☀️ 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="Lee" data-source="post: 121446" data-attributes="member: 1301"><p>Hah now that is indeed a grand claim my freind. How can you show that it is logicaly consistant though and not mere opinion?</p><p> </p><p>Besides even if you can show me such and manage to change my mind(truthfully sir I am full to the brim with 'intelectual honesty' if you can pursead me I may well change my stance), i don;t think it matters at all in the context of this debate.</p><p> </p><p>Saying that God is illogical merely means defiles logics, I have no real problems with that particular concept, indeed I would find it odd for any theist to do so.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No I do not think it is. Of course I am argueing in a logical mannor, would you prefer it if I did not? I am human, I am not God, we are engaged in a a logical debate on the concept of free will. Now sir If I was to abandone logical reasoning here in favour of something else, I wonder what your response would be?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This is exactly the same empasse I reach whenever I engage in this topic. </p><p>My freind can you not see that I have provided you with some sound logical reasoning for my stance, by the very rules of debate you should now use the same to counter my arguments. That you cannot do so must mean one of two things. You have not the were-with-all to counter the ideas I have laid down here with your own logical ideas and arguments. Or You can see that I am correct yet your attachement to your own stance overrules your 'intelectual honesty'.</p><p> </p><p>What you post above is tantamount to giving up. I cannoot as you say see the logic in your argument, if though you have faith in it then you should be able to present me with at least the logical argument that has pureaded you to belive it, no? If you cannot make me understand then I would suggest that your stance is not strong, nor has your belife in such an unsound stance been reached via a wholly logical procese.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Again my freind this anology does not work well, for many reasons but the most salient one being that despite the nature of logic(or indeed any thing) the creator must be in posetion of more knowledge. The creator of logic can surly transcend logic, as the creator of a new sport will be able to chop and change any rules he likes(his sport, his rules).</p><p> </p><p>Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all. A joke may help show you what I mean. 'What is 1 and 1?'</p><p> </p><p>Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it). This is in all seriousness the correct answer to the question I possed, yet you claim that if we give this question to a computer that it would answer 2, and in doing so it would be incorrect. The computer must work within the limited confines of what it's creator has designed it to be, but another creator(human in this case) can transcend the fixed logics of the creation(the computer) and arive at the correct answer, the creation(the computer) will always answer this question wrong, until such a time that the creator(humans) change it's programing. So we can see that the limit applys to the creation, but not the creator.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ahhh then I'm sorry my freind you have not shown me this to any reasonable standard. Besides that line of my reasoning was not the entirty of it, it was actualy quite a tiny little piece of it. Heh just one line to be exact.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lee, post: 121446, member: 1301"] Hah now that is indeed a grand claim my freind. How can you show that it is logicaly consistant though and not mere opinion? Besides even if you can show me such and manage to change my mind(truthfully sir I am full to the brim with 'intelectual honesty' if you can pursead me I may well change my stance), i don;t think it matters at all in the context of this debate. Saying that God is illogical merely means defiles logics, I have no real problems with that particular concept, indeed I would find it odd for any theist to do so. No I do not think it is. Of course I am argueing in a logical mannor, would you prefer it if I did not? I am human, I am not God, we are engaged in a a logical debate on the concept of free will. Now sir If I was to abandone logical reasoning here in favour of something else, I wonder what your response would be? This is exactly the same empasse I reach whenever I engage in this topic. My freind can you not see that I have provided you with some sound logical reasoning for my stance, by the very rules of debate you should now use the same to counter my arguments. That you cannot do so must mean one of two things. You have not the were-with-all to counter the ideas I have laid down here with your own logical ideas and arguments. Or You can see that I am correct yet your attachement to your own stance overrules your 'intelectual honesty'. What you post above is tantamount to giving up. I cannoot as you say see the logic in your argument, if though you have faith in it then you should be able to present me with at least the logical argument that has pureaded you to belive it, no? If you cannot make me understand then I would suggest that your stance is not strong, nor has your belife in such an unsound stance been reached via a wholly logical procese. Again my freind this anology does not work well, for many reasons but the most salient one being that despite the nature of logic(or indeed any thing) the creator must be in posetion of more knowledge. The creator of logic can surly transcend logic, as the creator of a new sport will be able to chop and change any rules he likes(his sport, his rules). Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all. A joke may help show you what I mean. 'What is 1 and 1?' Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it). This is in all seriousness the correct answer to the question I possed, yet you claim that if we give this question to a computer that it would answer 2, and in doing so it would be incorrect. The computer must work within the limited confines of what it's creator has designed it to be, but another creator(human in this case) can transcend the fixed logics of the creation(the computer) and arive at the correct answer, the creation(the computer) will always answer this question wrong, until such a time that the creator(humans) change it's programing. So we can see that the limit applys to the creation, but not the creator. Ahhh then I'm sorry my freind you have not shown me this to any reasonable standard. Besides that line of my reasoning was not the entirty of it, it was actualy quite a tiny little piece of it. Heh just one line to be exact. [/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