☀️ 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
Evolution & Sikhism
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="Sinister" data-source="post: 53852" data-attributes="member: 2684"><p>Its funny how people can pick and choose 3-4 statements from my post and then completely take them out of context. You must understand what I am getting at and read my entire posts. </p><p> </p><p>I am neither defending the theists or the atheists. </p><p> </p><p>No one has claim to this knowledge in metaphysics, is what I am getting at (if you hadn't already picked up what I am talking about)</p><p> </p><p>Science is Agnostic...you will routinely see in scientific reasearch phrases such as... "it is unknown to us the causes of the events observed" (often followed by a prediction for other scientists to follow up on).</p><p> </p><p>Scientists would rather state this because SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC (what I have been trying to tell you everyone from the begining).</p><p> </p><p>but i do stand by my original statement: </p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Human <u>logic</u> cannot lead you to prove the existence of God. Human logic cannot lead you to disprove the existence of God. And that’s where everyone should draw the line between reason and utter VANITY.</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p>To undermine either the random chance theorists or to undermine the "God-group" is equally wrong...and that is the message to my freind P_Sikh which I wish to relay. </p><p> </p><p>It is pointless to argue about the existence of God and it is pointless to argue that God doesnt exist. </p><p> </p><p>SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT OBSERVATION AND THEN PREDICTION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA. IT LOSES GROUND WHEN YOU ENTER LARGE COSMIC SCALE MODELS and metaphysical questions.</p><p> </p><p>I wonder sometimes; why is the middle ground so hard to comprehend?</p><p>today I might have found my answer ... ignorance.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">And i think why scientists or others don't beleive in God because they expect and imagine God to be some physical intity where it was written again and again in Scriptures that God is formless without any physical entity. And yet scientitsts always say 'Let us imagine' or 'Some external force did this'. <strong><u>Why don't they take that external force as God of religions as if God is not in flesh and bones then naturally it's like some force or something even beyond.</u></strong> So even scientists lead us to GOD but call it some 'External Force'. Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe. </span></span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">--Originially posted by P_Sikh</span></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Here is yet another ill thought out scheme.</span></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I will now tell you why they don’t take that “external force” as “God”. Because admitting to this would debase all science and return us to pre-Newtonian/ pre-enlightenment era. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Case study: </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Imagine your sitting in a freshman organic chemistry examination and you get a question that asks you to explain why two reagents interact and bond. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">If you answer: “it is the will of God and was guided by some unexplained “external-Godly force”, you would get a big fat ZERO as a grade. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">If the scientific community acknowledges the existence of a “Godly-force” then this unexplained force has the validity to be applied to any scenario. You would have to get full marks if GOD was brought into science. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Thus scientists cannot admit that it is GOD…they simply and eloquently say….WE DO NOT KNOW. They do it to save science and prevent it from reverting back to its *******ed roots where God and science was routinely mixed. That is what the enlightenment was all about. (I beg of you to read history). </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO…GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD EXISTS. GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD DOES NOT EXIST!</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sinister, post: 53852, member: 2684"] Its funny how people can pick and choose 3-4 statements from my post and then completely take them out of context. You must understand what I am getting at and read my entire posts. I am neither defending the theists or the atheists. No one has claim to this knowledge in metaphysics, is what I am getting at (if you hadn't already picked up what I am talking about) Science is Agnostic...you will routinely see in scientific reasearch phrases such as... "it is unknown to us the causes of the events observed" (often followed by a prediction for other scientists to follow up on). Scientists would rather state this because SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC (what I have been trying to tell you everyone from the begining). but i do stand by my original statement: [B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Human [U]logic[/U] cannot lead you to prove the existence of God. Human logic cannot lead you to disprove the existence of God. And that’s where everyone should draw the line between reason and utter VANITY.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B] To undermine either the random chance theorists or to undermine the "God-group" is equally wrong...and that is the message to my freind P_Sikh which I wish to relay. It is pointless to argue about the existence of God and it is pointless to argue that God doesnt exist. SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT OBSERVATION AND THEN PREDICTION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA. IT LOSES GROUND WHEN YOU ENTER LARGE COSMIC SCALE MODELS and metaphysical questions. I wonder sometimes; why is the middle ground so hard to comprehend? today I might have found my answer ... ignorance. [COLOR=red][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]And i think why scientists or others don't beleive in God because they expect and imagine God to be some physical intity where it was written again and again in Scriptures that God is formless without any physical entity. And yet scientitsts always say 'Let us imagine' or 'Some external force did this'. [B][U]Why don't they take that external force as God of religions as if God is not in flesh and bones then naturally it's like some force or something even beyond.[/U][/B] So even scientists lead us to GOD but call it some 'External Force'. Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]--Originially posted by P_Sikh[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Here is yet another ill thought out scheme.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I will now tell you why they don’t take that “external force” as “God”. Because admitting to this would debase all science and return us to pre-Newtonian/ pre-enlightenment era. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Case study: [/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Imagine your sitting in a freshman organic chemistry examination and you get a question that asks you to explain why two reagents interact and bond. [/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]If you answer: “it is the will of God and was guided by some unexplained “external-Godly force”, you would get a big fat ZERO as a grade. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]If the scientific community acknowledges the existence of a “Godly-force” then this unexplained force has the validity to be applied to any scenario. You would have to get full marks if GOD was brought into science. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Thus scientists cannot admit that it is GOD…they simply and eloquently say….WE DO NOT KNOW. They do it to save science and prevent it from reverting back to its *******ed roots where God and science was routinely mixed. That is what the enlightenment was all about. (I beg of you to read history). [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO…GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD EXISTS. GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD DOES NOT EXIST![/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Evolution & Sikhism
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