☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spnadmin" data-source="post: 113088" data-attributes="member: 35"><p><strong>Re: Why Sikhism?</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Ontological proofs in history for the existence of God. </strong>These are roughly in chronological order. Please keep in mind that these are not the arguments of religionists. They are not statements about whether God is vengeful or forgiving. They are philosophical arguments. In the case of at least one of these philosophers, there was a personal belief in God, though not any faith in a particular religion. </p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Anselm the Doctor</strong></p><p></p><p>Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He reasoned that, if "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm, that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality. The bulk of the Proslogionis taken up with Anselm's attempt to establish the identity of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" as God, and thus to establish that God exists in reality.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Acquinas</strong></p><p> </p><p>Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the "Five Ways."</p><p></p><p>Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence.</li> </ul><p></p><p>In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."</p><p></p><p><strong>Descartes</strong></p><p> </p><p>Version A: The intuitive argument</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Therefore, God exists.</li> </ul><p>The rule for truth appears here in the guise of the first premise, but it is more naturally read as a statement of Descartes' own alternative method of "demonstration" via clear and distinct perception or intuition. In effect, the first "premise" is designed to instruct the meditator on how to apply this method, the same role that the analogy with a geometric demonstration serves in passage </p><p></p><p>Descartes sometimes uses traditional arguments as heuristic devices, not merely to appease a scholastically trained audience but to help induce clear and distinct perceptions. This is evident for example in the version of the ontological argument standardly associated with his name:</p><p></p><p>Version B: The ontological argument</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Necessary existence is a perfection.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.</li> </ul><p>Descartes is aiming a deeper point, namely that there is a conceptual link between necessary existence and each of the other divine perfections. …Because our mind is finite, we normally think of the divine perfections separately and "hence may not immediately notice the necessity of their being joined together" (First Replies, AT 7:119; CSM 2:85). But if we attend carefully to "whether existence belongs to a supremely perfect being, and what sort of existence it is" we shall discover that we cannot conceive any one of the other attributes while excluding necessary existence from it (ibid.).</p><p></p><p> <strong>Kant</strong></p><p> </p><p>Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his <em>Critique of Practical Reason</em>. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[49] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In the <em>Jäsche Logic</em> (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (<em>als ob</em>) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, <em>Lectures on Logic,</em> p. 590-91).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Godel using modal reasoning</strong></p><p></p><p> The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941". </p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Definition 1: <em>x</em> is God-like if and only if <em>x</em> has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Definition 2: <em>A</em> is an essence of <em>x</em> if and only if for every property <em>B</em>, <em>x</em> has <em>B</em> necessarily if and only if <em>A</em> entails <em>B</em></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Definition 3: <em>x</em> necessarily exists if and only if every essence of <em>x</em> is necessarily exemplified</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">— a positive property is positive</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Axiom 6: For any property <em>P</em>, if <em>P</em> is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.</li> </ul><p></p><p>Sources are Wikipoedia and also the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> As I read through these arguments, there were many times when I remembered lines from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj that seemed eerily similar. How could that be? (irony)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spnadmin, post: 113088, member: 35"] [b]Re: Why Sikhism?[/b] [B]Ontological proofs in history for the existence of God. [/B]These are roughly in chronological order. Please keep in mind that these are not the arguments of religionists. They are not statements about whether God is vengeful or forgiving. They are philosophical arguments. In the case of at least one of these philosophers, there was a personal belief in God, though not any faith in a particular religion. [B] Anselm the Doctor[/B] Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He reasoned that, if "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm, that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality. The bulk of the Proslogionis taken up with Anselm's attempt to establish the identity of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" as God, and thus to establish that God exists in reality. [B]Acquinas[/B] Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the "Five Ways." Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities: [LIST] [*]God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. [*]God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality. [*]God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number. [*]God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character. [*]God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. [/LIST] In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same." [B]Descartes[/B] Version A: The intuitive argument [LIST] [*]Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing. [*]I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God. [*]Therefore, God exists. [/LIST] The rule for truth appears here in the guise of the first premise, but it is more naturally read as a statement of Descartes' own alternative method of "demonstration" via clear and distinct perception or intuition. In effect, the first "premise" is designed to instruct the meditator on how to apply this method, the same role that the analogy with a geometric demonstration serves in passage Descartes sometimes uses traditional arguments as heuristic devices, not merely to appease a scholastically trained audience but to help induce clear and distinct perceptions. This is evident for example in the version of the ontological argument standardly associated with his name: Version B: The ontological argument [LIST] [*]I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. [*]Necessary existence is a perfection. [*]Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists. [/LIST] Descartes is aiming a deeper point, namely that there is a conceptual link between necessary existence and each of the other divine perfections. …Because our mind is finite, we normally think of the divine perfections separately and "hence may not immediately notice the necessity of their being joined together" (First Replies, AT 7:119; CSM 2:85). But if we attend carefully to "whether existence belongs to a supremely perfect being, and what sort of existence it is" we shall discover that we cannot conceive any one of the other attributes while excluding necessary existence from it (ibid.). [B]Kant[/B] Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his [I]Critique of Practical Reason[/I]. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[49] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In the [I]Jäsche Logic[/I] (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though ([I]als ob[/I]) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, [I]Lectures on Logic,[/I] p. 590-91). [B]Godel using modal reasoning[/B] The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941". [LIST] [*]Definition 1: [I]x[/I] is God-like if and only if [I]x[/I] has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive [*]Definition 2: [I]A[/I] is an essence of [I]x[/I] if and only if for every property [I]B[/I], [I]x[/I] has [I]B[/I] necessarily if and only if [I]A[/I] entails [I]B[/I] [*]Definition 3: [I]x[/I] necessarily exists if and only if every essence of [I]x[/I] is necessarily exemplified [*]Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. [*]— a positive property is positive [*]Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive [*]Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive [*]Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive [*]Axiom 6: For any property [I]P[/I], if [I]P[/I] is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. [*]Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. [*]Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. [*]Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. [*]Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [/LIST] Sources are Wikipoedia and also the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy :) As I read through these arguments, there were many times when I remembered lines from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj that seemed eerily similar. How could that be? (irony) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top