☀️ 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: 121937" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>Justified True Belief refers to what you can classify as knowledge. For "P" to consider "X" to be knowledge "P" has to satisfy 3 conditions</p><p></p><p>1) X is true</p><p>2) P believes X is true</p><p>3) P is justified in his belief that X is true</p><p></p><p>But if your familiar with the "Gettier Problem" even the JTB definition of knowledge is insuffecient. Its usually the "justification of the belief" that is at fault in a gettier problem. If your unfamiliar with the Gettier Problem, id be willing to explain but I'll assume that if you know wat JTB is then you most likely know wat the gettier problem is (although i didnt no about the gettier problem myself until recently <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />).</p><p></p><p>Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 121937, member: 5962"] Justified True Belief refers to what you can classify as knowledge. For "P" to consider "X" to be knowledge "P" has to satisfy 3 conditions 1) X is true 2) P believes X is true 3) P is justified in his belief that X is true But if your familiar with the "Gettier Problem" even the JTB definition of knowledge is insuffecient. Its usually the "justification of the belief" that is at fault in a gettier problem. If your unfamiliar with the Gettier Problem, id be willing to explain but I'll assume that if you know wat JTB is then you most likely know wat the gettier problem is (although i didnt no about the gettier problem myself until recently :P). Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on :) (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though :). [/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