2+2=5: A Case for Agnostic-Atheism

Yes, I have bundled them together... not because this has anything to do with "Islam, Sikhism, Christianity or Judaism" but rather it has to do with God in general. And wen I talk about the concept of "God in general" i cant help but bring in countless religions by default. I don't intend to talk about the religions specifically though. If you read my argument, keep in mind that it was with a muslim but no where did we specifcally talk about Islam—it was purely philosophy. So in that respect, i can still use the same argument on a sikh site (like this one) PROVIDED that the sikh god is similar to the islamic/christian/judeo god. In my opinion it is similar enough (there are differences and i have acknolwedged them) for me to use this argument... unless your denying that the sikh god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all knowing — in that case my argument is flawed wen it comes to the sikh god.

Its not an oxymoron (the concept behind the name) but if you take the dictionary definition of both agnostic and atheist it may seem like an oxymoron, that i will admit—but theres no adequate single word to describe the position so I will simply describe my postion in a bunch of words :P

"Agnostic-Atheism" is the phrase i use to describe the position where one can acknowledge the possibility of a god but still reject the possibility of specific gods due to their characteristics (such as the christian god). Basically, its a "I can believe in a god just not your god" approach.

Language skills are important—just like math skills. And when u use language in a "mathamatical way" thats wat can be described as "logic"—logic is an important thing. So if this thread is about showing off logical skill—i cant disagree.

Waitt a second... this is not wat I said so i dunt know wat ur referring to? Reality is 2+2=4. and "2+2=4" is better then "2+2=5" (i dont even no how u can call "2+2=5" the ultimate reality, perhaps ur being sarcastic?) or you've got everything backwards?

Again, backwards. I didnt say logic is illogical, I used to logic to show how god is illogical. Furthermore, im not trying to show how everything illogical will look logical, thats not wats happening here. Did you even read my post? Im trying to show u how what you think is logical is really illogical (not the other way around).

Im familiar with there arguments But my argument in a nut shell is "Do you believe in a god that can make 2+2=5. Yes? Well your god is illogical" doesnt get much simpler then that :P. You go on to talk about a difference between irrational and illogical—i really dont think the difference is big enough to warrent distinction in this context. If so, your going to have to explain how because i didnt get it from your previous post (that deal with how u can use logic to reach irrational conclusions but u can also use logic to reach illogical conclusion—wats the dif?).

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong.

I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics.

If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical?

Meh! Shall we rewind a little to remind ourselves of the sticking point between us?

Initialy it was your stance that determinism negates free will. As proof of this you gave an anology of God watching a movie. I said that this anology does not really work, as it assumes too much of what God is and how God works. I then said that you need to show me the proofs for these assumptions before we can belive this anolgy.

You did not attempt to do this, instead you counterred saying that I must belive then that God is 'above' us, and then you gave your example of how 2+2=4 and that a man could not contradict a computer when it gives such output. Supposed to show that logicaly speaking the creator cannot contradict the logic of the created.

Here is the thing then this anolgy rest soley on pure maths. Indeed in pure maths 2+2= 4, whether the computer says so or the man, and the correct answer must be 4 and so in this instance than creator cannot indeed contradict the answer form the computer.

My claim is that a computer is always limited by it's programing, I used a riddle to show the differance in the comprehension of a question does make a differance in it's answering. What is my intent in doing this?

To show you that the creator can always contradict the asnwer of the created evem if it appears that the creatd is correct. Unless the question is fully understand the created can indeed make what it assumes is a correct answer yet the creator knows is incorrect and thus the creator can contradict a correct answer form the created.

You say two things about this, the second one is that you do understand my meaing, which leads me to great confussion, because if you did then why would you argue that it is illogical? It makes perfect sense to me.

Yet again let me explain this one to you. I really have no problems with the concept of an illogical God, as really when we say this what we mean is that our compehension of God is incompleat and so just like the computer what we know of God may appears to US to be illogical.

I think you'll find that in fact counter to your assertion that not many religions nor religious people will see things this way, I think the vast majority of them see things exactly like this.

I guess I am saying that deconstruction of language may seem like a brainy thing to do. But perhaps it is better reserved for the corporate world and government where the creation of new meanings is typically the result of the desire to manipulate the minds of the innocent and create a herd mentality.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html

Atheism and agnosticism cannot be the same thing. We need only to analyze their structure.

a + theism
a + gnosticism

I have gone on the record so that anyone wanting to be reasonable, in the future will see that someone cared.

But i don't see why where having this argument because I agree that atheism and agnosticism cant be the same thing. Did you ever get around to watching that youtube video I posted? Becuase that essentially says the same thing... i mean, even in my original post i spent a great deal talkin about how atheist and agnostic are non-comparable terms. So im right there with you but i think your misreading the lable "agnostic-atheist" to mean "being both agnostic and atheist"

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

A couple of things.

I have no idea if logic breeds ethics in you but common sense would dictate that it does. So, kindly address each post to the person your are responding to which would be ethically logical.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me the Shabads with your own interpretation from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru to prove your point, otherwise, your repetition becomes nothing but an illogical babble.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.
Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?

This is my 2nd time trying to reply -_- my internet is screwing up. Anyways...

Dually noted :P. But easy there tiger! You don't have to be so passive aggressive. Simple saying, "Can you adress the names of the people you quote" would have sufficed :P. Didn't have to call into question my ethics (ouch ).

Tejwant Says:
I'm going to be short, because the last two times i had written longer responses but they never went through for some reason.

Okay anyways. I'm not going to send you any shabads from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with my own interpretations of them. It would be pointless for my argument. There is nothing in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that can directly support (or refute for that matter) my argument. I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not deal with this issue). But if there is no shabad in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to support my idea—does that mean its "illogical babble?" I think not. Theres no Shabad in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to support the concept of 2+2=4; nonethelss, the concept is not "illogical babble." I didnt set out to target Sikhism either (or any religion in specific) instead I set out to talk about "God in general." I feel that the concept of God shares many key similarities throughout many religions (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence) so my argument is meant to be as general as possible. If you feel like you must envoke the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to answer any of my points, by all means do so (I'll assume the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is your area of expertise; Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise). Having said that, I kind of liked my Muslim colleagues responses though, because he was able to raise valid counter points without evoking Islam. That just goes to show that my original post has nothing to do with religion at all—you greatly mis-interpreted my intentions in that regard. It has everything to do with philosophy and logic.

Bhagat Says:

Thnx for the reply! And I thank you for helping me clear that up :P. But yes, I'm just saying that the Gods of those 4 religions share some characterisitics. So, No... I'm not saying that the Sikh God is not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (And like you, I'm confused as to whether that is what Tejwant is saying—but if it is what he is saying, and he is right in the context of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sikhi in general, then i take back my whole argument :P). But, as a result, I'm saying "if he is all that" then those characteristics contribute to God being illogical (he can still exist, but then he exists as an illogical entity). Why is he illogical? Must read the rest of my original post :P Download the .doc file if you have too, its easier to read. But essentially the jist of my argument is:

Can God make 2+2=5? (Or to put it more "exactly": Can god violate the laws of logic, math and science?)

Yes: Then he's illogical
No: Then he's pointless

But the reasoning behind my logic is what is more important then the conclusions themselves, I guess. As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic). He would be like a machine designed to turn itself off as soon as it is turned on.


Existing for the sole reason of existing and nothing more.

Caspian ji,
sorry about the confusion. My reply (with the question) was to Tejwant Singh ji only.
That was an awesome debate with Mustafa, BTW!
Could you elaborate on this?