2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism

[Caspian]

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
These above quotes from you show that you have bundled them all together and now you are going back on your words that you have done in your post above, which is illogical. It is, in your own words, 2+2=5 for you.

Yes, I have bundled them together... not because this has anything to do with "Islam, Sikhism, Christianity or Judaism" but rather it has to do with God in general. And wen I talk about the concept of "God in general" i cant help but bring in countless religions by default. I don't intend to talk about the religions specifically though. If you read my argument, keep in mind that it was with a muslim but no where did we specifcally talk about Islam—it was purely philosophy. So in that respect, i can still use the same argument on a sikh site (like this one) PROVIDED that the sikh god is similar to the islamic/christian/judeo god. In my opinion it is similar enough (there are differences and i have acknolwedged them) for me to use this argument... unless your denying that the sikh god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all knowing — in that case my argument is flawed wen it comes to the sikh god.

The phrase should be "agnostic-atheism" as if one was a condition, qualifier, characteristic of the other. This makes no more sense than the term "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxy{censored}s.

Its not an oxy{censored} (the concept behind the name) but if you take the dictionary definition of both agnostic and atheist it may seem like an oxy{censored}, that i will admit—but theres no adequate single word to describe the position so I will simply describe my postion in a bunch of words

"Agnostic-Atheism" is the phrase i use to describe the position where one can acknowledge the possibility of a god but still reject the possibility of specific gods due to their characteristics (such as the christian god). Basically, its a "I can believe in a god just not your god" approach.

I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills.

Language skills are important—just like math skills. And when u use language in a "mathamatical way" thats wat can be described as "logic"—logic is an important thing. So if this thread is about showing off logical skill—i cant disagree.

You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.

Till that is done 2+2=5 , is better than 2+2=4.

Waitt a second... this is not wat I said so i dunt know wat ur referring to? Reality is 2+2=4. and "2+2=4" is better then "2+2=5" (i dont even no how u can call "2+2=5" the ultimate reality, perhaps ur being sarcastic?) or you've got everything backwards?

We should look into the perspective of the authors/posters as well. If logic is illogical then every illogical thing will look logical and that is what is happening here.

Again, backwards. I didnt say logic is illogical, I used to logic to show how god is illogical. Furthermore, im not trying to show how everything illogical will look logical, thats not wats happening here. Did you even read my post? Im trying to show u how what you think is logical is really illogical (not the other way around).

it's a shame Epicurus and spn beat you to it in a much simpler manner.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interf...-evil-god.html (An Evil God)

Im familiar with there arguments But my argument in a nut shell is "Do you believe in a god that can make 2+2=5. Yes? Well your god is illogical" doesnt get much simpler then that . You go on to talk about a difference between irrational and illogical—i really dont think the difference is big enough to warrent distinction in this context. If so, your going to have to explain how because i didnt get it from your previous post (that deal with how u can use logic to reach irrational conclusions but u can also use logic to reach illogical conclusion—wats the dif?).

 

[Caspian]

I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. YouTube- 1+1=Window Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong.

I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics.

So God is illogical so what? I have said I have no problems with this, and further I have claimed that what this means is that humanity can simply not fully comprehend God, and so as the computer we lack the knowledge to do so.

you think that logic must apply to God can you let me know why you think such a thing

If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical?

 

[Lee]

I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. YouTube- 1+1=Window Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong.

I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics.

If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical?

Meh! Shall we rewind a little to remind ourselves of the sticking point between us?

Initialy it was your stance that determinism negates free will. As proof of this you gave an anology of God watching a movie. I said that this anology does not really work, as it assumes too much of what God is and how God works. I then said that you need to show me the proofs for these assumptions before we can belive this anolgy.

You did not attempt to do this, instead you counterred saying that I must belive then that God is 'above' us, and then you gave your example of how 2+2=4 and that a man could not contradict a computer when it gives such output. Supposed to show that logicaly speaking the creator cannot contradict the logic of the created.

Here is the thing then this anolgy rest soley on pure maths. Indeed in pure maths 2+2= 4, whether the computer says so or the man, and the correct answer must be 4 and so in this instance than creator cannot indeed contradict the answer form the computer.

My claim is that a computer is always limited by it's programing, I used a riddle to show the differance in the comprehension of a question does make a differance in it's answering. What is my intent in doing this?

To show you that the creator can always contradict the asnwer of the created evem if it appears that the creatd is correct. Unless the question is fully understand the created can indeed make what it assumes is a correct answer yet the creator knows is incorrect and thus the creator can contradict a correct answer form the created.

You say two things about this, the second one is that you do understand my meaing, which leads me to great confussion, because if you did then why would you argue that it is illogical? It makes perfect sense to me.

Yet again let me explain this one to you. I really have no problems with the concept of an illogical God, as really when we say this what we mean is that our compehension of God is incompleat and so just like the computer what we know of God may appears to US to be illogical.

I think you'll find that in fact counter to your assertion that not many religions nor religious people will see things this way, I think the vast majority of them see things exactly like this.

 

[spnadmin]

I guess I am saying that deconstruction of language may seem like a brainy thing to do. But perhaps it is better reserved for the corporate world and government where the creation of new meanings is typically the result of the desire to manipulate the minds of the innocent and create a herd mentality.

Atheism and agnosticism cannot be the same thing. We need only to analyze their structure.

a + theism
a + gnosticism

I have gone on the record so that anyone wanting to be reasonable, in the future will see that someone cared.

 

[Caspian]

Atheism and agnosticism cannot be the same thing. We need only to analyze their structure.

a + theism
a + gnosticism

I have gone on the record so that anyone wanting to be reasonable, in the future will see that someone cared.

But i don't see why where having this argument because I agree that atheism and agnosticism cant be the same thing. Did you ever get around to watching that youtube video I posted? Becuase that essentially says the same thing... i mean, even in my original post i spent a great deal talkin about how atheist and agnostic are non-comparable terms. So im right there with you but i think your misreading the lable "agnostic-atheist" to mean "being both agnostic and atheist"

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

A couple of things.

I have no idea if logic breeds ethics in you but common sense would dictate that it does. So, kindly address each post to the person your are responding to which would be ethically logical.

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me the Shabads with your own interpretation from the SGGS, our only Guru to prove your point, otherwise, your repetition becomes nothing but an illogical babble.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.

Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way.

Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?

 

[Caspian]

This is my 2nd time trying to reply -_- my internet is screwing up. Anyways...

I have no idea if logic breeds ethics in you but common sense would dictate that it does. So, kindly address each post to the person your are responding to which would be ethically logical.

Dually noted . But easy there tiger! You don't have to be so passive aggressive. Simple saying, "Can you adress the names of the people you quote" would have sufficed . Didn't have to call into question my ethics (ouch ).

Tejwant Says:

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me the Shabads with your own interpretation from the SGGS, our only Guru to prove your point, otherwise, your repetition becomes nothing but an illogical babble.

I'm going to be short, because the last two times i had written longer responses but they never went through for some reason.

Okay anyways. I'm not going to send you any shabads from the SGGS with my own interpretations of them. It would be pointless for my argument. There is nothing in the SGGS that can directly support (or refute for that matter) my argument. I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue). But if there is no shabad in the SGGS to support my idea—does that mean its "illogical babble?" I think not. Theres no Shabad in the SGGS to support the concept of 2+2=4; nonethelss, the concept is not "illogical babble." I didnt set out to target Sikhism either (or any religion in specific) instead I set out to talk about "God in general." I feel that the concept of God shares many key similarities throughout many religions (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence) so my argument is meant to be as general as possible. If you feel like you must envoke the SGGS to answer any of my points, by all means do so (I'll assume the SGGS is your area of expertise; Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise). Having said that, I kind of liked my Muslim colleagues responses though, because he was able to raise valid counter points without evoking Islam. That just goes to show that my original post has nothing to do with religion at all—you greatly mis-interpreted my intentions in that regard. It has everything to do with philosophy and logic.

 

[Caspian]

Bhagat Says:

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?

Thnx for the reply! And I thank you for helping me clear that up . But yes, I'm just saying that the Gods of those 4 religions share some characterisitics. So, No... I'm not saying that the Sikh God is not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (And like you, I'm confused as to whether that is what Tejwant is saying—but if it is what he is saying, and he is right in the context of the SGGS and Sikhi in general, then i take back my whole argument ). But, as a result, I'm saying "if he is all that" then those characteristics contribute to God being illogical (he can still exist, but then he exists as an illogical entity). Why is he illogical? Must read the rest of my original post Download the .doc file if you have too, its easier to read. But essentially the jist of my argument is:

Can God make 2+2=5? (Or to put it more "exactly": Can god violate the laws of logic, math and science?)

Yes: Then he's illogical
No: Then he's pointless

But the reasoning behind my logic is what is more important then the conclusions themselves, I guess. As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic). He would be like a machine designed to turn itself off as soon as it is turned on.

YouTube- The Most Useless Machine EVER!

Existing for the sole reason of existing and nothing more.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Caspian ji,
sorry about the confusion. My reply (with the question) was to Tejwant Singh ji only.
That was an awesome debate with Mustafa, BTW!

As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic).

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[Caspian]

Bhagat says:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic). </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Could you elaborate on this?

Well i only call him a pointless God because "I dont know what point he would serve for us" (i think he would serve no point for us directly) so its an informal nickname at this point. But a god that abides by the laws of logic, math and science, is akin to describing these very laws as "godly" (indeed, they are omnipresent [the logic/math/science we use on earth would apply equally anywhere in the universe] , omnipotent [you cannot be above the laws of logic math and science] and omnicient [we don't yet know "all logic, math and science" but knowing it "all" would make us "all knowing" ] if not literally then in the highest figuritive sense; and by virtue of their properties, they are self-limiting WITHOUT being self-contradictory). Studying and understanding this kind of god is as possible as "experiencing this god." The "pointless" nickname is due to the inability for this god to sustain a heaven or hell, to punish or reward, to create us directly, to require us to pray or provide us with an absolute moral system (all of which are illogical at best). Indeed, he would be very pointless to us, he would not be a "personal" god, we would have no use for him directly but by studying him (and keep in mind, wen i say him, i refer to logic, math and science) we gain greater insight—thats all, and thats a beutiful thing Its a god i can believe in . Consequently, this god would only be as old as our universe as I believe the laws of logic, math and science are immergent properties that came to exist on the onset of the big bang (this is me just talking theory, getting away from my more concrete philosophical approach). It would still leave us with an interesting question as to what existed prior to this big bang—thats a gap where i might be more inclined to acknowledge the possibility of an illogical god. A god that could make 2+2=5 in that case may accidently have triggered the big bang in the process which subsequently destroyed him and left us with a logical god (just musing myself dont take me too seriously in the last couple sentances lol)

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.

Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please define God in Sikhi for me because the Abrahamic God according to the OT, NT and the Quran is angry,vengeful and jealous God, has human characteristics which means he is immersed in duality. NT also says that God would make people rape woman and he kills babies.

Is God in Sikhi according to you a personified deity and has the above chracterstics?

Once you have defined Ik Ong Kaar for me from the Sikhi view point then we can take this interaction further and learn from it.

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Tejwant Singh ji

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please define God in Sikhi for me because the Abrahamic God according to the OT, NT and the Quran is angry,vengeful and jealous God, has human characteristics which means he is immersed in duality. NT also says that God would make people rape woman and he kills babies.

Is God in Sikhi according to you a personified deity and has the above chracterstics?

Once you have defined Ik Ong Kaar for me from the Sikhi view point then we can take this interaction further and learn from it.

Tejwant Singh

Whether the Sikh God has those qualities or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. Only the "omni qualities" are being looked at. Again I ask you, are you disputing any of those? If yes then we should take this interaction further...

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

It clearly shows from your post that you are distorting what I said, which is not logical.

Please read my post again. Sorry if you feel defensive about it whether it is logical or not, I will leave that to you. But there is nothing to get uptight and read between the lines.

So, let me ask you in a different way where you do not feel the way you did.

Does logic ( your favourite term) breed ethics?

If it does then in what manner and if it does not then should it?

It is a simple question about logic, your expertise as you claim.

Okay anyways. I'm not going to send you any shabads from the SGGS with my own interpretations of them. It would be pointless for my argument.There is nothing in the SGGS that can directly support (or refute for that matter) my argument.

So you mean you do not have an argument to prove your logic? Thanks for admitting that.

I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue). But if there is no shabad in the SGGS to support my idea—does that mean its "illogical babble?" I think not.

First and foremost you have to define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi through SGGS. If you are not able to define HE/SHE/IT, then you have no argument to start with.

Theres no Shabad in the SGGS to support the concept of 2+2=4;

You know it very well that SGGS is not a math book, hence it can not have your stated concept which would be illogical but it has a wonderful poetry.

Is there any book in math that defines 2+2=5? If there is, please share with us.

nonethelss, the concept is not "illogical babble."

It is nothing but illogical babble if you can not even define with the help of SGGS what Ik Ong Kaar is.

I didnt set out to target Sikhism either (or any religion in specific) instead I set out to talk about "God in general."

If you can not give examples from the scriptures of the different religions and define God according to them then you have no argument. It is illogical to say " God in general" because there is nothing like that. If your logic of " God in general" were true then there would not be millions of denominations in Christianity and millions of other different religions. It sounds very illogical from your own aspect of logic

I feel that the concept of God shares many key similarities throughout many religions (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence) so my argument is meant to be as general as possible. If you feel like you must envoke the SGGS to answer any of my points, by all means do so (I'll assume the SGGS is your area of expertise;

It is your duty and responsibility to prove your claim with the facts from different scriptures, not mine. This is the only logical thing for you to do. It is your argument, not mine.

I just want you to prove it in a logical manner otherwise it is nothing but hot air.

Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise). Having said that, I kind of liked my Muslim colleagues responses though, because he was able to raise valid counter points without evoking Islam. That just goes to show that my original post has nothing to do with religion at all—you greatly mis-interpreted my intentions in that regard. It has everything to do with philosophy and logic. Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise).

I hope you use these skills to prove what you claim. Simply put.

Caspian ji,

Either you are very naive or you do not read the posts sent to you in a logical manner. Your Muslim friend was very open and frank on the offset to let you know that he wanted to convert you. Of course he was trying to respond from his religious viewpoint to no avail. I do not know how you missed that point. As, he found out he could not, he eventually went mum which is the case in most Muslims which happens quite often here. The case in point is Nasir from Iran who disappeared after he was asked some direct questions about his religion.

Just to refresh your memory, following is what your Muslim friend said:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830

Mustafa Abousaleh

And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent manner so we can bring you to Islam

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji

Whether the Sikh God has those qualities or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. Only the "omni qualities" are being looked at. Again I ask you, are you disputing any of those? If yes then we should take this interaction further...

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

We can only look at the " omni qualities" of an entity (deity) provided we know the definition of the said entity ( deity) according to the particular religion.

If we are not able to, then we can not take this interaction further....

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

We can only look at the " omni qualities" of an entity (deity) provided we know the definition of the said entity ( deity) according to the particular religion.

If we are not able to, then we can not take this interaction further....

Tejwant Singh

The definition includes the "omni qualities"... Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know.
Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...

 

[Caspian]

Tejwant Says:

First and foremost you have to define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi through SGGS. If you are not able to define HE/SHE/IT, then you have no argument to start with.

f you can not give examples from the scriptures of the different religions and define God according to them then you have no argument.

It is your duty and responsibility to prove your claim with the facts from different scriptures, not mine. This is the only logical thing for you to do. It is your argument, not mine.

I don't have to talk about sikhism in specific at all. Furthermore, your criteria that "anything only makes sense if it is supported by the SGGS" is horribly restrictive (how would an atheist find support for his position in the SGGS. It seems very closed-minded of you to refuse to listen to an argument if it does not include the SGGS. But notice how you said "with the facts from different scriptures" this argument is about the validity of certain facts—how would try to prove that those facts are in valid by using the SGGS to support those facts? Lol you already know I cant logically do that but your saying that's the only logical thing to do? I dont think so . I think a religious person can find justifications for God outside of their respective holybooks. Similarily, a person such as me, can use an argument against the idea of god without so much as touching religion or looking at a holy text. Indeed that was my goal, to provide an argument that would apply to as many faiths equally (im in the business of making a point too right and ill take a page from the SGGS and try to make my point as universal as possible ).
Listen to Bhagat singh—this discussion is not about all the characteristics of the Sikh god—this discussion is about wether or not the sikh god has those 3 characterisitics and if he does, what conclusions can you draw from that.

Bhagat Says:

The definition includes the "omni qualities"...

Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know.
Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...

Yes I agree! Why is it that you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh god? Do other aspects of the sikh god explicitly contradict my argument? If they do, they would be helpful to look at wouldnt they . If they don't, there's again no point bringing them up—we would just be wasting time.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

The definition includes the "omni qualities"... Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know.
Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...

Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.


Definition of which God from which religion? If each religion sees its God differently than these definitions of "omni characteristics" change as well. Some God can fly on a magic carpet to be anywhere, anytime, some may ride a Pegasus to do the same. So, once again your argument does not hold any water.

You have to define each God in its own spectrum of the religion in order to define these "omni charateristics" and how they are seen in each religion for the God they worship.

If some religions believe their God to be a personified deity then these qualities have a different meaning.

So, as I have asked you and Caspian as well before and I have no idea why both of you are reluctant to defining God in the religions Caspians have mentioned.

Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we?

I am all for the interaction to go further. It is Caspian and now you creating the road blocks. Not me. When someone puts up an argument, it is his/her duty to show the basis of it. There is nothing in general sense when we are talking about specific things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Says:

I don't have to talk about sikhism in specific at all. Furthermore, your criteria that "anything only makes sense if it is supported by the SGGS" is horribly restrictive (how would an atheist find support for his position in the SGGS. It seems very closed-minded of you to refuse to listen to an argument if it does not include the SGGS. But notice how you said "with the facts from different scriptures" this argument is about the validity of certain facts—how would try to prove that those facts are in valid by using the SGGS to support those facts? Lol you already know I cant logically do that but your saying that's the only logical thing to do? I dont think so . I think a religious person can find justifications for God outside of their respective holybooks. Similarily, a person such as me, can use an argument against the idea of god without so much as touching religion or looking at a holy text. Indeed that was my goal, to provide an argument that would apply to as many faiths equally (im in the business of making a point too right and ill take a page from the SGGS and try to make my point as universal as possible ).
Listen to Bhagat singh—this discussion is not about all the characteristics of the Sikh god—this discussion is about wether or not the sikh god has those 3 characterisitics and if he does, what conclusions can you draw from that.

Bhagat Says:
Yes I agree! Why is it that you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh god? Do other aspects of the sikh god explicitly contradict my argument? If they do, they would be helpful to look at wouldnt they . If they don't, there's again no point bringing them up—we would just be wasting time.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Your posts clearly show that you have a habit of distorting what I have written thus far. All my responses were based on your posts. I request you to re read them with a calm mind and come to the terms of your own logic.

What you have shown so far is that your logic is based on "ends justify the means" which is hilarious to say the least. Logic is the conclusion through the means, not the other way around as you have presented your so called general arguments. Logic requires specifics and read your earlier posts, you mentioned specific religions. As you have put yourself in a trap created by your own logic, I am sorry to say that you have to learn from your own trap how to come out of it logically.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.


Definition of which God from which religion? If each religion sees its God differently than these definitions of "omni characteristics" change as well. Some God can fly on a magic carpet to be anywhere, anytime, some may ride a Pegasus to do the same. So, once again your argument does not hold any water.

You have to define each God in its own spectrum of the religion in order to define these "omni charateristics" and how they are seen in each religion for the God they worship.

If some religions believe their God to be a personified deity then these qualities have a different meaning.

So, as I have asked you and Caspian as well before and I have no idea why both of you are reluctant to defining God in the religions Caspians have mentioned.

Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we?

I am all for the interaction to go further. It is Caspian and now you creating the road blocks. Not me. When someone puts up an argument, it is his/her duty to show the basis of it. There is nothing in general sense when we are talking about specific things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh ji,
I respectfully disagree.
You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".