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

Bhagat says:

Well i only call him a pointless God because "I dont know what point he would serve for us" (i think he would serve no point for us directly) so its an informal nickname at this point. But a god that abides by the laws of logic, math and science, is akin to describing these very laws as "godly" (indeed, they are omnipresent [the logic/math/science we use on earth would apply equally anywhere in the universe] , omnipotent [you cannot be above the laws of logic math and science] and omnicient [we don't yet know "all logic, math and science" but knowing it "all" would make us "all knowing" :P] if not literally then in the highest figuritive sense; and by virtue of their properties, they are self-limiting WITHOUT being self-contradictory). Studying and understanding this kind of god is as possible as "experiencing this god." The "pointless" nickname is due to the inability for this god to sustain a heaven or hell, to punish or reward, to create us directly, to require us to pray or provide us with an absolute moral system (all of which are illogical at best). Indeed, he would be very pointless to us, he would not be a "personal" god, we would have no use for him directly but by studying him (and keep in mind, wen i say him, i refer to logic, math and science) we gain greater insight—thats all, and thats a beutiful thing :P Its a god i can believe in :P. Consequently, this god would only be as old as our universe as I believe the laws of logic, math and science are immergent properties that came to exist on the onset of the big bang (this is me just talking theory, getting away from my more concrete philosophical approach). It would still leave us with an interesting question as to what existed prior to this big bang—thats a gap where i might be more inclined to acknowledge the possibility of an illogical god. A god that could make 2+2=5 in that case may accidently have triggered the big bang in the process :P which subsequently destroyed him and left us with a logical god :P (just musing myself :P dont take me too seriously in the last couple sentances )

 
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!

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please define God in Sikhi for me because the Abrahamic God according to the OT, NT and the Quran is angry,vengeful and jealous God, has human characteristics which means he is immersed in duality. NT also says that God would make people rape woman and he kills babies.

Is God in Sikhi according to you a personified deity and has the above chracterstics?

Once you have defined Ik Ong Kaar for me from the Sikhi view point then we can take this interaction further and learn from it.

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh ji
Whether the Sikh God has those qualities or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. Only the "omni qualities" are being looked at. Again I ask you, are you disputing any of those? If yes then we should take this interaction further...

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

It clearly shows from your post that you are distorting what I said, which is not logical.

Please read my post again. Sorry if you feel defensive about it whether it is logical or not, I will leave that to you. But there is nothing to get uptight and read between the lines.

So, let me ask you in a different way where you do not feel the way you did.

Does logic ( your favourite term) breed ethics?

If it does then in what manner and if it does not then should it?

It is a simple question about logic, your expertise as you claim.

So you mean you do not have an argument to prove your logic? Thanks for admitting that.

First and foremost you have to define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If you are not able to define HE/SHE/IT, then you have no argument to start with.

You know it very well that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a math book, hence it can not have your stated concept which would be illogical but it has a wonderful poetry.

Is there any book in math that defines 2+2=5? If there is, please share with us.

It is nothing but illogical babble if you can not even define with the help of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji what Ik Ong Kaar is.

If you can not give examples from the scriptures of the different religions and define God according to them then you have no argument. It is illogical to say " God in general" because there is nothing like that. If your logic of " God in general" were true then there would not be millions of denominations in Christianity and millions of other different religions. It sounds very illogical from your own aspect of logic

It is your duty and responsibility to prove your claim with the facts from different scriptures, not mine. This is the only logical thing for you to do. It is your argument, not mine.

I just want you to prove it in a logical manner otherwise it is nothing but hot air.
I hope you use these skills to prove what you claim. Simply put.

Caspian ji,

Either you are very naive or you do not read the posts sent to you in a logical manner. Your Muslim friend was very open and frank on the offset to let you know that he wanted to convert you. Of course he was trying to respond from his religious viewpoint to no avail. I do not know how you missed that point. As, he found out he could not, he eventually went mum which is the case in most Muslims which happens quite often here. The case in point is Nasir from Iran who disappeared after he was asked some direct questions about his religion.

Just to refresh your memory, following is what your Muslim friend said:

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

We can only look at the " omni qualities" of an entity (deity) provided we know the definition of the said entity ( deity) according to the particular religion.

If we are not able to, then we can not take this interaction further....

Tejwant Singh

The definition includes the "omni qualities"... Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know.
Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...

Tejwant Says:

I don't have to talk about sikhism in specific at all. Furthermore, your criteria that "anything only makes sense if it is supported by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji" is horribly restrictive (how would an atheist find support for his position in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It seems very closed-minded of you to refuse to listen to an argument if it does not include the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. But notice how you said "with the facts from different scriptures" this argument is about the validity of certain facts—how would try to prove that those facts are in valid by using the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to support those facts? Lol you already know I cant logically do that but your saying that's the only logical thing to do? I dont think so :P. I think a religious person can find justifications for God outside of their respective holybooks. Similarily, a person such as me, can use an argument against the idea of god without so much as touching religion :P or looking at a holy text. Indeed that was my goal, to provide an argument that would apply to as many faiths equally (im in the business of making a point too right :P and ill take a page from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and try to make my point as universal as possible :P).
Listen to Bhagat singh—this discussion is not about all the characteristics of the Sikh god—this discussion is about wether or not the sikh god has those 3 characterisitics and if he does, what conclusions can you draw from that.

Bhagat Says:
Yes I agree! Why is it that you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh god? Do other aspects of the sikh god explicitly contradict my argument? If they do, they would be helpful to look at wouldnt they :P. If they don't, there's again no point bringing them up—we would just be wasting time.

Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.


Definition of which God from which religion? If each religion sees its God differently than these definitions of "omni characteristics" change as well. Some God can fly on a magic carpet to be anywhere, anytime, some may ride a Pegasus to do the same. So, once again your argument does not hold any water.

You have to define each God in its own spectrum of the religion in order to define these "omni charateristics" and how they are seen in each religion for the God they worship.

If some religions believe their God to be a personified deity then these qualities have a different meaning.

So, as I have asked you and Caspian as well before and I have no idea why both of you are reluctant to defining God in the religions Caspians have mentioned.

Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we?

I am all for the interaction to go further. It is Caspian and now you creating the road blocks. Not me. When someone puts up an argument, it is his/her duty to show the basis of it. There is nothing in general sense when we are talking about specific things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Your posts clearly show that you have a habit of distorting what I have written thus far. All my responses were based on your posts. I request you to re read them with a calm mind and come to the terms of your own logic.

What you have shown so far is that your logic is based on "ends justify the means" which is hilarious to say the least. Logic is the conclusion through the means, not the other way around as you have presented your so called general arguments. Logic requires specifics and read your earlier posts, you mentioned specific religions. As you have put yourself in a trap created by your own logic, I am sorry to say that you have to learn from your own trap how to come out of it logically.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh ji,
I respectfully disagree.
You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".