If you truly believe that all religions worship the same god then you really need to look deeply into the religions that you think this about. Like my first post in this thread says, all the religions claim to be truthful and they all contradict ach other. you can't say A and not A in the same sentence.
Well the beauty of language is that you actually
can say 'A and not A' in the same sentence.
It depends on what 'A' is.
If 'A' is assumed to be a well-defined element of some set S, then 'A and not A' defines the empty set.
But if A is not well-defined, like A is an infinite set, then 'A and not A' defines a non-empty set.
This is because there is more than one infinite set, and they are not equipotent, that is they do not share a one-to-one correspondence of elements.
And example is the infinite set of rational numbers p/q, where p,q are integers.
Since there are an infinite set of integers, then there is an infinite set of rational numbers, but it can be proven mathematically that the set of rational numbers is equipotent to the set of integers, that is they are both 'equally infinite'.
However, the set of real numbers is not capable of being placed into a one-to-one relation with the set of integers, mathematically it can be proven that there are infinitely many more real numbers than rational numbers, but this is now 'unequally infinite'.
Finally, the set of real numbers is of the same infinite class (or cardinality) as the number of points on the Cartesian plane, or by extension to the number of points in a three-dimensional space. However, it can be mathematically proven (and this one is beyond me) that the number of possible plane curves or space curves (that is all possible continuous curves that can be drawn on a two-dimensional plane or in three-dimensional space) is infinitely larger than the number of real numbers corresponding to the plane or volume.
So mathematically there are at least three classes of infinity, and these can be abstracted to an infinite number of infinities, but I am not aware of there being any correspondence between infinite classes greater than those used to describe all possible continuous curves on the plane and any other mathematical or physical concept.
Of course all of the above depends upon your ability to accept the axiom of choice, which can be summed up as for any collection of non-empty sets it is possible to chose exactly one object from each set. It's a no-brainer for finite sets but less so for infinite sets.
And if you are still confused (as I often am) ask yourself what is meant by declaring 'this statement is false'.
If 'this statement is false' is understood as 'true' then it contradicts the meaning of the word false.
If 'this statement is false' is understood to be 'false' then the statement must be true, which again contradicts the meaning of the word false.
While it is obvious that our language can construct such statements it is just as obvious that such statements cannot be the basis of logical arguments.
Some folks also cannot accept the concept of the empty set, or zero, or nothing, since by even being able to name or think about it it renders the concept invalid.
I suppose you could say that about the concept of infinity, since any definition of it automatically constrains it to something less than infinity.
