General Is There A God?

[curious seeker]

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

Hi Atheist ji

Well since you have read enough of one of my posts to pick up on the 'spoiled brat' (sorry!) comment,, why don't you answer my post # 74, seeing that it was addressed to you, please?


Blessings
Curious

 

[curious seeker]

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.

Hello Narayanjot ji

1. Well this one (as I put on my Zoroastrian hat) is easy . God created the Laws of of the Cosmos they are called Asha and in many ways it is almost identical to Hukam. Undoubtedly S/He in Her/His All Wisdom (Mazdaa) has decided to place the thirst for knowledge and curiosity in man's mind and heart , so it follows that it is His/Her will for men to know the Universe.

Further more since S/He is CREATOR S/He has indeed Created the object of man's curiosity and of Science's search, namely, the Universe . Finally Since He is Ahura ah being the Essence of Being itself S/He is indeed present as the very framework of all reality which S/He rules (ra) Being thus Creator and Reality S/He is both transcendent and Immanent (Where have I heard that before)therefore to know the Cosmos is to know Her/Him

Can then Science 'Discover ' God? Sure, but illumined men like Zarathushtra and the Sikh Gurus and perhaps others have long ago discovered the God that IS. Besides I think Science has already begun to discover God , but neither Science ( at least not most Scientists) nor atheist would recognize God or realize Her/Him through empirical facts if God literally came up and bit them, not that S/He would, of course.

2. Hmmm. Either I am incredibly dense , or this question begs the answer Yes and Yes! Of course semantically we can argue over the word God, but the Creator, by whatever name is 'there' and does exist.

3. Again , this has to be yes and yes for me. First you must belief there is or exists a God before you can believe Her/Him. However the moment you believe there is a God your only logical reaction is to want to believe in Him/Her in what S/He stands for, in what S/He teaches. The problem however, and it is a very big problem, is that in order to believe in God in what S/He is, what S/He stands for, what S/He teaches, you have to know what S/He is , What S/He stands for and what S/He teaches

How do you know any such thing? First God cannot possibly be fully known by our limited minds in the brief span of 1 or 1 million lives. Second to fully know what S/He stands for would seem to be equally impossible. and Third and even more difficult is how to know what God teaches considering that there are hundreds and hundreds of belief systems and thousands of interpretations of those systems.

However, I being the eternal optimist that I am do believe we can get to know God in the aspect of His relation towards His Creation fairly well. And this will more than suffice us. We can get to know Him because he has obviously wired us to know Him and, as we have discussed above, has given us the curiosity and desire to know him through Science and religion as well.

Besides we have some rather good guidelines. First I believe the evidence points to us that S/He is a Creator. If that is so S/He has to be transcendent because in order to have created this reality He must first have been beyond and outside it. Second He must be immanent . Because He is Creator, He must have created the Laws of of the Universe and these laws are so immanent in Creation, that there could not be anything existing without these laws of chemistry, physics , biology etc. Without gravity there would not have been planets, stars, galaxies or even atoms, without photosynthesis there would have been no plant life, without Osmosis we could not breath. All these processes are immanent in nature and all these processes are the Laws of the Cosmos which God created

Being Other and the Same God could only have created either by emanation or out of nothing (ex-nihilo) However since all evidence is that God has worked through His laws it seems also obvious that He creates through them and not outside them and an ex-nihilo creation would violate the Laws of Physics ( Apparently)

The more ticklish question is the area of what does S/He teach. There are many and sundry religions, and they all purport to teach about God, there have been many who claim to be seers, saints and prophets with Divine Messages and there are many who have devised complicated traditions and rituals to supposedly express, appease and obey God's will. However upon close examination we can see that all these religions are fundamentally different at some point

1. If God is immanent we must all be the sons and daughters of the Creator. His Message would have to be for all without distinctions or differences. This fact by itself disqualifies many sects of many religions. There cannot be a chosen race, a chosen people, a chosen caste, a chosen gender, etc.

2. If God wants us to know Him, that also disqualifies many religions and sects from following the will and nature of the Creator, because no one that teaches that S/He cannot made himself understood (enough) by His own Creation could possibly believe what is rather obvious that we have been created to know and seek Him Now true there will always be facets of God and of His will that are either unknowable or incomprehensible by creatures. To start out it is impossible to fully know Him and specially so he is transcendent Aspect. But for practical p0urpose we can know enough about God to Discover Him, Believe in Him, Love Him, Serve Him,and Place Ourselves at His Command.

3. Since He wants us to know Him He has endowed us with a discerning intellect, a limited free will capable of informed choice, and a Conscience to enable us to know what is Right (That is His will as expressed by His Law/ Command (Asha/Hukam) and what is wrong. Therefore any teaching that urges us not lean on our understanding, which tells us that we have no free will at all, etc, cannot be accepted as teaching us God's teaching

4. The same applies to religions that sanction harm to other creations , in the form of discrimination, racism, sexism etc. Religions that engage in animal sacrifice and thus in the killing of God's creatures for some, supposedly religious, purpose.

5. The Fact that God has endowed us with a conscience tells us That He is ethical and that unethical behavior cannot be God like. Thus when we read that God orders infanticide, Genocide, the killing, of animals, the killing of infidels. etc, we must steer clear of these things.

6. Furthermore that he gave us discerning intellects, tell us that He is not irrational therefore irrational beliefs, superstitions, contradictory doctrines etc are not the way of God's teachings.

7. His immanence, teaches that He does not need any intermediary when dealing with his creatures . These disqualifies all priesthoods.

There are many such principles that can help us get at what God truly teaches. But I offer a better idea. Look for the only two religions that do not teach rituals , that are against blind traditions , that teach equality of all before God. that condemn idolatry and shun the priesthood.

There are only two in the history of religions. They are, both, either ignored by the powers that be, persecuted (historically so) or opposed on the sly with many weapons but not directly in the light of day but, rather, covertly and in the shadows. You ask which are these two? The Gathic Religion of Zarathushtra Spitama and the Religion of the Disciples of God (Sikhism) and one more and last point. These two, when we get rid of the dross of religiosity that they can accumulate are not religions of man but describe and address the Teaching of God. Interestingly, AND PERHAPS REVEALINGLY, their scriptures are meant to be sung

Ushta te (Divine Light for You
Gurfateh! Curious

 

[spnadmin]

curious seeker ji

Thanks. It was not my intention to give you an extra homework. LOL. I was just replying to your idea that there are conversations which would more properly be about theism among theists.

I am sure that the forum membership appreciates the time you have taken to answer.

 

[Archived_member14]

...............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?

Atheist ji.

You say, “Everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be”.

I’d like to respond to the above, which is tangential to what you are asking, but I hope no one minds that I go into this a bit. It is about what I consider truth and reality.

As I write this, I am aware of some preconceptions influencing my thoughts. These thoughts pertain to the matter of what is truth / reality and what is not. If I wasn’t aware of this and instead went on to simply express whatever that came to mind, could I then be said to ‘know’ the truth? Or would it be an instance at best, of putting forward some concepts and expecting to influence others?

The point I am trying to make is this:

If there is no understanding of what is really going on when thinking about what we think, one can’t be said to ‘know’ the truth. And when there isn’t even an interest in this, how can one ever consider oneself to be ‘seeking’ truth?

In short, truth is either known or it isn’t. Yes, there are degrees of this understanding which can be gradually developed to ever deeper levels. However if one has no inclination to acknowledge even in principle, that the truth pertains to the experience “now”, then one is likely going along with some illusion and not touching upon the matter of truth.

Religion in general encourages people to *believe* in what it puts forward as truth. The result is that some people end up mindlessly following some rite and ritual (including the seemingly useful activity known as ‘meditation’), or else they are involved in projecting into their experiences what they like to see. However religion also talks about the value of such things as kindness, truthfulness, morality, generosity etc. and the harm in greed, pride, envy, hatred and so on. A person sincerely following his religion, who on one hand remains ignorant as to what the truth is, may in spite of this, still on occasion act rightly and therefore said to have gained some good out of his religion.

But can the same be said about science? Science is equally lost with regard to what the ‘truth’ is. It starts with concepts and ends with concepts and its means of investigation involve not one instance of having recognized the truth. But the science person believes otherwise, indeed most of those who believe in religion are also drawn in by the arguments and explanations offered. However when it comes to that which religion correctly teaches about, the person of science who is moral and kind, would have been so not due to his education in science, but in fact any ‘religious’ inclinations that he might have.

In other words, although religion largely misses the point with regard to truth, it however does point out rightly, about the value of good and disadvantages of evil. Science would likely dismiss these as being only relative, having flitted off to pre-conceived ideas one or the other. But for the one who walks the path of goodness, there is no doubt for example, that kindness, morality, compassion and so on are intrinsically valuable and that greed, pride, jealousy, miserliness, aversion etc. are intrinsically undesirable. In this regard hence, the man of religion is on firmer ground and is likely more stable. The person of science in trying to explain consciousness and such things as will, perception, feeling, moral restraint, kindness, generosity, greed, hatred and so on in terms of his acquired knowledge, must necessarily face inner conflict when doing this.

One question for both theist and atheist, ideas about creation, origination of the universe and such, why are these ever important?

 

[Harry Rakhraj]

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've been following the discussion with great interest but have decided to weigh in because of what Satyaban ji said in the above quote, to which I agree.

For 'Atheist' to say "...let us rationally and honestly try to justify the existance(sic) of god." is grossly unfair. Unfair because he calls himself an atheist and NOT an agnostic. Turning the argument on its head, one could as well ask 'Atheist' to justify his belief that god does not exist.

But, as Satyaban ji implies, we don't need to and we don't. I would go one step further and say this: If 'Atheist' would say he's an agnostic,( meaning that he does not deny the existence of god but that he does not know for certain that god does exist), I could respect that. And, maybe join in the main debate/discussion/whatever.

HS Rakhra

 

[spnadmin]

I've been following the discussion with great interest but have decided to weigh in because of what Satyaban ji said in the above quote, to which I agree.

For 'Atheist' to say "...let us rationally and honestly try to justify the existance(sic) of god." is grossly unfair. Unfair because he calls himself an atheist and NOT an agnostic. Turning the argument on its head, one could as well ask 'Atheist' to justify his belief that god does not exist.

But, as Satyaban ji implies, we don't need to and we don't. I would go one step further and say this: If 'Atheist' would say he's an agnostic,( meaning that he does not deny the existence of god but that he does not know for certain that god does exist), I could respect that. And, maybe join in the main debate/discussion/whatever.

HS Rakhra

Agree totally. It is hard to see the logic. To define God in narrow and specific terms, like a straw man in an argument, then to knock down the straw man, is much like rigging a discussion to go in a preferred direction.

Especially today -- when any Sikh who defies the recent edicts of Akal Takht is being declared both an RSS agent and an atheist. This is labeling used to ignite warfare, to marginalize the enemy, to firm up one's following.

The word "atheist" is now being defined according to political agendas and has lost is fundamental meaning. Some proclaim themselves atheists because they subscribe to the theory of evolution in opposition to Christian fundamentalists. Those associated with Rozana Spokesman are accused of being atheists, as are the members of Delhi Gurdwara Management Committee, because they have defied the excommunication of Professor Darshan Singh. Some call their oponents atheists because they do not follow the edicts of Akaal Takht, or they disagree with Makkar, Lamba, and Dasam Granth advocates. Yet others say -- "Oh Yes -- I am an atheist because God has no form. There is no personal god in Sikhism."

So how much of this is labeling and reacting to labels? The word "atheist" has lost its meaning and is being used as a grenade.

 

[Atheist]

Just to let everyone know - I have not fallen off the face of the planet and am not trying to overtly avoid this topic (after all I started it). But I am working now on two research projects, doing my regular work, and have about a million things to do and no time to do them all, hence my recent inability to chime in - nothing personal!

Thanks for everyone's understanding.

 

[curious seeker]

curious seeker ji

Thanks. It was not my intention to give you an extra homework. LOL. I was just replying to your idea that there are conversations which would more properly be about theism among theists.

I am sure that the forum membership appreciates the time you have taken to answer.

Narayanjot ji

I am sorry if my answer was too extensive I rather be extensive than misunderstood, but I realize that I might sometimes go beyond the direct answer, sorry. I have no idea that you are giving me extra work, first you can do no such thing and second I am volunteering my infornation. But if you believe my replies are too long, please let me know I won't be offended.

Anyway do you have any comments on the points I addressed? I mean they were your points/questions

May we all realize Sat Guru!
Curious

 

[spnadmin]

curious seeker ji

As I said -- the forum appreciates the time you have taken to answer my questions. The more elaboration one can give on any theme the richer the material that we have to offer them.

I do feel disconcerted, even sad, if my questions made you feel you had to expound. But you say that you took on the answers willingly. So that makes me feel much better.

As for reactions to your answers. My personal reaction is that I agree with your focus and your analysis. Lately I find that our perspectives are aligned. Having said that -- well -- that is one theist talking to another theist. Your reply does portray theism as a continuum of religious experiences -- more or less likely to emphasize a duality of "mankind" and God, and a sense of immanence in His Creation. That is how I also see theism -- not a monolithic experience at all -- but one in which there are a variety views regarding how the I/Thou relationship is bridged or whether it is an I/Thou relationship at all.

I may need to add to my answer and probably will, since I have already added to it in the past few minutes. My way of thinking things through is to figure out what my mental image is, and describe that. Then go in to speak to specifics.

 

[curious seeker]

...............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?

Atheist ji.

You say, “Everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be”.

I’d like to respond to the above, which is tangential to what you are asking, but I hope no one minds that I go into this a bit. It is about what I consider truth and reality.

As I write this, I am aware of some preconceptions influencing my thoughts. These thoughts pertain to the matter of what is truth / reality and what is not. If I wasn’t aware of this and instead went on to simply express whatever that came to mind, could I then be said to ‘know’ the truth? Or would it be an instance at best, of putting forward some concepts and expecting to influence others?

The point I am trying to make is this:

If there is no understanding of what is really going on when thinking about what we think, one can’t be said to ‘know’ the truth. And when there isn’t even an interest in this, how can one ever consider oneself to be ‘seeking’ truth?

In short, truth is either known or it isn’t. Yes, there are degrees of this understanding which can be gradually developed to ever deeper levels. However if one has no inclination to acknowledge even in principle, that the truth pertains to the experience “now”, then one is likely going along with some illusion and not touching upon the matter of truth.

Religion in general encourages people to *believe* in what it puts forward as truth. The result is that some people end up mindlessly following some rite and ritual (including the seemingly useful activity known as ‘meditation’), or else they are involved in projecting into their experiences what they like to see. However religion also talks about the value of such things as kindness, truthfulness, morality, generosity etc. and the harm in greed, pride, envy, hatred and so on. A person sincerely following his religion, who on one hand remains ignorant as to what the truth is, may in spite of this, still on occasion act rightly and therefore said to have gained some good out of his religion.

But can the same be said about science? Science is equally lost with regard to what the ‘truth’ is. It starts with concepts and ends with concepts and its means of investigation involve not one instance of having recognized the truth. But the science person believes otherwise, indeed most of those who believe in religion are also drawn in by the arguments and explanations offered. However when it comes to that which religion correctly teaches about, the person of science who is moral and kind, would have been so not due to his education in science, but in fact any ‘religious’ inclinations that he might have.

In other words, although religion largely misses the point with regard to truth, it however does point out rightly, about the value of good and disadvantages of evil. Science would likely dismiss these as being only relative, having flitted off to pre-conceived ideas one or the other. But for the one who walks the path of goodness, there is no doubt for example, that kindness, morality, compassion and so on are intrinsically valuable and that greed, pride, jealousy, miserliness, aversion etc. are intrinsically undesirable. In this regard hence, the man of religion is on firmer ground and is likely more stable. The person of science in trying to explain consciousness and such things as will, perception, feeling, moral restraint, kindness, generosity, greed, hatred and so on in terms of his acquired knowledge, must necessarily face inner conflict when doing this.

One question for both theist and atheist, ideas about creation, origination of the universe and such, why are these ever important?

Confused ji

Creation is central to theism and its validity. If there is a creator, then the whole ethical situation changes radically, we are placed in subordinate position to an entity that must be greater than us, and that, clearly, its greater in power and and knowledge. In fact man is faced with two undeniable and self evident everyday realities about his material surroundings and his own self. One everything is temporal, unlasting, ever changing and involves both plain and pleasure. Two, man lacks knowledge and is mired in ignorance and must accumulate knowledge, both individually and as a race.

These, above, are self evident truths, what are not so quite as clear are other things that we consider true, such as, self, free choice, conscience and predispositions. These might or might not be phenomena that are true or not true. They are basically semantic and mental constructs that we create which many or may not reflect a deeper reality that we have no complete and exact knowledge of.

If there is creator then ethics has an objective and absolute aspect and life would have some sort of ultimate purpose, independent of our will and our desires. Also if there is a Creator, then our logic and common sense are validated, since it is clear that all that we can observe has an origin and a cause. Moreover if there is a creator then atheism and agnosticicim have no validity.

On the other hand if there is no creator we are simply the products of an intelligence that is infused in the very fabric of reality and that just simply IS, taking different forms for unknown reasons. OR there is nothing but chemical, biological and physical interactions that through time and chance have produced what is. Both these poissibilities give no Objective purpose and grounding to ethics which then becomes strictly situational; and subjective.

That is the importance of a Creator in my opinion. As an aside from our present, and foreseeable positions, as a race we lack enough knowledge to prove or disprove the Atheist or the Theist, on strictly logical and empirical grounds. However, the Theist can attain intimate and undeniable proof and knowledge of a Creator through a personal experience with Deity. An experiemce so powerful and overwhelming that it cannot be denied. (For the one who is experiencing it of course)

Divine Light for Us
Curious

 

[spnadmin]

curious seeker ji

Back with some specific notes as I predicted. However first I want to affirm the ideas you expressed just above.

curious seeker to Confused ji

Creation is central to theism and its validity. If there is a creator, then the whole ethical situation changes radically, we are placed in subordinate position to an entity that must be greater than us, and that, clearly, its greater in power and and knowledge. In fact man is faced with two undeniable and self evident everyday realities about his material surroundings and his own self. One everything is temporal, unlasting, ever changing and involves both plain and pleasure. Two, man lacks knowledge and is mired in ignorance and must accumulate knowledge, both individually and as a race.

My reaction: In this paragraph you are laying the foundation for understanding the moral dilemma of each and every one of us, to see ourselves as moral beings capable of ethical action in spite of the reality of our limitations, including that we are fundamentally powerless in the face of something greater, temporary and lacking in knowledge. In other words we are fundamentally ignorant and powerless, yet we want to believe that we have ethical natures.

ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਖੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਅਪਣਾ ਜਿਉ ਤਿਸ ਦੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ॥
kar kar dhaekhai keethaa apanaa jio this dhee vaddiaaee ||
Having created the creation, He Himself watches over it, as it pleases His Greatness.

ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋਈ ਕਰਸੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਨ ਕਰਣਾ ਜਾਈ ॥
jo this bhaavai soee karasee fir hukam n karanaa jaaee ||
Whatever pleases Him, that is what He does. No one can issue any commands to Him.
....
curious seeker to Confused ji That is the importance of a Creator in my opinion. As an aside from our present, and foreseeable positions, as a race we lack enough knowledge to prove or disprove the Atheist or the Theist, on strictly logical and empirical grounds. However, the Theist can attain intimate and undeniable proof and knowledge of a Creator through a personal experience with Deity. An experiemce so powerful and overwhelming that it cannot be denied. (For the one who is experiencing it of course)

My reaction: And this same Creator who we believe lays a path of ethical action (dharma or the path of righteousness ) before us cannot be known through strictly logical or empirical processes of mind. So we bow before Him who has made us into moral beings and we do not know who He is.
Divine Light for Us

Yet I think this saloka captures that - We are subservient yet He does not treat us like slave but rather makes us into more than his puppets.

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
salok ma 1 ||
Shalok, First Mehl:


ਬਲਿਹਾਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਉਹਾੜੀ ਸਦ ਵਾਰ ॥
balihaaree gur aapanae dhiouhaarree sadh vaar ||
A hundred times a day, I am a sacrifice to my Guru;


ਜਿਨਿ ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਕੀਏ ਕਰਤ ਨ ਲਾਗੀ ਵਾਰ ॥੧॥
jin maanas thae dhaevathae keeeae karath n laagee vaar ||1||
He made angels out of men, without delay. ||1|


I think I get the point finally of this couplet. It is profound.

Curious

Now to your earlier remarks to me. Yes, I take these points to be true and they make more sense when placed in touch with your recent explanation that God is an ethical being. For now points 1, 2 and 6 have immediate connections with Gurbani.

1. If God is immanent we must all be the sons and daughters of the Creator. His Message would have to be for all without distinctions or differences. This fact by itself disqualifies many sects of many religions. There cannot be a chosen race, a chosen people, a chosen caste, a chosen gender, etc.

Any artifice that divides one from the other divides man from God.

2. If God wants us to know Him, that also disqualifies many religions and sects from following the will and nature of the Creator, because no one that teaches that S/He cannot made himself understood (enough) by His own Creation could possibly believe what is rather obvious that we have been created to know and seek Him Now true there will always be facets of God and of His will that are either unknowable or incomprehensible by creatures. To start out it is impossible to fully know Him and specially so he is transcendent Aspect. But for practical p0urpose we can know enough about God to Discover Him, Believe in Him, Love Him, Serve Him,and Place Ourselves at His Command.

The mark on the forehead of siblings of destiny - to borrow from Guru Nanak - is to seek the Inner Knower. That is one way to know our own belief in God, though we may not know God completely. From Sohila,

ਤੇਰੇ ਦਾਨੈ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਦਾਤੇ ਕਵਣੁ ਸੁਮਾਰੁ ॥੨॥
thaerae dhaanai keemath naa pavai this dhaathae kavan sumaar ||2||
Your Gifts cannot be appraised; how can anyone compare to the Giver? ||2||


ਸੰਬਤਿ ਸਾਹਾ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਮਿਲਿ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਵਹੁ ਤੇਲੁ ॥
sanbath saahaa likhiaa mil kar paavahu thael ||
The day of my wedding is pre-ordained. Come, gather together and pour the oil over the threshold.


ਦੇਹੁ ਸਜਣ ਅਸੀਸੜੀਆ ਜਿਉ ਹੋਵੈ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿਉ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੩॥
dhaehu sajan aseesarreeaa jio hovai saahib sio mael ||3||
My friends, give me your blessings, that I may merge with my Lord and Master. ||3||


ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਏਹੋ ਪਾਹੁਚਾ ਸਦੜੇ ਨਿਤ ਪਵੰਨਿ ॥
ghar ghar eaeho paahuchaa sadharrae nith pavann ||
Unto each and every home, into each and every heart, this summons is sent out; the call comes each and every day.
ਸਦਣਹਾਰਾ ਸਿਮਰੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇ ਦਿਹ ਆਵੰਨਿ ॥੪॥੧॥
sadhanehaaraa simareeai naanak sae dhih aavann ||4||1||
Remember in meditation the One who summons us; O Nanak, that day is drawing near! ||4||1||


6. Furthermore that he gave us discerning intellects, tell us that He is not irrational therefore irrational beliefs, superstitions, contradictory doctrines etc are not the way of God's teachings.

Though the mind can act as a snare, and lead us away from God through intellectualization, cynicism and cleverness, God seems to be saying that He gave us an intellect, and when it is informed or tamed by consciousness of His immanence within creation, then we achieve wisdom or budhh. Also Guru Nanak,

ਬੁਧਿ ਵਿਸਰਜੀ ਗਈ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਗਣ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
budhh visarajee gee siaanap kar avagan pashhuthaae ||
Your intellect left you, your wisdom departed, and now you repent for the evil deeds you committed.


ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀ ਤੀਜੈ ਪਹਰੈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਚੇਤਹੁ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥੩॥
kahu naanak praanee theejai peharai prabh chaethahu liv laae ||3||
Says Nanak, O mortal, in the third watch of the night, let your consciousness be lovingly focused on God. ||3||

Just some reactions to your comments. I have not yet addressed a left over philosophical issue. Are these two questions asking the same thing: Is there a God? Does God exist? I don't believe they are the same, and will get back when i can.

Far from their difference being only a matter of semantics, I think they ask about the difference between Being and Existence.

 

[Atheist]

Dear Satyaban,

I now have some time to respond to the passage you wanted me to respond to. Your responses will be in blue.

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.

Commonalities does not make it true. Consider the shape of the earth. A long time ago, there were LOTS of commonalities regarding the shape of the earth and the "belief" was that it was flat. No matter how much commonality there was, the belief that the earth is flat was simply wrong. You cannot use commonality as a justification for something being true, as is evidenced by the flat earth belief. Of course, there actually is a Flat Earth Society. Are they right just because hundreds of years ago there was lots of commonality with their belief that the earth is flat? Of course not. Similarly, one cannot say god must exist because there is so much commonality amongst different people that say god exists.

The book "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, Religion as Myth and Metaphor" of course sounds intriguing and when my life/work is less hectic it would be something to consider.

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.

I agree completely. I was being sarcastic, I too find nothing "remarkable" about it - it is just socialization! So how can it be true?? If people in a particular area believe that Ohio State is the best basketball team, that doesn't make it true does it? No matter how much they may believe it. Of course, it COULD be the best team, after all one team has to be the best, but it is not simply because it was believed to be. So just like socialization may make someone think Ohio State is the best basketball team, so has, as you pointed out correclty, that socialization leads to people believing certain things - again that does NOT make it correct.

It is NOT a function of geography at all, that is just a satire on religion. If you are born in India, there is about an 80% (yes give or take) chance or so you will be Hindu stastically. It has nothing to do with India's soil or the longitude/lattitude of India, it is simply that chances are your parents would be Hindu too. Nothing remarkable, just an observation of socialization. Again, socialization does not make it true, it just explains why so many people from India are Hindu. Same with god - it can be socialization but that doesn't make it so.

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.

Again, I agree completely. There is nothing inherently "christian" about the location of the US on this planet. It has to do with as you said the people who came here in the 15th and 16th centuries. Those people raised their kids to be christian and the chain continued. So I agree it's not really a function of geography, that's just a way to show how absurd it is for people to believe in something JUST BECAUSE their parents do - admitedly not everyone does that almost all christians I have met do that.

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.

Let us start with gravity. It is true we cannot "see" it. Our eyes are only sensitive to the electromagnetic spectrum, and at that only a very, VERY small portion of it. So anything that exists outside of this spectrum will be unseen. Music for example cannot be seen yet we know it exists. Not to take your passage too literally, let's say that our 5 senses are only sensitive to certain things (nose and scent for example). We cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste gravity like you can a mango. But it exists and we know this because there is actual sound, scientific objective evidence for it. We can even quantify it - the gravitational/acceleration constant is 9.8 meters per second squared on this planet (in most places on this planet). An actual number that quantifies the behavior of gravity truly shows that it exists - yet we cannot see it. But this is a far cry from god who we also cannot see.

Now let us take electricity. None of our five senses are sensitive to electricity (unless you ask someone who has been electrocuted). But suppose you have not been electrocuted. Still there is sound, scientific data that has been able to create rechargeable batteries. If eletricity did not exist and we had no data about it, we would never have been able to make these. We can see the battery but not the electrical charge - but that does not mean the charge does not exist because there is evidence that it does exist.

Now let us take heat. We can feel heat. We have receptors in our skin for temperature. We also have separate receptors for light touch, pressure, sharp, and pain. In fact, with a specific lesion, someone can feel pressure but not sharpness because they are different receptors. We know that heat is caused by an increase in energy in an object. So although we cannot "see" heat we know it exists based on evidence. Any concept, including god, should not be immune from this. Just because we cannot see god does not mean god does or does not exist - either way, at least a modicum of evidence is required.

Our ears can hear stuff, but they cannot hear certain pitches because our ears are simply not sensitive to those pitches. That does not mean those pitches don't exist - for there is evidence that they do exist. So again, evidence. We cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god (and anyone who claims they hear voices in their and it is really god is generally considered insane - I have seen such people). Ok, let us give god the benefit of the doubt. Not being able to sense god does not mean he does not exist. So then it comes to evidence - there is evidence for gravity, heat, and electricity.

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.

I apologize for calling you something that you are not. I of course am quite pleased that you decided to reject christianity and were enlightened. In either case, I realize that a unicorn is not the same as god to you because I too was a theist.

Main points:
1) Believing in something does not make it so
2) Generally people believe what their parents (and yes friends, media, etc.) do - you of course are a notable and wise exception. But the general pattern still holds, otherwise year after year India would not be so heavily Hindu
3) Our 5 senses are only sensitive to certain things. Those things that fall outside of that cannot be sensed by us, but that does not mean it doesn't exist - on the other hand, it does not meant it DOES exist - it needs at least some evidence.
4) Commonalities does not make something true. There is a flat earth society still around, but it would be absurd to suggest they are right just because they hold so much commonality between almost everyone several centuries ago

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Atheist ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have a request to make to you.

It is clear to you now that Ik Ong Kaar is not the "God" you have a disbelief in.

Allow me to refresh you memory not that you have a short memory span but as you mentioned that you are a bit busy with your work.

When you started this thread, I asked you to define Ik Ong Kaar according to Mool Mantar. Despite my many urgings, you refused to do that and avoided my pleas for the reasons only known to you.

Finally, I used your own words to show you what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi.

Following is our little interaction, your words are in quotes:

Does atheism make me believe in energy? No.

Good, because it is not a belief but a fact as I said in my earlier post.

Energy of course is, as you say, formless, genderless, and timeless

That is exactly what Mool Mantar describes Ik Ong Kaar is. I wish you had studied it as were urged to.

So, in your further discussion about your non-belief, please have the courtesy to create a distinction between the "God" you have a non-belief in and Ik Ong Kaar which you have not done in all your posts after our interaction and in each and every post have tried to lump all gods together. Whether is it a deliberate attempt to create some kind of agenda or not? I have no idea.

But as you said you are also a truth seeker like Sikhi teaches us to be. Hence, truthful living demands that from you.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[curious seeker]

curious seeker ji

Back with some specific notes as I predicted. However first I want to affirm the ideas you expressed just above.

Now to your earlier remarks to me. Yes, I take these points to be true and they make more sense when placed in touch with your recent explanation that God is an ethical being. For now points 1, 2 and 6 have immediate connections with Gurbani.

1. If God is immanent we must all be the sons and daughters of the Creator. His Message would have to be for all without distinctions or differences. This fact by itself disqualifies many sects of many religions. There cannot be a chosen race, a chosen people, a chosen caste, a chosen gender, etc.

Any artifice that divides one from the other divides man from God.

2. If God wants us to know Him, that also disqualifies many religions and sects from following the will and nature of the Creator, because no one that teaches that S/He cannot made himself understood (enough) by His own Creation could possibly believe what is rather obvious that we have been created to know and seek Him Now true there will always be facets of God and of His will that are either unknowable or incomprehensible by creatures. To start out it is impossible to fully know Him and specially so he is transcendent Aspect. But for practical p0urpose we can know enough about God to Discover Him, Believe in Him, Love Him, Serve Him,and Place Ourselves at His Command.

The mark on the forehead of siblings of destiny - to borrow from Guru Nanak - is to seek the Inner Knower. That is one way to know our own belief in God, though we may not know God completely. From Sohila,

ਤੇਰੇ ਦਾਨੈ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਦਾਤੇ ਕਵਣੁ ਸੁਮਾਰੁ ॥੨॥
thaerae dhaanai keemath naa pavai this dhaathae kavan sumaar ||2||
Your Gifts cannot be appraised; how can anyone compare to the Giver? ||2||


ਸੰਬਤਿ ਸਾਹਾ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਮਿਲਿ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਵਹੁ ਤੇਲੁ ॥
sanbath saahaa likhiaa mil kar paavahu thael ||
The day of my wedding is pre-ordained. Come, gather together and pour the oil over the threshold.


ਦੇਹੁ ਸਜਣ ਅਸੀਸੜੀਆ ਜਿਉ ਹੋਵੈ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿਉ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੩॥
dhaehu sajan aseesarreeaa jio hovai saahib sio mael ||3||
My friends, give me your blessings, that I may merge with my Lord and Master. ||3||


ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਏਹੋ ਪਾਹੁਚਾ ਸਦੜੇ ਨਿਤ ਪਵੰਨਿ ॥
ghar ghar eaeho paahuchaa sadharrae nith pavann ||
Unto each and every home, into each and every heart, this summons is sent out; the call comes each and every day.
ਸਦਣਹਾਰਾ ਸਿਮਰੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇ ਦਿਹ ਆਵੰਨਿ ॥੪॥੧॥
sadhanehaaraa simareeai naanak sae dhih aavann ||4||1||
Remember in meditation the One who summons us; O Nanak, that day is drawing near! ||4||1||


6. Furthermore that he gave us discerning intellects, tell us that He is not irrational therefore irrational beliefs, superstitions, contradictory doctrines etc are not the way of God's teachings.

Though the mind can act as a snare, and lead us away from God through intellectualization, cynicism and cleverness, God seems to be saying that He gave us an intellect, and when it is informed or tamed by consciousness of His immanence within creation, then we achieve wisdom or budhh. Also Guru Nanak,

ਬੁਧਿ ਵਿਸਰਜੀ ਗਈ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਗਣ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
budhh visarajee gee siaanap kar avagan pashhuthaae ||
Your intellect left you, your wisdom departed, and now you repent for the evil deeds you committed.


ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀ ਤੀਜੈ ਪਹਰੈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਚੇਤਹੁ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥੩॥
kahu naanak praanee theejai peharai prabh chaethahu liv laae ||3||
Says Nanak, O mortal, in the third watch of the night, let your consciousness be lovingly focused on God. ||3||

Just some reactions to your comments. I have not yet addressed a left over philosophical issue. Are these two questions asking the same thing: Is there a God? Does God exist? I don't believe they are the same, and will get back when i can.

Far from their difference being only a matter of semantics, I think they ask about the difference between Being and Existence.

Narayanjot ji

Excellent response! In 1 as elsewhere I insist on pointing out something that I have come to see as an unavoidable truth. Namely all faiths are not the same some are closer to the truth than others and some have deviated so far from their origins that they are , at present, not good instruments to seek God.

On 6 what you state is precisely right by me. True we can use our intellects for other than edifying purposes, but again, if we go back to Nanak's foremost principle , in my opinion, which is to be centered on God and His purpose , His will , our intellect can be a powerful instrument in separating the dross from the gold. To put in other words maya can affect all of us. When we use our God given faculties to seek tthe Creator and His purpose, then maya is put aside and we can think and see clearly.

As to God existance and being. In a way they are the same and in a way you are right they are not quite the same. However, if god exists, then He has to be the ground for being and existence because He is Creator, don't you think?

Divine Light for You
Curious

 

[curious seeker]

Atheist Ji

You have answered two others since I last posyed to you and requested that you addressed my post # 74. I don't want to push, since you are busy but, can you please answer that post?

Sat Sri Akal
Curious

 

[Sinister]

Atheist Ji

You have answered two others since I last posyed to you and requested that you addressed my post # 74. I don't want to push, since you are busy but, can you please answer that post?

Sat Sri Akal
Curious

I would like to add to post #74 and partially respond...as an agnostic.

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.

Logically we cannot prove anything physical with the scientific method, Physicists know this (because even the brightest minds who study the nature of matter have not reduced it to any irreducible piece that can be conceptualized or expressed in Euclidean or non-Euclidean Mathematics). The atomic structure of matter is nothing more than a belief. A materialist’s entire existence is based upon the belief in the existence of matter, whose very nature, in turn, they do not fully comprehend.

Forget matter, even the nature of dimensional space cannot be properly conceptualized by self-proclaimed atheists. If you were to sit here and try to communicate non-Euclidean Geometry to them, they would literally, change their stances of something as simple as their perception of dimensional space (considered the most elementary ‘tangible’ perception).

what this has to do with god?...it just shows what mental midgets we are when it comes to expressing "beliefs" (be they atheist or theistic). Any expression of certainty requires belief, regardless of who you are.

 

[spnadmin]

As to God existance and being. In a way they are the same and in a way you are right they are not quite the same. However, if god exists, then He has to be the ground for being and existence because He is Creator, don't you think?

Divine Light for You
Curious

Not exactly Curious Seeker ji

It is the end of a long day for me so I hope that I don't muddle this up.

In your sentence you intertwine concepts of being and existence in a kind of parabolic relationship. You are saying

1. His existence entails his being
" However, if god exists, then He has to be the ground for being and existence " In other words His existence leads us to conclude His being.

2. and His being entails His existence.

"He has to be the ground for being and existence because He is Creator," In other words, His being leads us to conclude His existence.

You could be right.

I am looking at the problem of God's existence, as a problem, from a different angle. You have posited in the second part of your sentence that He is the Creator. You are asking, How can something "be" without also "existing?"

So if we were discussing ontological proofs of God that would be fine. Some omnipotent and creative principle must be true and therefore our goal is to show that the claim There is a God is both logical and true. Or to put it another way, Let's posit that there is a God, and then prove His existence by way of His immanence in all of His Creation.

But the challenge theists confront is not that.

If one rejects He is as the starting point, in other words if one rejects that "some omnipotent and creative principle must be true" then empirical empirical proofs for God's existence are not possible. The question, Does God exist, asked as a stand-alone question, can be answered very simply. No God does not exist. Questions about existence do not depend on assumptions that are taken to be true in and of themselves.

However, the question, Is there a God, cannot be dismissed so quickly because it is asking about "being" and not about "existence." There are many things in the realm of "being" that simply "are" and we accept them as true without direct evidence. For example gravity "is" yet we can prove that it is true only by inference, from its effects. No direct evidence is given.

I think that Guru Nanak the philosopher was telling us that God is a self-evident truth. Sat Nam - You are Truth, Truth is your Identity. You are timeless and You pervade everything. You are Self-existent and Self-created. And You move everything By Your Grace.

He makes no attempt to prove this. God is the premise not the conclusion for Guru Nanak.

Because mool mantar comes before all other Gurbani, it is unequivocal that Ik Oan Kar is the premise for Guru Nanak, a first principle from which all other organizing principles of the universe evolve. From and upon this one Truth all other truths are found. Like gravity, His Truth is known through His effects on creation. His immanence in creation is what we discover. And our buddh is required to make these discoveries.

 

[curious seeker]

I would like to add to post #74 and partially respond...as an agnostic.



Logically we cannot prove anything physical with the scientific method, Physicists know this (because even the brightest minds who study the nature of matter have not reduced it to any irreducible piece that can be conceptualized or expressed in Euclidean or non-Euclidean Mathematics). The atomic structure of matter is nothing more than a belief. A materialist’s entire existence is based upon the belief in the existence of matter, whose very nature, in turn, they do not fully comprehend.

Forget matter, even the nature of dimensional space cannot be properly conceptualized by self-proclaimed atheists. If you were to sit here and try to communicate non-Euclidean Geometry to them, they would literally, change their stances of something as simple as their perception of dimensional space (considered the most elementary ‘tangible’ perception).

what this has to do with god?...it just shows what mental midgets we are when it comes to expressing "beliefs" (be they atheist or theistic). Any expression of certainty requires belief, regardless of who you are.

Sinister ji

You are right , but I was restraining myself to Newtonian physics and granting the scientific method the ability to proof certain things like the boiling point of water, for example. This was just to give the materialist a bone. It still it does not matter he still cannot apply physical, materialist tests of proof to absrtract concepts.

Anyway your points are well taken.
Divine Light for You
Curious

 

[curious seeker]

Not exactly Curious Seeker ji

It is the end of a long day for me so I hope that I don't muddle this up.

In your sentence you intertwine concepts of being and existence in a kind of parabolic relationship. You are saying

1. His existence entails his being
" However, if god exists, then He has to be the ground for being and existence " In other words His existence leads us to conclude His being.

2. and His being entails His existence.

"He has to be the ground for being and existence because He is Creator," In other words, His being leads us to conclude His existence.

You could be right.

I am looking at the problem of God's existence, as a problem, from a different angle. You have posited in the second part of your sentence that He is the Creator. You are asking, How can something "be" without also "existing?"

So if we were discussing ontological proofs of God that would be fine. Some omnipotent and creative principle must be true and therefore our goal is to show that the claim There is a God is both logical and true. Or to put it another way, Let's posit that there is a God, and then prove His existence by way of His immanence in all of His Creation.

But the challenge theists confront is not that.

If one rejects He is as the starting point, in other words if one rejects that "some omnipotent and creative principle must be true" then empirical empirical proofs for God's existence are not possible. The question, Does God exist, asked as a stand-alone question, can be answered very simply. No God does not exist. Questions about existence do not depend on assumptions that are taken to be true in and of themselves.

However, the question, Is there a God, cannot be dismissed so quickly because it is asking about "being" and not about "existence." There are many things in the realm of "being" that simply "are" and we accept them as true without direct evidence. For example gravity "is" yet we can prove that it is true only by inference, from its effects. No direct evidence is given.

I think that Guru Nanak the philosopher was telling us that God is a self-evident truth. Sat Nam - You are Truth, Truth is your Identity. You are timeless and You pervade everything. You are Self-existent and Self-created. And You move everything By Your Grace.

He makes no attempt to prove this. God is the premise not the conclusion for Guru Nanak.

Because mool mantar comes before all other Gurbani, it is unequivocal that Ik Oan Kar is the premise for Guru Nanak, a first principle from which all other organizing principles of the universe evolve. From and upon this one Truth all other truths are found. Like gravity, His Truth is known through His effects on creation. His immanence in creation is what we discover. And our buddh is required to make these discoveries.

Narayanjot ji

I grant you the point, however I do not believe it is possible to physically proof God to be , anymore than you can prove he exists. In other words, if I did not believe God is, then while I must confess that all sorts things are accepted as being without direct proof, I do not have to believe that he is , nor can you prove it. In fact the samething applies to God exists. That is if I were to say I do not believe that he exists and I also do not believe that he is you cannot prove me wrong, in any physical sense.

However, the theist can indeed proof to him /herself and to whomever is willing to consider the possibility that God is or exists , through experience. That is we can all know God experientially. Once you know God experientially you cannot deny that he is or that he exists and then the whole argument of the Atheists has no meaning to the person who possess this experiential knowledge of God.

The atheist will then retreat into statements such as: Experiences of the divine are nothing but mass illusions and self deceit, or he can if he is really honest either put aside his incredulity and accept the possibilty that god does exist and attemopt to experience him or not, as he sees fit; Or he can just go on denying that god is. Its only a matter of honesty, and sincerity.

Divine Light to You
Curious

 

[Embers]

Dear Curious and Naranyot
It is a wondeful investigation unfolding. May I add some thoughts.

The difficulty presented to us is that the intellect (buddhi) is limited in its ability to come to the conclusion of God's existance without some kind of aid or guidance. Nanak Ji and the SGGS promote other methods to arrive at the premise that Naranyot Ji beautifully captures above, sat nam. I think this point of it being a premise is fundamental and enlightening. Thank you!

The method perscribed by the 11 Gurus is through kirtan, naam simran, meditation and the company of others. I propose that Nanak Ji was fully aware of the diffulties of coming to any conclusion based on the mind and intellect (buddhi) initially. The way of jñana, the buddhi, is not impossible, but can be highly demanding. The Sikh way is a way of devotion and worship (bhakti) and it is through this way that we come to trust our love and being rather than depend on knowledge and logic (Jñana) alone. However the logic and knowledge (Jñana) is there in the form of the 11th Guru and this is one reason that Sikhism is so encompassing and welcoming.

At this point we must take care not to allow the mind to assume one way is better than another, be it devotion (bhakti) or knowledge (Jñana) all ways can lead to the divine.

The point is that it is personal to begin with. There does not need to be evidence of God if it feels right to a person to worship (bhakti) but for others there needs to evidence, a satisfied buddhi, and this can come through logic and knowledge (Jñana). The result of both paths is that the mind becomes stilled and the premise becomes known to the knower. In other words God bestows Her grace on those who think only of Her.

The knowing of the Lord, for both those on the bhakti and Jñana path is more subtle and accute than the mind and intellect can fathome on a mundane daily level. (The reason for this is maya). So yes, the answer is in bhakti for those who dismiss the fickle mind with pure devotion and yes the answer is in jñana for those who can dismiss the fickle mind through logic and investigative-discrimination. For this reason the Guru shows us the way catering for our inviduals needs.

In my experience an atheist has the mind which requires the Jñana path if they desire an answer. Most athesits are more convinced of material existance and science than they are of worship. They would not fall to their knees and worship without a strong logical case to do so. Of course every generalisation serves only to make a point to allow us to begin investigation and should never be taken up as truth beyond that. What happened in my case personally, to my surprise, was once the mind (buddhi) was satisfied with the logic of the Jñana path, my whole being whelmed up with love and devotion (bhakti).

Peace!
Ambers