BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,655
lol Sinister ji, you can't be serious!
Anything that can affect the emotional state of man is enough proof of the exitence of the emotional state or what causes the state?
Dead people can cause emotional states, does that mean they still exist?
Fictitous characters can cause emotional states, do they exist?
To cause an emotional state all you need is something to relate to, and this is often something very human'ish.
God = Truth does not create an emotional state, on the other hand, a personal God who takes care of you, is like a father, listens, rewards and punishes, causes many more emotional states than REAL people, sometimes.
I don't think you understand the context in which Sam Harris is criticizing in or maybe you just haven't watched the video.
Higher level physics like bending of space time continuum is based on math. And the mathematical models it uses can be explained (albeit with much difficulty) from smaller concepts. and there are experiments that provide evidence, and support those mathematical concepts. With something like String theory, you don't have evidence. But even string theorists agree that final test of truth will be through experimentation and collection of emprical evidence.
Why not ask following questions as well:
How do we know if he exists? What evidence is there for His existence?
..........................................................................
I don't think the passage you quoted shows that your translation is correct.
I think I'll go with the translations of Sant Singh ji and Manmohan Singh ji.
Sat = true, Nam = name
obviously, I wasn't satisfied with the response before, which is why I brought it up again.
Yes I agree! Let us ask: why does god exist, how could god exist, what is the nature of existence, how do we know if he exists, and what evidence is there for His existence?
I am sure that you all know what my thoughts are on the those questions, yet I am quite curious to know what your thoughts are, because I want to know what devout Sikhs think of those questions.
I am sure that you all know what my thoughts are on the those questions, yet I am quite curious to know what your thoughts are, because I want to know what devout Sikhs think of those questions.
If I recall a conversation was started at this point
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/29504-is-there-a-god.html
which has addressed many of the questions you have raised.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/29504-is-there-a-god.html
which has addressed many of the questions you have raised.
you can go with whatever suits your depiction of reality... cause afterall skeptics are all 'open-minded' right?
but, would you care to explain to me the word "sachkhand"?
or you could just read this out loud to yourself...and then continue to dismiss it.
Sat | Sait | ਸਤਿ
Main article: Sat (Sanskrit)
In Sanskrit, Sat means beingness or existence, not to be confused with its doublet Satya which means truth or validity. Satya is the quest of the philosopher who seeks truth. Satya is a mathematical formula, a man-made calculation; it is logical truth but not existential reality. Sat is eternal.
Guru Nanak challenged and rejected Sanskrit which used to be the language of scholars (Brahmins) who considered themselves as superior communicators and custodian of the teachings of Vedanta. The scholars are still relying more to forcing and finding the origin of Guru's Banee (What Guru speaks) to the rejected expressions, terminologies and vocabularies such as used in Sanskrit. Guru explained the meaning of "Ek-onkar" and "Satnam" in the Guru Granth Sahib as many scholars treat this as a scripture without clearly understanding and following what Guru guides.
God is both Sat and Satya, existence as well as truth. Being both He can neither be fully attained through science, which probes truth, nor through arts, which explores existence. Both are incomplete in their search, because they are directed only towards one half of Him. Where both meet, where the mind and heart meet, religion begins. If the mind overpowers the heart, science is born. If the heart overpowers the mind, the realm of art is entered: poetry, music, song, sculpture. Science and Art are dualities, religion is the synthesis.
Satnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OR
SAT NAM
This is the BIJ (seed) mantra.
SAT means Truth, NAM means Name or Identity.
Translation: "truth is my identity."
MANTRA
OR
if you want to stay local
"ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥
True in the prime, True in the beginning of ages, True He is even now and True He verily, shall be, O Nanak!
So SatNaam is not about eternity of the Lord but realty of His existence. " -pk70 (i actually miss him...cause if he were here i wouldn't have to do all this)
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/14419-what-is-the-meaning-sat-nam.html
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,655
Realm of Truth... still I am not seeing the connection or how to get from there to God = Truth.
There is no need of such remarks Sinister ji.:meditation:
Ok so Sat =/= Satya therefore, Satnam = Existence of Name. This is what I am concluding from the above paragraph. You still have to explain where "Guru explained the meaning of "Ek-onkar" and "Satnam" in the Guru Granth Sahib..."
HOw did you come to this conclusion now? Before you said God is Sat and Sat is not Satya. Where in SGGS does it say God is Satya?
OK 1. you still have to explain how he's both Sat and Satya.
2. What is this mind overpowering heart and vice vera? What does even mean??
Ok, so how does this translate to God = Truth??
No I would argue that Guru Nanak is saying that He has been there for eternity. There is nothing in that passage taht would make you think otherwise. and you haven't provided any other passages that explain.
I have nothing against God = Truth but I still don't know how you get that from SGGS. It is not evident from your post. Maybe it is obvious to you, its not obvious to me
Maybe let someone else try.
I am sorry but that is simply NOT the case. Revisit the thread called "what is the meaning of Sat Nam"... The last link i listed. This will give you better idea of what the meaning of Sat Nam is to various sikhs.
Maybe we should let someone else try, maybe that 'someone else' should be a past version of yourself.
On the 14th of May 2009, you posted;
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/chris...m-a-pantheistic-panentheistic-religion-2.html
but now you are making the case (with albeit, absolute conviction) that the mool mantar does not show any pantheistic qualities. and you make the case now that the traditional construct of god in sikhism, from the mool mantar, is a "creater/being". sorry but sikh and abrahamic construction of god are distinct.
Maybe, just maybe, version 2009 of BhagatSingh ji can tell version 2010 of BhagatSingh ji exactly how the mool mantar "provides nothing to dismiss the claim that sikhism IS pantheistic"...
Maybe we should let someone else try, maybe that 'someone else' should be a past version of yourself.
On the 14th of May 2009, you posted;
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/chris...m-a-pantheistic-panentheistic-religion-2.html
but now you are making the case (with albeit, absolute conviction) that the mool mantar does not show any pantheistic qualities. and you make the case now that the traditional construct of god in sikhism, from the mool mantar, is a "creater/being". sorry but sikh and abrahamic construction of god are distinct.
Maybe, just maybe, version 2009 of BhagatSingh ji can tell version 2010 of BhagatSingh ji exactly how the mool mantar "provides nothing to dismiss the claim that sikhism IS pantheistic"...
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,655
Lol let the new Bhagat Singh who has evolved from the old one tell you this, just because the Mool mantar provides nothing to dismiss the claim doesn't mean Sikhism is pantheistic or has pantheistic elements.
It like saying just because one part of SGGS doesn't talk about God, Sikhism does not believe in God.
Or has elements that don't believe in God.
I was shown to be WRONG. I will be the first to admit that. Sikhism has panENtheistic elements not Pantheistic elements. Narayanjot Kaur ji is an expert on this.
But why are you arguing that Sikhism is pantheistic or has pantheistic elements. Pantheism means God = Nature! God is nothing more than Nature!! lol you are not even being consistent in your argument. How am I supposed to learn like this?? (because that's what I am trying to do)
On top of all that, (here's where I was wrong, I found out after arguing against Tejwant Singh ji's "Creative Energy Hypothesis") I have showed you that Mool mantar stresses attributes like
No fear, No enemity,No hatred, Creative BEING, Beyond Birth. - Sahib Singh ji
creative His personality and immortal His form. - Manmohand Singh ji
These are attributes of a (loving and majestic) personal God and this is clearly reflected in the beliefs of the Sikh community. SGGS actually goes further to build up on this personal God.
Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha. - SGGS, Guru Arjan Dev ji
You are my father, mother, relative and brother.
Here's Guru Ramdas ji and Bhagat Kabir saying the same thing:
Why is God being called a Forgiver?
Why is God being called Almighty? or Giver?
He is not simply Nature or Truth, unless you can show me wrong. He is a personal God.
It like saying just because one part of SGGS doesn't talk about God, Sikhism does not believe in God.
Or has elements that don't believe in God.I was shown to be WRONG. I will be the first to admit that. Sikhism has panENtheistic elements not Pantheistic elements. Narayanjot Kaur ji is an expert on this.
But why are you arguing that Sikhism is pantheistic or has pantheistic elements. Pantheism means God = Nature! God is nothing more than Nature!! lol you are not even being consistent in your argument. How am I supposed to learn like this?? (because that's what I am trying to do)
On top of all that, (here's where I was wrong, I found out after arguing against Tejwant Singh ji's "Creative Energy Hypothesis") I have showed you that Mool mantar stresses attributes like
No fear, No enemity,No hatred, Creative BEING, Beyond Birth. - Sahib Singh ji
creative His personality and immortal His form. - Manmohand Singh ji
These are attributes of a (loving and majestic) personal God and this is clearly reflected in the beliefs of the Sikh community. SGGS actually goes further to build up on this personal God.
Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha. - SGGS, Guru Arjan Dev ji
You are my father, mother, relative and brother.
Here's Guru Ramdas ji and Bhagat Kabir saying the same thing:
Why is God being called a Forgiver?
Why is God being called Almighty? or Giver?
He is not simply Nature or Truth, unless you can show me wrong. He is a personal God.
We are simply apples and oranges but I understand the qualities of what you believe but I do not believe you are making the effort to reach 'communion' with my expressions (this might be the lack of effort on your part or my inability to linguistically ease the challenge):
To clear the muck we have created:
Firstly, I would like to say the belief that God = Truth can be, but is not, being argued to BE pantheism, but qualitatively pantheistic, as well as panentheistic. If you go back and read this discussion…especially post # 46 you will understand, and the entire pent up impasse that has been constructed will dismantle. And, such a belief, that the WORD “god, et. al” is necessary for expressing a particular individuals reality of the understanding of truth would not be rejected but simply objectively understood.
Secondly, nobody has hitherto on this thread (or any other for that matter) said or has come close to saying or even implying that in Sikhism the expression of god is not personal (cause afterall truth is very much a personal matter). What I am trying to say IRRELIGIOUSLY is; (god et. al.)'s linguistic existence is required to create an 'ultimate irreducible holistic expression' because of the inherent belief in the existence of a-priori truth. This is done by a belief that (god et. al) permeates reality as truth (realized or unrealized, a priori or posteriori)...
............
Atheist ji
I am not going to get into a deep intellectual discussion but a shallow one. For sure there is no empirical evidence, outside of the Self, that there is That One which really can hardly be expressed with words.
A path to the truth can be started by a simple question. Why have the most primitive isolated monads (social groups) had the same idea of The Supreme expressed in myth and metaphor? Was a strikingly similar invention made by these isolated primitives around the globe or was there a priori knowledge of this Creator? I believe, there's that word, the latter. There are people who have intimate contact with The Supreme everyday. I think the majority of these people live in India or I would have suggested you endeavor to meet one.
You said "One reason I am atheist is because you cannot simply decree that something IS and have that be your only defense as to why it exists."
You also said "Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief."
I don't think a person who believes in The Supreme needs a "defense" we are merely responding to your inquiry and feel no threat. Also I consider atheism to be a belief because there is no empirical evidence that "God" does not exist as well as there are people who change their belief to that there is "God".
Fundamentally "spirituality" is belief in the unseen. Is there anything you believe in that is unseen?
Always peace
Satyaban
I am not going to get into a deep intellectual discussion but a shallow one. For sure there is no empirical evidence, outside of the Self, that there is That One which really can hardly be expressed with words.
A path to the truth can be started by a simple question. Why have the most primitive isolated monads (social groups) had the same idea of The Supreme expressed in myth and metaphor? Was a strikingly similar invention made by these isolated primitives around the globe or was there a priori knowledge of this Creator? I believe, there's that word, the latter. There are people who have intimate contact with The Supreme everyday. I think the majority of these people live in India or I would have suggested you endeavor to meet one.
You said "One reason I am atheist is because you cannot simply decree that something IS and have that be your only defense as to why it exists."
You also said "Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief."
I don't think a person who believes in The Supreme needs a "defense" we are merely responding to your inquiry and feel no threat. Also I consider atheism to be a belief because there is no empirical evidence that "God" does not exist as well as there are people who change their belief to that there is "God".
Fundamentally "spirituality" is belief in the unseen. Is there anything you believe in that is unseen?
Always peace
Satyaban
Dear Satyaban Ji,
Thank you for your reply. Actually I would be willing to admit that yours is a deep intellectual discussion, after all it is a discussion about human life, philosophy, and questions of the unknown...what could be deeper?
Anyway I am glad you admit that there is no empirical evidence (I have met many christians who say there is, and then the so-called evidence they present is not evidence at all). That perhaps is the first step and separates discussions about god from discussion about, say, cars, restaurants, hotels, and beaches.
So why have the most primitive isolated social groups all come up with the idea of some god? There is a good article on this forum, forgive me I don't remember the link, but it goes through the history of god. And I don't mean to regurgitate, but Professor Richard Dawkins goes into thorough detail exactly why different groups believe in a diety. But isn't it interesting, as he points out, that if you're from India you're likely to be Hindu (statistically), and if you're from the US you're likely to be christian (again statistically but not 100%)? As if your beliefs are a function of geography. And if not geography, then they are a function of whatever faith you happened to by accident be born in. And yes, people do convert, I totally acknowledge that, but by and large the pattern is that of geography or your parents. You can show a map of the world and then label it not by country but by religion and see although there is every religion everywhere, there are huge patterns that we can see and that can't be a total coincidence.
You do bring up a good question - was there an a priori knowledge of this? Perhaps so - but if there is, it could be from evolution. Why? Because our ancestors evolved with that belief and survived, whatever gene(s) respnosible for that type of behavior were passed down (yes that's an oversimplification). Professor Richard Dawkins goes much more in depth to answer your exact question in his fascinating book. Of course I don't just blindly agree with everything he says (I try not to blindly agree with anything), but that's a different topic altogether.
It is human nature, as we can see (and as you pointed out), to believe in a diety, but by itself that doesn't make the deity correct or true. If it were human nature to believe Elvis is still alive, that wouldn't make him alive still. Believing in something does not make it so, even if everyone (or a majority) believes it. After all a christian could say "how is it that so many people in the US believe in Jesus? It must be true since so many of them independently came to the same conclusion." You'd be surprised how many times I've heard that argument. In fact a catholic told me once that homosexuality should be illegal because in this country whatever the majority believes is what happens.
You say that there are people who have intimiate contact with The Supreme everyday. I am trying to broaden my horizon and learn, so agreeably if I were in India I would have loved to share some time with these people to see exactly what goes on when they have such an event. Maybe there are such people in the US too.
I will not ask you to have a "defense" in your belief because as you pointed out you are merely responding to my inquiry and I am pleased that you feel no threat, because that means you are able to have an objective discussion. Once again, when I have discussed things with christians, they get on the defensive and simply end up quoting bible verses. My purpose in all of this again is to learn what your personal reasoning is so that I can better understand the human mind, and in this case, the Sikh mind. My purpose definitely is not to attack, be sarcastic, or confrontational - after all we all have the same goal - to realize the truth. I chose this forum because of my background but also because Sikhs (and perhaps theistic Satanists) tend to discuss things about god differently than the people I grew up with - so it's a learning experience for me as I grew up with very few Sikhs (almost none).
"Also I consider atheism to be a belief because there is no empirical evidence that "God" does not exist as well as there are people who change their belief to that there is "God"."
You are right - there is no empirical evidence that god does not exist. But, there are an infinite number of things for which there is no empirical evidence regarding their existence. These include unicorns, fairies, santa clause, and zeus. You are an a-unicornist right? Because you don't believe that the unicorn exists (at least I hope you don't). But no one says that a-unicornism is a belief do they (otherwise you would have to spend brain power believing that each of those infinite things don't exist)? Of course not, they just simply have no belief in unicorns. Similarly, I just simply have no belief in god. So it (atheism) is lack of belief on the same level that a-unicornism is a lack of belief. In my mind, each have the same probability of existing (very close to, but not equal to 0). It is true that some have gone from atheism to a belief in god. But that doesn't mean atheism was a belief - they simply went from a non-belief to a belief, just like if someone did not believe in unicorns and now they do, they just simply went from a non-belief to a belief. Of course to a Sikh like yourself, I can totally understand unicorns and god cannot be further from each other (after all one is an admitted myth and one is Truth yes?). I can see that and I respect it; my family is Sikh and I too was a believer for the longest time. This is why you don't have to defend your belief - I know why you stick to your belief fundamentally, I am just curious to know the details (ie, some people say it's a personal experience, some say they believe just because they do, some are inspired by the Guru's stories like I am, etc.). My role is definitely not to sit here and try to dissect each reason but rather to see which reasons are most common in Sikhs (and perhaps why they are common, but again definitely not to attack).
"Fundamentally "spirituality" is belief in the unseen. Is there anything you believe in that is unseen?"
I totally agree that even without god there can be a spiritual side to life, and I always encourage my friends to explore spirituality in their own lives. For some, spirituality can be human determinism, emotions, overcoming adversities, setting very lofty goals and acheiving them via hard work, etc. Or it can just be finding a meaning to their own lives. For me spirituality, among other things, is exploring the unknown and having discussions exactly like this one (as well as human determinism, overcoming adversities, etc.).
Is there anything I believe that is unseen? Good question. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything. Everything I believe there is a reason for. For example I can say that I believe that 2+2=4 but that is because there is evidence for it (for example, if I have 2 pies, and I add 2 more pies, I have 4 pies). I believe in apples, oranges, triangles, phones, shrimp, computers, and forearm crutches too. I cannot see the wind, but I can physically feel it. I cannot see music, but I can hear it and we can measure compressions and rarefractions of the air that music creates. I believe in emotions because you can at least make observations (cross-culturally too) regarding facial expressions and various emotions and can use functional MRI's to show what parts of the brain light up during different activities and we can show neurotransmitters that are involved in various brain functions. For me, there needs to be at least some evidence for me to believe in something.
I also must say that there is a difference between the vernacular word belief and the religious word belief. Everyone knows what the vernacular word belief means...for example, I believe that I have a backpack. The religious definition of belief is simply accepting something as the truth regardless of evidence (similar to or perhaps equal to faith). So I like to distinguish the two.
Another thing I'd like to add is that we can prove positives (I can prove that some apples are green), disprove positives (I can disprove the claim that my car has 3 tires only), disprove negative (I can disprove the claim that there are no apples that are green); but we cannot prove negatives. I cannot prove that there is no santa clause, or fairies, or unicorns. I cannot prove there is no god. So technically we are all agnostic in terms of santa clause, fairies, and unicorns, but you will quickly see that in practice we are all a-unicornists (again because there are an infinite number of things that COULD exist). For me, god is in the same category...I could say I have intimate contact with the unicorn everyday, but that would not impress you (and it shouldn't). Similarly, I have doubts when people say they have intimate contact with god, but again I am willing to see this contact if I had the opportunity (I am trying to be open-minded).
Just this morning I was telling my friend that although I am an atheist, if there were evidence for a god, I would totally be interested in exploring it further. Why? Because I am trying to find the truth. If truth = god and if god = truth, then why not?
Thank you for your reply. Actually I would be willing to admit that yours is a deep intellectual discussion, after all it is a discussion about human life, philosophy, and questions of the unknown...what could be deeper?
Anyway I am glad you admit that there is no empirical evidence (I have met many christians who say there is, and then the so-called evidence they present is not evidence at all). That perhaps is the first step and separates discussions about god from discussion about, say, cars, restaurants, hotels, and beaches.
So why have the most primitive isolated social groups all come up with the idea of some god? There is a good article on this forum, forgive me I don't remember the link, but it goes through the history of god. And I don't mean to regurgitate, but Professor Richard Dawkins goes into thorough detail exactly why different groups believe in a diety. But isn't it interesting, as he points out, that if you're from India you're likely to be Hindu (statistically), and if you're from the US you're likely to be christian (again statistically but not 100%)? As if your beliefs are a function of geography. And if not geography, then they are a function of whatever faith you happened to by accident be born in. And yes, people do convert, I totally acknowledge that, but by and large the pattern is that of geography or your parents. You can show a map of the world and then label it not by country but by religion and see although there is every religion everywhere, there are huge patterns that we can see and that can't be a total coincidence.
You do bring up a good question - was there an a priori knowledge of this? Perhaps so - but if there is, it could be from evolution. Why? Because our ancestors evolved with that belief and survived, whatever gene(s) respnosible for that type of behavior were passed down (yes that's an oversimplification). Professor Richard Dawkins goes much more in depth to answer your exact question in his fascinating book. Of course I don't just blindly agree with everything he says (I try not to blindly agree with anything), but that's a different topic altogether.
It is human nature, as we can see (and as you pointed out), to believe in a diety, but by itself that doesn't make the deity correct or true. If it were human nature to believe Elvis is still alive, that wouldn't make him alive still. Believing in something does not make it so, even if everyone (or a majority) believes it. After all a christian could say "how is it that so many people in the US believe in Jesus? It must be true since so many of them independently came to the same conclusion." You'd be surprised how many times I've heard that argument. In fact a catholic told me once that homosexuality should be illegal because in this country whatever the majority believes is what happens.
You say that there are people who have intimiate contact with The Supreme everyday. I am trying to broaden my horizon and learn, so agreeably if I were in India I would have loved to share some time with these people to see exactly what goes on when they have such an event. Maybe there are such people in the US too.
I will not ask you to have a "defense" in your belief because as you pointed out you are merely responding to my inquiry and I am pleased that you feel no threat, because that means you are able to have an objective discussion. Once again, when I have discussed things with christians, they get on the defensive and simply end up quoting bible verses. My purpose in all of this again is to learn what your personal reasoning is so that I can better understand the human mind, and in this case, the Sikh mind. My purpose definitely is not to attack, be sarcastic, or confrontational - after all we all have the same goal - to realize the truth. I chose this forum because of my background but also because Sikhs (and perhaps theistic Satanists) tend to discuss things about god differently than the people I grew up with - so it's a learning experience for me as I grew up with very few Sikhs (almost none).
"Also I consider atheism to be a belief because there is no empirical evidence that "God" does not exist as well as there are people who change their belief to that there is "God"."
You are right - there is no empirical evidence that god does not exist. But, there are an infinite number of things for which there is no empirical evidence regarding their existence. These include unicorns, fairies, santa clause, and zeus. You are an a-unicornist right? Because you don't believe that the unicorn exists (at least I hope you don't). But no one says that a-unicornism is a belief do they (otherwise you would have to spend brain power believing that each of those infinite things don't exist)? Of course not, they just simply have no belief in unicorns. Similarly, I just simply have no belief in god. So it (atheism) is lack of belief on the same level that a-unicornism is a lack of belief. In my mind, each have the same probability of existing (very close to, but not equal to 0). It is true that some have gone from atheism to a belief in god. But that doesn't mean atheism was a belief - they simply went from a non-belief to a belief, just like if someone did not believe in unicorns and now they do, they just simply went from a non-belief to a belief. Of course to a Sikh like yourself, I can totally understand unicorns and god cannot be further from each other (after all one is an admitted myth and one is Truth yes?). I can see that and I respect it; my family is Sikh and I too was a believer for the longest time. This is why you don't have to defend your belief - I know why you stick to your belief fundamentally, I am just curious to know the details (ie, some people say it's a personal experience, some say they believe just because they do, some are inspired by the Guru's stories like I am, etc.). My role is definitely not to sit here and try to dissect each reason but rather to see which reasons are most common in Sikhs (and perhaps why they are common, but again definitely not to attack).
"Fundamentally "spirituality" is belief in the unseen. Is there anything you believe in that is unseen?"
I totally agree that even without god there can be a spiritual side to life, and I always encourage my friends to explore spirituality in their own lives. For some, spirituality can be human determinism, emotions, overcoming adversities, setting very lofty goals and acheiving them via hard work, etc. Or it can just be finding a meaning to their own lives. For me spirituality, among other things, is exploring the unknown and having discussions exactly like this one (as well as human determinism, overcoming adversities, etc.).
Is there anything I believe that is unseen? Good question. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything. Everything I believe there is a reason for. For example I can say that I believe that 2+2=4 but that is because there is evidence for it (for example, if I have 2 pies, and I add 2 more pies, I have 4 pies). I believe in apples, oranges, triangles, phones, shrimp, computers, and forearm crutches too. I cannot see the wind, but I can physically feel it. I cannot see music, but I can hear it and we can measure compressions and rarefractions of the air that music creates. I believe in emotions because you can at least make observations (cross-culturally too) regarding facial expressions and various emotions and can use functional MRI's to show what parts of the brain light up during different activities and we can show neurotransmitters that are involved in various brain functions. For me, there needs to be at least some evidence for me to believe in something.
I also must say that there is a difference between the vernacular word belief and the religious word belief. Everyone knows what the vernacular word belief means...for example, I believe that I have a backpack. The religious definition of belief is simply accepting something as the truth regardless of evidence (similar to or perhaps equal to faith). So I like to distinguish the two.
Another thing I'd like to add is that we can prove positives (I can prove that some apples are green), disprove positives (I can disprove the claim that my car has 3 tires only), disprove negative (I can disprove the claim that there are no apples that are green); but we cannot prove negatives. I cannot prove that there is no santa clause, or fairies, or unicorns. I cannot prove there is no god. So technically we are all agnostic in terms of santa clause, fairies, and unicorns, but you will quickly see that in practice we are all a-unicornists (again because there are an infinite number of things that COULD exist). For me, god is in the same category...I could say I have intimate contact with the unicorn everyday, but that would not impress you (and it shouldn't). Similarly, I have doubts when people say they have intimate contact with god, but again I am willing to see this contact if I had the opportunity (I am trying to be open-minded).
Just this morning I was telling my friend that although I am an atheist, if there were evidence for a god, I would totally be interested in exploring it further. Why? Because I am trying to find the truth. If truth = god and if god = truth, then why not?
Athie ji
That was a rather lengthy response but I will tackle it as best I can.
So why have the most primitive isolated social groups all come up with the idea of some god?
It is not simply the idea of some God it goes much deeper and there are many commonalities which I will not endeavor to cover here but there is a fantastic book, not very long, that explains the matter exquisitely. The book's title is "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, Religion as Myth and Metaphor" written by Joseph Campbell. Mr Campbell was recognized by many as the world's foremost authority of mythical stories and their meanings.
And I don't mean to regurgitate, but Professor Richard Dawkins goes into thorough detail exactly why different groups believe in a deity. But isn't it interesting, as he points out, that if you're from India you're likely to be Hindu (statistically), and if you're from the US you're likely to be christian (again statistically but not 100%)? As if your beliefs are a function of geography
I find nothing remarkable about this. It is nothing more than socialization and family effects similar to becoming a fan of the local professional sporting team. The geography is of location not the nature of the geography such as being coastal etc.
We can use the USA as an example. The majority of people in the US being Christian is a result of the people who came here in the 15th and 16th centuries namely Christians from western Europe plus like minded people tend to congregate.
"Is there anything I believe that is unseen? Good question. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything. Everything I believe there is a reason for. For example I can say that I believe that 2+2=4 but that is because there is evidence for it (for example, if I have 2 pies, and I add 2 more pies, I have 4 pies)."
I can think of a couple examples of unssen things I believe in off the top of my head. I believe in gravity, electricity, magnetism and heat. Why is it in the US space program that the scientists knew that the same amount of thrust would have the same result whether the spacecraft was behind the moon or the far side of Saturn?
Of course to a Sikh like yourself, I can totally understand unicorns and god cannot be further from each other (after all one is an admitted myth and one is Truth yes?). I can see that and I respect it; my family is Sikh and I too was a believer for the longest time. This is why you don't have to defend your belief - I know why you stick to your belief fundamentally, I am just curious to know the details (ie, some people say it's a personal experience, some say they believe just because they do, some are inspired by the Guru's stories like I am, etc.). My role is definitely not to sit here and try to dissect each reason but rather to see which reasons are most common in Sikhs (and perhaps why they are common, but again definitely not to attack).
I am afraid somewhere along the line you have misunderstood me. I am not a Sikh but I do not know if it makes a difference. I was born into a Christian family and practiced it until threw life's experience I was called to a different path. My faith, for lack of a better term is "Hinduism" and I call the Absolute "Siva" and have a deep personal relationship with Lord Siva.
Peace
Satyaban
That was a rather lengthy response but I will tackle it as best I can.
So why have the most primitive isolated social groups all come up with the idea of some god?
It is not simply the idea of some God it goes much deeper and there are many commonalities which I will not endeavor to cover here but there is a fantastic book, not very long, that explains the matter exquisitely. The book's title is "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, Religion as Myth and Metaphor" written by Joseph Campbell. Mr Campbell was recognized by many as the world's foremost authority of mythical stories and their meanings.
And I don't mean to regurgitate, but Professor Richard Dawkins goes into thorough detail exactly why different groups believe in a deity. But isn't it interesting, as he points out, that if you're from India you're likely to be Hindu (statistically), and if you're from the US you're likely to be christian (again statistically but not 100%)? As if your beliefs are a function of geography
I find nothing remarkable about this. It is nothing more than socialization and family effects similar to becoming a fan of the local professional sporting team. The geography is of location not the nature of the geography such as being coastal etc.
We can use the USA as an example. The majority of people in the US being Christian is a result of the people who came here in the 15th and 16th centuries namely Christians from western Europe plus like minded people tend to congregate.
"Is there anything I believe that is unseen? Good question. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything. Everything I believe there is a reason for. For example I can say that I believe that 2+2=4 but that is because there is evidence for it (for example, if I have 2 pies, and I add 2 more pies, I have 4 pies)."
I can think of a couple examples of unssen things I believe in off the top of my head. I believe in gravity, electricity, magnetism and heat. Why is it in the US space program that the scientists knew that the same amount of thrust would have the same result whether the spacecraft was behind the moon or the far side of Saturn?
Of course to a Sikh like yourself, I can totally understand unicorns and god cannot be further from each other (after all one is an admitted myth and one is Truth yes?). I can see that and I respect it; my family is Sikh and I too was a believer for the longest time. This is why you don't have to defend your belief - I know why you stick to your belief fundamentally, I am just curious to know the details (ie, some people say it's a personal experience, some say they believe just because they do, some are inspired by the Guru's stories like I am, etc.). My role is definitely not to sit here and try to dissect each reason but rather to see which reasons are most common in Sikhs (and perhaps why they are common, but again definitely not to attack).
I am afraid somewhere along the line you have misunderstood me. I am not a Sikh but I do not know if it makes a difference. I was born into a Christian family and practiced it until threw life's experience I was called to a different path. My faith, for lack of a better term is "Hinduism" and I call the Absolute "Siva" and have a deep personal relationship with Lord Siva.
Peace
Satyaban
Last edited:
I really admire Satyaban ji your ability to so calmly express perspectives on this question-- issues that tend to get be overwhelmed by veribiage. So clearly and plainly. So adamantly and yet without one note of rancor.
Bhagat Singh ji - I am no expert on panentheism or anything else. But this may surprise you. I do understand that Sikhism to be both theist and panentheist at its core. However, I do not understand Akaal to be a "personal" God, at least not in the ordinary way the term "personal God" is used.
When Guru Nanak says Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha, he is not talking to himself. Neither is he talking to an abstract force, energy or principle of nature. Guru Nanak is talking to someONE.
My question is always, what is the nature of that ONE who is both personal and not personal, compassionate yet detached, nonexistent and self existent, yet in each and every heart... etc.
Bhagat Singh ji - I am no expert on panentheism or anything else. But this may surprise you. I do understand that Sikhism to be both theist and panentheist at its core. However, I do not understand Akaal to be a "personal" God, at least not in the ordinary way the term "personal God" is used.
When Guru Nanak says Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha, he is not talking to himself. Neither is he talking to an abstract force, energy or principle of nature. Guru Nanak is talking to someONE.
My question is always, what is the nature of that ONE who is both personal and not personal, compassionate yet detached, nonexistent and self existent, yet in each and every heart... etc.
Taranjeet singh
SPNer
Respected Narayanjot ji,
I have marked the points as 1 and 2.
I think you are referring to the Tuk @ ang 167.9. Even if not, the following should hold good.
Regarding Sl.1 it is the individual's perspective and understanding of the things as bani speaks to all of us and we understand it as per our comprehension of the things.That God cannot be described, is the basic postulate of sikhi. Hence it shall be difficult for me to imagine that He is either of these.
For the sake of argument and to make the point clear I would say that He is praying and murmuring the above to himself.It shall fit in the entire 'shabad' as well i.e on ang 167.
Regarding Sl.2 it is submitted that when God is unfathomable, inaccessible, incomprehensible [as per bani]and cannot be seen though it is within us. With so many attributes stated clearly I would prefer to leave the matter as it is without further investigation.
Yes, he is compassionate because He takes care of His beings,He inspires us to understand Him,He bestows us with virtues that are the pre-requisites for becoming eligible for His devotional worship and in nutshell does almost everything that leads to Him. He even makes one see the Guru. On the other hand he is detached as He has to do justice to the Karmas of all as per His Hukum.[Only one example is quoted for this.]
As per bani He is self-existent and so He is. How can we understand that entity ourselves that our Gurus have stated to be Incomprehensible. I would go by Guru's wisdom. And I am not sure as to the non-existent part of the God stated in the post. I shall not try to speculate on the matters that are stated very clearly in the bani.
With Regards
Taranjeet
E&OE
curious seeker
SPNer
- Feb 25, 2010
- 138
- 104
- 76
Atheist ji
Where do I begin? Well let me just restrict myself to your 6th point. I beg to differ with you, with all due respect. Atheism means without God, it does not mean you KNOW that we are without God. You cannot KNOW we are without God , because being a materialist you demand physical proofs, and you cannot possibly prove anything material, by any other means than the Scientific Method. So since God, or better the Creator, cannot be reproduced, or falsified , like many other things that definitely do exist, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to God or even to the origins of Creation .
Thus being without physical proof we humans all, atheist, agnostics and theists, must function by evidentiary systems of -proof- but these are not absolute , and we end up with possibilities , probabilities , opinions and, whether you like it or not, beliefs. So in the end yours is a belief system, You believe that there is nothing outside the physical and thus no God , or a lot other things, but the point is that when you say you do not belief, that atheism is not a belief, you mean that you do not believe in God, but you do belie in materialsm so yoiurs is a belief system.
Perhaps my own way of framing the God question might help.
I cannot prove God physically, you cannot disprove Her/Him physically. to say you do not need to prove what you do not believe in does not deny the fact that your opinion , i.e. that God does not exist, cannot be proven. You must hold opinions that to you make the possibility of a creator implausible. While I, as a theist, must hold opinions that make the possibility of a Creator plausible, AND the absence of a Creator implausible. These arguments have raged on for thousands of years. But you see the Theists , at least some theists, have proof of the existence of a Creator that, to them, leaves no doubt and that proof is a personal and earth shaking experience with the Creator.
It is very hard when you are man centered, to even consider the possibility of a Creator with an open mind. I know this very well as I used to be an atheist , and in fact used many of your own arguments and logic. But if you keep your mind open and do not prejudge , you will with an impartial study of all the evidence get to a point where you will have to concede the POSSIBILITY of a Creator.
If the Creator is then possible, that is, he is no longer in the realm of the Pink Unicorn, or the all present Cookie Monster, you can then suspend judgment and seek personal experiential proof . You must do this with a totally open mind and in total sincere honesty. Just take the Mool Mantra and the Jap ji and realize that in order to first experience the spiritual you must suspend the self by putting your will under the Hukam of God's will, Surrender your will to the Creator's command, put yourself under Orders, recognize Our Superior. Then ask the Creator to show you His Grace and Presence . If you are able to do this in sincerity it is my belief, and certainly my own personal experience, that you will have a meeting of the God kind, a meeting that will change your life
Will it physically prove God exists? No You will, however, KNOW that S/He exists and you will not need proof for His existence , any more than you need to prove yourself that there is a sun , or an ocen or flowers or any other thing that is, because you will KNOW HE IS and IS in every thing
Be true to yourself and try it, with all sincerity and humility, you have nothing to loose and everything to gain
Sat Naam
Curious
curious seeker
SPNer
- Feb 25, 2010
- 138
- 104
- 76
Narayanjot ji
I will like to point out that at this stage of the discussion , atheist ji has apparently decided, much like a spolied child, to take his ball and play elsewhere because he did not find your replies to his liking, thus any further discussion , apparently, would be between theists?
Curious
I did not decide like a spoiled child to take my ball and play elsewhere - my job has tremendous demands and I am working on a really big research project that is due soon (so far today I have been up for 8.5 hours and have only eaten a bowl of cereal because I have been working)...sorry...trust me I wish I had a LOT more time to discuss these things...
And I've said many times, I am not trying to be offensive or confrontational, I am merely trying to figure out why people on this forum believe in god for my own curiosity and education. And if in the process I find god, all the better, because I get closer to the truth (let us recall, everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be). I prefer if people on here speak their mind so I know what you're thinking, as that also helps me get closer to the truth, yes?
But if it looks like I am avoiding this forum, it's more of a time issue, not a "I am sick of you guys" issue
And I've said many times, I am not trying to be offensive or confrontational, I am merely trying to figure out why people on this forum believe in god for my own curiosity and education. And if in the process I find god, all the better, because I get closer to the truth (let us recall, everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be). I prefer if people on here speak their mind so I know what you're thinking, as that also helps me get closer to the truth, yes?
But if it looks like I am avoiding this forum, it's more of a time issue, not a "I am sick of you guys" issue
Hello Atheist
Why I believe in God...
Forgive me whilst I divulge why.
I was looking for an answer or an explanation as to why things happened to me. Why for example the the job or person I wanted to be with didn't appear to want me. I wanted to end or at least explain the frustration and dissapointment that can come with life. Those who are always happy are very rare I suppose
I was disgruntled with the Abrahmic God. How can God have a personality with likes and dislike. How could He create me but in the same breath say I was out of His control (free will). How could there be a hell and how can a person be born from a virgin and heal the blind. All this left me rejecting God for many years as not logical.
I need hard logic, even if I don't "get it" the first time and had to keep reading it, at least that is better than plain old acceptance... blind faith. At least dabling in faith was not for "me". I want to know what I get for my money
Likewise the answer must be here somewhere right?So I turned to Indian Philosophy and that gave me some hard logic. :crazy: I didn't necessarily agree with reincarnation for example, but I wasn't going to stop until it fitted in with all the other ideas.
Slowly the parts started to come together and with it I was forced, yes forced, to accept the logic of "God". Not of the abrahmic God with a grey beard burning those who were evil, but that of the SGGS, Waheguru, who is present in everything and everywhere full of love. With personality for those who see the personality and with timeless cosmic permeance for the others.
As to another person's belief, well, I am happy to accept their disbelief as part of the whole. There is no victory in chaning any ones mind... the fallacy lies in believing one can (change their mind).
I hope this is useful.
Respectfully, Ambers
PS; there is no difference between any God, abrahamic, Hindu or Sikh. It is how one explains Her/Him and how one comes to reach that understanding that differes and likewise can be the key or repulsion in the search for truth. I.e. I respect all religions and see no limitation as all paths lead to the goal supreme.
I only want at this point to cull out a few ideas from the last several posts.
Taranjeet ji,
Your comments are very thoughtful May I clarify some ideas that you reacted too? As per the verse Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha, The very fact that God is described as mother, father, brother, in one single verse, suggests to me that Guruji is not referring to the roles of mother, father and brother in the actual world. In the actual world it is materially impossible to be all 3 at the same time. Guruji is describing the all encompassing embrace of the Divine like the embrace of mother, father brother and even more.
I wrote nonexistent and self existent as nonExistent and self existent on purpose, deliberately, to acknowledge that the existence of God is not subject to rules of evidence or methods of scientific inquiry. A God who is self-created would not be the subject of a scientific theory and need not be tested scientifically.
Insisting that the same principles be applied to proof of god as are applied to proof of a scientific principle (example, natural selection) is to use tools of science incorrectly. Why?
Because it is not the business of science to prove anything. The business of science is dis-comfirmation, not verification. And science uses it tools of inquiry to disconfirm theories and hypotheses until all attempts at discomfirmation have failed. Only then will science say that something is "True." Or rather it will say "Not False."
The question Does God Exist cannot be answered scientifically, and a scientist true to his boots, would not insist that His existence be treated as a scientific problem. A different kind of proof is possible, has been discussed elsewhere in the forum, and no one to date has felt it important enough to pursue it.
Something interesting here Josh Schrei: The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended
To curious seeker ji
I agree with you. There are conversations that work better among "theists." Here are some ideas for conversation that might result from this thread.
1. Assume for the sake of argument: The God who created the object of science, the natural universe, is the same God who willed the human intelligence to discover the principles of science that are used to study that universe. Is it likely that science can lead us to the discovery of that God?
There are some interesting nuggets assumed within the problem that would need to be explored on the road to answering the question.
2. Is there a God? Is that the same question as Does God exist?
3. Which phrase is more consistent with theism? "belief in God" or "belief that there is a God."
None of the 3 really should take too much time and space.
Taranjeet ji,
Your comments are very thoughtful May I clarify some ideas that you reacted too? As per the verse Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha, The very fact that God is described as mother, father, brother, in one single verse, suggests to me that Guruji is not referring to the roles of mother, father and brother in the actual world. In the actual world it is materially impossible to be all 3 at the same time. Guruji is describing the all encompassing embrace of the Divine like the embrace of mother, father brother and even more.
I wrote nonexistent and self existent as nonExistent and self existent on purpose, deliberately, to acknowledge that the existence of God is not subject to rules of evidence or methods of scientific inquiry. A God who is self-created would not be the subject of a scientific theory and need not be tested scientifically.
Insisting that the same principles be applied to proof of god as are applied to proof of a scientific principle (example, natural selection) is to use tools of science incorrectly. Why?
Because it is not the business of science to prove anything. The business of science is dis-comfirmation, not verification. And science uses it tools of inquiry to disconfirm theories and hypotheses until all attempts at discomfirmation have failed. Only then will science say that something is "True." Or rather it will say "Not False."
The question Does God Exist cannot be answered scientifically, and a scientist true to his boots, would not insist that His existence be treated as a scientific problem. A different kind of proof is possible, has been discussed elsewhere in the forum, and no one to date has felt it important enough to pursue it.
Something interesting here Josh Schrei: The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended
To curious seeker ji
I agree with you. There are conversations that work better among "theists." Here are some ideas for conversation that might result from this thread.
1. Assume for the sake of argument: The God who created the object of science, the natural universe, is the same God who willed the human intelligence to discover the principles of science that are used to study that universe. Is it likely that science can lead us to the discovery of that God?
There are some interesting nuggets assumed within the problem that would need to be explored on the road to answering the question.
2. Is there a God? Is that the same question as Does God exist?
3. Which phrase is more consistent with theism? "belief in God" or "belief that there is a God."
None of the 3 really should take too much time and space.
Athie ji
When you have the time to I would very much like to see your response to my last post.
Peace
When you have the time to I would very much like to see your response to my last post.
Peace
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
