☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 121543" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px">My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p>Your taking a mathematical problem, removing it from its mathematical context and providing an unmathamatical answer. If you've read my thread carefully, I wouldn't say that this kind of example is "pointless" I would say its "beyond logical" (illogical). So we agree. </p><p></p><p>Wikipedia "Qualia" for my take on the definition of "Love" I dont have enough time to go over it here <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It hasnt been re-invented its been corrected IMO <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. Dictionaries are not great sources for defining terms in debate as Lee went on to expand upon. A dictionary definition for either side of the debate leaves out important information. For example, I once had a christian argue that Homosexuality cannot be genetic because genetic traits must be passed on from parents to childern and then she used a "Dictionary definition" to support her claim. In which case I had to provide her with example of Down Syndrome for her to truly understand the scope of "Genetic"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Woah.. i didnt say atheism = agnosticism <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> they are non-comparable terms in my mind.</p><p></p><p>I lifted my defintion of "Agnostic-Atheism" from this video. Check it out.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg" target="_blank">YouTube- The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship</a></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> he can be an irrational number lol. I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument? If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity. The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit. And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps? </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p></p><p>My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a discussion on that somewhere on this site too. </p><p></p><p>Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as an illogical entity. Thats all im saying. </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 121543, member: 5962"] [FONT=Times] [SIZE=3]I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times] [SIZE=3]My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical. [/SIZE][/FONT] Your taking a mathematical problem, removing it from its mathematical context and providing an unmathamatical answer. If you've read my thread carefully, I wouldn't say that this kind of example is "pointless" I would say its "beyond logical" (illogical). So we agree. Wikipedia "Qualia" for my take on the definition of "Love" I dont have enough time to go over it here :P. It hasnt been re-invented its been corrected IMO :P. Dictionaries are not great sources for defining terms in debate as Lee went on to expand upon. A dictionary definition for either side of the debate leaves out important information. For example, I once had a christian argue that Homosexuality cannot be genetic because genetic traits must be passed on from parents to childern and then she used a "Dictionary definition" to support her claim. In which case I had to provide her with example of Down Syndrome for her to truly understand the scope of "Genetic" Woah.. i didnt say atheism = agnosticism :P they are non-comparable terms in my mind. I lifted my defintion of "Agnostic-Atheism" from this video. Check it out. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg"]YouTube- The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship[/url] [FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][SIZE=3] I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical? [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][SIZE=3] Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown :) he can be an irrational number lol. I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument? If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity. The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][SIZE=3] Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit. And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything :P (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps? [/SIZE][/FONT] My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a discussion on that somewhere on this site too. Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as an illogical entity. Thats all im saying. [FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times] [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top