CHALLENGE: Can YOU Break the Science Barrier?

WJKK WJKF
Tejwant Singh ji
No, it is the definition.
supernatural: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
supernatural - definition of supernatural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.... and so on... you may google further websites that provide the definition. God is supernatural unless we are talking about a pantheistic God in which case, God means universe as we know it.

What is creative energy? What does it do?
You have not explained anything by saying it creates itself.
Further questions include: How does it do what it does? What evidence supports such an energy?

 
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!

__________________
The intellect of the mind is like a drunken elephant. Whatever one utters is totally false, the most false of the false. - Guru Nanak, 351

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

As mentioned in my post that the word Supernatural is an adjective which means it does have traits either tangibles or intangibles which have to manifest themselves in order to name it as an adjective. So, for me the above is more a statement than anything else which does not define much nor does it describe its traits.

Pardon my ignorance but I am a bit confused by your question.

Let me ask you a question in response to that.

What is NOT Energy and what can be done/achieved without it?

Tejwant Singh

And I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was merely pointing out that Dawkins goes with the pantheistic God, Universe. And that Sikh God is supernatural which is not pantheistic.

About Your questions. Here's some information on energy: I think you're asking the wrong questions.
What is energy?

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.


I thought you did. We all know what Dawkins goes with. You gave me the definition of Supernatural which I contested.

Your assertion and claim is that "Sikh God is supernatural ".

Please give references from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for your claim.

I beg to differ with you. No questions are wrong if they are related and relevant to the subject in discussion.

Thanks for giving the definition of Energy as far as physics is concerned.

Now can you respond to my initial question in lay man's terms in your own words rather than copying and pasting from Wikipedia and other places? I would appreciate that.

What is NOT Energy and what can be done/achieved without it?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

IMHO,

Today an uncompromising tawdriness develops within an organized religion when it embraces stories of the miraculous as truths. The collective social conscious that has named itself ‘Sikhism’ is certainly not exempt from this, even though in today’s modern world, it should be.

The problem stems when a philosophy tries to develop an atmos of divinity, and expounds metaphysical ideas and messages as a sacred code (conclusive, conducive, or expressive in nature). The result is; we have people questioning the ‘right of passage’ of this philosophy above others that predated it. And in this struggle emerges the miraculous stories and supernatural events that become associated with the authors of such philosophies, done largely to solidify the message as truly divine (it is a matter of survival of both the philosophy and of the ego of those who most ardently express it). Whether done consciously or subconsciously by the ‘group collective’ is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (all we know that it is done in every organized religion by some strata of the populace…and…historically it has been efficient in increasing the propagation of the philosophy itself…which in and of itself is understandable due to the lack of education of our ancestral generations).

List of Gurudawaras that have mythological stories attached to them, notice how they are also the most popular

Panja Sahib
Hemkunt Sahib
Harmandir Sahib
Manikaran Sahib
Panjokhara Sahib
And others that don’t come to mind.

One would suppose that such beliefs would lead to the backtracking of rationality today, like Dawkins espouses in his book and his documentaries (at a book event I have even heard him say “what a waste of an enlightenment”). I do not share his pessimistic sentiment that we are reversing somehow into an age of enchantment. I find his message to be a bit alarmist and overplayed, perhaps a tone needed to get record sales in a publication (the shock doctrine, works every time). I think people by and large are moving away from all this dark history. With science becoming increasingly more 'right than wrong', more reliable in its recordings and also increasingly profitable, ignoring or denouncing natural laws now comes at a social and economic price (whereas in the past they didn’t or it was the opposite). It has become increasingly difficult to denounce physical laws and chronological proofs and be taken seriously in the professional workplace, a fundamental shift in the evolution of our culture.


keep it awesome
sinister

Interesting how close Gyani ji and Sinister ji are in their perspectives -- but said so differently.

that is an cool question. anything that doesnt have mass will not have energy. but anything that does not have mass does not exist. and you can do anything with it.

Knowledge is not energy, it just exists (for the externalist). For example; the knowledge that we are yet to attain exists, its not energy, but it exists. For example, the soil composition of Titan is unknown to us, but knowledge of the soils existence exists, therefore the knowledge of it's composition exists, just not with us. In order to attain knowlege you need energy and in order to record knowledge, whether in your mind or on a book you also need energy, then it becomes a justified true belief.

Sinister ji,

Guru Fateh.

Interesting analogy about knowledge. But to attain knowledge and use it one needs energy. It can not be done otherwise.

Tejwant Singh

Fateh Tejwant Singh ji

I know you contested but whether you did or not, is meaningless here. Most people would go with the dictionary definition. So its more likely that Dawkins is also going with that version. If he didn't, he would have to clarify, like how he clarified his view on God by referring to it as a pantheistic God.

Does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji not say that there is a supreme being , an almighty?
Such a deity by definition is supernatural.
"hukumai undr sabh ko bahar hukum ma koi"


A question would be wrong in the sense that when you ask about e.g. the universe, asking "Who created the universe?" is the wrong question. A better one is "What created the universe?"
Similarly, when one wants to know about something e.g. bhagat, one would ask "What is a Bhagat?" not "What is not Bhagat?"

Energy is not subjective. So its not the same as asking "what is not beautiful?" " What is not smart?"
When you ask taht question it sounds meaningless. It woule be equally meaningless to ask "What is a not a vetor?" "What is not planet?"

I give you two out of many types of wrong questions, above. Your question falls in both categories. Both types of questions would include infinite amount of answers, which is not the smart way to talk about things.

Did you check out the link? That's what energy is defined as. In diferent fieldds of science the definition is slightly altered to suit the context but its still talking about the same thing.


Energy = a quantity without direction that describes the amount of work done by a force
Its also considered an attribute. For example, a fruit maybe described in terms of energy.

My question to you still remains and you are still ignoring it (it sure seems taht way).
What is Creative Energy? Explain. ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarnail Singh ji
I must have overlookd the first bit of your sentence. Aad Ji'scomment made me go back and see how your words were similar to Sinister Ji.
I believe saying that "IK Oangkar never does that" is limiting it. The word Ek Oankar, a universal God, the almighty imply that he has the power to do anything.
Its like what Dawkins says that a Universe without God is very different form a Universe with God, unless of course, by God you mean universe.
What do you think?