☀️ 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
Free Will?
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: 121437" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p><strong>To Naranjot</strong> (this will be a bit lengthy, hopefully not as lengthy as the actual PDF <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />)</p><p></p><p>Okay so I got around to reading the PDF. I can't say I agree with him... and here's why.</p><p></p><p>The Free Will argument is an "<em>Empirical Argument</em>." The author of the PDF begins by saying.</p><p></p><p>Now heres my problem with the above quote. It was "Empirical Logic" that first illuminated the problem and despite what the author says, Empirical logic has provided an answer for the problem that is consistent with Empirical Logic (but both situations are undesirable for the Theist). The implications of the FreeWill/Destiny argument is as follows:</p><p></p><p>1) God has given man no free will (In which case there can be no judgments passed from God)</p><p>or</p><p>2) God cannot be truly omnicient (In which case the definition of "God" must be redefined)</p><p></p><p>So when the author says, "Empircal logic has failed to resolve this problem" that's a lie. Empircal logic has provided two answers, both of which are unappreciated by the religious (and rightfully so, they undermine God's ability or denounce the possibility of heaven/hell/judgments but atleast they are empircally consistant).</p><p></p><p>He then goes on to answer the problem in a very Non-Empircal way. You cannot answer an Empirical Argument/Problem with a Non-Empirical Answer. His answer also has some problems (buts thats cause hes not using logic, he using nice-sounding-language to promote his ideas that seem to make sense but upon "Logical Scrutiny" his assertions have flaws).</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p></p><p>The above assertion is integral to his argument. And I've heard many people try to use similar arguments. Essentially what he is saying is "God is above logic"</p><p></p><p><em>But when you think about it</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em>What he is admitting is that: "God is illogical" (and i completely agree that an illogical being can do w/e he wants <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. But I'm not sure if one would want to believe their god is illogical)</p><p></p><p>For example, if I was to say: "Bush is above the law" thats akin to saying "Bush is unlawful"</p><p></p><p>So when someone says "God is above logic" thats akin to saying "God is illogical."</p><p></p><p>Judging by the above quote, and some assertions in his PDF. He believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. Thats a problem in and of itself. So a consequence of his argument is that the God that he believes in, must be illogical... and if that god is illogical, then no logical argument can be made in favor of his existance. So his entire argument rubs me the wrong way, in his defence, he kind of admitted it was a non-empirical argument from the fore front. But empirical problems demand empirical answers.</p><p></p><p><strong>I elaborate on this argument in the below reply.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 121437, member: 5962"] [B]To Naranjot[/B] (this will be a bit lengthy, hopefully not as lengthy as the actual PDF :P) Okay so I got around to reading the PDF. I can't say I agree with him... and here's why. The Free Will argument is an "[I]Empirical Argument[/I]." The author of the PDF begins by saying. Now heres my problem with the above quote. It was "Empirical Logic" that first illuminated the problem and despite what the author says, Empirical logic has provided an answer for the problem that is consistent with Empirical Logic (but both situations are undesirable for the Theist). The implications of the FreeWill/Destiny argument is as follows: 1) God has given man no free will (In which case there can be no judgments passed from God) or 2) God cannot be truly omnicient (In which case the definition of "God" must be redefined) So when the author says, "Empircal logic has failed to resolve this problem" that's a lie. Empircal logic has provided two answers, both of which are unappreciated by the religious (and rightfully so, they undermine God's ability or denounce the possibility of heaven/hell/judgments but atleast they are empircally consistant). He then goes on to answer the problem in a very Non-Empircal way. You cannot answer an Empirical Argument/Problem with a Non-Empirical Answer. His answer also has some problems (buts thats cause hes not using logic, he using nice-sounding-language to promote his ideas that seem to make sense but upon "Logical Scrutiny" his assertions have flaws). For example: The above assertion is integral to his argument. And I've heard many people try to use similar arguments. Essentially what he is saying is "God is above logic" [I]But when you think about it [/I]What he is admitting is that: "God is illogical" (and i completely agree that an illogical being can do w/e he wants :P. But I'm not sure if one would want to believe their god is illogical) For example, if I was to say: "Bush is above the law" thats akin to saying "Bush is unlawful" So when someone says "God is above logic" thats akin to saying "God is illogical." Judging by the above quote, and some assertions in his PDF. He believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. Thats a problem in and of itself. So a consequence of his argument is that the God that he believes in, must be illogical... and if that god is illogical, then no logical argument can be made in favor of his existance. So his entire argument rubs me the wrong way, in his defence, he kind of admitted it was a non-empirical argument from the fore front. But empirical problems demand empirical answers. [B]I elaborate on this argument in the below reply.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Free Will?
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