Inspirational - Have Faith In GOD | SIKH PHILOSOPHY NETWORK
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Inspirational Have Faith In GOD

stallonjit

SPNer
Jan 14, 2011
3
9
"Have Faith on God"
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand
and.....
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
Student: (Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God
good?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?
Student: (Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?
Student: (Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son... Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No , sir.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you

ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says
your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega
heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything
called cold.

We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any
further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we
use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy.

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You
can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light.... But if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make

darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is
life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the
concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science
can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according
to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol,
science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,209
Stallonjit ji

I have removed the bold, red font and changed it to normal forum font and color. :)
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,608
Stallonjit Ji,

You brightened my day today. May God bless you through the faith that shines forth His glowing presence.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Stallonjit ji great post as it allows for healthy discourse. Thank you again.

In my limited understanding I read that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji warns us about the following fallacies,

  • Proving Existence or non-existence of God
    • Understanding the ways of the God and creation is the purpose
  • Claiming abundance of God in someone or something and lack of it in others
    • It is same only the level of understanding of each may be different
  • We are not taught faith or andh-visvs (blind faith) but encouraged to,
    • Understand and discover for self
    • Blind faith is not a respite for effort to understand or discover
  • Objective to completely describe or fully understand creation are,
    • Futile and destructive to understanding as these affect your state of mind in developing understanding
  • Apart from understanding one critical guidance is to,
    • Live in consonance with creation
Sat Sri Akal.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
I don't want to prove.. I want to BELIEVE
You don't need to prove but need to understand!

Otherwise you have not done anything with Gurbani and are asking the question why Gurus and others wrote it in the first place! We might as well find a Sikh equivalent of a pandit (many Babey to chose from lol) and trust and believe whatever is said!

Your choice of course.

Sat Sri Akal.
 

Caspian

SPNer
Mar 8, 2008
234
154
Just a little tid bit. But evolution has been observed to occur :p numerous times at that. I don't think any of us should actually believe this was an actual exchange between a student and professor (The version of this story I am most familiar with [from christian and muslim forums] often mistakenly attributes the student to be a young Albert Einstein). It is quite clearly a straw-man argument written by a witty theist.

Having said that, if this exchange really did happen—the student did a marvelous job with his rebuttle. Nothing against the rebuttle, but I will take issue with the professors position. I think arguing in favor of atheism be defaulting to arguments about god's morality is the easiest way of getting smacked by a theist. There are many better arguments for atheism then the one displayed by the prof.

But ah, this story is meant as a "pat on the back" type of story for fellow theists to rejoice over. It has little to no intellectual or philosophical content worth examining. The whole bit about how cold is the absence of heat, darkness the absence of light and death the absence of light is baseless and just clever rhetoric.

Both cold and heat are just molecular motion in a scientific sense. But our phenomenal experience of cold and heat are completely different. And it seems to be hes mixing the two up.

By suggesting that darkness is the absence of light. One could similarily suggest that light is the absence of darkness. Perhaps even light bulbs themselves dont emit light so much as they suck up darkness. What I'm trying to get at is, in physics, duality is whole heartedly embraced. You may remember from your grade school physics class that a force can be both a push and a pull. And everything is relative to your frame of reference. I could just as easily argue that I am the center of the universe so long as I specify that I'm using myself as the frame of reference. If your using light as ur frame of reference, sure darkness is the absence of light. If your using darkness as ur frame of reference, then vice versa. So if a theist wants to embrace duality, then they must not only acknowledge the possibility that "Badness" is the absense of a "Good god" (which is what his argument seems to imply) but also that "Goodness" may just be the absence of a "Bad god."

Moreover, why even argue about absence when it is implied that God cannot be absent like light, heat and life. The concept of god is non-comparable to light, heat and life.

Furthermore, I deny that for something to be alive it has to be "alive" (in a biological sense). To me, a robot that is functionally in every way indistinguishable from a human being. He should be considered "alive" too :p (in a figurative sense). In a more scientific sense tho, there is still debate as to whether virus's should be considered "living" entities—at the very least, dead entities can have all the properties of living entities, nothing is really stopping them.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Caspian ji good to see you back hoping exams went well.

Just couple of comments on the following,

Both cold and heat are just molecular motion in a scientific sense. But our phenomenal experience of cold and heat are completely different. And it seems to be hes mixing the two up.

By suggesting that darkness is the absence of light. One could similarily suggest that light is the absence of darkness. Perhaps even light bulbs themselves dont emit light so much as they suck up darkness. What I'm trying to get at is, in physics, duality is whole heartedly embraced.

Caspian ji I believe a similar argument can be made that Science is also a belief system. Scientist experiment and observe and theorize with the tools of the day. Have all the fundamentals of wave theory, Energy, mass, and perhaps Other been discoverd? For example where the light does not emanate from or matter appear to be swirling into without any reflection on how it gets ingested has been called a Black Hole. What our minds can think and our five senses can experience may have something to do with the ultimate reality but perhaps only a minisicule portion in my gathering.

So I don't think there is one or the other like God or Science choices need to be made. After all the concept of God and no-God also emanates from the same brain as the scientist theories. As a matter of fact there is a fundamental duality in understanding creation/God and Science that is more synergistic versus antagonistic.
Sat Sri Akal.
 

Caspian

SPNer
Mar 8, 2008
234
154
In my younger days. I too thought there was no conflict between science and religion. But, if, like you have suggested in an earlier post on this thread, the SGGS advocates that the following is negative or a fallacy:

Objective to completely describe or fully understand creation are,
  • Futile and destructive to understanding as these affect your state of mind in developing understanding
Then there is a quite fundamental contrast between science and religion dont you think? Because that is one of the main goals of science if not "the main goal" of science. I think its actually quite dangerous to think that efforts in fully understanding creation are futile because it stagnates progress imo. It is precisely our efforts into understanding creation that have lead to all the technological marvels, medical advancements and furthering of knowledge post-enlightenment.

It might be dangerous to assume that one day well have all the answers (maybe we never will). But it doesnt hurt to try? I fail to see how trying might affect my state of mind but I do see how trying to answer the mysterious of creation may have an adverse effect on religion in general. The theory of evolution was a threat to certain mainstream religions and I see that as a prime example of trying to understand creation—so yes, there is a very apparant Religion vs Science thing going on, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

So now that im alil older. I dont see how one and the other can be totally compatible. And if science is just another belief system (which for the purpose of this talk, I will agree with u, it is a belief system). I would have to say its the best belief system out there B-)

"Science Rules" - Bill Nye
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
In my younger days. I too thought there was no conflict between science and religion. But, if, like you have suggested in an earlier post on this thread, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji advocates that the following is negative or a fallacy:

Caspian ji in the above quoted text the context is,

  • I got to find all secrets right now
  • Can some body give me a potion, yoga move, naam so that I can find the ultimate truth
  • Unless I find everything I am incomplete
  • I need to merge with this "jyot" or God or the super soul and that is my objective
  • etc.
What will happen in this context is that your end point will ruin your ability to learn as such an end point is artificially and unrealistically postulated, less based on truth and more based on lack of knowledge. Hence one would spend untold time and effort in futility.

I hope that clarifies my context of usage.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji does not discourage from discovering or understanding creation/creator with every breath that you are alive but also practically advises to live in consonance with the creation and don't get stuck. This is my understanding and I am in the company of learned and stand corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited:

Harwinder

SPNer
Apr 5, 2011
48
48
Ok there has been many debates on creationism and evolution and i am sure this question has been asked before so i wanna get the insiight of the intelactuals or the sit.
The big bang thoery (correct me if i am wrong) believes (in summed up way) there wuz an explotion and those expolitons were caused by a very small cell then there was a bang and explotions and the the universe came to be and than the world and then creatures on it.

OK if the cell part is true than who put that cell there what made it big bang? God? or another cell? Is that cell our father? or mother? If another cell put it there than who THAT CELL THERE? hmmm,.,,,,,
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Harwinder ji wonderful question and perhaps there does not exist a thinking person who has not asked this question in this or other forms?

The question boils down to,

  • Seeing creation
    • We see creation all around us and hardly understand details about much of it
    • We are a limited being/entity in the scheme of creation
    • We get excited when we find traces of water at another planet in our solar system
    • Knowing the vastness even with limited vision close to blindness outside of our solar system in terms of details, we are very dis-advantaged to make global statements
    • So for me best approach is to recognize as much of creation without trying to find or claim to know more than we can chew as scientists or from philosophical point of view
    • Nature's time-lines have very little relationships to human life spans
      • Nature is in millions and billions and light years and beyond
      • Can we forecast earth to be in 10, 100, 1000 years from now
        • I doubt we can with any accuracy
    • In a million years would there be our siblings on this earth as we are
      • Highly unlikely
  • So what do we do!
    • Learn of yourself and what surrounds you
    • Live with the understanding of your knowledge as it develops
  • Bottomline:
    • The above is for me one of the fundamental teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and teachings of our Gurus.
    • Live in consonance with creation (some pictures from Hubble telescope)










Choice is there to live small or live bigpeacesign
Hope the above adds to dialog in this thread.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Asking of creator's ways in terms of the creation is too premature and inconsequential other than a good exercise in fantasy and temporary fulfillment that generations to follow will wonder about as to how primitive we were peacesign
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

Sat Sri Akaal,

There are Nine Visible Input or Output Visible Doors through which body interacts with creation.
2 Eyes 2 Nostrils 2 Ears 1 Mouth 2 for Excretion
Total of Nine visible...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top