☀️ 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: 121457" data-attributes="member: 1301"><p>In actual fact sir the questuion I posed was this: 'What is 1 and 1?'</p><p> </p><p>Admitedly it is a bit of trickery, but not one that is illogical. The application of some 'deductive reasoning' does indeed render the correct answer. Or do you maintian that all riddles are illogical?</p><p> </p><p>The porpouse of it was to counter your claim which paraphrasing was esensitaly that a creators logic cannot contradict the logic of it's creation. I have show here with this question that it is all a question of knowldege. In pure maths the question what is 1 and 1, the computer can only answer 2. This is because the creator(humans) of the computer have not yet programed it with the relevant knowledge to understand the concept of 'latteral thought'. In this example we can clearly see that the creators(human) knowledge and logic is greater than the created(computer), and so it shows your initial premis to be false.(this is the logical way in which to debate logical points is it not?)</p><p> </p><p>Do you agree that this is indeed a logicaly sound answer to your acertion?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Sir I made no mention of an = sign in my initial question.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Sir in the field of logical debate there is a term for the response of attacking the person and not the argument, this is called(as I'm sure you know) the fallcy of ad homine. It is well regarded as a sign of weakness of argument.</p><p> </p><p>I have asked you to highlight for me the exact parts of my arguments you find illogical so that we can move forward, would you care to do that?</p><p> </p><p>In an effert to do exactly that(move forward) let me offer you this on your original anogly of the silver screen.</p><p> </p><p>Yes I would expect a film to run exactly the same on each viewing as the film is merley a recording of the actions that have already taken place.</p><p> </p><p>You are lucky sir I work in the TV industry and know a little about the filming proces, so perhaps it would be a better anolgy if we equate the director with God.</p><p> </p><p>During the filming of the scene the director will tell his actors what result he wants, the actors my ask him for further direction 'what is my motivation?' for example, and the director will answer in such a way so as to enable the actor to do his job and give the director the reukst he reqiures. In all of this the actor is still free to ply his craft how he sees fit, the director has not the power to tell the actor his job, only what he wants the end result to be.</p><p> </p><p>The turn of the lip, the body language, the way the actor looks into camera, the inflection on the spoken words, the minute facecial work to convey emotions, these are all real time choices that the actor makes, and in reality the director may film the scene several times, each time the actor acts in a sutbly differant way. The scene is finished and ultimatly when the editing begins the diector also has the choice on just which version of the scene to keep in and which to leave out.</p><p> </p><p>In this anology it is clear to see that actor has choices. The director is interested in the end result, how the actor gets it is up to the actor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lee, post: 121457, member: 1301"] In actual fact sir the questuion I posed was this: 'What is 1 and 1?' Admitedly it is a bit of trickery, but not one that is illogical. The application of some 'deductive reasoning' does indeed render the correct answer. Or do you maintian that all riddles are illogical? The porpouse of it was to counter your claim which paraphrasing was esensitaly that a creators logic cannot contradict the logic of it's creation. I have show here with this question that it is all a question of knowldege. In pure maths the question what is 1 and 1, the computer can only answer 2. This is because the creator(humans) of the computer have not yet programed it with the relevant knowledge to understand the concept of 'latteral thought'. In this example we can clearly see that the creators(human) knowledge and logic is greater than the created(computer), and so it shows your initial premis to be false.(this is the logical way in which to debate logical points is it not?) Do you agree that this is indeed a logicaly sound answer to your acertion? Sir I made no mention of an = sign in my initial question. Sir in the field of logical debate there is a term for the response of attacking the person and not the argument, this is called(as I'm sure you know) the fallcy of ad homine. It is well regarded as a sign of weakness of argument. I have asked you to highlight for me the exact parts of my arguments you find illogical so that we can move forward, would you care to do that? In an effert to do exactly that(move forward) let me offer you this on your original anogly of the silver screen. Yes I would expect a film to run exactly the same on each viewing as the film is merley a recording of the actions that have already taken place. You are lucky sir I work in the TV industry and know a little about the filming proces, so perhaps it would be a better anolgy if we equate the director with God. During the filming of the scene the director will tell his actors what result he wants, the actors my ask him for further direction 'what is my motivation?' for example, and the director will answer in such a way so as to enable the actor to do his job and give the director the reukst he reqiures. In all of this the actor is still free to ply his craft how he sees fit, the director has not the power to tell the actor his job, only what he wants the end result to be. The turn of the lip, the body language, the way the actor looks into camera, the inflection on the spoken words, the minute facecial work to convey emotions, these are all real time choices that the actor makes, and in reality the director may film the scene several times, each time the actor acts in a sutbly differant way. The scene is finished and ultimatly when the editing begins the diector also has the choice on just which version of the scene to keep in and which to leave out. In this anology it is clear to see that actor has choices. The director is interested in the end result, how the actor gets it is up to the actor. [/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