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

Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is OK to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. It is part and parcel of the educational process.

It is not up to me to make any argument. It is up to you to define each God in each religion mentioned by Caspian so these qualities can be qualified how they are defined by the individual religion.

I have no idea why you are reluctant to doing that. We all have opinions. You have expressed yours and I have expressed mine which is fair and square.

I will leave it to that.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 
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!

Let us all remind our selves of something important to this discusion.

'Ek okar'

One God people, only the one. Bareing this in mind then we can say that any attribute that any religion gives to God is merely as a result of our lack of understanding of the totality of God.

Could not have said it better myself. Tejwant, im not "mis-analysing" you and me and bhagat are defintly not setting up road blocks. We seem to differ on one very important issue and that is whether or not you can analyse part of something. You feel we must define everything inorder to analyse part of it but both me and bhagat feel that is unneccessary and does not allow for broad comparison. So like bhagat, I'm going to respectfully disagree (even if that puts the discussion at a standstill) until you provide examples for your reasoning outside of broad statements such as: Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we — because there is nothing innately true about that sentence (even if it was true, simply saying it doesnt make it true without providing reasons/examples) and even then, i have defined the sikh God as "omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent" if you find fault with my definition then by all means show me the fault in my definition? Perhaps then we can move on?

How so?

What exactly do you mean by this?

I ask because I simply cannot see how a seemingly intelegent person as yourself could belive such a thing.

Let me offer this. We humans are questers, we are interested (on the whole) in learning about things, the world around us, how things work, we ask questions and we posit possiblities.
Amongs the biggest of the questions we ask are the intertwined: 'What is it all about?' and 'How did we get here?'

Science started as a means to answer these questions, ahhh but it was not the first sphere to attempt such a thing. God answers both of these questions, and science arose out of religion. So you see I can see some clear logical reasoning why the concept of God may have arisen, can't you?

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

I will give you a hand to come out of your own trap where your logic dictates that ends justify the means, which itself is illogical.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Ik Ong Kaar is described very well in the Mool Mantar in Sikhi. Other Scriptures that you have mentioned in your argument also define their Gods in their ways. Study them and then share them with us your logic. Only by taking this logical step you can define what each charaterstic means in each religion. This is my last post if this discussion does not move forward. Means justify the ends in logic. The other way around as you have done is simply illogical as mentioned above.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

IMO The concept of God arose from biological roots :P I would love to explain if you want me to, but in a different post! Cuz that has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with biology, psychology and neurology.

Just for example's sake (because you have no provided me with one) lets assume that I was beggining this debate in a Christian thread instead of a Sikh thread (because I don't have time to go over the Mool Manter and all that right now). Now, i would start off my debate in the very same way—posting my argument and on that christian forum, a "Christian-Tejwant" would ask me to define the christian god in specific. Now aside from the omni-qualities i did define the christian god with (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresance) I know that the christian god is suppose to be Loving, Jealous, Vengeful (at times), Part of the holy trinity (and i can go on and on about his other characteristics). Are any of these characterisitics important to my argument ? Of course not—but if any of the christians felt like they were important to my argument, its their duty to bring them up. For example, a 'Christian-Tejwant" might want to use an argument about God's capability for infinite love to dispell my argument ( just an example). But it is not my duty to distincly define any other characteristics of god that I find unneccsary to my example, it is your job to attack my definition if you see it as unfit and so far i have no seen you say "your definition is wrong" instead you keep asking me to include the entire definition of the sikh god but like my example of the christian god, there are many unneccesary qualities that arent needed for my argument.

Caspian ji,

Good start.As Jesus is considered God in Christianity then if he was omnipotent then why did he die in the first place? I am just taking your argument and please be specific in your answers. I have not even touched the other parts because when you have the time to study the Mool Manter, you will notice what kind of Ik Ong Kaar Guru Nanak talks about. Did Guru Nanak call himself God? Did he call himself the Prophet as Mohammed claimed?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh

Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)... unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well, I have just proved one of your omniqualities wrong with the Jesus' death. So, you better start all over again because it has everything to do with your argument. Your premise of the argument has been proved wrong. It is not my duty to give other definitions. It is your argument and your premise. So, stop passing the buck.

Regards

Tejwant Singh