☀️ 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
Are Science And Religion Compatible?
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="Seeker9" data-source="post: 130120" data-attributes="member: 11719"><p>Dear Biitu Ji</p><p></p><p>This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything</p><p></p><p>This is because you have consistently refused to acknowledge the counter-proofs we have presented to you, which is fair enough, </p><p>as they challenge what you believe in</p><p></p><p>But clearly, what you believe in is not the same as what myself and others on this thread believe in so we are all wasting our time here</p><p></p><p>I could continue to argue the points you have presented in red for example your comments around Pi...you call it logic, I call it a </p><p>subjective judgement and interpretation that suited your subsequent calculations. As for numerology, I have more than proven the point</p><p>and you really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a counter-argument.</p><p></p><p>But ultimately this going back and forth will not get us anywhere as you have demonstrated a way of justifying and interpreting things</p><p>to suit your beliefs and you then refer to them as scientific proofs!</p><p></p><p>Mai Harinder Kaur Ji made an excellent observation in an earlier post about your approach in that you are using the thing to be proven as </p><p>it's own proof, i.e the Bible. Naturally, you know exactly where you are going to end up when you apply this circular self-fulfilling logic</p><p></p><p>It is my humble opinion that what you keep on referring to as your proofs are thus no more than hypotheses, which wikipedia </p><p>defines as “a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon”</p><p></p><p>But there is no credible empirical evidence to support your assertions. Here's what wiki has to say in this area: </p><p></p><p>“A central concept in*science*and the*scientific method*is that all*evidence*must be*empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent </p><p>on evidence or*consequences*that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of*empiricism*by </p><p>the use of the adjective*empirical*or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working*hypotheses*that are*testable*using*</p><p>observation*or*experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.*</p><p>Empirical data*is*data*that is produced by*experiment*or*observation.”</p><p></p><p>You keen on going on about the Bible and Science but I see nothing at all in your approach that complies with the above definitions</p><p></p><p>Now you could say wikipedia has a grand anti-christian agenda or you could accept it as a neutral third party contributor in this debate.</p><p></p><p>As I noted earlier, there are other faiths with their own view of the Creation. There are mathematical and scientific references in other scriptures </p><p>including the Vedas and the Koran. Looking at Islam, they also revere Jesus but in a completely different way. Different religions with different </p><p>views and you are posting on a forum that is focussed on Sikh scriptures. </p><p></p><p>Whilst it has been a stimulating debate, I'm sorry to say it's just getting a bit boring for me now</p><p></p><p>I daresay you will have a response to this..I would expect no less going by past expeience!</p><p></p><p>But I have said my piece and won't be responding to you any further and wish you well in your quest for enlightenment</p><p></p><p>All the best Bittu Ji!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Seeker9, post: 130120, member: 11719"] Dear Biitu Ji This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything This is because you have consistently refused to acknowledge the counter-proofs we have presented to you, which is fair enough, as they challenge what you believe in But clearly, what you believe in is not the same as what myself and others on this thread believe in so we are all wasting our time here I could continue to argue the points you have presented in red for example your comments around Pi...you call it logic, I call it a subjective judgement and interpretation that suited your subsequent calculations. As for numerology, I have more than proven the point and you really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a counter-argument. But ultimately this going back and forth will not get us anywhere as you have demonstrated a way of justifying and interpreting things to suit your beliefs and you then refer to them as scientific proofs! Mai Harinder Kaur Ji made an excellent observation in an earlier post about your approach in that you are using the thing to be proven as it's own proof, i.e the Bible. Naturally, you know exactly where you are going to end up when you apply this circular self-fulfilling logic It is my humble opinion that what you keep on referring to as your proofs are thus no more than hypotheses, which wikipedia defines as “a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon” But there is no credible empirical evidence to support your assertions. Here's what wiki has to say in this area: “A central concept in*science*and the*scientific method*is that all*evidence*must be*empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or*consequences*that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of*empiricism*by the use of the adjective*empirical*or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working*hypotheses*that are*testable*using* observation*or*experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.* Empirical data*is*data*that is produced by*experiment*or*observation.” You keen on going on about the Bible and Science but I see nothing at all in your approach that complies with the above definitions Now you could say wikipedia has a grand anti-christian agenda or you could accept it as a neutral third party contributor in this debate. As I noted earlier, there are other faiths with their own view of the Creation. There are mathematical and scientific references in other scriptures including the Vedas and the Koran. Looking at Islam, they also revere Jesus but in a completely different way. Different religions with different views and you are posting on a forum that is focussed on Sikh scriptures. Whilst it has been a stimulating debate, I'm sorry to say it's just getting a bit boring for me now I daresay you will have a response to this..I would expect no less going by past expeience! But I have said my piece and won't be responding to you any further and wish you well in your quest for enlightenment All the best Bittu Ji! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Are Science And Religion Compatible?
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