "God"

[google]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
Here is a paradox that was discovered in 1901 by Bertrand Russell:

Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves S. If S is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if S is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be member of itself.

Is S a member of itself or not? That is a paradox.

Now I do not know what is meant by "seeming to be inconsistent" and "really inconsistent" means. That is the language used by laymen, when referring to knotty problems. In logic atleast Paradoxs do not have "solutions" within the axioms of the logic they are specified in. It was only when "limits" were discovered in calculus then Zeno's paradox was solved. The axioms had to be 'expanded'!

Here is another famous one discussed long ago by the ancient greeks:
*The paradox of the liar is
This statement is false!''
Why is this a paradox? What doesfalse'' mean? Well, false'' meansdoes not correspond to reality.'' This statement says that it is false. If that doesn't correspond to reality, it must mean that the statement is true, right? On the other hand, if the statement is true it means that what it says corresponds to reality. But what it says is that it is false. Therefore the statement must be false. So whether you assume that it's true or false, you must conclude the opposite! So this is the paradox of the liar. *
So is the statement true or false?
[/QUOTE]

There is complete truth, full truth and all truth. And you can always be true - all the time.

But there is no complete false or all false. And you cant always be False.

[google]

A) Truthful person: I am always telling the truth.

B) Liar: I am Always Lying.

B doesn’t make sense right?

Did you get that?

[filhaal]

[QUOTE]

"In the name of Him, who has no name"

                          The word "Name" could be used for atleast two purposes. One is to point at something (not necessarily
                          we understand what that thing is) and Second, as a description/understanding of something. 

                          According to the philosophy of Islam, no one can comprehend Allah. There really isn't an
                          all-encompassing, all comprehensive name for Allah (and there can't be). All that we refer to is the Lights
                          of that Source. 'Al-ilah' is nothing but a relationship of Man and Allah (Banda and Ma'bood), but not a
                          description/comprehension of Allah. I heard a scholar said, God taught these Names as a way towards
                          "Ma'rifat" of Him. 

                          "Name" above has been used in the two different meanings: a) for pointing in the first phrase and b) for
                          description/comprehension (in the second phrase). If that is clear, then I think the above quotation
                          perfectly makes sense. 'To Him whose comprehension can't be accomplished through words'.

[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
FikorNot, great response, i completely agree with you, this is also my understanding of this quotation!! thumbs up.......

Iqbal, you see that in the LITERARY viewpoint one does not reject one of the seemingly contradictory propositions in order to solve the problem one just has to get a better and in depth understanding of the terms used..........

[Iqbal1089]

filhaal, I did say that the previous post was going to be my last one on this topic, but since you've addressed me personally.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by filhaal: *
**Iqbal, you see that in the LITERARY viewpoint one does not reject one of the seemingly contradictory propositions in order to solve the problem one just has to get a better and in depth understanding of the terms used*
[/QUOTE]

Yes, i've already mentioned that "explaining" the paradox is another way of overcoming the problem. Here's what i previously said:

"One way to solve a paradox is to see which of the propositions can be rejected **or whether it can be suitably explained to quash the inconsistency."**

But i would reiterate that many so-called paradoxes are nothing more than ludicrous sentences that are poorly thought out and illogical. It is the easiest thing in the world to throw up a contradictory, often meaningless, statement and then argue that it must be a paradox.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

[filhaal]

[QUOTE]

But i would reiterate that many so-called paradoxes are nothing more than ludicrous sentences that are
poorly thought out and illogical. It is the easiest thing in the world to throw up a contradictory, often
meaningless, statement and then argue that it must be a paradox.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
iqbal, pleace donot be so arrogant!!