NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God

[Islam-Sikhism]

Asalaamu 'alaykum

An examination of those Sikhs who claim that god is beyond human reasoning and rationale as they attempt to save face in accepting a concept of god that is impossible and contradictory

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhi...n/non_con2.htm

Please let all Muslims on all forums knows of our website

Wa salaam

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/

[- Qatada -]

:wasalamex

You can get a .tk domain for free insha'Allaah brother. :)

www.dot.tk/


You might find it useful insha'Allaah.


:salamext:

[Trumble]

Its hard to take a piece seriously when it accuses those who take a contrary point of view of committing "intellectual hari-kari" before it even gets started! It's even harder once they are accused of a "desperate attempt to vindicate..."

To me, admittedly as neither Sikh or muslim, it seems obvious that a God must be able to "transcend logic and rationale and can thus do impossible things". The logic being transcended must be ours rather than His, of course, but the two cannot be the same simply because we are not capable of understanding the nature of a being such as God. Our minds cannot grasp infinity as a reality.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Trumble

To me, admittedly as neither Sikh or muslim, it seems obvious that a God must be able to "transcend logic and rationale

What do you mean by 'transcend' ? Either something goas against logic or it does not. We call the former 'illogical', 'logically incoherent' or 'self-contradictory'.

I do not believe in a God that is illogical, logically incoherent or self-contradicotry. For example, I would reject the notion of an uncreated being that is created, because that is simply a self-contradiction.

and can thus do impossible things".

What do you mean by impossible? Impossible for whom? Do you mean illogical?

See here for my response to the famous stone question:
http://www.islamicboard.com/159715-post2.html

The logic being transcended must be ours rather than His, of course, but the two cannot be the same simply because we are not capable of understanding the nature of a being such as God.

Is logic relative or absolute?

Our minds cannot grasp infinity as a reality.

While I agree that the human mind cannot grasp the extent, measure or ultimate reality of God's attributes, I fail to see how that necessitates that God can contradict logic. A man from 2000 years ago may not understand how a computer works, but that doesn't mean it contradicts logic. He just doesn't understand the specific mechanism behind it.

Regards

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ISDhillon]

Dear oh dear:heated:

what i have just read about me on the above site but i will not lose any sleep you will suffer for youre slander.:hiding:


“then it is not possible for him to say anything about God, otherwise it would contradict what he affirms by making recourse to the rationale to comment on that which allegedly transcends his rationale.”


Not at all firstly I am not god if god tells me he transcends rationale then he is logically telling me he transends rationale, why is this hard to understand? only someone which is themselves illogical, would argue, that if god tells us he transcends rationale, then for us, to understand his comments, he must be logical only. (btw i know what you think about my grammar so i hope i used enuff comaas innitman;D )

“we are stating that it is impossible to comment on something that is claimed to transcend the rationale, and to do so is self-refuting.”

Your statement is ill-founded and i believe you have misunderstood gurbani and me, because god has a self-contradictory nature he is telling me logically that he is illogical but the conclusion you draw is that sikhim is illogical but sikhism is not god so it is illogical of you to have founded that conclusion.:crickey:

I have stated this from the beginning that god tells us in scriptire that he can transcend rationale but youre conclusion is that everything that god does must therefore transcend rationale but transcendence of rationale is one of his many attributes, all you have done is reaffirmed what we believe and youre private emails mean nothing to me we will see who is turned into the fool and make sure you don’t flutter of into cyberspace this time.:rant:


I said:

“Gurshabad is a living testimony that he can transcend rationality we did not translate any portion of gushabad to discover that it just happens every time we read it “

And youre response:

“Unfortunately, this is the state of affairs of many Sikhs who lumber about aimlessly, devoid of any divine guidance, and desperately in need of using correctly their God-given 'aql: "And will they then not use their 'aql." (Qur’an) “

not really we don’t need youre kind of guidance if we did we probably would start a vociferous internet campaign against islam to salvage a sense of self worth. But guruji has given us everything. Youre simple response was an attack not a rebuttal why don’t you answer the comment ill tell you cos you cant the sikh doctrine is infallible, THE SCRITURES PURPOSE IN SIKHISM IS ONE THING SCHOLARARY DISCOURSE IS ONE THING AND THE FUNCTION OF YOUR KORAN IS NOT THE SAME AS THE FUNCTION OF SGGS:rollseyes

If you have some arguments then produce them my last email made you irate that’s why you have started this, and you would like me to leave this forum but unless I get banned I wont be going anywhere you can be assured of that.:argue:


“If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything about God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in the SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun; this can only be done with the use of the rationale.
Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.”

And you call this theology proper? :clever: God can tell me logically that he is illogical where is the catch 22, I am not god, nirgun-sargun is the nature of god you then make a typical statement and ask me to define nature fine what if I say the likeness of god is sargun and nirgun, does it really make a difference you know you have been going down a blind alley and its just hit you now, cos of the email I sent you, have some humility and let go of the anger. You think cos god has the ability to transcend rationale he cant be rational also? are you not limiting god? to fit youre worldview?


“Either you remain silent about God to prove that God is beyond the rational mind, which in and of itself is impossible since the very notion of God would not exist, or you say something and end up contradicting that which you affirm. Either way, alhamdulillaah (all praise is due to Allaah) you shoot yourself in the foot. “

why remain silent? What does this have to do with the self-contradictory nature of god?, let me post my email here again perhaps you did not read it well:

a) god in sikhism is incomprehesible and transcends rationale, this does not means sikhism is illogical as a religion, nor does it mean that sri guru granth sahib ji is an illogical scripture it logically concludes without any hesitation that god has a nature which we as humans can never understand.

b) when you are baptised in sikhism you surrender your head to the guru and you concentrate your mind on the gurshabad, you do not formulate rules on how to govern society, you do not formulate punishments you do not use the scripture to judge others, you meditate on the word this is practicing sikhism. you do not refute the bani.

c) if you are a sikh or non-sikh who wishes to carry out an interpretation of religious texts then you will come to the conclusion that the god of sikhism is beyond the laws of logic but hopefully if you are a good intellectually proficient scholar you will not brand the whole religion as illogical and untrue because this has no reasonable basis and is therefore a fallacy in itself.

d) if i was seeker of the truth i would learn that in sikhism the truth has no character the truth is a property of the divine, i would learn that in sikhism right and wrong are a part of mans bibek buddhi ie, living by your conscience, and the more spiritually enlightened you are the more awake you are to all that is wrong and right, this is why debate on contraversial issues is an oxymoron it does not make any difference whther someone eats meat or not, it does not matter if someone is immoral or not because unless you acheive salvation or fana you are gonna come back onto this world again and again. i then would say hey sikhism is not like any other religion its doctrine is sovereign and this is a religion i would like to be apart of, i most definately would use logic for otherwise how would i make logical grammatical sequences when writing this post but now what does this have to do with my religion?.



The fact that god transcends rationale is just one of many of gods facets, he can be logical too. You just refuse to accept the 2 and have built a grand façade around it.

Islam,

ISDhillon:)

PS: at least add my rebuttal to youre site or delete my comments from youre site if you are a muslim.:thankyou:

[ISDhillon]

[QUOTE=Ansar Al-'Adl;305894]Hi Trumble

What do you mean by 'transcend' ? Either something goas against logic or it does not. We call the former 'illogical', 'logically incoherent' or 'self-contradictory'.

exactly illogical god and logical god both are possible to an impossible god.

I do not believe in a God that is illogical, logically incoherent or self-contradicotry. For example, I would reject the notion of an uncreated being that is created, because that is simply a self-contradiction.


which is fine but not every religion must have your point of view, if they were to say the sikh god is incompatible with the islamic belief of god that is great, but that is not what is being said they go onto say sikhism is false because they personally do not believe in a self-contradictory god, you see the problem? that is all this essay is, its a great way of saying we disagree.

What do you mean by impossible? Impossible for whom? Do you mean illogical?

no our minds do not have the ability to get the nature of god our minds do have the ability to live in his greatness and impossibility, the fact that god has a self-contradictory nature fascinates me it does not make think oh well he's false.

See here for my response to the famous stone question:
http://www.islamicboard.com/159715-post2.html


Is logic relative or absolute?

logic is a creation of god and one of many of his creations.

While I agree that the human mind cannot grasp the extent, measure or ultimate reality of God's attributes, I fail to see how that necessitates that God can contradict logic. A man from 2000 years ago may not understand how a computer works, but that doesn't mean it contradicts logic. He just doesn't understand the specific mechanism behind it.

god can make man learn that he is self-contradictory by simply stating he is, he does not need to make man see his contradiction in his creation to believe in him, in fact those who are one with god cannot describe the lord with their tongues.

I am going to pasterhear a similar exchange with a christian missionary when I used to visit another forum, these are not my words but the individual inspired the forum who were otherwise sick to death of the tactics employed by this christian:

So Gurbani says:

?Nirgun aap sargun bhee ohee?

Logically this is contradictory if seen in isolation from its context. But it does have a specific context. What the great Guru is saying here is the infinite and incomprehensible nature subsumes both ?Nirguna? and ?Saguna? natures. Page 287 of Gurbani also says:

?agam agochar parabh nirbaanee.?
(God is Inaccessible, Incomprehensible, balanced in the state of Nirvaanaa.)

The subtle undercurrent is that Ultimate Truth is intellectually incomprehensible. Its realization only comes through a meditative moral living. The verse is a silent exhortation to the Sikh not to waste time on this debate and move on with a meditative living that brings in harmony between his inner and social being. Such a meditative living brings in automatic realization of the ineffable truth, which can only be appended briefly through intellectual speculation of ?Nirguna?/ ?Saguna? debate.

Lastly, also bear in mind Gurbani is a highly musical and poetic work, and figurative language plays key role in its idiom. You cannot critically evaluate a poem the way you critically evaluate an essay. Both would require different principles of criticism as they differ in their genre."

whilst I disagree with any form of absolute interpretation of gurbani this one was nice the difference between me and the logical ones is I dont need one interpretation I am quite content with a contradictory god because logic is not the arbiter of truth, god is the creater of logic.





ISDhillon:)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What do you mean by 'transcend' ? Either something goas against logic or it does not. We call the former 'illogical', 'logically incoherent' or 'self-contradictory'.

exactly illogical god and logical god both are possible to an impossible god.

Why 'exactly'? Nothing that I have said is in concordance with your statement. The statement itself is devoid of any meaning - how can you begin to talk about possibilties of impossibility, and further still, logical and illogical coexistence? It is self-contradictory.

I do not believe in a God that is illogical, logically incoherent or self-contradicotry. For example, I would reject the notion of an uncreated being that is created, because that is simply a self-contradiction.

which is fine but not every religion must have your point of view

So which religion says that God is illogical and self-contradictory?

no our minds do not have the ability to get the nature of god our minds do have the ability to live in his greatness and impossibility, the fact that god has a self-contradictory nature fascinates me it does not make think oh well he's false.

So you believe that God is self-contradictory?

Is logic relative or absolute?

logic is a creation of god and one of many of his creations.

So then there should be no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic, right?

In another thread, I asked you:

“Suppose you find a thief in your house stealing your money. When you confront the thief he claims that a powerful gust of wind sent him flying through your window and the wind was so strong it forced his hands to open and close, grasping your money and shoving it into his pockets. HE claims that his story is the truth. Do you reject his story and say that it is not the truth because it is illogical or do you sit down and meditate and hope some answer will come to you?”

And you replied

the truth within is my conscience and this would tell me that the story is fabricated therefore wrong

But as I pointed out in the same thread, what you refer to as your 'conscience' is simply your logic and reason. And if you do not believe logic is absolute, then what right have you to subject this thief to your logic? How can you bring forward this claim that his story is fabricated just because it isn't in tune with your feelings? You cannot say his story is wrong, you can only say it is not compatible with your conscience.

So I guess you have no real objection to such a thief entering your house and stealing your money.

god can make man learn that he is self-contradictory

No comment!

You said in another thread:

I think I am saying that my religion is above reason.

To which I replied that in that case there is no use reasoning with you, is there? Since your views and beliefs 'transcend' (read: contradict) logic and reason.

Regards

[ISDhillon]

“

Why 'exactly'? Nothing that I have said is in concordance with your statement. The statement itself is devoid of any meaning - how can you begin to talk about possibilties of impossibility, and further still, logical and illogical coexistence? It is self-contradictory.”

It is youre response to trumble that was poised to suggest that transcend be replaced with illogical and I am saying that’s fine, I believe in the possibility of a self-contradictory god but that does not mean my religion is irrational, there is the concept of god and then the religion we follow, one can transcend rationality and one is rational, something rational came from something irrational this proves the self-contradictory nature of god.

“So which religion says that God is illogical and self-contradictory?”

Sikhism says god has a nature which can be self-contradictory whilst is religion is rational.

“So you believe that God is self-contradictory?”

and much more

“So then there should be no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic, right?”

most definitely.

“But as I pointed out in the same thread, what you refer to as your 'conscience' is simply your logic and reason. “

the consciousness you refer to is not the consciousness I refer to I am talking about god-consciousness I like to call it the “intuitive inner directive”

“And if you do not believe logic is absolute, then what right have you to subject this thief to your logic?”

I didn’t but I could also, there is sixth sense and there is rationale I can subject the thief to both, what right do I have? Who says I need one I have a choice to operate by my instinct, by common sense, or by my heart.

“How can you bring forward this claim that his story is fabricated just because it isn't in tune with your feelings?”

because I have a choice.

“ You cannot say his story is wrong, you can only say it is not compatible with your conscience.”

I can say both or either one or neither.

“So I guess you have no real objection to such a thief entering your house and stealing your money.”

I do.

“No comment!”

cool

“To which I replied that in that case there is no use reasoning with you, is there? Since your views and beliefs 'transcend' (read: contradict) logic and reason.”

Only applies to the concept of god, the way I conduct my self in society is me not god, and I learn this from god, gods teaching is the way god wants me to live in this creation never has god told us to be irrational in fact sikh means to learn, my teaching tells me that the concept of god is above my mental capability.

Regards

Have a nice day,

ISDhillon:)

[Trumble]

What do you mean by 'transcend' ? Either something goas against logic or it does not. We call the former 'illogical', 'logically incoherent' or 'self-contradictory'.

Logic is no more than a set of rules used to direct our reasoning capability. The rules we have apply only to nature as we understand it; we have no idea if they apply to nature as it really is, as it is understood or indeed created by God. Only He would have the infinite capacity to know and understand the real rules, as men we are hopelessly limited in that respect. That realisation, and the consequence that we can only 'understand' reality by direct experience rather than reason has been a common theme throughout history, and all religions have a mystical tradition that embraces it. We are unable to understand the 'real' rules, and we therefore cannot determine what is 'logical' or not in realms outside our experience.

What is being 'transcended' therefore is not God's logic (even assuming he can't change it at will) but our own, limited, powers of reason. A statement, or an event, may be "illogical" or "self-contradictory" to us, but not to God.

I do not believe in a God that is illogical, logically incoherent or self-contradicotry. For example, I would reject the notion of an uncreated being that is created, because that is simply a self-contradiction.

By the real rules, He could not be self-contractory... unless he changes them! By our rules, our understanding of reality, he could. The whole question of "the notion of an uncreated being that is created" is a human construct based on our limited understanding. It is not a case of what God or can't do; in terms of God the question itself is meaningless, as is that of the four-sided circle or the rock. They are all questions framed within our understanding and only permitting answers within our understanding. They involve mental constructs and labels (the words), and the answers - which may be demonstrated deductively, by inference, or whatever, only apply within that framework. God exists both within and outside it.

What do you mean by impossible? Impossible for whom? Do you mean illogical?

Impossible for us. It is not true that nothing is impossible for God, but we simply have no means of knowing what is or what isn't from within our limited frame of reference.

Is logic relative or absolute?

Relative, to us. There may well be an absolute logic, but again we are incapable of ever knowing it.

While I agree that the human mind cannot grasp the extent, measure or ultimate reality of God's attributes, I fail to see how that necessitates that God can contradict logic. A man from 2000 years ago may not understand how a computer works, but that doesn't mean it contradicts logic. He just doesn't understand the specific mechanism behind it.

Again, the difference is not in understanding but in the capacity to understand. The finite cannot even get a foothold on understanding the infinite. If we took our man from 2000 years ago, assuming he was reasonably bright, we could teach him in turn mathematics, electromagnetism, electronics, materials science, and computing until he knew as much about computers as any man alive. But understanding computers is within our capacity as human beings including our ancient, whose biggest barrier is more likely to be abandoning deep-rooted concepts such as miracles and witchcraft. Understanding God, or ultimate reality is not within our capacity. It never can be - if it were we would be gods ourselves. We can only experience, not understand.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi ISDhillion,
I've helped you out by correcting the formating of your post, but next time please use the quotation feature because it is very difficult to indentify your comments, otherwise.

Once again all you have to do is type QUOTE between [] before the comment you are quoting and /QUOTE between [] after the comment you are quoting. So it should look like:

[quote]other person's comment[/quote]

Please do this as it will make your posts readable.

It is youre response to trumble that was poised to suggest that transcend be replaced with illogical and I am saying that’s fine, I believe in the possibility of a self-contradictory god but that does not mean my religion is irrational, there is the concept of god and then the religion we follow, one can transcend rationality and one is rational, something rational came from something irrational this proves the self-contradictory nature of god.

Saying that something 'transcends' logic and rationality is just an excuse for not saying it is illogical or irrational. Give me any example of an illogical statement, and I can just say, "No it is not illogical it simply transcends logic" It is meaningless game of words.

Sikhism says god has a nature which can be self-contradictory whilst is religion is rational.

No, if you say that your religion transcends rationality and logic that you admit that your religioin is illogical and irrational.

So then there should be no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic, right?

most definitely.

Good. So you would have no objection if people around you did illogical things. If someone hit you on the head with a baseball bat because they thought you liked it, that would be irrational but you couldn't object to it because you believe that there is no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic.

the consciousness you refer to

Please consult a dictionary!! Conciousness is NOT the same as conscience!

I didn’t but I could also, there is sixth sense and there is rationale I can subject the thief to both, what right do I have? Who says I need one I have a choice to operate by my instinct, by common sense, or by my heart.

But you said that we should not bind others by our logic and our beliefs. So you believe that his story is fabricating, that's your problem. He doesn't think his story is fabricated, so therefore you have no right to impose your logic on him. According to your own view you should accept his explanation.

because I have a choice.

I have a choice too. But according to you I cannot subject Sikhism to Islamic views - I cannot say that something is worng because it is against Islam, I just have to say that it is incompatible with my beliefs. Likewise, you cannot say that this thief is wrong just because your conscience says so, you have to simply say that his explanation is not compatible with your beliefs.

I do.

What is your objection? You haven't responded to the argument at all. Please respond:

1. You say that there is no problem/objection if creation acts outside the bounds of logic
2. You have said that we should not subject others to our own logic (because you do not believe logic is absolute)
3. If a thief begins to steal from you and then when confronted he provides an illogical explanation, you cannot object to his behavior because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic
4. If someone hits you on the head with a stick because they think you like it, you cannot object to their behaviour because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic

By your own admission, your God, your religion, and other creation, can and do 'transcend' logic and rationality. In saying so, you have refuted yourself far better than anyone else could.

Only applies to the concept of god, the way I conduct my self in society is me not god

Oh, but you just said before that you had no objection if CREATION acted outside the bounds of rationality and logic and you said your RELIGION transcends rationality and logic.

Peace!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What is being 'transcended' therefore is not God's logic (even assuming he can't change it at will) but our own, limited, powers of reason. A statement, or an event, may be "illogical" or "self-contradictory" to us, but not to God.

But the issue here is understanding the mechanism, not the rules. It is not that the law of non-contradiction is somehow deficient or relative, we simply may not understand a concept perfectly in order to apply the law of non-contradiction to it. So something may seem illogical to a person who doesn't fully understand the mechanism behind the object/concept. THe problem is not that the rules of logic are relative or deficient, but our understanding of what we are applying the rules to may be deficient.

It is not a case of what God or can't do; in terms of God the question itself is meaningless, as is that of the four-sided circle or the rock.

I would with that as you can see from my answer linked.

Impossible for us.

No disagreement there.

But understanding computers is within our capacity as human beings including our ancient, whose biggest barrier is more likely to be abandoning deep-rooted concepts such as miracles and witchcraft.

The analogy can be drawn with others - a monkey, for example. A monkey may not understand the mechanism by which a machine functions, but that doesn't make it illogical.

[Trumble]

The analogy can be drawn with others - a monkey, for example. A monkey may not understand the mechanism by which a machine functions, but that doesn't make it illogical.

Illogical within our frame of reference or the monkey's?

Regardless, the analogy breaks down because there is a fundamental difference it does not address. There is no fundamental theoretical difference between man and monkey - indeed in other company I would argue that we are monkeys, and all our monkey has to do to understand computers is wait a few million years until his species evolves the intellect to do so! However, imagine that God creates another species, which I'm sure you'll agree He would be capable of doing, that is as far above us in intellectual capacity as we are above the monkey. He could then repeat the process, creating a species as far above the previous one as that one is above us, and so on, and so on. At no point would those creations get significantly closer to infinite intellectual capacity (think of it purely mathematically), and hence to being capable of understanding the infinite that God, and reality, is and must be.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Illogical within our frame of reference or the monkey's?

Illogical [period]

Regardless, the analogy breaks down because there is a fundamental difference it does not address.

You are correct that the analogy I have drawn compares

Intelligencehuman: Intelligencemonkey, where neither of the two are infinite, and you gave the example of progressively more intelligent creatures

Nevertheless, the analogy holds because [the limit of] Intelligencea / Intelligenceb as the latter -> infinite, is still zero.

So a creature with less intelligence and knowledge may not understand the mechanism, but that doesn't change whether it is logical or illogical.

Don't get me wrong - I never said that human beings have the intellectual capacity to understand all things, including God. I simply said that God is not illogical or contradictory, and the true does not contradict reason.

Regards

[ISDhillon]

Sorry Ansar Ji


I don’t have the time to be quoting stuff everyone else doesn’t have a problem with it so I don’t see why its so hard for you to follow,


“Saying that something 'transcends' logic and rationality is just an excuse for not saying it is illogical or irrational. Give me any example of an illogical statement, and I can just say, "No it is not illogical it simply transcends logic" It is meaningless game of words.”

Logic and illogical are opposites of a word, transcendence means going to a place where the word has no meaning if I were just playing with words I would have stopped arguing with you by now, we say it also with “good reason”.

“No, if you say that your religion transcends rationality and logic that you admit that your religioin is illogical and irrational.”

When I said I was referring to the nature of god not the whole religion. You can draw what ever conclusion pleases you or listen to what I have to say. And dont say no, transcending rationality never has amounted to illogical you can say it does but there you have it.



“Good. So you would have no objection if people around you did illogical things. If someone hit you on the head with a baseball bat because they thought you liked it, that would be irrational but you couldn't object to it because you believe that there is no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic.”

Why would hitting me over the head be illogical, you would have to use your logic to hit me over the head wouldn’t, including hand eye coordination, but this is not what you should have asked you should have asked is it possible if people can misbehave in society yes they can with full logic. I do not have problem with people being illogical like random events and spontaneity, but I do have a problem if those actions hurt me yes, but youre original question did not suggest such a thing and why would it?.

“Please consult a dictionary!! Conciousness is NOT the same as conscience!”

there are many interpretations logical ones and non-logical ones you go and consult a dictionary too:

• motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
• conformity to one's own sense of right conduct; "a person of unflagging conscience"
• a feeling of shame when you do something immoral; "he has no conscience about his cruelty"


The inherent knowledge or sense of right and wrong. Our conscience is the innate wisdom of our soul, along with all we have learned from our past lives.


“But you said that we should not bind others by our logic and our beliefs.”

True and I would not be the one who is binding on anyone the thief is infringing on me, no?

“According to your own view you should accept his explanation.”

Nope you’re the one who is confused.

“I just have to say that it is incompatible with my beliefs.”

Well done you can also say it is wrong from an Islamic perspective.

“you cannot say that this thief is wrong just because your conscience says so, you have to simply say that his explanation is not compatible with your beliefs.”

I don’t have to do neither the person infringes on my personal space I don’t wait for an explanation why would I?, natural defence mechanism, the person takes my things I take them back, I do not chop their hands off because those hands are not mine to chop, i probably give them a good beating cos I am angry but I don’t deliver it with prescriptive moral authority, live by you’re inner conscience and you will always be right. But youre problem is you don’t live by your inner conscience you use a book to judge others even if it gooes against your own conscience (soul) I am not asking people to live by my conscience I am asking all of us to live by our own conscience, if the theif lived by his conscience he would not be stealing. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale once said “physical death I do not fear, I fear a death of conscience”.

“1. You say that there is no problem/objection if creation acts outside the bounds of logic”

which is your conscience or flippancy

“2) You have said that we should not subject others to our own logic (because you do not believe logic is absolute)”

true we should all first learn to subject ourselves to our own higher consciousness

“3. If a thief begins to steal from you and then when confronted he provides an illogical explanation, you cannot object to his behavior because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic”

I believe I have more than answered this

“4. If someone hits you on the head with a stick because they think you like it, you cannot object to their behaviour because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic”

what you term as your logic is not your conscience

“By your own admission, your God, your religion, and other creation, can and do 'transcend' logic and rationality. In saying so, you have refuted yourself far better than anyone else could.”

Only because you see the transcendence of logic to mean illogical I mean really come on!, you change the defintion of a word to support youre argument its cheeky:heated:

“Oh, but you just said before that you had no objection if CREATION acted outside the bounds of rationality and logic and you said your RELIGION transcends rationality and logic.”

I don’t have an objection, but they can cos its possible, and they can choose not too cos that’s possible too. But with respect to gurbani only the concept of god has been self-contradictory not my religion but they can be illogical to if you want us to, so can you and when and if you do do something illogical like buy 2 million loaves of bread for a weeks shopping would i say you were false and did not exist, no I would say you have bought 1 million loaves of bread for a weeks worth of shopping period, which in terms of calculation is wrong but it still happened no?.

“simply said that God is not illogical or contradictory, and the true does not contradict reason.”

That is cos you give truth a character, when something is illogical it should remain illogical, truth has not been defined as logical, this is just a biased definition of reality. Absolute truth is ultimate reality which is god himself but I suppose that is the sikh concept and therefore biased also but I refuse to use a common frame of reference other than my religion it is an insult to do so.

Gurfateh!!:thankyou:

ISDhillon:)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don’t have the time to be quoting stuff everyone else doesn’t have a problem with it so I don’t see why its so hard for you to follow,

It is just a simple matter of showing courtesy to others, and the fact that you are unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Why deliberately make things difficult for others? You don't have time to type 'quote' ? Poor excuse.

Logic and illogical are opposites of a word

No, if something is not in accordance with logic it is illogical. There is no place where the words have no meaning.

“No, if you say that your religion transcends rationality and logic that you admit that your religioin is illogical and irrational.”

When I said I was referring to the nature of god not the whole religion. You can draw what ever conclusion pleases you or listen to what I have to say.

I'm all for listening to what you have to say, but then you should be clear about what you say. Several times on the forum you have said your religion transcends logic, now you admit that you have been inaccurate in your phrasing ALL ALONG.

“Good. So you would have no objection if people around you did illogical things. If someone hit you on the head with a baseball bat because they thought you liked it, that would be irrational but you couldn't object to it because you believe that there is no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic.”
Why would hitting me over the head be illogical, you would have to use your logic to hit me over the head wouldn’t, including hand eye coordination

Hitting someone on the head and thinking they enjoy being hit is illogical. And hand-eye coordination is not logic!! Please consult a dictionary!

You are arguing with me over logic when you are not aware of what logic is and what it isn't?

I do not have problem with people being illogical like random events and spontaneity, but I do have a problem if those actions hurt me yes

Why? Maybe according to you it is illogical, but according to them it is only logical to hurt you. Maybe according to their religion it is mandatory to hurt you because they believe you enjoy being hit so they want to give you pleasure. Illogical? Yes. From your stand point, can you object to it? No.

“Please consult a dictionary!! Conciousness is NOT the same as conscience!”

there are many interpretations logical ones and non-logical ones you go and consult a dictionary too:

• motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
• conformity to one's own sense of right conduct; "a person of unflagging conscience"
• a feeling of shame when you do something immoral; "he has no conscience about his cruelty"

Good; you have the definitions of conscience, now go look at the definitions for conciousness and you will see just how INCORRECT you were to equate the two!

“But you said that we should not bind others by our logic and our beliefs.”

True and I would not be the one who is binding on anyone the thief is infringing on me, no?

Not according to him!! He says that the wind forced his hands open and closed on your money. You are imposing your logic on him by considering his explanation false and considering him a wrongdoer.

“According to your own view you should accept his explanation.”

Nope you’re the one who is confused.

Easy to say that, but can you actually respond to the argument?

“I just have to say that it is incompatible with my beliefs.”

Well done you can also say it is wrong from an Islamic perspective.

According to you. So now you must also say that this thief is only wrong from your perspective and from his perspective he is not, so therefore you have no grounds to impose your perspective on him.

“you cannot say that this thief is wrong just because your conscience says so, you have to simply say that his explanation is not compatible with your beliefs.”

I don’t have to do neither the person infringes on my personal space I don’t wait for an explanation why would I?, natural defence mechanism, the person takes my things I take them back

But what if they are only your things according to your logic? Suppose someone comes and says that your car has sold itself to them and they try to steal it from you - according to their logic it belongs to them, according to yours it belongs to you. You think they are stealing from you, they think you are stealing from them. You have no right to object to them because you cannot force them to submit to your logic.

“1. You say that there is no problem/objection if creation acts outside the bounds of logic”

which is your conscience or flippancy

“2) You have said that we should not subject others to our own logic (because you do not believe logic is absolute)”

true we should all first learn to subject ourselves to our own higher consciousness

“3. If a thief begins to steal from you and then when confronted he provides an illogical explanation, you cannot object to his behavior because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic”

I believe I have more than answered this

I beg to differ!

“4. If someone hits you on the head with a stick because they think you like it, you cannot object to their behaviour because [according to you] we cannot subject others to our logic”

what you term as your logic is not your conscience

So?

Suppose someone says that whatever they can smell belongs to them because the smell has entered their body and therefore it's source belongs to them. So they steal your food, kidnap your family, etc. You think they are being illogical and doing wrong. They do not. They think they are claiming what rightfully belongs to them. You have no right to make them submit to your logic.

“Oh, but you just said before that you had no objection if CREATION acted outside the bounds of rationality and logic and you said your RELIGION transcends rationality and logic.”

I don’t have an objection, but they can cos its possible, and they can choose not too cos that’s possible too.

So you don't have an objection to someone who believes your house belongs to them, even though they are acting outside the bounds of logic.

but I refuse to use a common frame of reference other than my religion it is an insult to do so.

No problem. It must be fun to transcend logic. I'll be awaiting your response.

Peace.

[ISDhillon]

“No, if something is not in accordance with logic it is illogical. There is no place where the words have no meaning.”

This is your opinion, I have not said accordance I said can transcend there is a valid difference. This all comes down to your opinion that such a thing would be impossible I am surprised you even believe in a god there is no evidence all the signs are just signs they prove nothing.

“Several times on the forum you have said your religion transcends logic, now you admit that you have been inaccurate in your phrasing ALL ALONG.”

It depends on who I was answering to and the context of the question what about the responsibility of the person who is debating with me to get what I am saying. Infact the amount of times I have had to repeat myself is a record on this forum.

“Hitting someone on the head and thinking they enjoy being hit is illogical.”

Bdsm?

“You are arguing with me over logic when you are not aware of what logic is and what it isn't?”

if hand eye co-ordination is not apart of our logic then their must be times when logic is not being used? If so is that illogical because in youre definition their can only be something logical and illogical nothing else, look up gap theory and I wont be consulting a dictionary.

“Maybe according to you it is illogical, but according to them it is only logical to hurt you. Maybe according to their religion it is mandatory to hurt you because they believe you enjoy being hit so they want to give you pleasure. Illogical? Yes. From your stand point, can you object to it?”

there are a lot of maybe’s here, firstly it would not be illogical from my point of view it would be a bizarre event and obviously it is a pleasurable thing in some parts, that has nothing to do with logic I think youre confused, for eg, suicide bombers etc I don’t need to know whether or not the religious justification is logical I don’t think its logical or illogical I think it just “is” – I have never sat back and said suicide bombing is illogical never ever!, I have just thought its not for me I would rather kill someone with a gun where is the logic, this is opinion my friend not logic. Logic is about methodology of inquiry etc.


“Good; you have the definitions of conscience, now go look at the definitions for conciousness and you will see just how INCORRECT you were to equate the two!”

read the definitions you missed the last one:

“The inherent knowledge or sense of right and wrong. Our conscience is the innate wisdom of our soul, along with all we have learned from our past lives.”

“Not according to him!!”

that’s not the point if someone falls on you wont their be a reflex where is the logic and point of view in it? I may hear his explanation but by that time I have reacted to my defece.

“According to you”

no from the point of all religions.

“But what if they are only your things according to your logic?”

this proves you don’t know what logic is this would be my view youre confused.

“I beg to differ!”

can you actually answer the comment?

“So?”

so conscience is not logic but youre opion.

“Suppose someone says that whatever they can smell belongs to them because the smell has entered their body and therefore it's source belongs to them. So they steal your food, kidnap your family, etc. You think they are being illogical and doing wrong. They do not. They think they are claiming what rightfully belongs to them. You have no right to make them submit to your logic.”

Simple, they do something illogical by my opion yes? But they have done it so its possible? Yes. To say they would not cos its illogical is my opion yes?, but it still happens yes?, it does not matter whether we agree or not it happens therefore it is possible. so too is god the same.

ISDhillon

[Mohsin]

Dhillon it's not hard to use the quote button, all you do is highlight the part of the text you want to quote, and then press the quote button on it


For example:

<Insert Highlighted Text Here>

Edit: I tried to get pic bigger, but it would get too big to post

[ISDhillon]

Dhillon it's not hard to use the quote button, all you do is highlight the part of the text you want to quote, and then press the quote button on it


For example:




Edit: I tried to get pic bigger, but it would get too big to post

ok i get which one it is now thanks mate:thumbs_up

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I am surprised you even believe in a god there is no evidence all the signs are just signs they prove nothing.

Well that is a different topic altogether,

“Hitting someone on the head and thinking they enjoy being hit is illogical.”

Bdsm?

Not sure what you mean.

“You are arguing with me over logic when you are not aware of what logic is and what it isn't?”

if hand eye co-ordination is not apart of our logic then their must be times when logic is not being used?

Hand-eye coordination is not reasoning nor is it a case of using logic but it is still in accordance with logic.

“Maybe according to you it is illogical, but according to them it is only logical to hurt you. Maybe according to their religion it is mandatory to hurt you because they believe you enjoy being hit so they want to give you pleasure. Illogical? Yes. From your stand point, can you object to it?”

there are a lot of maybe’s here, firstly it would not be illogical from my point of view it would be a bizarre event and obviously it is a pleasurable thing in some parts, that has nothing to do with logic I think youre confused,

Not at all; please answer the question. You believe that people can act outside the bounds of logic and that we shouldn't object to them when they do. The fact is, if someone acted completely illogical with you for even 1 hour you would be fed up with them and want them locked in a mental asylum!

Yes, it is illogical to think that someone likes being hit on the head with a baseball bat because they make a loud noise or some other absurd reason. So if someone does this to you, you have no grounds to object because you don't believe that you can restrict others by your logic.

for eg, suicide bombers etc I don’t need to know whether or not the religious justification is logical I don’t think its logical or illogical I think it just “is” – I have never sat back and said suicide bombing is illogical never ever!, I have just thought its not for me I would rather kill someone with a gun where is the logic, this is opinion my friend not logic.

Right - if I just said someone was hitting you, that wouldn't really be a matter of logic. But if I said that they were hitting you because they thought you liked it, due to whatever absurd reasoning, that would be a case of logic.

“Good; you have the definitions of conscience, now go look at the definitions for conciousness and you will see just how INCORRECT you were to equate the two!”

read the definitions you missed the last one:

“The inherent knowledge or sense of right and wrong. Our conscience is the innate wisdom of our soul, along with all we have learned from our past lives.”

Not conciousness!

“Not according to him!!”

that’s not the point if someone falls on you wont their be a reflex where is the logic and point of view in it? I may hear his explanation but by that time I have reacted to my defece.

No, you open the door and you see the thief shoving your money into his pockets and bags, and he claims it is the wind forcing his hands open and closed. What he says is illogical, but according to you, you have no grounds to subject him to your logic. You should let him be and simply say that his view is incompatible with yours not that his view is wrong or fabricated.

“According to you”

no from the point of all religions.

From my point, I say something is wrong or illogical if it is.

“But what if they are only your things according to your logic?”

this proves you don’t know what logic is this would be my view youre confused.

Not so. Suppose you own a car. Someone else comes and claims that your car has sold itself to him. That is illogical. But that is what he believes. So you think he is wrongfully taking your things, but according to him he is taking what belongs to him. You think he is being logical, he thinks you are imposing your logic on him. How do you respond?

“I beg to differ!”

can you actually answer the comment?

You said I believe I have already answered this. Since I had already responded to your 'answer' and exposed its deficiency I said I beg to differ. What is left to answer?

“So?”

so conscience is not logic but youre opion.

If someone hits you on the head with a stick because they think you like it for whatever absurd reason, it is not a matter of conscience, it is being illogical.

“Suppose someone says that whatever they can smell belongs to them because the smell has entered their body and therefore it's source belongs to them. So they steal your food, kidnap your family, etc. You think they are being illogical and doing wrong. They do not. They think they are claiming what rightfully belongs to them. You have no right to make them submit to your logic.”

Simple, they do something illogical by my opion yes? But they have done it so its possible? Yes. To say they would not cos its illogical is my opion yes?, but it still happens yes?, it does not matter whether we agree or not it happens therefore it is possible.

So what is your response to them? According to their logic, the wealth is theirs, according to your logic it is yours. What can you do?

Peace

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Brother... why is your user name 'islam-sikhism'?
:w:

[Mohsin]

Brother... why is your user name 'islam-sikhism'?
:w:

The brother along with another bro is the aithor of this website refuting sikh doctrines http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/

I guess he calls himself Islam-Sikhism to mean that this is Islam's answer to Sikhism

[ISDhillon]

Well that is a different topic altogether

It’s the same for this discussion the validity of your arguments will always fail at you personal belief all you have is hope, you can prove nothing.

“

Not sure what you mean.”

Pain can be enjoyable

“

Hand-eye coordination is not reasoning nor is it a case of using logic but it is still in accordance with logic.”

So you believe that I have still used logic then ?

“Not at all; please answer the question. You believe that people can act outside the bounds of logic and that we shouldn't object to them when they do. The fact is, if someone acted completely illogical with you for even 1 hour you would be fed up with them and want them locked in a mental asylum!”

I believe if people lived by their conscience then we would not need a book to guide us on what is right, you believe that your book I logically and therefore true I believe god made man able to conduct himself in society without the use of a book, my religion teaches this. I probably would not be saying hey man youre illogical get out of my face but I would feel nervous, in fact something like this happened to me on the bus and I did not know how to react am I illogical too, I did not know what the appropriate course of action was when faced with a person who had lossed their mind, I eventually got up from my seat and sat somewhere else but my conscience also made me feel sorry for that person.

“Yes, it is illogical to think that someone likes being hit on the head with a baseball bat because they make a loud noise or some other absurd reason. So if someone does this to you, you have no grounds to object because you don't believe that you can restrict others by your logic.”

No that is not illogical that is madness it has nothing to do with logic, someone who hits someone over head cos they like the noise is someone who hits someone over the head cos they like the noise and guess what all that you deem as illogical does not exist but in youre examples they all do so why is it hard to believe that the creator who creates such unreasonale behaviour would not be the same cos again its down to your own opion.

“Right - if I just said someone was hitting you, that wouldn't really be a matter of logic. But if I said that they were hitting you because they thought you liked it, due to whatever absurd reasoning, that would be a case of logic.”

How do you know they wernt mad does anyone really draw such a conclusion who commit these acts or do they have a mental disorder? If someone sits down and formulates an idea which goes against my conscience then this proves that they do not feel they have god-consciousness to guide them they believe righteousness is constrained by a logical universe rather than the truth within.

“Not conciousness!”

The quote actually proves that conscience does not have one definition it did not say consciousness.!!!!!!!!!!!

“No, you open the door and you see the thief shoving your money into his pockets and bags, and he claims it is the wind forcing his hands open and closed. What he says is illogical, but according to you, you have no grounds to subject him to your logic. You should let him be and simply say that his view is incompatible with yours not that his view is wrong or fabricated.”

According to me? How many times do I say that my inner conscience will tell me whats what but you sneakily keep changing the anle of this and bring in stuff about imposing views and logic, it is neither man who lives by his conscience never goes wrong.

“From my point, I say something is wrong or illogical if it is.”

You say it is wrong or illogical from your point of view but not cos it is, because it exists and you also go on to say that something which is wrong from your point of view also cannot exist but it does? The thief may be wrong but he still exists, however when it comes to god in your view, god cannot be wrong and exist.

“Not so. Suppose you own a car. Someone else comes and claims that your car has sold itself to him. That is illogical. But that is what he believes. So you think he is wrongfully taking your things, but according to him he is taking what belongs to him. You think he is being logical, he thinks you are imposing your logic on him. How do you respond?”

Firstly a person who does this must have a mental problem or they are being deliberate therefore going against their conscience, from my view this unfair, from his view it is fair and to him he is very much right, or it would appear, but I don’t know his reality but his rightful view still exists and my rightful view which is opposite to his still exists at the same time.

“You said I believe I have already answered this. Since I had already responded to your 'answer' and exposed its deficiency I said I beg to differ. What is left to answer?”

An explanation of how my argument is deficient

“If someone hits you on the head with a stick because they think you like it for whatever absurd reason, it is not a matter of conscience, it is being illogical.”

No it isn’t they could be mad do you know the reason evidently not cos you say for whatever reason it is illogical what logic did you use in assessing the situation, raw impulse is the basis of you’re assessment of this situation. Without a reasonable assessment of the stickbasher what was the basis of youre logical deduction.

“So what is your response to them? According to their logic, the wealth is theirs, according to your logic it is yours. What can you do?”

Act according to my conscience,

Peace
:happy:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

It’s the same for this discussion

No it is not the same. The discussion on the existence of God has been done in several other threads, we don't need to derail this thread as well.

Pain can be enjoyable

Good.

So you believe that I have still used logic then ?

Please re-read what I wrote:

Ansar Al-'Adl Hand-eye coordination is NOT reasoning NOR is it a case of using logic but it is still in accordance with logic.

I just said, in no uncertain terms, that it is NOT a case of using logic, and now you are asking me if I think it is a case of using logic!

I logically and therefore true I believe god made man able to conduct himself in society without the use of a book, my religion teaches this. I probably would not be saying hey man youre illogical get out of my face but I would feel nervous, in fact something like this happened to me on the bus and I did not know how to react am I illogical too, I did not know what the appropriate course of action was when faced with a person who had lossed their mind, I eventually got up from my seat and sat somewhere else but my conscience also made me feel sorry for that person.

None of which answers my argument. You claim on one hand that you feel it is okay for creation to act out of the bounds of logic, yet on the other hand you object and believe it is wrong when they do. You need to make up your mind. Is it okay for people to act outside the bounds of logic or is it not okay?

No that is not illogical that is madness it has nothing to do with logic

You are hiding behind synonyms again. People are considered 'mad' or 'insane' [in the colloquial use of the words] when they act in an irrational, unreasonable and illogical manner. If someone is flapping their arms and trying to fly, you would say, "have you gone mad??" because they are acting in an irrational manner. So the fact that you admit it is madness is proof that you feel it is illogical and irrational behaviour.

So again: You claim creation should be able to act outside the bounds of logic and reason, yet when they do, you object and label them 'mad'!

How do you know they wernt mad does anyone really draw such a conclusion who commit these acts or do they have a mental disorder?

Yes, normally you would only find someone doing this if they had a mental disorder because all people are against acting in an illogical manner. All people except you. Since you believe that creation can act outside the bounds of logic, you could very likely become that man with the stick doing illogical things.

The quote actually proves that conscience does not have one definition it did not say consciousness.!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree it does not say conciousness!!!!!!!!!

According to me? How many times do I say that my inner conscience will tell me whats what but you sneakily keep changing the anle of this and bring in stuff about imposing views and logic, it is neither man who lives by his conscience never goes wrong.

No, you're the one who is playing word games. When faced with the fact that you would use simple reason, basic logic, and common sense to tell you that the man was not telling the truth, you choose instead to say you would use your conscience to tell you the man was not telling the truth. The only reason you do this is to avoid having to admit that you would use logic and reason, and thus be conceding my argument. Sorry Dhillon, but by definition you are using logic and reason to refute the thief's explanation. By definition.

You say it is wrong or illogical from your point of view but not cos it is, because it exists and you also go on to say that something which is wrong from your point of view also cannot exist but it does? The thief may be wrong but he still exists, however when it comes to god in your view, god cannot be wrong and exist.

Two things:
1. The thief is justifying his actions according to flawed and illogical reasoning. The thief himself is not illogical or self-contradictory. The same cannot be said for your view of God.
2. I could expect human beings to fall prey to poor reasoning and irrationality but not God.

Firstly a person who does this must have a mental problem

No. What if they share your view that they can act outside the bounds of logic? What if they just want to act outside the bounds of logic?

An explanation of how my argument is deficient

As above.

No it isn’t they could be mad do you know

They're not mad. They just share your view that creation can act outside the bounds of logic.

Peace
:happy:

Thank you for using the quotation system! :)

Peace.

[Soldier2000]

Dhillion

It’s getting embarrassing!

Your clearly unable to defend yourself intelligently,

- Twisting words-
- Hiding behind words
- Affirming acts of madness as logical behaviour,
- Stating that your will learn from God, when you admit that he transcends rationale#

list goes on!

[ISDhillon]

“No it is not the same. The discussion on the existence of God has been done in several other threads, we don't need to derail this thread as well.”

Yet we will reach the same conclusion, watch and see.

“Good.”

So logic and illogic exist at the same time your in aggreance?

“but it is still in accordance with logic.”

So logic is still apart of it otherwise it cannot be in accordance a self-contradictory statement from yourself, I hope you are getting this aswell solier 2000 not just what the kafir says.

“I just said, in no uncertain terms, that it is NOT a case of using logic, and now you are asking me if I think it is a case of using logic!”

in accordance with logic? Explain how it is in accordance with logic but logic is not used at the same time please.

“None of which answers my argument. You claim on one hand that you feel it is okay for creation to act out of the bounds of logic, yet on the other hand you object and believe it is wrong when they do. You need to make up your mind. Is it okay for people to act outside the bounds of logic or is it not okay?”

no because this is about subjective reality, it is ok for the one who I object too it is not ok for the one who it is done too this is the sentiment behind it being okay for creation act outside the bounds of logic and it is not a hard concept to grasp, your struggle is not about logic or contradiction it is the definition of absolute truth that you are stumbling upon. I define truth differently to you an lo and behold this sentence will be branded as “none of which answer my question”.

“You are hiding behind synonyms again.”

You are trying to find parallels because youre argument has been weakened i will show how mad is not an alternative to illogical.

“People are considered 'mad' or 'insane' [in the colloquial use of the words] when they act in an irrational, unreasonable and illogical manner.”

Nope youre redefining words to suit youre argument type define mad into google I could not find a definition like yours:

• huffy: roused to anger; "stayed huffy a good while"- Mark Twain; "she gets mad when you wake her up so early"; "mad at his friend"; "sore over a remark"
• brainsick: affected with madness or insanity; "a man who had gone mad"
• delirious: marked by uncontrolled excitement or emotion; "a crowd of delirious baseball fans"; "something frantic in their gaiety"; "a mad whirl of pleasure"
• harebrained: very foolish; "harebrained ideas"; "took insane risks behind the wheel"; "a completely mad scheme to build a bridge between two mountains" (this one is in terms of being whacky not a quack ISDhillon)

Insanity (sometimes, madness) is a semi-permanent severe disorder of the mind, typically as a result of mental illness.


For something to be illogical requires a person to conclude nonsense, do you think if mental people could use their brains they would be sectioned and soldier 2000 has the nerve to attack me, my logical conclusion is that you are all in cahoots.

“So the fact that you admit it is madness is proof that you feel it is illogical and irrational behaviour.”

Read the above

“So again: You claim creation should be able to act outside the bounds of logic and reason, yet when they do, you object and label them 'mad'!”

Read the above!!!! The fact that mad people in themselves are acting outside the bounds of logic is proof that transcendinG rationale is not irrational because mad is not irrational, read the above!!!!!!!

“Yes, normally you would only find someone doing this if they had a mental disorder because all people are against acting in an illogical manner.”

For something to be branded illogical requires (from the dictionary):

• lacking in correct logical relation
• confused: lacking orderly continuity; "a confused set of instructions"; "a confused dream about the end of the world"; "disconnected fragments of a story"; "scattered thoughts"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

the 2 require use of the brain which mental patients cannot do, you keep using words like normally and maybe, and sometimes and one of my favourites in no uncertain terms, but these are all used to mask one simple fact that illogical has nothing to do with being flippant and spontaneous and unpredictable, it requires a nonsensical pattern of thought. Being mad – unable to use youre brain. Being irrational – being able to use your brain but arriving at a conclusion that is not logical. I do hope you don’t start preaching my heavy reliance on semantics et al cos I stand firmly with all I have said and we will be composing a little internet site of our own soon and then we will invite you all for discussion.

Btw the definition of irrational also:

• not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
• real but not expressible as the quotient of two integers; "irrational numbers"
• irrational number: a real number that cannot be expressed as a rational number
and what of the poor schizophrenic? Who actually hears voices.

“I agree it does not say conciousness!!!!!!!!!”

yes it says conscience is spiritual and you said that only consciousness can be defined that way, don’t go back on yourself without admitting youre wrong first cos when I do it I get advertised on a website for all to see lol.

“

No, you're the one who is playing word games. “

this is a sikh discussion and my guru tells man to live by his bibek buddhi should I lie and play by youre rules?

“When faced with the fact that you would use simple reason, basic logic, and common sense to tell you that the man was not telling the truth, you choose instead to say you would use your conscience to tell you the man was not telling the truth. “

read the above

“The only reason you do this is to avoid having to admit that you would use logic and reason, and thus be conceding my argument. Sorry Dhillon, but by definition you are using logic and reason to refute the thief's explanation. By definition.”

Read the above and not that this will matter. From the bottom of my heart you still don’t understand me and this is poor logic.

“Two things:
1. The thief is justifying his actions according to flawed and illogical reasoning. The thief himself is not illogical or self-contradictory. The same cannot be said for your view of God.”

That’s great but now youre talking about man who has a mind not the nature of gods spirit? And if god is all pervading the he subsumes both and creates both points of view existing and dwelling within all views, logical and illogic. It also reaches the conclusion that the argument for atheism does that you have ne proof that he would not other than you opinion of god. For 2 opposite realities to exist at one time is not only possible with human beings but with religions too then god must have a self-contradictory nature otherwise why would he cause the existence of such religions, the religions exist to deny their existence needs a reason other than they are in conflict because an incomprensible and all powerful god does not obey any rule. And the thief evidently does not agree that his actions are flawed this is their reality too and as much valid to them as they are for you, so now only the powerful win not the ones most righteous, because both believe they are righteous.

“2. I could expect human beings to fall prey to poor reasoning and irrationality but not God.”

Youre opinion, not my concern.

“No. What if they share your view that they can act outside the bounds of logic? What if they just want to act outside the bounds of logic?”

then they are going against theyre conscience in the first place which my religion teaches us to live by.

“They're not mad. They just share your view that creation can act outside the bounds of logic.”

Yet being mad is illogical, so too is one who transcends logic, but in this instance you use arguments which refutes all you’re own past assertions. An immoral act with an illogical undercurrent is the theme of you’re carefully constructed quote, my answer is simple the man is superman and I still want my things back then he can show me how its done over a nice cup of pg tips.

“Thank you for using the quotation system! ”

thank moss.:)

ISDhillon

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

So logic and illogic exist at the same time your in aggreance?

No, I did not agree to that.

So logic is still apart of it otherwise it cannot be in accordance

AGAIN - It is in accordance with logic but it doesn't involve reasoning. I am sitting on a chair - the notion of a person sitting on a chair is not illogical, it is in accordance with logic. But it doesn't involve reasoning in and of itself.

in accordance with logic? Explain how it is in accordance with logic but logic is not used at the same time please.

Sure. When you move your hand, that is based on instinctive transfer of signals through different parts of your body. Animals do it too. But it is not reasoning or using logic. At the same time, the action itself does not contradict logic (i.e. it is not illogical) so it can be deemed in accordance with logic.

no because this is about subjective reality, it is ok for the one who I object too it is not ok for the one who it is done too

So it is okay for the thief to provide you with an illogical explanation as to why he is stealing your money? It is okay for the man with the stick to beat you on the head with it, since he thinks it is good according to his flawed reasoning? It is okay for the other person to come and take your car, your house, your family - everything - because according to his logic it belongs to him. It is okay for them, just not okay for you, right? So therefore, you have no grounds to object because you agree that they are doing something that is okay for them.

You are trying to find parallels because youre argument has been weakened i will show how mad is not an alternative to illogical.

Nope youre redefining words to suit youre argument type define mad into google I could not find a definition like yours:

• huffy: roused to anger; "stayed huffy a good while"- Mark Twain; "she gets mad when you wake her up so early"; "mad at his friend"; "sore over a remark"

This is talking about anger, not relevant.

• brainsick: affected with madness or insanity; "a man who had gone mad"

Right, insanity. Insanity according to the Oxford American English Dictionary is

extreme foolishness or irrationality

And irrationality is defined as

Insanity (sometimes, madness) is a semi-permanent severe disorder of the mind, typically as a result of mental illness.

And it is often characterized by irrational behavior as in the case of the man hitting you on the head.

For something to be illogical requires a person to conclude nonsense, do you think if mental people could use their brains they would be sectioned

Like I said, you only conclude that they are mad because they are behaving in an irrational manner.

Read the above!!!! The fact that mad people in themselves are acting outside the bounds of logic is proof that transcendinG rationale is not irrational because mad is not irrational, read the above!!!!!!!

I have and madness, as you used the word, is characterized by irrational behaviour. The only reason you labeled the person as mad is because they were behaving in an irrational manner so you assumed that their mental faculties must have been compromised otherwise they would have not fallen into such irrationality.

For something to be branded illogical requires (from the dictionary):

• lacking in correct logical relation
• confused: lacking orderly continuity; "a confused set of instructions"; "a confused dream about the end of the world"; "disconnected fragments of a story"; "scattered thoughts"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Irrational is defined according to the american oxford english dictionary

not endowed with the power of reason

So if you are acting in an irratonal manner it means that either
1. You do not have the ability to reason
2. You are not using your ability to reason

There is no other option!!

yes it says conscience is spiritual and you said that only consciousness can be defined that way

When did I say that?? Please show me!

Read the above

Done that. And yet I repeat:

by definition you are using logic and reason to refute the thief's explanation. By definition.

That’s great but now youre talking about man who has a mind not the nature of gods spirit? And if god is all pervading the he subsumes both and creates both points of view existing and dwelling within all views, logical and illogic. It also reaches the conclusion that the argument for atheism does that you have ne proof that he would not other than you opinion of god.

See my arguments in the threads on atheism.

For 2 opposite realities to exist at one time is not only possible with human beings but with religions too then god must have a self-contradictory nature otherwise why would he cause the existence of such religions, the religions exist to deny their existence needs a reason other than they are in conflict because an incomprensible and all powerful god does not obey any rule.

No. The religions are devitations from the one true path He has ordained.

And the thief evidently does not agree that his actions are flawed

But we aren't mentally disabled and we can use simple reason to see why his actions are flawed and illogical. Likewise, the illogical doctrines of many religions can be exposed through simple logic, and the one true path ordained by God becomes evident.

So you are analogous to the illogical thief, the madman with the stick, and the guy who takes all your things.

then they are going against theyre conscience

Your conscience, not theirs.

Yet being mad is illogical, so too is one who transcends logic

So you just admitted that you think your God is mad.

but in this instance you use arguments which refutes all you’re own past assertions.

Not so.

my answer is simple the man is superman and I still want my things back then he can show me how its done over a nice cup of pg tips.

Show how what's done? He wants your stuff because he claims it is his and he uses illogical arguments to justify his claim.

Peace.

[ISDhillon]

“AGAIN - It is in accordance with logic but it doesn't involve reasoning. I am sitting on a chair - the notion of a person sitting on a chair is not illogical, it is in accordance with logic. But it doesn't involve reasoning in and of itself.”

No it is doesn’t this is illogical, when you are sitting you are sitting period, logic s not necessary all the time this proves it just saying the opposite to what I say doesn’t validate youre disagreement in the first instance, which is what I feel you are doing you are not showing how it is in accordance with logic in fact I don’t know what to make of your is and is not phenomenon other than self-conradictory.

“Sure. When you move your hand, that is based on instinctive transfer of signals through different parts of your body. “

yet my instinct is referred to as logic when reacting to the thief, words do not just have meaning when and where it supports your argument, this is another example of how you have contradicted yourself.

“So it is okay for the thief to provide you with an illogical explanation as to why he is stealing your money? “

from his reality yes from mine no and they both exist at the same time., just cos something is ok for one person does not mean it is ok for me ofcourse I would let my instinct direct me also. The uncanny similarity of confusion between yourself and islam-sikhism is too much, how can it be ok for me if someone takes my stuff when it goes against my conscience just because I say everyone has their own reality does not mean I should let it takeover my own, but I could also that would be another choice, its always a possibility.

“Right, insanity. Insanity according to the Oxford American English Dictionary is
extreme foolishness or irrationality”

I could not find that definition anywhere, you are really scraping the barrel with that one, I win the definition argument.

“And it is often characterized by irrational behavior as in the case of the man hitting you on the head.”

True I have no argument with this but that does not support youre argument that logic was involved.

“Like I said, you only conclude that they are mad because they are behaving in an irrational manner.”

No you don’t you section them cos of their behaviour is irrational, spontaneous, unpredictable many things, you use the word irrational because that would support youre argument but it is one of many symptoms my friend I would know I have studied psychology and counselling. With respect you are making this up as you go along.

“I have and madness, as you used the word, is characterized by irrational behaviour. “

nope not only irrational but all the other stuff which defies irrationality, what is irrational about someone committing suicide cos they are suspicious of everyone around them, do you know why they are suspicious, have you lived with them then who are you to say that their behaviour is irrational it may be solution to their own psychosis it has nothing to do with irrationality. And what of the possessed? They are not even in control of their faculties sao how would they be able to make an irrational decision? Irrationality is a tiny speck on what it means to be mad and insane.

“Irrational is defined according to the american oxford english dictionary
not endowed with the power of reason
So if you are acting in an irratonal manner it means that either
1. You do not have the ability to reason
2. You are not using your ability to reason”

But this supports my argument that there is no such thing as illogical and logical in mad people because to be illogical maens arriving at a conclusion which is inconsistent with logic, but mad people cant even try to be illogical, which shows there is more than just the 2. but erroneously you claim victory as always I do hope you will see sense. Ie an unability to reason render a person unable to form a logical or illogical conclusion.

“ When did I say that?? Please show me!”

conscience is by youre definition simply youre logic I said it was not and then proved it with the definition, you brought up the stuff about consciousness and the confuusion we arrived here.

“by definition you are using logic and reason to refute the thief's explanation. By definition.”

By definition my soul is not my mind, by definition!!!!!!

“See my arguments in the threads on atheism.”

No thanks if you cant answer it here I wont be reading up on anything else.

“No. The religions are devitations from the one true path He has ordained. “

your opion is contradictory to reality as we know today so is therefore devoid of any qualification, my religion however answers and the answer works, no more debate no more doubt, yours is a never-ending story some may say a fairytale.

“But we aren't mentally disabled and we can use simple reason to see why his actions are flawed and illogical. “

you don’t get it it does not matter what you come to conclude for someone else for that person their reality is right

“Likewise, the illogical doctrines of many religions can be exposed through simple logic, and the one true path ordained by God becomes evident.”

Well they have tried with Sikhism but failed miserabely havnt you read the site up above it’s a joke just wait until the sikh scholars start the new site they will be ashamed of their very existence. No, Sikhism is the only answer because we do not need to prove truth logically, when you asssigne the nature of god to be divine truth then logic is something that we use to live in society trumble has explained this beautifully somewhere on this thread. Youre line of questioning is also derived from old school evangelist apologetics it never worked then and it wont work now, experience is greater than hope and one of my favourites “those who live their lives on false presuppositions live a life of error no matter how consistent they are”.

“Your conscience, not theirs.”

Theirs if it is deliberate.

“So you just admitted that you think your God is mad.”

No I was showing that that is what I have derived from your assertion, and I don’t believe god has a mind I personally think that is the most stupid thing religions have come up with yet.

“Not so.”

Yep indeedy!!

“Show how what's done? He wants your stuff because he claims it is his and he uses illogical arguments to justify his claim.”

Show me how he flew through the window etc what else?

Please advise:)

ISDhillon

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

logic s not necessary all the time this proves it just saying the opposite to what I say doesn’t validate youre disagreement in the first instance, which is what I feel you are doing you are not showing how it is in accordance with logic

I already explained this; there is no use of reasoning, but the fact itself is still in accordance with logic. It is not illogical for a person to be sitting on a chair, but it is possible for a person to be sitting on the chair while not using reasoning and logic to do so. This is a very simple concept.

yet my instinct is referred to as logic when reacting to the thief

Your desire to defend your property is instinct, I agree. But your decision that the thief's explanation in incoherent and fabricated is not. Again, this is very simple and easy to understand. There's no contradictions.

from his reality yes from mine no and they both exist at the same time., just cos something is ok for one person does not mean it is ok for me

So it is okay for him provide you with an illogical explanation as to why he is stealing your money.

I could not find that definition anywhere

I already told you where it was. Oxford American English Dictionary. You haven't won any argument.

“And it is often characterized by irrational behavior as in the case of the man hitting you on the head.”

True I have no argument with this

Good. So you agree that the man would be acting in an irrational manner, and hence you would classify him as 'mad and object to his actions. So now you agree that you can object to such behaviour because it is unreasonable.

No you don’t you section them cos of their behaviour is irrational, spontaneous, unpredictable many things, you use the word irrational because that would support youre argument but it is one of many symptoms

You're right but look at what you have done!!

1. Man is acting in an irrational manner
2. You classify him as mad
3. You concede to my point that the irrational behavior is a characteristic of madness
4. But then you say that there are many other symptoms of madness

Well the symptom that was discussed in my example was irrational behaviour!!

But this supports my argument that there is no such thing as illogical and logical in mad people because to be illogical maens arriving at a conclusion which is inconsistent with logic

No, one can be acting in an irrational behavior if they are simply not using their ability to reason.

conscience is by youre definition simply youre logic I said it was not and then proved it with the definition, you brought up the stuff about consciousness and the confuusion we arrived here.

Please go back and reread!! YOU brought up conciousness!

I said:

But as I pointed out in the same thread, what you refer to as your 'conscience' is simply your logic and reason.
(click here for post)

And you replied:

the consciousness you refer to is not the consciousness I refer to I am talking about god-consciousness I like to call it the “intuitive inner directive”(click here for post)

By definition my soul is not my mind, by definition!!!!!!

And???

No thanks if you cant answer it here I wont be reading up on anything else.

Answer what? What I believe concerning the existence of God? I have already provided my arguments in the threads on atheism. Why are you trying to switch topics? Your arguments have deteriorated completely here, so now you are frantically trying to move on to something else?

your opion is contradictory to reality as we know today

Prove it.

my religion however answers and the answer works

Your religion [or at least your representation of it] answers by saying, "There is nothing wrong with being illogical!" Quite the answer!

you don’t get it it does not matter what you come to conclude for someone else for that person their reality is right

No, people are not stubborn donkeys, at least most of them aren't. Most often when you show someone the flaw in their reasoning and why it is illogical they accept it. You are the first person I have seen who does not, and instead claims that there is nothing wrong with acting outside the bounds of logic!

Well they have tried with Sikhism but failed miserabely

What is there left to expose about a religion whose adherents openly proclaim to transcend logic!!

and I don’t believe god has a mind I personally think that is the most stupid thing religions have come up with yet.

Is He mindless??

Show me how he flew through the window etc what else?

As for the fellow who claims to have flown through the window because of a strong breeze, if you ask him to prove that it is possible for a human being to fly through a window you are using logic, and he doesn't want to be subjected to your logic.

Regards

[ISDhillon]

“I already explained this; there is no use of reasoning, but the fact itself is still in accordance with logic. It is not illogical for a person to be sitting on a chair, but it is possible for a person to be sitting on the chair while not using reasoning and logic to do so. This is a very simple concept.”

No ansar you have not explained anything, something is in accordance with logic although youre not using it?, but I get slated for accepting the possibility of a contradiction, their isn’t even one perspective way of looking at it when considering the word “accordance”. But a person cannot be able to do stuff without the use of reasoning, if I react then I must have not used logic or reasoning but acted in accordance right?, so what would you call the opposite of someone who does not act in accordance with logic and reason, perhaps they don’t sit directly on the chair just on the floor next to it. This is all very confusing I suggest you rethink it and get back to me.

“Your desire to defend your property is instinct, I agree.”

What about reacting in fear where is the logic in that? You don’t logically practice your raw impulses you live them out instantaneously how is this in accordance with logic? Therefore logic is not absolute.

“ But your decision that the thief's explanation in incoherent and fabricated is not. Again, this is very simple and easy to understand. There's no contradictions.”

I agree but what I am saying is that this would be right only if that was the case, but we don’t always use our logic, sometimes we just react. Then is a reaction illogical when not logically derived or is it just that a simple reaction. You see I think I am trying to explain to you that words in themselves are transitory you try to explain something witht helimited words available and sometimes you can try all you want to explain youre feelings but a word may just be unavailable then how would you define youre experience other than accept that it is the reality of you and only you can be the best judge of you. Do you get me?

“So it is okay for him provide you with an illogical explanation as to why he is stealing your money.”

To me it is wrong to him it is right, it is okay for him to provide whatever explanation he feels he needs to give because I don’t need to hear it fullstop, if someone infringes on me that’s it I don’t need an explanation, but then is that illogical of me?

“You haven't won any argument.”

But then why have I got a gold medal lol

“So you agree that the man would be acting in an irrational manner, and hence you would classify him as 'mad and object to his actions. So now you agree that you can object to such behaviour because it is unreasonable.”

You read only what tickles your ears, irrational behaviour is only one facet of a mad or insane person you then tie this into the stick basher argument I suggest you read my post more carefully. This is getting tiring.

“Well the symptom that was discussed in my example was irrational behaviour!!”

yet the whole argument stems from the idea of the transcendence of rationale having nothing to do with being illogical, to be illogical requires the use of reason to be inconsistent with logic, but your own dictionary renders a mad person who is irrational to be without the power of reason that is what this whole discussion was about.

“No, one can be acting in an irrational behavior if they are simply not using their ability to reason.”

So you still don’t make an illogical conclusion then?, it does not matter whether the ability or non-ability, the fact is that you can only label someone illogical if they make as error using their reason, therefore a mad person is nether logical or illogical.

Btw I still need a point of internet reference for youre definition I cant take youre word for it.

“Your arguments have deteriorated completely here, so now you are frantically trying to move on to something else?”

I don’t shy away from confrontation or debate, again this is all in your head, irrational perhaps.

“Prove it.”

You deny the existence of many religions which is a reality and definitely illogical, therefore those which deny something need to prove that the reality does not exist otherwise why make a claim in the first place?, the religions will still exist they do not disappear because you refuse to acknowledge them they are a living proof that god creates more than one path, it is you who cannot and never will be able to prove it if you could then you would but you cant simple as buddy, plenty jump with joy thinking they have found a universal truth they run about in glee until someone else comes along and goes one step further and everyone is back to square one, in my religion it is an ability of god to create sovereign doctrines that’s all the proof I need.

“Your religion [or at least your representation of it] answers by saying, "There is nothing wrong with being illogical!" Quite the answer!”

yes quite, but what did you hope to achieve by making such a comment, you have made not position on the issue that Sikhism does have the answers for the whole of mankind.

“No, people are not stubborn donkeys, at least most of them aren't. Most often when you show someone the flaw in their reasoning and why it is illogical they accept it. You are the first person I have seen who does not, and instead claims that there is nothing wrong with acting outside the bounds of logic!”

oh really?, I suggest you take a course on post-modernism you will eat your words or be stubborn like the donkey but in any case you’re personal opinion will not set you free.

“What is there left to expose about a religion whose adherents openly proclaim to transcend logic!!”

god is left and i have said plenty of times to you and islam sikhism that god transcends logic but you seem to keep throwing this in my face i think perhaps when i strike the islam-sikhism site i may have also bruised youre nose too, again youre personal opinion is that when someone says they transcend logic then that must mean the opposite ie, illogical, yet the translation of the word transcendent is in itself inconsistent with youre personal opinion:

• that which is beyond our senses and experience. Existing apart from matter.
www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm
• Pertaining to God as exalted above the universe
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm
• Above and beyond the ordinary, the concrete, the tangible, ie, God.
dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/theo305/glossary.htm
• Very excellent; superior or supreme in excellence; surpassing others; as transcendent worth; transcendent valor. Cloth’d with transcendent brightness. -Milton.
www.angelfire.com/ok3/eache/washingtondef.html
• beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding; "philosophers...often explicitly reject the notion of any transcendent reality beyond thought...and claim to be concerned only with thought itself..."- W.P.Alston; "the unknowable mysteries of life"
• exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence


I am sure the American dictionary will probably have something spectacular to say please advise.

“Is He mindless??”

in Sikhism god did not make man In the image of himself, god is pure spirit. chit is consciousness which is the instinctive part of man inherent in his being, but god does not have a brain he does have consciousness though but that’s spiritual. You know we believe that the soul is affecting the mind and body all the time even though we don’t realise it. And the past inheres in the present even previous lives.

“if you ask him to prove that it is possible for a human being to fly through a window you are using logic, and he doesn't want to be subjected to your logic.”

How do you know what he does and doesn’t want you seem to rewrite this play as you see fit, let me try, the man has supernatural power and defies all logic lol.

Good night I’ll sort you out in the morning,;D


ISDhillon

[Islam-Sikhism]

Asalaamu 'alaykum

Please read our latest response to I. S. Dhillon absurd defence of the indefensible:

http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/com/isd/isd2.htm

Any suggestion, comments, etc. are welcome insha'Allaah.

Jazakumullaahu khair

Wa salaam

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

No ansar you have not explained anything, something is in accordance with logic although youre not using it?

I think I've explained this multiple times, you just continue to ignore my explanation. Take another example - blinking. There is no reasoning involved in the action of blinking. But that doesn't mean that it is illogical to blink. Can you not understand how someone can assert that the action of blinking is in accordance with logic, while at the same time it does not involve reasoning or the use of logic to perform the action? What are you having difficulty understanding about this?

But a person cannot be able to do stuff without the use of reasoning

Sure they can. When a person is asleep they are still breathing but they are not using logic and reasoning to breathe. And yet, the action of breathing is still in accordance with logic.

I'm giving you clear examples that you continue to ignore.

What about reacting in fear where is the logic in that?

There is none. It is instinct. But the actions themselves that you do (eg. jumping, grabbing leaping, etc.) are in accordance with logic. You just didn't have to use logic or reasoning to perform those actions.

You are confusing yourself by mixing two issues. I asked you about your using logic to reject the thief's explanation and instead you brought up the issue about physical actions and whether they contradict logic.

I agree but what I am saying is that this would be right only if that was the case, but we don’t always use our logic, sometimes we just react.

But I'm not asking you about that. I am asking you about why you reject the thief's explanation. You are confusing the issue yourself by brining in as many possible other ideas as you can.

Then is a reaction illogical when not logically derived or is it just that a simple reaction.

The reaction itself could be either reasoned out or done on the basis of instinct. eg. John was so angry about failing his test so he punched the wall.

The reaction itself can then be analysed to determine whether it was a reasonable/rational response to the situation or an unreasonable/irrational response. eg. John did not act in a reasonable way.

To say that someone performed such an action is not illogical i.e. the idea of a person doing these actions -whether reasonable or unreasonable - will be in accordance with logic.
eg1. "John hit the wall" - not unreasonable
eg2. "John flew threw the wall" - unreasonable

To me it is wrong to him it is right

Good. So you have no right to object to his behavior because he is doing what he thinks is right and in accordance with his logic and you are doing what you think is right and in accordance with your logic.

if someone infringes on me that’s it I don’t need an explanation

But the guy who comes and takes your car, house and family doesn't think he is infringing on you. According to his flawed reasoning he is doing what he thinks is right.

You read only what tickles your ears, irrational behaviour is only one facet of a mad or insane person you then tie this into the stick basher argument I suggest you read my post more carefully.

Yes the stick basher is acting irrational. And that is why I would object to his behaviour. You on the other hand believe it is alright for creation to act outside of the bounds for logic so you cannot object to his behaviour. You'd get some serious head injuries.

So you still don’t make an illogical conclusion then?, it does not matter whether the ability or non-ability, the fact is that you can only label someone illogical if they make as error using their reason, therefore a mad person is nether logical or illogical.

But his behavior can be either irrational or rational.

Btw I still need a point of internet reference for youre definition I cant take youre word for it.

It is in the Oxford American English Dictionary. You will have to find some real sources outside the internet; try your local library.

You deny the existence of many religions which is a reality and definitely illogical

I don't deny their existence, I deny their validity. The two are not the same.

god is left and i have said plenty of times to you and islam sikhism that god transcends logic but you seem to keep throwing this in my face

I'm not throwing anything in your face, I am showing you with basic examples the implications of your views.

I am sure the American dictionary will probably have something spectacular to say please advise.

Transcendence - surpassing the ordinary, exceptional. Beyond natural occurances.

How do you know what he does and doesn’t want

Because I made the scenario! :rollseyes

Peace.

[Trumble]

The obvious suggestion and comment would be that you adopt a more academic approach in your 'rebuttal'.

You clearly know enough about philosophical argument to know what an ad hominem fallacy is, so why not at least make some effort to avoid them?

[ISDhillon]

“Can you not understand how someone can assert that the action of blinking is in accordance with logic, while at the same time it does not involve reasoning or the use of logic to perform the action? What are you having difficulty understanding about this?”

I have no problem with disagreeing with you, that when I blink it has nothing to do with logic, it is a biological function this proves that logic is not a part of everything only when you want to use it.

“I'm giving you clear examples that you continue to ignore.”

The examples that you give are scientific but your claim that logic is a part of blinking etc is a scientific one, yet to answer youre claim is a philosophical one the 2 are not related, it is universal that we blink but that does not mean that those who do not blik are not in accordance with logic, it means they are a minority, non blinking is a scientific reality. Unless you think you cannot make a decision this requires the use of logic but people make plenty of decisions such as instantaneous and spontaneous movements but these never required the use of logic but nor can they be branded as illogical. You have proved nothing.

“There is none. It is instinct. “

so you don’t need logic all the time then cos there is an inherent ability in man which is neither logical or illogical, then call this your soul and we are back to square one.

“But the actions themselves that you do (eg. jumping, grabbing leaping, etc.) are in accordance with logic. You just didn't have to use logic or reasoning to perform those actions.”

Something that happens can be later described logically does not make logic any part of it, in accordance is just that - a post-descriptive analysis.

“I am asking you about why you reject the thief's explanation.”

Because in my personal opinion their claim is wrong I never logically concluded that either I just know, its like I just know that there is some colluding going on behind your questioning and then I got an email this morning affirming my suspicions, I did not use my logic, if someone is in my how I already have no trust and will disagree with anything they say, you just want me to say that their explanation is not possible based on the laws of gravity etc and based on those laws yes it is nonsensical story but I never go into all of that, so sometimes logical and illogic are not in operation.

“The reaction itself could be either reasoned out or done on the basis of instinct. eg. John was so angry about failing his test so he punched the wall.”

So logic is not always involved so why can god not be beyond such attributes.

“The reaction itself can then be analysed to determine whether it was a reasonable/rational response to the situation or an unreasonable/irrational response. eg. John did not act in a reasonable way.”

Only the post-descriptive analysis of the act was based on logic and not the act itself, so god can be logically concluded from scriptural analysis that he is beyond the laws of logic.

“To say that someone performed such an action is not illogical i.e. the idea of a person doing these actions -whether reasonable or unreasonable - will be in accordance with logic.
eg1. "John hit the wall" - not unreasonable
eg2. "John flew threw the wall" – unreasonable”

but the performer did not use logic this still holds true.

“Good. So you have no right to object to his behavior because he is doing what he thinks is right and in accordance with his logic and you are doing what you think is right and in accordance with your logic.”

No I never said that I am saying that I will react to my reality and they will react to theirs if I object I object it’s a choice I make using my reality and he will react according to his reality. Its not about saying cos that persona reality was different then I must be wrong, when you acknowledge the sovereignty of man then there is only self-realisation,

“But the guy who comes and takes your car, house and family doesn't think he is infringing on you. According to his flawed reasoning he is doing what he thinks is right.”

That’s fine but that does not have anything to with the quote.

“Yes the stick basher is acting irrational. And that is why I would object to his behaviour. You on the other hand believe it is alright for creation to act outside of the bounds for logic so you cannot object to his behaviour. You'd get some serious head injuries.”

It is possible for creation to act outside the bounds of logic, yes, it is my choice of whether or not I would object to the behaviour in the full knowledge that it is possible.

“But his behavior can be either irrational or rational.”

Irrational behaviour is therefore neither logical or illogical it transcends both.

“It is in the Oxford American English Dictionary. You will have to find some real sources outside the internet; try your local library.”

This being an internet discussion forum please use only electronic references otherwise you’re definitions will be rejected.

“I don't deny their existence, I deny their validity. The two are not the same.”

Validity requires that the truth can only be logically concluded, therefore you set a premise and deny the religions own definition of truth, it may even be that the truth cannot be derived.

“I'm not throwing anything in your face, I am showing you with basic examples the implications of your views.”

Why are implications important, public scrutiny is secondary in matters of faith.

“Transcendence - surpassing the ordinary, exceptional. Beyond natural occurances.”

Yet you conclude that something which is not logical can only be illogical which I have also shown with simple scenarios is not the case.

“Because I made the scenario! ”

and seems to get more and more confusing

please advise,:thankyou:

ISDhillon

[ISDhillon]

i can tell you, god is with attributes and god is without attributes, this is a contradiction about the nature of divine essence

If all things were equal, your statement would be enough to close off proceedings and end this conversation; you have conceded defeat. Unfortunately, things are not equal.

ONLY IF I WAS GOD BUT I AM NOT THE DIVINE ESSENCE

“There maybe a very good reason why they are all unwilling to “get it”. “

LETS SEE.
a) god in sikhism is incomprehesible and transcends rationale,

“Firstly, to claim that God is incomprehensible in the absolute sense of the word is self-refuting since the term ‘god’ carries a meaning which we understand; nirgun and sargun each have a meaning respectively which we understand. Hence, we comprehend the meaning of the term. “

WHEN WE SAY TRANSCEND RATIONALE THAT DOES NOT MEAN GOD IS ILLOGICAL TRANCENDING HAS A DEFINTION ALL OF ITS OWN, IT IS AN ABILITY OF GOD TO TRANSCEND RATIONALE YOU MAKE IT ALL OR NOTHING THAT’S YOURE OPINION.

“If I. S. Dhillon affirms that the nature of God transcends the rationale, which he does; then it is not possible for him to say anything about God, otherwise it would contradict what he affirms by making recourse to the rationale to comment on that which allegedly transcends his rationale. “

NOT AT ALL I HAVE ALSO SAID THAT GOD LOGICALLY CONCLUDES THAT HE TRANSCENDS RATIONALE BUT YOURE RESPONSE TO THIS WAS IGNORANCE LOOK:

“Thirdly, you simply asserting: “it [SGGS] logically concludes” does not prove it, neither will we roll over and play dead. You have not proven anything.”

WHAT IS THEIR TO PROOVE DID YOU EVER PROOVE THAT SIKHISM WAS ILLOGICAL OR THAT OUR GOD WAS FALSE YOU USED YOURE RATIONALE TOO, WHETHER YOU ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD OR NOT IS UP TO YOU.

“Hence, your denial of the law of non-contradiction in even one proposition entails that you accept the notion that opposite things can be true at the same time and in the same respect.”

I AM NOT GOD!!!!!!! GOD DOES NOT HAVE A MIND WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

“Fifthly, you attempt to escape this problem by cleverly stating that not all of the SGGS is illogical. “

NOT AT ALL ALL OF SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI IS FROM GOD THE ABILITY TO TRANSCEND LOGIC IS ONE OF GODS MANY ATTRIBUTES, HE LOGICALLY HAD CONVEYED THIS TO US YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS REFUTED THE BANI WITH A PREMISE THAT GOD MUST BE LOGICALLY, AND THE BIGGEST DEFEAT YET IS THAT TRANSCENDING LOGIC BE EQUATED WITH BEING ILLOGICAL, MOOORAKH!!!!!!!

“

God is irrational, illogical and errant.”

POSSIBLY BUT I HAVE NOT SAID THIS, YOU HAVE TAKEN TRANSCENDING RATIONALE TO MEAN THE ABOVE BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT BY TRANSCENDING RATIONALE.

“Sixthly, your statement: “god has a nature which we as humans can never understand” is tiresomely contradictory and leave it to you to work out why.

“
WELL DONE BUT GOD HAS LOGICALLY CONCLUDED THAT THESE ARE ONE OF HIS MANY ATTRIBUTES.
WELL DONE BUT GOD HAS LOGICALLY CONCLUDED THAT THESE ARE ONE OF HIS MANY ATTRIBUTES.
WELL DONE BUT GOD HAS LOGICALLY CONCLUDED THAT THESE ARE ONE OF HIS MANY ATTRIBUTES.
I HAVE POSTED THE ABOVE THREE TIMES I HOPE YOU GET IT THIS TIME.

b) when you are baptised in sikhism you surrender your head to the guru

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you do NOT surrender your head to the guru!

ONLY IF I WAS GOD

and you concentrate your mind on the gurshabad,

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you do NOT concentrate your mind on the gurshabad!

ONLY IF I WAS GOD

you do not formulate rules on how to govern society,
Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you DO formulate rules!

ONLY IF I WAS GOD
you do not formulate punishments you do not use the scripture to judge others, you meditate on the word this is practicing sikhism. you do not refute the bani.

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of all of the above; thus, you DO formulate punishments, you DO use scripture to judge others, you do NOT meditate on the word, you do NOT practice Sikhism, and you DO refute the bani!

ONLY IF I WAS GOD
GOD IS NOT MIND
GOD IS NOT MIND
GOD IS NOT MIND
I HAVE WROTE THIS 3 TIMES SO THE PENNY WILL DROP IT MUST BE HARD FOR YOU I UNDERSTAND.
c) if you are a sikh or non-sikh who wishes to carry out an interpretation of religious texts then you will come to the conclusion that the god of sikhism is beyond the laws of logic

Is the above statement true? Prove it on the basis of your rejection of the bi-valued laws of logic. Deny the law of bivalence, i.e. that a proposition is either true or false; deny the law of excluded middle, i.e. that a proposition is true or false, which is true; deny the law of non-contradiction, i.e. that a proposition is true and false, which is false.

YES COS WE DEFINE TRUTH IN SIKHISM DIFFERENTLY TO YOU SOMETHING WHICH IS LOGICALLY DEDUCTED IS NOT TRUE IT IS RIGHT OR SACH, IN SIKHISM TRUTH IS ONLY SPIRIT AND SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF RIGHT OR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
the god of sikhism is beyond the laws of logic

“Are you beyond the laws of logic?
If not, then your understanding of God is bound by these laws.
If you deny this then your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, the god of Sikhism is NOT beyond the laws of logic!”

IF I AM ADHERING TO LOGIC THAT IS MY CHOICE, GOD CAN BE LOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL, BUT TO TRANSCEND LOGIC IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING ILLOGICAL, IF I WERE TO ACCEPT THE NATURE OF AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE GOD THEN HE MUST BE ABLE TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THESE THINGS OTHERWISE HE IS COMPRENSIBLE, JUST COS HE TELLS US THIS LOGICALLY DOES NOT MEAN HE CANNOT TRANSCEND THEM ASWELL.

“We do not mean to be disrespectful to you; but we believe this question is crucial in completely annihilating your preposterous stance:
Is Waheguru evil? “

GOD CREATES GOOD AND EVIL HE DOES NOT HAVE A MORAL CHARACTER

“If you forward an answer, you have limited God to your rationale which refutes your statement that God transcends rationality.”

NOT REALLY COS WE CAN NEVER FULLY UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF GOD THIS IS WHY SIKHS NEVER DEBATE ABOUT GOD COS ITS ABOUT EXPERIENCE NOT WHAT IS SAID.

“If you answer no, you have affirmed the inexorable laws of bi-valued logic, i.e. “Waheguru is not evil” is either true or false (bivalence); “Waheguru is evil or not evil” which is true (excluded middle); “Waheguru is evil and not evil” which is false (non-contradiction).
Answer this question please.

“
THE ANSWER TRANSCENDED BOTH!!!

but hopefully if you are a good intellectually proficient scholar you will not brand the whole religion as illogical and untrue because this has no reasonable basis and is therefore a fallacy in itself.

“Not if one believes the entire SGGS is divinely revealed.
If you add one drop of poison into a pure class of water, can you say it is still pure water?
If you claim the entire SGGS is perfect in the absolute sense, i.e. devoid of errors, and yet it contains one error, can you still claim its absolute perfection? “

NOT AT ALL THIS IS ABOUT HOW YOU DEFINE TRUTH, YOURE USING A COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE OTHER THAN SIKHISM ITSELF, BECAUSE GOD TRANSCENDS RATIONALE DOES NOT MAKE GOD ERRONOUS IT JUST MAKES HIM GOD WHO IS UNLIKE US. YOU HAVE PROOVED NOTHING.
d) if i was seeker of the truth i would learn that in sikhism the truth has no character the truth is a property of the divine, i would learn that in sikhism right and wrong are a part of mans bibek buddhi ie, living by your conscience, and the more spiritually enlightened you are the more awake you are to all that is wrong and right,

“Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah!”

FAKE RELIGIOUS ASTONISHMENT

“You attempt to seek the truth in that which has no truth?! All praise is due to Allaah, He orders the Muslims: “

THE TRUTH IN SIKHISM IS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY TO YOUR MORAL WAY OF DEFINING TRUTH, WE WILL NOT SURRENDER THE DFINTION OF TRUTH TO HIJACK A MODERN AGENDA UNLIKE ISLAM WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE SOLD OUT, TRUTH HAS MANY DEFINITIONS HAVE A LOOK ON THE NET IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY OR LOGIC IN SIKHISM BUT I AM SURE YOULL SHOVEL ME A QUOTE FROM THE KORAN WHICH SUGGESTS OTHERWISE, THIS PROOVES TO ME THAT ANGELS TOO ARE DUALISTIC IN NATURE THAT’S WHY THE DEFINITION OF TRUTH IN ISLAM IS SO OFF TANGENT.

“And knowledge here is the first pillar of Islaam, the very purpose of life itself, which is to worship Him correctly - knowledge of Allaah, and this knowledge is true. “

RUBBISH!!! THIS IS REFERRED TO AS MANMAT IN SIKHISM.

“Fanaa! We see that you have brushed up on the Hindu-inspired heretical Sufi terms of fanaa, kashf, bakaa, wahdatul wujood, etc. Congratulations, although all in vain. Just like this entire d) section – in vain and irrelevant.”

WHATEVERRRRRRR!!!!

“I wonder what I. S. Dhillon would say about Hitler who died with the full acceptance of his actions when ordering the extermination of millions of innocent people – “it does not matter”. “

NOT REALLY COS WHEN WE WERE BEING EXTERMINATED BY MANY OPPRESSORS WE DISPATCHED THEM SWIFTLY BECAUSE WE LIVED BY OUR CONSCIENCE, YOU KNOW JEWS WHO ARE THE GREATEST OF ALL INTELLECTUALS DID NOT REALISE THE TRUTH WITHIN PERHAPS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORANT OF HITLERS INTENTIONS. AS FOR HITLER YES HE WAS BY MY CONSCIENCE A CONFUSED INDIVIDUAL.
i then would say hey sikhism is not like any other religion its doctrine is sovereign and this is a religion i would like to be apart of, i most definately would use logic for otherwise how would i make logical grammatical sequences when writing this post but now what does this have to do with my religion?.

Only that you use logical deduction to come to the above conclusion concerning your religion thereby refuting your own claim!

NOT REALLY GOD HAS NO MIND AND I AM NOT GOD I AM OPERATING IN DUALISM.

We have further omitted I. S. Dhillon’s conversation on a forum since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

ITS OK WE ARE SETTING UP OUR OWN SITE WE DON’T NEED FOR YOU TO EVEN ADD THIS ONE WE WILL DO IT OURSELVES YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF THAT.

We hope that this time round, rather than copying and pasting conversations, I. S. Dhillon directly answers the above questions posed, questions and points he has thus far conveniently side-stepped.

LET ME KNOW IF I HAVNT.

May vaheguru rehabilitate your psychosis,

ISDhillon:thankyou:

[ISDhillon]

I have respoded to this one on the other thread go read my response their .

[Islam-Sikhism]

Asalaamu 'alaykum

Insha'Allaah please find our response to the following from I. S. Dhillon:
http://www.islamicboard.com/305912-post5.html

You can read the rebuttal here:
http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/com/isd/isd3.htm

Alhamdulilaah, we would like to praise the brothers and sisters for their patience against an opponent who has lost the ability to think coherently and constructively.
Insha'Allaah, please remember in your du'a, and make du'a that Allaah guide the mushrikoon to the haqq of al-Islaam.
May Allaah also stregthen Ansar al-'Adl with ar-rooh for exposing I. S. Dhillon with a radd qawwee, aameen.

Wa salaam

[Islam-Sikhism]

We're afraid to inform you that your "response" was to Part 1.
Much of which, as per usual, you chose to ignore.
Bi ithnillah, we will not let you go that easily no matter how tiresome it becomes. We will make you answer the points, and your inability to do so, which has already become so obvious, will further expose you.

And the haqq is with Allaah and all mistakes are from ourselves and the accursed shaytaan whom we seek refuge from.

[Trumble]

At the risk of intruding on a private argument, may I venture a (very) brief response to one point raised?

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does?

Faith.

[ISDhillon]

Much of which, as per usual, you chose to ignore.

number it and space it out and do it on this forum and i will answer you

"Bi ithnillah, we will not let you go that easily no matter how tiresome it becomes. "

i am here today and everyday for as long as it takes, in fact you are the one who seems to have a long siesta before coming back.


"We will make you answer the points, and your inability to do so, which has already become so obvious, will further expose you."

no nead to make me i am here to clear up all misconceptions btw let me again post the original essay on the sikh dosctrine from which you have sneekily never responded too:

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/quintessence.htm

"And the haqq is with Allaah and all mistakes are from ourselves and the accursed shaytaan whom we seek refuge from.[/QUOTE]"

shaitaan is your logic.

Gurfateh!!!:thankyou:

ISDhillon

[ISDhillon]

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does?

HE transcends rationality not ME, when HE tells ME, HE is being logical to ME, but HE himself can trnascend all the laws of logic what is hard for you to understand in this you just keep repeating the same rebuttal which i have already explained.

"The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything about God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in the SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun; this can only be done with the use of the rationale."

yes and thats ME, but god is not ME, he can transcend the laws aa and when he pleases the simple fact that he tells me logically that he his nirgun-sargun.

"Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation."

you are confused!!!!!! perhaps cos you know youre wrong.

same reply above goes for:

The word nirgun and sargun describes God.
God allegedly revealed this contradiction.
We used our intellect to understand the meaning of the two words.
Hence, we comprehend the terms nirgun and sargun.
We used our rationale to determine it is a contradiction.
Thus, God is not incomprehensible nor does he transcend rationality since he utilised our rationality and our ability to reason to inform us of knowledge concerning His self.

god still can transcend rationality his scripture does not have to transcend rationality cos otherwise how will we understand it, anway the scripture is still not for that pupose the fact that it awakens your soul shows that god which is the word trascends rationality cos it does something even when not understood.

I will hope you see sense,

ISDhillon

[Islam-Sikhism]

Number it!
What are you a baby?
If you don't know how to argue we suggest, like we did a long time ago, invest in a short course on argumentation and logic.
It is patently clear you need it since you only answer that which suits your agenda.
Then you blame us for not debating you.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Dhillon,

I have no problem with disagreeing with you, that when I blink it has nothing to do with logic, it is a biological function this proves that logic is not a part of everything only when you want to use it.

Not so. Everything must be in accordance with logic or else it is rejected as illogical. But that doesn't mean we have to use reasoning to do everything. They are two totally different levels.

so you don’t need logic all the time then cos there is an inherent ability in man which is neither logical or illogical

Yes, people do not have to reason all the time. That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that everything must be in accordance with logic otherwise it is contrary to it. You are confusing the issue by bringing up the use of reason and logic.

Something that happens can be later described logically does not make logic any part of it

I never said that reasoning was involved.

Because in my personal opinion their claim is wrong I never logically concluded that either I just know

Just know? lol, now this is really weak. You reject his illogical arguments but you don't want to admit that you used reason and logic to do so, so you dance around the issue saying you used your 'conscience' or that you 'just know'!!!

its like I just know that there is some colluding going on behind your questioning and then I got an email this morning affirming my suspicions, I did not use my logic

Yes you did - you used reasoning to determine the probable reality.

So logic is not always involved so why can god not be beyond such attributes.

Again confusing the issues - reasoning is not always involved. Not everything reasons. But everything must be in accordance with logic, and that is what we reason about.

I am saying that I will react to my reality and they will react to theirs if I object I object it’s a choice I make using my reality and he will react according to his reality.

So he's not doing something wrong. Everyone can just do whatever is in their reality. What if it is in someone's reality to give you flying lessons by throwing you from a ten-story building?

What is the point of reasoning with anyone if people are just going to do whatever illogical ideas they think are their 'reality'?!!!

It is possible for creation to act outside the bounds of logic, yes,

Not just possible, you said 'okay' indicating it is also permissable. So it is alright for this thief to give you a ludicrous explanation. It is alright for the other guy to take all your things.

Irrational behaviour is therefore neither logical or illogical it transcends both.

Irrational is DEFINED as something that is illogical and unreasonable!

This being an internet discussion forum please use only electronic references otherwise you’re definitions will be rejected.

Nonsense. I am not an ignoramus who can only make use of websites and not books. This forum is for academic discussion which includes factual research in all sources. If you can't refute the references, that is your problem.

Anyway, I can give you internet definitions for all the words as well:

insanity extremely foolish; irrational.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/insane?view=uk
extremely unreasonable
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...ane*1+0&dict=A

irrational not logical or reasonable
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/irrational?view=uk
not based on reason or logic; illogical.
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.p...atchtype=exact

Yet you conclude that something which is not logical can only be illogical which I have also shown with simple scenarios is not the case.

No you have not. You have instead brought up the issue of using logic and reasoning. While someone may not be reasoning it doesn't mean that their are things that are not in accordance with logic and not illogical either.

Regards

[Islam-Sikhism]

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does?

HE transcends rationality not ME, when HE tells ME, HE is being logical to ME, but HE himself can trnascend all the laws of logic what is hard for you to understand in this you just keep repeating the same rebuttal which i have already explained.

How sad!
When you say that God transcends rationality, you are effectively claiming that he transcends rational thought, meaning: he transcends your ability in using reason and logic to determine something, in this case - God.
Therefore, no matter what we perceive God as it is an exercise in futility because God transcends all possible use of reason and logic, i.e. God transcends logic.
Do you even know what rationality is?
From the above it is clear you do not.
Hence, your assertion that God transcends our ability to use reason and logic is self-refuting since He cannot transcend that which he instilled in us to understand and make sense of not only the world around us but also Him.
If he did, then no matter what we say of Him would be meaningless.
If you cannot understand what “transcends rationality” means, we repeat the request made by Ansar al-Adl to go use a dictionary, or contact a teacher in philosophy to understand what an absolute statement of God transcending rationality implies.

As we said, this is symptomatic of your inability to construct not just grammatically correct sentences, but also to construct logically coherent arguments.
Hence, your consistent schoolboy errors.

god still can transcend rationality his scripture does not have to transcend rationality cos otherwise how will we understand it, anway the scripture is still not for that pupose the fact that it awakens your soul shows that god which is the word trascends rationality cos it does something even when not understood.

We reiterate the umpteenth time the following:

Rational: Using reason and logic in thinking out a problem.
Reason: the faculty of rational argument, deduction, etc. Philosophy: Use of the intellect as opposed to subjective experiences.
The word nirgun and sargun describes God.
God allegedly revealed this contradiction.
We used our intellect to understand the meaning of the two words.
Hence, we comprehend the terms nirgun and sargun.
We used our rationale to determine it is a contradiction.
Thus, God is not incomprehensible nor does he transcend rationality since he utilised our rationality and our ability to reason to inform us of knowledge concerning His self.
In light of the above, your conclusion that the Sikhi God is contradictory could only have been made using your rationale; but, God is supposed to transcend the use of your rationale, so how did you come to the conclusion about that which is impossible to rationalise?
Your statement is self-refuting.

And:

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything about God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in the SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun; this can only be done with the use of the rationale.
Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.

Now, how about answering the rest of what we have written rather than ignoring that which you are incapable of answering.
Take a breath, take your time, do not be hasty and perhaps you will not be so petty in ignoring the most important parts of our refutation against you.

[ISDhillon]

“Not so. Everything must be in accordance with logic or else it is rejected as illogical. But that doesn't mean we have to use reasoning to do everything.”

I disagree with you’re personal opion. And have proved that it is not right with this case and you have the nerve to say I twist words but you slap the old accordance with logic to defend it.

“You are confusing the issue by bringing up the use of reason and logic.”

To say that there is instinct is in itself giving reason so you contradicted yourself, but this happens in hindsight and therefore has nothing to do with the event therefore it is nothing but an opinion based on logic, and before you say it yep indeedy.

“I never said that reasoning was involved.”

But by saying it is in accordance with logic is in itself a reason for the event.

“You reject his illogical arguments but you don't want to admit that you used reason and logic to do so, so you dance around the issue saying you used your 'conscience' or that you 'just know'!!!”

lol I have at several times said that mans conscience is not logic and that this is an spiritual instinct this is why you deliberately go off tangent and are using youre own logical frame of reference but no worry I will continue with the sikh one, dancing around my black ****!

“Yes you did - you used reasoning to determine the probable reality.”

Not at all, this is why it I who is the reality of I but yours is a wrong opinion.

“But everything must be in accordance with logic, and that is what we reason about.”

Another opinion, no it must not the fact that the person is not using logic shows that logic is not always in use it does not matter whether the event was logical, when someone says that everything is either logical or not they have been proven wrong. And what of miracles is that logical also? God can transcend such laws it shows he has had to cos man goes astray.

“What if it is in someone's reality to give you flying lessons by throwing you from a ten-story building?”

my conscience would tell me not to go for such lessons because while he may have learned some thing revolutionary I would not want to be the first. This is not cos I do not think its logical or illogical I would like to see it be done.

“What is the point of reasoning with anyone if people are just going to do whatever illogical ideas they think are their 'reality'?!!!”

because that which is logical is not a frame of reference of reality, the reality of a person is their own you keep giving examples of when people realities collide, what about the man and women who chuck themselves of a 10-storey building are they illogical or are they just someone who committed suicide, you never know they could have been told by god to throw themselves of a 10 storey building but youre logic could never figure this out everybodies reality is their own, and no you do not need to react to someone unless their reality collides with yours, this can be by use of reason or reaction.

“you said 'okay' indicating it is also permissible”

not at all, possible not permissible although it can happen too who knows you may enjoy a stick-bashing it may turn you on but then to those who don’t have such an affiliation from the outset its illogical.

“Irrational is DEFINED as something that is illogical and unreasonable!”

it is defined by youre selective dictionary one who is without the power of reason and for a person to be illogical they need to use reason to come to an illogical conclusion, in hindsight also when looking at things logically an insane women is not being illogical because she is not flying through a wall she is moving her hands out sporadicly.



Irrational and illogical are inconsistent. And do I even care if they are words are just noises their meanings are transitory.

“ This forum is for academic discussion which includes factual research in all sources. If you can't refute the references, that is your problem.”

No that is an ignorant attitude for an internet discussion forum to be credible you can only use online references QED, I don’t care for you’re strop.

Anyway, I can give you internet definitions for all the words as well:

insanity extremely foolish; irrational.
[Link only for registered members]

I have no qualm with this.

extremely unreasonable
[Link only for registered members]

rejected, does not apply its only a milder form of psychosis as with paranoia etc.

irrational not logical or reasonable
[Link only for registered members]

this does not say illogical you have either you have as always assumed the opposite.

not based on reason or logic; illogical.
[Link only for registered members]

rejected as this does not apply to the insane who cannot have arguments and therefore no basis for an irrational argument. For all the definitions I looke for on the web I never found that irrational be synonymous with illogical in fact the possibility of being illogical was always constrained by the definition itself ie, the power of reason.

“ You have instead brought up the issue of using logic and reasoning. “

actually you have separated the 2 in this thread for the first time not me, if you call the opposite of logic illogical and illogical can only be founded on sound reasoning even in figuring out what is in accordance with logic, then yes I have shown you events which were neither logical or illogical ie the choice to act not the act itself which was spontaneous and not reasoned to - have you researched into gap theory - it exists but its origin is unknown.

“While someone may not be reasoning it doesn't mean that their are things that are not in accordance with logic and not illogical either.”

That’s not the point the point is that for you to say that something is logical or illogical must be with the power of reason or otherwise how would you know, other than accept it as a given which is also irrational.


have a niceyspicey day,:thankyou:

ISDhillon:statisfie

try living in the "gap":brother:

[ISDhillon]

“he transcends your ability in using reason and logic to determine something, in this case - God.”

That is a testament to your bad understanding don’t label me as suggesting something when you have alluded yourself to the notion yourself and then gone to town with it all over the net.

“Therefore, no matter what we perceive God as it is an exercise in futility because God transcends all possible use of reason and logic, i.e. God transcends logic.”

There is a quote in SGGS which says exactly this maybe you should read it all before spreading **** about my religion.

sochai soch na hova-ee jay sochee lakh vaar.
By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times.

But now you will render Sikhism as a futile exercise.

“He cannot transcend that which he instilled in us to understand and make sense of not only the world around us but also Him.”

Perhaps in Islam we believe in self-realisation being the purpose of life not to understand the world around all though you could take that up as a hobbie either way our way has not hindered us why would it, why is that in America and Europe which are both countries which are great in understanding the world around them that khalsa councils have been set up by embracers of Sikhism?.

“If he did, then no matter what we say of Him would be meaningless”

well done and scolarary discourse is just that “meaningless”, practicing Sikhism is another matter but converts did not arrive at the conclusion that a meaninigless god is a meaningless religion just you!!!!!


I will admit my response have been confusing but it is not that my religion is wrong or anything its cos I have not found the right words to express to you my religion but you take advantage of that cos this is youre specialised field, this is just a hobbie for me and whilst I enjoy I need to brush up on it too.

“If you cannot understand what “transcends rationality” means, we repeat the request made by Ansar al-Adl to go use a dictionary,”

god does even when I have consulted the dictionary god still does. Ansar must be the new ayatollah why don’t you think for yourself.

“Thus, God is not incomprehensible nor does he transcend rationality since he utilised our rationality and our ability to reason to inform us of knowledge concerning His self.”

And I have said umpteen times that he can be logical to use he can be rational but he must also be able to transcend all this if this contradiction is true that is why you cannot figure the fullness of god but he can logically tellus he can transcend logic aswell as be logical, for a miracle he has transcended logic, for a prophecy he has transcended logic, so why cant he reaveal his transcendental abilities through logic?

“In light of the above, your conclusion that the Sikhi God is contradictory could only have been made using your rationale;”

“ but, God is supposed to transcend the use of your rationale, “

no I never said that I said he is able to transcend rationale, I am able to sit still in a seat for 10 minutes but I also have the ability to jump around so god has the ability to be logical and transcend rational at the same time even in the scripture, which is both logical and also spiritually enlightening.

“so how did you come to the conclusion about that which is impossible to rationalise?”

he transcends our rationale I am saying he can transcend this I cannot but he can be logical too what is the problem and how is this self refuting, why must his revelation about himself transcend rationale just cos he has that ability, I still understand that he has the ability to transcend rationale through his rationale message this is not self-refuting the problem is with the way youre reading into this and possibly the way I write it too.

“And:
If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything about God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in the SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun; this can only be done with the use of the rationale.
Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.”

Read the above I am starting to become irrational now too aaaaahhh:grumbling

[Islam-Sikhism]

Lol!

Allaahul musta'aan!

We will not dignify this with a response

[ISDhillon]

yeah save face its the only option left for your you.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I disagree with you’re personal opion.

It is not my personal opinion, it is empirical fact, but in your sheer stubborness you refuse to admit that. And sorry, you have proven nothing.

To say that there is instinct is in itself giving reason

Instinct is not the use of reason. Try again.

But by saying it is in accordance with logic is in itself a reason for the event.

What do you mean by 'reason for the event'

lol I have at several times said that mans conscience is not logic and that this is an spiritual instinct

Really? Well atheists are not spiritual. What happens if someone does irrational behavior in front of an atheist. The atheist can not resort to some mysterious spiritual conscience to reject the behavior. And according to you he can't reject it on the grounds of logic. So I guess he has to allow his things to be stolen and his head to be beaten!!

but no worry I will continue with the sikh one, dancing around my black ****!

You discredit yourself with your profanity (at least moreso than with your rejection of logic and reason!).

Not at all, this is why it I who is the reality of I but yours is a wrong opinion.

Saying so does not make it so. I have provided irrefutable practicle examples to establish what I have said. I thought you might be an openminded person and understand the arguments with some basic simple examples in plain english. I was sadly mistaken.

no it must not the fact that the person is not using logic shows that logic is not always in use

Yes he was not reasoning to do an action. That doesn't negate the fact that everything must be in accordance with logic. A stone doesn't even have the capacity to reason. Does that mean stones are illogical? No, of course not. They have properties that are in accordance with logic.

And what of miracles is that logical also?

Yes they are. Miracles are a suspension of the natural laws of science which govern the universe. They are still in accordance with logic. For example, there is no such miracle of a circle with four sides - it is illogical and self-contradictory.

my conscience would tell me not to go for such lessons because while he may have learned some thing revolutionary I would not want to be the first.

Too bad - he uses the excuse that it is okay for him to be illogical and so he throws you out the window anyway.

what about the man and women who chuck themselves of a 10-storey building are they illogical or are they just someone who committed suicide

If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical. If they did it intending to commit suicide then they were not. This is so easy to understand, even a child could grasp such a simple concept. Which makes it even more suspicious when you choose not to.

not at all, possible not permissible

You said it was okay, i.e. permissable, alright. If you have changed your opinion then don't be afraid. Come out and admit it; you will earn a lot mroe respect that way then playing these silly games to justify your erroneous comments.

although it can happen too who knows you may enjoy a stick-bashing it may turn you on but then to those who don’t have such an affiliation from the outset its illogical.

I made the scenario where the person is doing something illogical, and you keep changing it (eg. saying the person actually does like to be hit) to make it logical instead of answering the scenario as it is. The only explanation for this is that you don't have an answer. If you do, here is the scenario is simple representative terms:

Let X represent an illogical action. Person A performs X, to the detriment of Person B. Can person B object to action X on logical grounds - yes or no?

for a person to be illogical they need to use reason to come to an illogical conclusion

This is circular reasoning. I DEFINED the thief to be providing an illogical explanation and then you started arguing that he was insane. No he is not insane, he is a SIKH who believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic. Answer that.

Irrational and illogical are inconsistent. And do I even care if they are words are just noises their meanings are transitory.

So you deny the dictionary definitions. It is amazing to see the lengths to which you will go to maintain your manifest error.

No that is an ignorant attitude for an internet discussion forum to be credible you can only use online references QED

This forum is not for people who can't read books and refer to academic references. If you are unable to engage in scientific discussion, so be it. Don't criticise the forum because of your own incompetence.

I have no qualm with this.

Good. So you admit that the irrational, unreasonable, and illogical behavior is the characteristic of insanity in the case of the thief. So on what gorunds do you object to his behavior?

I think we can safely conclude that - if a thief was found in your house stealing your money and when confronted by you said that the wind was forcing his hands open and closed - you would have no grounds to object to his behavior and you would have to let him go because you believe that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.

this does not say illogical you have either you have as always assumed the opposite.

LOOK HOW MANY WORDS YOU ARE TWISTING! Now you are denying that illogical = not logical !! What else is illogical if it does not mean 'not logical' ?? YOU define illogical for me, please.

rejected as this does not apply to the insane who cannot have arguments and therefore no basis for an irrational argument.

I never said that the thief had a mental disorder. That was your claim in order to sneak out of the scenario! Please show me where I said the thief had a mental disorder that prevented him from reasoning. I challenge you!.

actually you have separated the 2 in this thread for the first time not me

I seperated them because you tried to bring in an issue that was not related.

Now I am giving you the scenario again in even more clear terms so that you can answer it:

-person A does not have a mental disorder
-person A believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic
-person A comes to you and claims that your house belongs to him because of illogical reason Z

Every intelligent person will be able to realize that in the above scenario we can reject person A's claim because it is not in accordance with reason and logic.

-conclusion: creation can NOT act outside the bounds of logic and reason
-conclusion: everything must be in accordance with logic and reason to be valid

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Lol!

Allaahul musta'aan!

We will not dignify this with a response

:sl:
A wise choice. There is nothing left to expose about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason! ISDhillon refutes his own religion better than anyone else can.

:w:

yeah save face its the only option left for your you.

You know Dhillon, there is a tactic some children use on the playground. When they get into an argument with another child they decide to simply repeat 'why?' or 'so?' after everything the other child says, and consequently the other child gets fed up and gives up arguing with them. So they think they win. I think you must have been one of those children.

Peace :)

[ISDhillon]

:sl:
A wise choice. There is nothing left to expose about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason! ISDhillon refutes his own religion better than anyone else can.

:w:


You know Dhillon, there is a tactic some children use on the playground. When they get into an argument with another child they decide to simply repeat 'why?' or 'so?' after everything the other child says, and consequently the other child gets fed up and gives up arguing with them. So they think they win. I think you must have been one of those children.

Peace :)

yeah you keep telling yourself that you may even start to believe it lol

[root]

I have really enjoyed reading this debate.

If I may I have two points here as an atheist:

Ansar - Really? Well atheists are not spiritual. What happens if someone does irrational behavior in front of an atheist. The atheist can not resort to some mysterious spiritual conscience to reject the behavior. And according to you he can't reject it on the grounds of logic. So I guess he has to allow his things to be stolen and his head to be beaten!!

Whilst someone may be acting in an irrational manner that I would (and most other people also) he may still be acting logically within his own concience.

Quote:ISDhillon
And what of miracles is that logical also?

Ansar - Yes they are. Miracles are a suspension of the natural laws of science which govern the universe. They are still in accordance with logic. For example, there is no such miracle of a circle with four sides - it is illogical and self-contradictory.

I disagree with you Ansar. If we except for a moment that "Miracles" are a suspension of the naturl laws of science, matters that science cannot explain are under a miraculous definition classed as a miracle.

Some "miracles" of the past have later been explained with a scientific cause so the "miracle" has been nulled. I don't consider "Miracles" being defined as a suspension of natural laws logical. I would go further to state that such a position is illogical. Belief for example that the moon split in two is not logical it's a position of faith.

Good thread though......

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Whilst someone may be acting in an irrational manner that I would (and most other people also) he may still be acting logically within his own concience.

Of course, it is indeed possible for someone to be acting illogical and think that they are being logical. I have personally seen many examples of this on the forum itself.

I disagree with you Ansar. If we except for a moment that "Miracles" are a suspension of the naturl laws of science, matters that science cannot explain are under a miraculous definition classed as a miracle.

I'm not talking about scientific theories or our understanding of science. I am speaking of the definitive laws of nature which govern our universe - a miracle is a suspension of these laws.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards

[Trumble]

That doesn't negate the fact that everything must be in accordance with logic. A stone doesn't even have the capacity to reason. Does that mean stones are illogical? No, of course not. They have properties that are in accordance with logic.

Logic is a human methodology, no more. It has no intrinsic existence outside that context - before there were people (or an intelligence of some sort using such a methodology) there was no "logic". Its makes no sense at all to say "stones have properties that are in accordance with logic" or, indeed "stones have properties that are not in accordance with logic", although they may well have (and obviously do) have properties in accordance with the "natural laws of science".

[root]

Quote:Root
I disagree with you Ansar. If we except for a moment that "Miracles" are a suspension of the naturl laws of science, matters that science cannot explain are under a miraculous definition classed as a miracle.

Qoute:Ansar I'm not talking about scientific theories or our understanding of science. I am speaking of the definitive laws of nature which govern our universe - a miracle is a suspension of these laws.

Thanks for your comments.

Forgive me Ansar but I must ask. If you consider it perfectly logical to subscribe to an idea that a miracle is a suspension of the laws of science and a given "miracle" was later proven to be within the said laws of science. Was it logical to claim that the miracle occured through the suspension of the natural scientific laws in the first place or is it more logical to assume that other miracles are simply a misunderstanding of given facts and or lack explanation within our current knowledge?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Logic is a human methodology, no more. It has no intrinsic existence outside that context - before there were people (or an intelligence of some sort using such a methodology) there was no "logic".

There was no logic before there were people? So does that mean that before there were people there were circles with four sides, and frogs that were half in the air, half in the water, and in neither the air nor the water at the same time?

Perhaps you meant that before people there was no sophisticated reasoning or use of logic.

Regards

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Forgive me Ansar but I must ask. If you consider it perfectly logical to subscribe to an idea that a miracle is a suspension of the laws of science and a given "miracle" was later proven to be within the said laws of science. Was it logical to claim that the miracle occured through the suspension of the natural scientific laws in the first place or is it more logical to assume that other miracles are simply a misunderstanding of given facts and or lack explanation within our current knowledge?

No, I say that miracles are not misunderstnadings, they are actual suspensions of the natural laws.

If I have misunderstood your question, please feel free to clarify.

[root]

No, I say that miracles are not misunderstnadings, they are actual suspensions of the natural laws.

OK, I can accept this illogocal statement. BUT, if the said miracle is later found to be within natural laws after all. (i.e it was not a miracle). Was it logical in the first place to consider it a miracle?

If I come home and my son claims that a cup was floating in the middel of the room then it fell and broke, are you saying it is should be logical that the natural laws of science were suspended and thus a miracle occured or should I seek other more rational explanation?

[ISDhillon]

“It is not my personal opinion, it is empirical fact, but in your sheer stubborness you refuse to admit that. And sorry, you have proven nothing.”

Don’t be sorry its not an empirical fact either and you represent this forum badly. Don’t be sorry I understand it must be hard for you to think outside the box you remind me of those indoctrinated people in speakers corner at Hyde park.

“Instinct is not the use of reason. Try again.”

No but for you to suggest that the reason was instinct, was through logic, ive just tried.

“What do you mean by 'reason for the event'”

the action that took place,you gave it a reason called instinct, but you say instinct is not with the use of logic only the action of instinct is, so therefore instinct requires no logic and logic is not an absolute.

“Really? Well atheists are not spiritual. What happens if someone does irrational behavior in front of an atheist. The atheist can not resort to some mysterious spiritual conscience to reject the behavior. And according to you he can't reject it on the grounds of logic. So I guess he has to allow his things to be stolen and his head to be beaten!!”

this does not have anything to do with the idea of conscience you sneakily avoided that and dropped another scenario, which seems to change, and then when I change my reaction to you’re scenario to prove the possibility of acting without logic, I get branded as trying to escape. Do you want a debate or do you want me to accept youre word as a given

“You discredit yourself with your profanity (at least moreso than with your rejection of logic and reason!). “

no profanity there, it was blotted out and other members have done the same yet they just change their names and continue on the forum under another alias, no one bothers them though cos their muslims, youre lucky that you can do this and retain youre autonomy.

“Saying so does not make it so. I have provided irrefutable practicle examples to establish what I have said. I thought you might be an openminded person and understand the arguments with some basic simple examples in plain english. I was sadly mistaken.”

Saying so does not make it so especially after all youre scenarios have still not proven youre case sooner or later youll just block the discussion and get your mods to add a little damning message about me, I know how this intellectual story ends and I know how the historical story ends, ultimately you have always been beaten, then comes the pride oooooh!!!.

“Yes he was not reasoning to do an action. That doesn't negate the fact that everything must be in accordance with logic.”

It does cos the fact that he did not use logic to instaneaously act proves there is a gap which is not in accordance with logic.

“ A stone doesn't even have the capacity to reason. Does that mean stones are illogical? No, of course not. They have properties that are in accordance with logic.”

In my religion there is a man called dhanna bhagat and a stone talked to him have a look:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Bhagat_Dhanna

is this illogical?

“Yes they are. Miracles are a suspension of the natural laws of science which govern the universe. They are still in accordance with logic. For example, there is no such miracle of a circle with four sides - it is illogical and self-contradictory.”

But a stone which eats? Is that illogical or a suspension of laws? And anyways a hologram can be a sqare-like circle depends on your perception the self-contradictory nature of a hologram, that it is and is not.

“Too bad - he uses the excuse that it is okay for him to be illogical and so he throws you out the window anyway.”

That would have to be pretty spontaneous therefore not logical or illogical. logically I would fall to the floor yet I flew back to the forum and answered all youre questions.

“If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical. If they did it intending to commit suicide then they were not. This is so easy to understand, even a child could grasp such a simple concept. Which makes it even more suspicious when you choose not to.”

The simple fact is that you didn’t know why?, youre logic will never be able to conclude the true reality of why?

“You said it was okay, i.e. permissable, alright. If you have changed your opinion then don't be afraid. Come out and admit it; you will earn a lot mroe respect that way then playing these silly games to justify your erroneous comments.”

I don’t want youre respect or disrespect, I still am, without both. However when I say you can do this and thats okay, I mean possible too, not its alright get with the modern lingo ansar.

“I made the scenario where the person is doing something illogical, and you keep changing it (eg. saying the person actually does like to be hit) to make it logical instead of answering the scenario as it is. The only explanation for this is that you don't have an answer. If you do, here is the scenario is simple representative terms:”

not at all the whole idea is to show you how you can behave without being logical or illogical what would be the point in saying yeah I would do that when there is transcendental alternative, I wouldn’t want you to miss anything.

“Let X represent an illogical action. Person A performs X, to the detriment of Person B. Can person B object to action X on logical grounds - yes or no?”

yes they can is the answer you would like but they could also react spontaneously and break into song or dance the can can, but this was not illogical just spontaneous.

“This is circular reasoning. I DEFINED the thief to be providing an illogical explanation and then you started arguing that he was insane. No he is not insane, he is a SIKH who believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic. Answer that.”

Being a sikh would mean he could never be a thief so the argument is self-refuting its not possible for someone to be something they inherently are not. You will have to use another example.

“So you deny the dictionary definitions. It is amazing to see the lengths to which you will go to maintain your manifest error.”

Your words have become noises too.

“This forum is not for people who can't read books and refer to academic references. If you are unable to engage in scientific discussion, so be it. Don't criticise the forum because of your own incompetence.”

I am not criticising the forum I am criticising you, a person with the use of the internet in the sahara desert without any books is not able to have a genuine debate with you because you could do anything and they could only scratch at the grain of sand beneath them. In future please provide all electronic references, if you have to scrape the barrel then you might aswell concede defeat rather than drawing a definition out of thin space to save yourself this growing humiliation.

“Good. So you admit that the irrational, unreasonable, and illogical behavior is the characteristic of insanity in the case of the thief. So on what gorunds do you object to his behavior? “

no you are twisting my words I have never said that the definition in the dictionary is the sum total of what it means to be insane, it was one of many facets of an insane person, to lose youre mind is neither acting logical or illogical you need youre mind to do both, the thief would simply in this case be mad or insane but not logical or illogical. Althought the post-descriptive analysis of the situation would suggest that logically he is acting in accordance to irrational behaviour but the spontaneity is neither. This is not hard even my little brother gets it.

“ you would have no grounds to object to his behavior and you would have to let him go because you believe that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.”

One problem with youre conclusion, I can choose to draw a conclusion but youre problem is that you deny the possibility in life where one does not make an instantaneous decision, and conveniently you label the action in accordance with logic but fail to define the precursor.

“LOOK HOW MANY WORDS YOU ARE TWISTING! Now you are denying that illogical = not logical !! What else is illogical if it does not mean 'not logical' ?? YOU define illogical for me, please.”

Please explain, and you don’t have a leg to stand on cos transcending rationale is the same as no logic yet the dictionary disagrees with you how about admitting that one instead of tucking it away in the archives.

“I never said that the thief had a mental disorder. That was your claim in order to sneak out of the scenario! Please show me where I said the thief had a mental disorder that prevented him from reasoning. I challenge you!.”

“illogical behavior is the characteristic of insanity in the case of the thief”

– challenge accepted.

“I seperated them because you tried to bring in an issue that was not related.”

Yet it was relevant enough for you to bring it into the discussion lol, but seriously if you say that transcending rationale amounts to illogical then you have to show how, because you redefined the word I in my humility are accepting youre case temporarily and finding stuff in this world which does not involve logic or illogical, even though youre definition of transcending rationale becoming illogical is a big no no.

“-person A does not have a mental disorder
-person A believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic
-person A comes to you and claims that your house belongs to him because of illogical reason Z”

Then I would reason with him but this does not prove that his reality is still not his, it also does not amount to him being illogical because in his culture it maybe the thing to do, who is the judge of all that acceptable why is logical being equated with good, moral and true? And if the above is what you have been trying to say then you cant say my English is poor.

“-conclusion: creation can NOT act outside the bounds of logic and reason”

yet they still do where spontaneity is concerned. look:

“Instinct is not the use of reason. Try again.”

“-conclusion: everything must be in accordance with logic and reason to be valid”

a definition which does not apply to god.

Please advise,:thankyou:

ISDhillon:okay:

PS i love this quote thingy its brill:thumbs_up

[Trumble]

There was no logic before there were people? So does that mean that before there were people there were circles with four sides, and frogs that were half in the air, half in the water, and in neither the air nor the water at the same time?

Perhaps you meant that before people there was no sophisticated reasoning or use of logic.

Regards

I meant nothing of the sort. As I said, logic is a human methodology, not an intrinsic property of the universe. Your point about circles with four-sides is an attempt by a human being to apply that methodology to an earlier point in time, no more.

Can you produce any dictionary definition that defines logic as having any sort of independent existence?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello ISDhillon,

No but for yu to suggest that the reason was instinct was through logic, ive just tried.

the action that took place you gave it a reason called instinct but you say instinct is not with the use of logic only the action of instinct is so therefore instinct requires no logic and logic is not an absolute.

No, I said that the person did an illogical action and I challenged you to respond. As of yet, you have not.

this does not have anything to do with the idea of conscience you sneakily avoided that and dropped another scenario, which seems to change and then when I change my reaction to you’re scenario to prove the possibility of acting without logic I get branded as trying to escape. Do you want a debate or do you wan be to accept youre word as a given

No, you change the scenario so I have to clarify it. i was simply trying to show you the obvious need for logic and the reason why we can reject someone's explanation if it is illogical, but you tried to skirt around that by saying "maybe he's insane!" "no I use my spiritual conscience to refute him not logic!". You have only contraducted yourself.

no profanity there it was blotted out and other members have done the same yet they just change their names and continue on the forum under another alias

We ban all such accounts.

Saying so does not make it so especially after all youre scenarios have still not proven youre case sooner or later youll just block the discussion and get your mods to add a little damning message about me, I know how this intellectual story ends and I know how the historical story ends, ultimately you have always been beaten, then comes the pride oooooh!!!.

Ad hominem fallacy. You can't respond to my argument so you start to attack the forum.

It does cos the fact that he did not use logic to instaneaously act proves there is a gap which is not in accordance with logic.

No it does not. I explained numerous times that not using reasoning to do an action does not mean that there is something that is neither logical or illogical.

In my religion there is a man called dhanna bhagat and a stone talked to him have a look:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Bhagat_Dhanna

is this illogical?

It depends. It is certainly unnatural, in which case it could be miraculous. Not relevant to my argument in any case.

And anyways a hologram can be a sqarelike circle

No it can't! Show me such an image!

That would have to be pretty spontaneous therefore not logical or illogical.

Nope - he purposely wants to be illogical, so he knows that you cannot fly but he decides to throw you out the window anyway. No objection from you, I guess.

The simple fact is that you didn’t know why youre logic will never be able to conclude the true reality of why?

If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical. If they did it intending to commit suicide then they were not. This is so easy to understand, even a child could grasp such a simple concept. Which makes it even more suspicious when you choose not to.

I don’t want youre respect or disrespect, I still am, without both. However when I say you can do this and that okay, I mean possible too, not its alright get with the modern lingo ansar.

I don't want to speak your strange 'modern lingo' I want to have a discussion with you in the english vernacular so that you cannot continually change the meaning of simple words to avoid admitting your error.

yes they can is the answer you would like

Good. So now you admit that something that is not in accordance with logic is rejected as invalid.

Being a sikh would mean he could never be a thief so the argument is self-refutin its not possible for someone to be something they inherently are not.

But he doesn't use logic, so he is a sikh who is a thief as well. He knows it is illogical and self-contradictory/self-refuting, as you said, but he doesn't use logic.

I am not criticising the forum I am criticising you, a person with the use of the internet in the sahara desert without any books is not able to have a genuine debate with you because you could do anything and they could on scrath at the grain of sand beneath them.

Yes I do not debate with ignoramuses and uneducated. If you qualify, let me know and we can terminate this discussion.

the thief would simply in this case be mad or insane but not logical or illogical.

No I said the thief is perfectly sane without mental disorder. He just believes it is okay to act illogical with a Sikh since they can do absolutely nothing about it.

One problem with youre conclusion I can choose to draw a conclusion but youre problem is that you deny the possibility in life where one does not like instantaneous decision,

I never denied instantaneous actions just like I never denied the existence of religions. These are all your false attributions to me, but I suppose it is okay in Sikhism because you are allowed to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.

Please explain, and you don’t have a leg to stand on cos transcending rationale is the same as no logic

Then distinguish between something that is not logical and something that is illogical.

challenge accepted.

And failed. I brought up a scenario of a thief who does something illogical. You said you would think he was insane. I said that the only reason you would think he was insane is because he acted in an illogical and irrational manner. Now you claim that I said the thief had a mental disorder, don't lie.

but seriously if you say that transcending rationale amounts to illogical then you have to show how

Give me one example where something is transcending logic i.e. not in accordance with logic, and yet it is not illogical.

Then I would reason with him

Good. So you accept that reason and logic would be sufficient to invalidate his arguments. If you do not accept it at this point, even after this clear statement, we will all see that you are a stubborn individual with no interest in admitting your mistakes. If you do accept it then i will be obliged to take back what I said.

yet they still do where spontaneity is concerned. look

No they are not acting outside the bounds of reason. They may not be using reason or using logic, but that does not mean that their actions are outside the bounds of logic and reason. I have explained this hundreds of times yet you refuse to understand.

a definition which does not apply to god.

I said everything. There is no such thing as a self-contradictory or illogical God.

Peace.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

OK, I can accept this illogocal statement.

What is illogical about it? I would not want you to accept anything that is illogical.

BUT, if the said miracle is later found to be within natural laws after all. (i.e it was not a miracle). Was it logical in the first place to consider it a miracle?

No.

If I come home and my son claims that a cup was floating in the middel of the room then it fell and broke, are you saying it is should be logical that the natural laws of science were suspended and thus a miracle occured or should I seek other more rational explanation?

Both are possibilities. I deny neither,

Peace.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I meant nothing of the sort. As I said, logic is a human methodology, not an intrinsic property of the universe.

I am aware of what you said, believe me. And I responded to it.

Your point about circles with four-sides is an attempt by a human being to apply that methodology to an earlier point in time, no more.

No, it was a simple question. Let me repeat - according to logic, there is no circle with four sides, it is self-contradictory. If you claim that logic is a human methodology, then prior to this human methodology, were there self-contradictory things? Can a self-contradictory thing exist?

Can you produce any dictionary definition that defines logic as having any sort of independent existence?

Do the following count?

the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Logic

Logic is science of the laws of thought
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/....sh?WORD=logic

See also the discussion here which informs that validity is determined according to logic:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/logic.html

Regards

[Mohsin]

You know Dhillon, there is a tactic some children use on the playground. When they get into an argument with another child they decide to simply repeat 'why?' or 'so?' after everything the other child says, and consequently the other child gets fed up and gives up arguing with them. So they think they win. I think you must have been one of those children.

LOL thats so true, sorry Dhillon but you do sound like one of those guys ;D

If Ansar was to stop arguing with you now in the other thread, it would by no means you have won any argument, it would just be frustration taking over

[Trumble]

No, it was a simple question. Let me repeat - according to logic, there is no circle with four sides, it is self-contradictory. If you claim that logic is a human methodology....

I do not "claim" it; it is. Even your carefully selected definitions support that, and most make it even clearer. How about;

the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference

the use of critical thinking, particularly binary yes/no thinking and inductive/deductive reasoning, as a means of testing ideas and debate

or

The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them.

and so on. If you really need references, I will provide them but you will find all of them, and many more, with a simple Google search.

... then prior to this human methodology, were there self-contradictory things? Can a self-contradictory thing exist?

Logically, such a thing cannot exist. But the whole concept of self-contradictory things is only a logical one. It can only exist within that methodology - outside it, it is meaningless. The only difference we have is whether anything can and does exist outside that framework - I believe it can and does, and you do not. I cannot argue that position logically, or indeed rationally, for an obvious reason - it is irrational! It has to be, rationality must by its very nature exclude anything outside itself. Why do I hold an irrational position? Quite simply, faith. We both have that. The existence of God has never been proven logically - you know as well as I do that the well-known philosophical "proofs" do no such thing. We just have faith in different things.

Do the following count?

the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Logic

Logic is science of the laws of thought
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/....sh?WORD=logic

No. Rather obviously, I would have have thought.

I don't understand your emphasis on "laws"... they too did not exist before people. You could argue, I suppose, there are two types, 'natural' law of some sort and human constructions, but here it is clearly the latter that is intended.. otherwise there is no "should" involved, those processes could only occur in one way. It is self-evident they do not, or else we would not be having this very entertaining discussion!

[Trumble]

:sl:
A wise choice. There is nothing left to expose about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason!

You can't be serious?! At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

I can't think of one religion that is in accordance with "logic and reason", at least as far as I understand those terms. For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be. The best people have ever managed is some evidence and (unproven) arguments in favour of God's existence - but never a proof, or anything remotely resembling one. If there was, all rational, logical, thinking men would accept God's existence.

All religions have an element of faith - as I said in the other thread the only difference is what that faith is in. Without that faith, and staying rigidly within those boundaries you seem to insist on, all religions can be no more than a hypothesis, which makes claims that any of them can be "the one, true, religion" utter nonsense.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Trumble,

I do not "claim" it; it is. Even your carefully selected definitions support that, and most make it even clearer.

The definitions I provided interpret logic as laws, not methodology. They are the definitive order by which all things adhere. Now I can appreciate that the term 'logic' is often used to describe the human discipline or study of the principles of inference and deduction - but that isn't what I was referring to here.

Logically, such a thing cannot exist.

But do you reject or accept the notion that such a thing existed, and if so why?

Why do I hold an irrational position? Quite simply, faith. We both have that.

I construct my faith upon logic and reason, not in opposition to them.

It is self-evident they do not, or else we would not be having this very entertaining discussion!

See the distinction of the different levels I provided to ISDhillon.

Which brings me to another point. Both you and Root have commented on this discussion but only in opposition to some of my comments. I would really like to know what you think about some of ISDhillon's comments and views.

-What is your view on ISDhillon's position that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic?
-in the scenario I proposed (where a thief breaks into one's house and when confronted claims that he was blown in with the wind which subsequently forced his hands open and closed on the money) ISDhillon did not believe he could reject the thief's claims on the grounds of logic because the thief was acting according to his 'own reality'. Do you agree or disagree and how would you respond to the scenario?
-do you believe in subjecting the claims of others to logic as a criteria for validity?
-do you agree with the idea that it is possible for something to be neither in accordance with logic nor illogical? Or would you rather say that illogical things do exist?

Peace.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

You can't be serious?!

I certainly am.

At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

Please show me where I have been dishonest or ridiculous (I'm assuming you are not committing the strawman fallacy).

For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be.

You have a severe misunderstanding of logic. The concept of God according to the Islamic religion is in accordance with logic. Proving something and maintain its logical coherence are two totally seperate things. I cannot prove to you that I had a headache last week - that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it is illogical.

I assert with full confidence that Islam is in accordance with logic and reason. I have seen Christians and Jews do likewise. But there is nothing to say about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason - such a proclamation is equivalent to delcaring its invalidity. And there really is nothing to say to those who advocate this veiw. If someone believes it is alright to hold illogical views and beliefs, then you simply cannot reason with such an individual; it is absolutely pointeless.

[Trumble]

The definitions I provided interpret logic as laws, not methodology. They are the definitive order by which all things adhere.

"Laws" and "methodology" here are effectively the same thing! The laws concerned are simply the set of rules to be followed that constitute that methodology. They have no existence outside that context, and are most certainly not the "definitive order by which all things adhere". They are human constructions, and apply only to the processes of thought and reason.

Now I can appreciate that the term 'logic' is often used to describe the human discipline or study of the principles of inference and deduction - but that isn't what I was referring to here.

It is not "often used" that way, it is defined that way. You are just attempting to redefine it to accommodate your position.

What is your view on ISDhillon's position that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic?

I agree with it completely, for reasons that should be perfectly clear by now.

in the scenario I proposed (where a thief breaks into one's house and when confronted claims that he was blown in with the wind which subsequently forced his hands open and closed on the money) ISDhillon did not believe he could reject the thief's claims on the grounds of logic because the thief was acting according to his 'own reality'. Do you agree or disagree and how would you respond to the scenario?

Haven't read it yet; will get back to you.

do you believe in subjecting the claims of others to logic as a criteria for validity?

Yes, when logic is applicable. I would quite happily do so (indeed it is the only way to do so) regarding most philosophical issues, not to mention more practical matters, that exist within that framework. The existence, or otherwise, and the powers of God do not.

do you agree with the idea that it is possible for something to be neither in accordance with logic nor illogical? Or would you rather say that illogical things do exist?

Again, I've been through this before. There is no point in arguing within the box when the issues of concern are outside it. You do not believe there is anything outside it (partly because of your misunderstanding of what logic is), and I do. Indeed I believe Ultimate Reality must, of necessity, exist outside it.

[Islam-Sikhism]

You can't be serious?! At least a "proclaimation" is honest; a denial is ridiculous.

I can't think of one religion that is in accordance with "logic and reason", at least as far as I understand those terms. For any of the monotheistic faiths to be so, it would have to be possible to prove logically that God exists - which has never been done, and is never likely to be. The best people have ever managed is some evidence and (unproven) arguments in favour of God's existence - but never a proof, or anything remotely resembling one. If there was, all rational, logical, thinking men would accept God's existence.

Then we await a specific example from you in relation to Islaam.
As Muslims we have a principle that we hold to: True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.
Alhamdulilaah! As you can see, we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sikhism, or at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect.

All religions have an element of faith - as I said in the other thread the only difference is what that faith is in. Without that faith, and staying rigidly within those boundaries you seem to insist on, all religions can be no more than a hypothesis, which makes claims that any of them can be "the one, true, religion" utter nonsense.

How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?
How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?
As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect.
If you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible then this is no more true than the one who claims faith in the idea that the moon is made out of cheese, whilst doggedly holds to this incredulous belief.

[Trumble]

Please show me where I have been dishonest or ridiculous (I'm assuming you are not committing the strawman fallacy).

I phrased that badly, for which I apologise. I did not mean to apply that you personally are either, only that I believe both apply to any religion that claims it is in accordance with "logic and reason". "Ridiculous", of course, can only be a matter of opinion.

You have a severe misunderstanding of logic. The concept of God according to the Islamic religion is in accordance with logic. Proving something and maintain its logical coherence are two totally seperate things.

A tad rich from someone who does not even know how the word is defined! For something to be logically coherent it must be capable of logical proof, even if just theoretically. While you may not be able to prove to me you had a headache a week ago, had you been under medical supervision with your serotonin levels etc being monitored it would be quite easy to prove it. I do not believe the existence of God is analogous, although you presumably do.

I have seen Christians and Jews do likewise.

Do you accept their claim? If you do, you presumably also accept that those religious are just as valid a hypothesis for the way things actually are as Islam?

But there is nothing to say about a religion that openly proclaims to not be in accordance with logic and reason - such a proclamation is equivalent to delcaring its invalidity.

Oddly many Hindu, Jainist and Buddhist scholars have had a great deal to say about such religions over the last two and a half thousand years or so. You seem to be the only person to believe those religions "invalid", although many of course do not believe their teachings are true. All transcend (that word again) "logic and reason". Indeed, the whole point of Buddhism is to escape the box of "logic and reason" in order to understand the way things really are, and much Buddhist literature (and all of its important literature) is devoted to that very process.

If someone believes it is alright to hold illogical views and beliefs, then you simply cannot reason with such an individual; it is absolutely pointeless.

Oh, quite true. That's where faith comes in, isn't it? :)

[ISDhillon]

True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.

i agree but you are saying god is youre intellect but god is not youre intellect.


"at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect. "

the revelation is sound with my intellect, the revelation says that god has a nature which defies logic, but you believe this is not possible for a revelation to be intellectual sound if it says such a thing, that is youre opion on the nature of god and only god can say what he is or is not.


"How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?"

because god is greater than anything our minds can understand.

How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?

because is defined differently in all religions you evidently define truth according to logic, which suggests youre religion did not come from god because only god has the title of truth, logic is his creation.

"As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect."

make sure you dont use this as a frame of reference to judge other religions because a religion must be approached from its own self-defintion, otherwise you are ignorant, and truth-intolerant.


I"f you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible then this is no more true than the one who claims faith in the idea that the moon is made out of cheese, whilst doggedly holds to this incredulous belief"

youre religion is in no position to be attacking peoples beliefs the prupose in life to worship god is incompatible to sikh doctrine and insofar as youre scholarary wrk on sikhism, youre not only off tangent but of the radar:giggling:

Approach the religion within its own paradigm,

ISDhillon

[ISDhillon]

“No, I said that the person did an illogical action and I challenged you to respond. As of yet, you have not.”

You keep dodging whether instinct is according to logic. Personally I believe instinct dictates logic but instinct itself is not bound by the laws of logic.

“No, you change the scenario so I have to clarify it. i was simply trying to show you the obvious need for logic and the reason why we can reject someone's explanation if it is illogical, but you tried to skirt around that by saying "maybe he's insane!" "no I use my spiritual conscience to refute him not logic!". You have only contraducted yourself.”

I think contradicted was the wrong word to use also the wrong spelling. However you must have by now known that there are situations where reason and logic do not apply this is why I change the scenario and why you change it cos there is not a fixed absolute response to any of these scenarios it all falls around what you believe is possible.

“We ban all such accounts.”

No cos some of them are still here.

“Ad hominem fallacy. You can't respond to my argument so you start to attack the forum.”

I did you just change the scenario. You still fail to show how the precursor to spontaneity is in accordance with logic.

“No it does not. I explained numerous times that not using reasoning to do an action does not mean that there is something that is neither logical or illogical.”

Fine then show me how instict is bound by logic.

“It depends. It is certainly unnatural, in which case it could be miraculous. Not relevant to my argument in any case.”

But you say that during a miracle all the natural laws are suspended then why cant the laws of logic be suspended, and how comes when moses parts the sea the people can cross over cos surely a suspension of natural laws would render it impossible for people to walk cos that is what would have been logical or was the natural laws only suspended for the ocean?

It all happens by gods will, there is nothing miraculous, the power of the transcendednt naam is available to man within this very creation, you have to awaken the lord within it does not matter how much you think you will never get it.

“No it can't! Show me such an image!”

you never seen how your place in a room changes the picture In a hologram, the point of change the picture is neither a circle or a square but it is also both at the same time, how comes that point is not in accordance with logic. That point is a living contradiction.

“Nope - he purposely wants to be illogical, so he knows that you cannot fly but he decides to throw you out the window anyway. No objection from you, I guess.”

But the throwing would be spontaneous how would I even know, if he told me then I may object.

“If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical.”

I just said that you would not know why?, the whole angle was based on subjective truth. This is another example where you change the scenario.

“I don't want to speak your strange 'modern lingo' I want to have a discussion with you in the english vernacular so that you cannot continually change the meaning of simple words to avoid admitting your error.”

You should have stated that from the beginning tht youre not down with times I would have adapted to my audience in that case, and do wish you would stop changing youre scenarios to avoid admitting the possibility of the impossible.

“Good. So now you admit that something that is not in accordance with logic is rejected as invalid.”

Something not in accordance with logic yes, but that is not invalid, he may define the truth differently to you, you define the validity according to the laws of logic, in his reality he is valid, is this a form of truth-definition intolerance you are expressing? And can you really act towards something you are inclined to discriminate against.

“Yes I do not debate with ignoramuses and uneducated. If you qualify, let me know and we can terminate this discussion.”

But that would be too easy and I am enjoying this, the person in the sahara is educated, would you then supply electronic references? Or would you take advantage of the man who has no access to any resources. Btw your comment about not discussing something with someone educated is in itself an ignorant attitude, your prophet was illiterate but you all gain youre wisdom from him lol.

“No I said the thief is perfectly sane without mental disorder. He just believes it is okay to act illogical with a Sikh since they can do absolutely nothing about it.”

They can do something about it remember living by youre instinct so don’t try to represent something you have no understanding of.

“I never denied instantaneous actions just like I never denied the existence of religions. These are all your false attributions to me, but I suppose it is okay in Sikhism because you are allowed to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.”

Not allowed, just possible, and compared to SGGS the Koran is no match interms of science, even youre debate about logic is never ending no-one today has ever been able to deny the possibility concerning god without setting premises first, try looking at what else sggs says and also try looking at how many people on the net mock Koran compared to sggs you really are in no position to be claiming infallibility.

“Then distinguish between something that is not logical and something that is illogical.”

Logical is something which can only occur within the bounds of creation.
Illogical is something which also can occur in the bounds of creation but is concluded contrary to logic.

Transcending logic? – going to a place where logic is a creation in isolation but not an absolute.

“Give me one example where something is transcending logic i.e. not in accordance with logic, and yet it is not illogical.”

Self-realisation.


Mr ansar, just cos I change the scenario does not make me stubborn debate must be rigourous if you cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen and order take-away.

“No they are not acting outside the bounds of reason. They may not be using reason or using logic, but that does not mean that their actions are outside the bounds of logic and reason. I have explained this hundreds of times yet you refuse to understand.”

Yeah but I am not talking about the action I am talking about the precursor to the action the instinct is neither logical or illogical if it is then show me how?

“I said everything. There is no such thing as a self-contradictory or illogical God.”

Which is youre opinion (you dont seem to acknowledge that), I do hope youre faith is not based solely upon logical validity because from my perspective you will be branded “intolerant of the truth”.

Also moss said in another post that you will get frustrated etc etc, I don’t want you to get frustrated but I don’t believe youre position to be the truth it “maybe” is logically valid, I am stressing on the “maybe” in this discussion. Because as always you and I both know that it depends upon the definition of truth, I assign the truth to be nothing other than god but in Islam the truth has a character that is logical, right, moral and good, that is what is suggested anyways.

Please advise,

ISDhillon

[Silver Pearl]

:wasalamex

All three threads about The impossible God have been merged. There is no need to make multiple threads discussing the same issue.

Thank you

[Trumble]

As Muslims we have a principle that we hold to: True revelation will never be incompatible with sound intellect.

Your arguments are certainly consistent with such a principle. Indeed they are determined by it, and depend on it for their validity. But is it true?!

As you can see, we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Sikhism, or at least in I. S. Dhillon's case, violates this principle since they claim true revelation is incompatible with sound intellect.

On the basis of what has been said, that would certainly seem to be the case.

How can one have faith in an impossible, logically incoherent concept?
How can one justify the claim to truth concerning that which transcends or violates one's rationale?

Because ones "rationale" is so small! It cannot begin to understand the infinity that is Absolute Reality.

As Muslims, we base our faith upon that which is logically sound and consistent; we cannot have faith in that which violates our God-given intellect.

That is the big previously "hidden" premise, I think, that the intellect is God given.. and that therefore such intellect must be sufficient to comprehend God and Ultimate Reality. I do not believe that is the case, and can see no reason, logical or otherwise, to suggest it is.

If you feel that people like I. S. Dhillon can have faith in the impossible.....

I do not have faith in the impossible, but I disagree with you what the impossible is. I also believe that not only do we not know what is impossible ("logic and reason" are a very small subset of reality, and by no means all of it - or capable of explaining all of it to fundamentally and necessarily limited minds), but that we are, by our very nature, incapable of knowing it.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

"Laws" and "methodology" here are effectively the same thing!

No they are not. These are two seperate definitons of logic.

It is not "often used" that way, it is defined that way.

This is clear proof that you are not familiar with the different connotations of the word 'logic' since you insist it has only one connotation!

A simple example can demonstrate your error:
"You have committed a logical fallacy"
"The logical consequence of that is this"

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one. The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

I agree with it completely, for reasons that should be perfectly clear by now.

Yet you say:

Yes, when logic is applicable. I would quite happily do so (indeed it is the only way to do so) regarding most philosophical issues, not to mention more practical matters, that exist within that framework. The existence, or otherwise, and the powers of God do not.

Here you seem to suggest that only God can act outside the bounds of logic. Which is it? Can creation act outside the bounds of logic?

I phrased that badly, for which I apologise. I did not mean to apply that you personally are either, only that I believe both apply to any religion that claims it is in accordance with "logic and reason". "Ridiculous", of course, can only be a matter of opinion.

No it is neither dishonest nor ridiculous to assert that Islam is in accordance with logic and reason.

For something to be logically coherent it must be capable of logical proof, even if just theoretically.

This is utter nonsense. Logically consistency of a concept is not dependent in any way upon evidence for the concept itself. I refuted this clearly with the example I provided which you failed to respond to:

While you may not be able to prove to me you had a headache a week ago, had you been under medical supervision with your serotonin levels etc being monitored it would be quite easy to prove it.

But I didn't! Does that mean it is illogical to claim I had a headache last week because I cannot prove it to you?? This is the most obvious evidence of your flawed understanding.

Do you accept their claim?

That is what they claim. Whether I accept it or not is a different matter. But most people do not openly proclaim that their views are not in accordance with logic and reason. Sikhism is an exception. I take it now that Buddhism is also not in accordance with logic and reason. This is good news to me, actually.

Oh, quite true. That's where faith comes in, isn't it? :)

No, you did not read the sentence properly. Discussion by default is done with logic and reason. In very simple terms I am saying there is no point in my discussion with you or ISDhillon since both of you openly accept that your conclusions are not in accordance with logic and reason. So there is no point dialoguing with either of you. Do you understand what I am saying?

[Trumble]

No they are not. These are two seperate definitons of logic.

This is clear proof that you are not familiar with the different connotations of the word 'logic' since you insist it has only one connotation!

A simple example can demonstrate your error:
"You have committed a logical fallacy"
"The logical consequence of that is this"

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one. The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

Rubbish. Both use the word in exactly the same way, and according to the way the word is actually defined. You were challenged to provide a definition of "logic" indicating it had any kind of independent existence outside of being a series of rules/laws that constitute a methodology. Your attempt to do so was feeble, and that effort is even worse.

Here you seem to suggest that only God can act outside the bounds of logic. Which is it? Can creation act outside the bounds of logic?

"Creation" and God are one and the same. Of course creation can act outside the bounds of logic - creation is infinite; human reason is not.

Does that mean it is illogical to claim I had a headache last week because I cannot prove it to you?? This is the most obvious evidence of your flawed understanding.

No, it doesn't. I'm afraid all that provides obvious evidence of is that you are no longer bothering to read what I am saying. Nowhere did I suggest or imply that.

That is what they claim. Whether I accept it or not is a different matter. But most people do not openly proclaim that their views are not in accordance with logic and reason. Sikhism is an exception. I take it now that Buddhism is also not in accordance with logic and reason. This is good news to me, actually.

"Different matter" or not, I am curious.

What has "openly proclaim" got to do with anything? Are you saying it is somehow alright to believe the 'heresy' that ultimate reality might transcend "logic and reason" provided you somehow keep it quiet like a pervert might his collection of pornography?

No, you did not read the sentence properly. Discussion by default is done with logic and reason. In very simple terms I am saying there is no point in my discussion with you or ISDhillon since both of you openly accept that your conclusions are not in accordance with logic and reason. So there is no point dialoguing with either of you. Do you understand what I am saying?

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I did last time... and the time before that. I am sorry if I am not providing the answers you expect, but perhaps you might pay a little more attention to them regardless.

I fully ACCEPT that it is futile to discuss the nature of Ultimate Reality, or God, with people like myself (I won't speak for ISDhillon) who believe those concepts transcend logic and reason. I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever... I certainly don't see it as some sort of dirty secret. Such arguments are indeed conducted using reason and logic, we have no other way of conducting them. I believe that reality cannot be grasped using human reason, and therefore cannot be discussed using logic, if indeed it can be discussed at all. Buddhist teachings do not (generally) attempt to do so. They either set out lifestyles and techniques that will train the mind of the adept to be able to go beyond both reason and material attachment, or they are direct 'weapons' intended to shock the mind into that state - the famous Zen koans are a good example. That those teachings have the desired result is, as I said, purely a matter of faith. There is no obligation in Buddhism, no Supreme Being telling you what to do. If you find that Buddhist teachings work for you you can embrace them, but if they don't you are free to abandon them and move on. I actually find your insistence on "logic and reason" in the context of religion rather depressing; and certainly don't consider claimed logical consistency (and that is all it is - I think such claims are cloud-cuckoo land in relation to monotheism) to be any badge of honour or particular recommendation.

Anyway, there seems little point in continuing further when we BOTH agree such a discussion must ultimately be futile! :happy: I can only see it going downhill from here, as the accusations of "rubbish" are starting to appear, and I don't really want that to happen.

Peace.

[muslimah19]

im totally confused by this thread, all i can read arguments, not a civil discussion. Any1 wanna summarise?? plz

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Rubbish. Both use the word in exactly the same way, and according to the way the word is actually defined.

Since I've just explained to you what the difference is and you have not refuted that explanation, this is nothing more than denial. Why don't you tell me - if a logical fallacy is illogical, why is it called a logical fallacy?

Of course creation can act outside the bounds of logic - creation is infinite; human reason is not.

So then you have no objections to someone who acts according to their illogical reasoning.

No, it doesn't. I'm afraid all that provides obvious evidence of is that you are no longer bothering to read what I am saying. Nowhere did I suggest or imply that.

Then why don't you answer the question? You claimed that something must be logically proven for it to be in accordance with logic. I cannot provide a logical argument or proof establishing the fact that I had a headache last week - does that mean my claim is not in accordance with logic??

"Different matter" or not, I am curious.

Obviously I do not.

What has "openly proclaim" got to do with anything? Are you saying it is somehow alright

I am not saying anything is alright, but the one who openly proclaims his religion goes against logic and reason is more shocking than those who deny it.

[Trumble]

Since I've just explained to you what the difference is and you have not refuted that explanation

You have "explained" nothing that needs "refutation". Unless you accept the obvious fact that the "laws" you keep banging on about are no more than the constituent parts of the methodology known as "logic" I can't see that changing.

In the first example, illogical reasoning has been highlighted and in the second example it is logical reasoning. The reason being that we use the word 'logic' in more ways than one.

Yes, we obviously use it in both positive and negative senses. Within the logical framework something is logical or illogical. Thas has nothing whatsoever to do with the point at issue, i.e whether logic has any independent existence outside its place as a human methodology for rational thinking. I see no point in continuing to discuss that point as you have yet to provide any recognised definition, or even offered an argument to the effect that logic has such an independent existence.

The first use above denotes a connection with reasoning (in this case flawed) while the second denotes specifically a concordance with correct principes of reasoning. Methodology in the first, law in the second.

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning. "Laws" are just the rules of that methodology. In short you are just waffling, not "explaining" anything.

So then you have no objections to someone who acts according to their illogical reasoning.

Again, you cannot see beyond the box. It is not a case of acting according to illogical reasoning, it is abandoning reason altogether within the particular context under discussion. I wouldn't particularly like my bus driver to act illogically - but nobody is claiming driving a bus is beyond the realms of human reason.

Then why don't you answer the question?

I did. I said "no, it doesn't".

You claimed that something must be logically proven for it to be in accordance with logic.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed it must theoretically be capable of some sort of logical proof. Something beyond the capacity to reason cannot be.

Obviously I do not

.

You could not, without putting both those religions on an equal footing with Islam.

So which is it, then? Either those religions are both "invalid" as neither are in accordance with" reason or logic" or they ARE valid, but only because they have brushed their inherent illogicality under the carpet? As the second is just plain silly, it must be the first. So that's Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism, Jainism and Hinduism all "invalid" and in need of no further "exposing". Job done... but it has nothing to do with "logic and reason", just a dismissal of all religions other than Islam!

I am not saying anything is alright, but the one who openly proclaims his religion goes against logic and reason is more shocking than those who deny it.

Nobody has been talking about going "against logic and reason", only transcending it. The difference is fundamental. It is only "shocking" if you are not willing to at least peep at the potentialities outside that box - as all the great religions (apart from Islam, apparently) do. Only a fool denies the obvious, and I have not done so.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Yes, we obviously use it in both positive and negative senses.

So now you acknowledge that the word is being used in two different senses (which refutes your previous claim that Both use the word in exactly the same way) but you claim that it is irrelevant! And supposedly I am waffling!!

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning.

You just repeated exactly what I said.

Again, you cannot see beyond the box.

Because you fail to establish that there is a box in the first case.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed it must theoretically be capable of some sort of logical proof. Something beyond the capacity to reason cannot be.

So claiming I had a headache last week is not illogical because theoretically I could prove it happened? This doesn't make your argument any less defective because now we can refute it from two angles:
1. We can theoretically prove the existence of God with logical arguments if He made His presence known, which will happen on the Day of Resurrection anyway. So like I can't prove to you that I had the headache last week, under the current circumstances, likewise I cannot prove to you that God exists under the current circumstances. But theoretically, given alternative circumstances both are possible.
2. I can't prove to you that a few minutes ago I was thinking about Q. Does that mean it is illogical to suggest that a few minutes ago I was thinking about Q?

So which is it, then?

What I have always said it was - Islam is the only valid path. My point was that at least Christianity and Judaism profess to be in accordance with logic.

So that's Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism Sikhism, Jainism and Hinduism all "invalid" and in need of no further "exposing".

No because Christians and Jews maintain that their religion is in accordance with logic and reason. If they didn't, then there would not be any need for 'exposing' either.

Only a fool denies the obvious, and I have not done so.

So now you call me a fool! It seems insolence is common to people of religions that 'transcend' logic! (Previously a Sikh informed me that I am allegedly a 'stupid one'). You've just discredited your own arguments with your disrespectful outburst, but know that we do not tolerate such behavior on the forum. You are welcome to express your opinions so long as you do so respectfully. Calling people who disagree with you 'fools', 'ridiculous' and 'dishonest' will not make your arguments any stronger.

Regards

[amardeep]

regarding the sirgun/nargun issue u came up with, i did a little bit of reading, but i could not find much. and then i read the article on the sikhism_islam interfaith site at i just made me laugh lol.


sochai soch na hova-ee jay sochee lakh vaar.
By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times.

this is what you are doing. you are trying to reduce God astagfarallah!

tell me according to Islam, is it possible to know the limits of Allah? does he even have limits? if you say yes, then you have degraded Allah Subhana Wa Tala and reduced him into something which we can comprehend in our small minds. even in Islam i think it is said that our minds will never know the ways of the Lord.
It is in no way possible to describe the Lord, not even in Islam. The Quran mentions features about him, for instance in the bismillah we hear that he is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the forgiver etc. but do u think this is all? Do you think that the Quran tells you all there is about God?

jay ha-o jaanaa aakhaa naahee kahnaa kathan na jaa-ee.
Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.


Sirgun Nargun is about God being “formless” and then “not formless” at the same time.

You say this is a contradiction. I say this is pure logic. We as humans have a limited mind. We cant understand everything. We are limited. We can do a lot of progress in life, but at some point we have reached our limit and there is then no way to cross that limit. Let me give you an example:

Every year in the Olympics we see a 100 m run. And lets say that they break the world record each year and the record is now on 10 seconds. Amazing that they keep on breaking it each year, but we as humans are limited. At some point we well not be able to break our own records. We will never be able to run 100 meters in 2 seconds. Gurbani states this:

“The Lord created all creatures and they have been assigned different tasks.”


“He has so constructed His World that no one creature or species is exactly like the other.”
(AGGS p. 1056)

So the same way you cant compare an animal to a human, then you cant compare a human to God, as God is above is all.

as I have just shown you, humans are limited and they can only do things to a certain degree. But this is not the case with God:

His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind? Page 5, Line 7

On the sikh islam site they say that God is limited and there are certain things he can not do

but His limits cannot be found. Page 5, Line 9

you try to use your human mind to explain God. That’s the same as if you go to an airplane, open up its motor and try to explain which wire goes where, even though you know nothing about airplanes. The same way the airplane motor is decreasing your mind limit, so has God limited our minds.

So as dhillon has stated many times; God cant be described with logic.
Even your scripture says so in the Surat Iklas saying:
112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.

This is exactly sikhis point. There is NOONE like him. There is noone in this world or universe that is sirgun and nirgun besides God.


Then you say that these things contradict. This is hilarious. I could say the same thing about the Quran. In the bismillah we hear that God is forgiving, mercifull and compassionate, yet in all of these ayat we hear about Gods wrath. How can he be compasionate, and still be angry at the same time? By being compasionate , it should dispel his anger should’n it? Lol..can u see where im going?

001.007 002.059 002.061 002.090 003.112 003.134 003.162 004.093 005.060 005.080 006.040 006.147 006.148 007.071 007.097 007.098 007.152 007.162 008.016 010.027 012.107 012.110 013.013 014.021 014.044 015.090 016.026 016.034 016.045 016.058 016.094 016.106 016.113 017.015 017.057 018.055 020.081 020.086 021.042 021.046 021.087 022.002 024.009 025.065 029.010 029.029 033.025 034.005 040.029 040.083 042.016 045.011 047.028 048.006 054.037 054.039 057.013 058.014 059.002 060.013 067.018 069.047 076.010 104.006

You say that God can be described with logics and rationality. Then tell me. Everything we know of his mortal. Nothing exists forever, so how can God be immortal? God has been around for 105453543543543543545454354354354354355 times 44354353324254053 times 5432547875987574587858475 billion years, BEFORE he created the universe. Yet he was not doing anything as the world is only 3-4 billion years old. Wow this is rational huh. We live and die, but God has been around for so long lol…



Tell me. is there a limit to God?

Ma Salaama.

Dhillon Paaji if i have said anything wrong then please do correct me.

[Trumble]

So now you call me a fool! It seems insolence is common to people of religions that 'transcend' logic!

READ IT AGAIN !!

I have just messaged you about your "warning", but after that ridiculous tirade, I see no reason not to reproduce it here.

complaints against staff action are to be done through private messages.

Let's just kill off a couple points though, before I go. Firstly

So now you acknowledge that the word is being used in two different senses (which refutes your previous claim that Both use the word in exactly the same way) but you claim that it is irrelevant! And supposedly I am waffling!!

Yes, you are waffling in increasingly desperate fashion. The two 'senses' I acknowledged were merely the positive and negative uses of the same word, i.e as in something that is logical or illogical. Most people would take that as a given. Things can be green, or not green. Cubes or not cubes. The second sense you have tried to introduce has nothing whatsoever to do with that - you claimed that 'logic' can be used to represent something outside of the context of a human methodology for rational thought. You tried, you failed, and have dodged the question repeatedly ever since.

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning.

You just repeated exactly what I said.

I did indeed. As what you said just indicates that word can be used in both a positive and negative fashion. So what? You thought you could change what we were discussing to something completely irrelevant and somehow think I wouldn't notice?!

Because you fail to establish that there is a box in the first case.

I haven't failed because I haven't even tried. The only way I could establish it in a way you would find satisfactory is through "logic and reason", but by necessity logic and reason cannot even recognise anything outside themselves, let alone address it via philosophical debate. Such an attempt would therefore be completely futile.

Enough. One cannot explain colour to the blind. And no, that wasn't an insult either.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I have just messaged you about your "warning", but after that ridiculous tirade, I see no reason not to reproduce it here.

This has been handled via pm.

The two 'senses' I acknowledged were merely the positive and negative uses of the same word, i.e as in something that is logical or illogical.

Yes, the word logical is actually used in a connotation that denotes illogical reasoning. So the word cannot actually be taken in the same sense in both cases. In one sense (logical fallacy) it refers to the human methodology you mentioned and does not relate whatsoever to the validity of the reasoning within the methodology, and in the other it actually clarifies the validity of the argument (logical consequence).

See the following article which I personally think is a good explanation of logic and ontology, where they also provide a reference to the discussion on the normativity of logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/

Most people would take that as a given. Things can be green, or not green. Cubes or not cubes.

In case you haven't noticed, the same word is used for both opposites in the example. I don't see how anyone could confuse it with analogies like "green and not green" or "cube and not cube" since the same term is not used to refer to both!!

And throwing insulting words like 'desperate', 'fool', 'dishonest', 'ridiculous, or the latest addition - 'blind' does not make one's arguments any stronger, nor does it help in refuting those of one's opponent.

I haven't failed because I haven't even tried.

Then don't criticize others for 'failing to peep out of a box' if you acknowledge that you can in no way support such claims. What do you accomplish by doing so? What do you think you are achieving by telling me to peep out of a box which can not possibly de demonstrated to exist?!

Why did you come and start arguing with me if you wholeheartedly acknowledge that all your arguments are futile?

Enough. One cannot explain colour to the blind. And no, that wasn't an insult either.

Yes it was. You just insinuated that I was blind.

[ISDhillon]

"And throwing insulting words like 'desperate', 'fool', 'dishonest', 'ridiculous, or the latest addition - 'blind' does not make one's arguments any stronger, nor does it help in refuting those of one's opponent."

but you make no hesitation in telling someone that they are childish, like a school boy who keeps asking why, you remember, even though it doesnt offend me i still find you hypocritical cos such a thing maybe offensive to someone else.

Then don't criticize others for 'failing to peep out of a box' if you acknowledge that you can in no way support such claims. What do you accomplish by doing so? What do you think you are achieving by telling me to peep out of a box which can not possibly de demonstrated to exist?!

if you criticize a religion by branding them false by declaring the religion to be illogical, then you are doing the same thing, if we openly tell you that our god defies logic then why do you even bother to logically falsify the religion, you are basically doing it for youre own appeasement, because all that you have worked hard for in life is with one stroke made irrelevant. and for all the arguments that you use to support the existence of youre logical god, a warped interpretation of the scripture is hardly valid proof.

Why did you come and start arguing with me if you wholeheartedly acknowledge that all your arguments are futile?

why do you brand religions which openly decalre that their god defies logic to be false, say they are not coherent to the laws of logic but you go further and start to mock them, it would be ok if you just left it that you seem to think you have a divine right to falsify religion with youre own defintion of truth, you really think anyone other than yourself is going to buy it?, how many americans and eauropeans have converted to sikhism? thousands yearly, apparently the need for a logical god isnt what it used to be.

Yes it was. You just insinuated that I was blind.

[/QUOTE]

no you cannot describe colour to a blind man, you cannot decribe a god which transcends the law of logic with logic, its impossible

it has nothing to do with you being blind.

Sorry to but in,:thankyou:

ISDhillon

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

but you make no hesitation in telling someone that they are childish, like a school boy who keeps asking why, you remember, even though it doesnt offend me i still find you hypocritical cos such a thing maybe offensive to someone else.

Really? How so? It's true I commented on your debate tactics but I don't recall directly insulting you (and for the record, Trumble maintains that he did not directly insult anyone either).

if you criticize a religion by branding them false by declaring the religion to be illogical, then you are doing the same thing, if we openly tell you that our god defies logic then why do you even bother to logically falsify the religion

I'm not trying to logically falsify your religion because I don't need to - you told me your religion is not in accordance with logic and reason, and that's fine with me.

And where have I mocked or insulted Sikhism?

how many americans and eauropeans have converted to sikhism?

But you said Sikhism itself does not even endorse conversions because it views all religions to be valid - a self-contradicto- oh, right, no logic.

thousands yearly, apparently the need for a logical god isnt what it used to be.

Read what major media organizations have said about Islam:
http://www.menj.org/fastest/

It's not an argument, anyway, so I don't know why you're mentioning it.

Regards

[jss]

regarding the sirgun/nargun issue u came up with, i did a little bit of reading, but i could not find much. and then i read the article on the sikhism_islam interfaith site at i just made me laugh lol.


sochai soch na hova-ee jay sochee lakh vaar.
By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times.

this is what you are doing. you are trying to reduce God astagfarallah!

tell me according to Islam, is it possible to know the limits of Allah? does he even have limits? if you say yes, then you have degraded Allah Subhana Wa Tala and reduced him into something which we can comprehend in our small minds. even in Islam i think it is said that our minds will never know the ways of the Lord.
It is in no way possible to describe the Lord, not even in Islam. The Quran mentions features about him, for instance in the bismillah we hear that he is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the forgiver etc. but do u think this is all? Do you think that the Quran tells you all there is about God?

jay ha-o jaanaa aakhaa naahee kahnaa kathan na jaa-ee.
Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.


Sirgun Nargun is about God being “formless” and then “not formless” at the same time.

You say this is a contradiction. I say this is pure logic. We as humans have a limited mind. We cant understand everything. We are limited. We can do a lot of progress in life, but at some point we have reached our limit and there is then no way to cross that limit. Let me give you an example:

Every year in the Olympics we see a 100 m run. And lets say that they break the world record each year and the record is now on 10 seconds. Amazing that they keep on breaking it each year, but we as humans are limited. At some point we well not be able to break our own records. We will never be able to run 100 meters in 2 seconds. Gurbani states this:

“The Lord created all creatures and they have been assigned different tasks.”


“He has so constructed His World that no one creature or species is exactly like the other.”
(AGGS p. 1056)

So the same way you cant compare an animal to a human, then you cant compare a human to God, as God is above is all.

as I have just shown you, humans are limited and they can only do things to a certain degree. But this is not the case with God:

His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind? Page 5, Line 7

On the sikh islam site they say that God is limited and there are certain things he can not do

but His limits cannot be found. Page 5, Line 9

you try to use your human mind to explain God. That’s the same as if you go to an airplane, open up its motor and try to explain which wire goes where, even though you know nothing about airplanes. The same way the airplane motor is decreasing your mind limit, so has God limited our minds.

So as dhillon has stated many times; God cant be described with logic.
Even your scripture says so in the Surat Iklas saying:
112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.

This is exactly sikhis point. There is NOONE like him. There is noone in this world or universe that is sirgun and nirgun besides God.


Then you say that these things contradict. This is hilarious. I could say the same thing about the Quran. In the bismillah we hear that God is forgiving, mercifull and compassionate, yet in all of these ayat we hear about Gods wrath. How can he be compasionate, and still be angry at the same time? By being compasionate , it should dispel his anger should’n it? Lol..can u see where im going?

001.007 002.059 002.061 002.090 003.112 003.134 003.162 004.093 005.060 005.080 006.040 006.147 006.148 007.071 007.097 007.098 007.152 007.162 008.016 010.027 012.107 012.110 013.013 014.021 014.044 015.090 016.026 016.034 016.045 016.058 016.094 016.106 016.113 017.015 017.057 018.055 020.081 020.086 021.042 021.046 021.087 022.002 024.009 025.065 029.010 029.029 033.025 034.005 040.029 040.083 042.016 045.011 047.028 048.006 054.037 054.039 057.013 058.014 059.002 060.013 067.018 069.047 076.010 104.006

You say that God can be described with logics and rationality. Then tell me. Everything we know of his mortal. Nothing exists forever, so how can God be immortal? God has been around for 105453543543543543545454354354354354355 times 44354353324254053 times 5432547875987574587858475 billion years, BEFORE he created the universe. Yet he was not doing anything as the world is only 3-4 billion years old. Wow this is rational huh. We live and die, but God has been around for so long lol…



Tell me. is there a limit to God?

Ma Salaama.

Dhillon Paaji if i have said anything wrong then please do correct me.

I would just like to add to that. The Islam-Sikhism site states that sargun-nirgun at the SAME TIME is a contradiction within itself. If people try to describe God with their own limited understanding then they will see it as a contradiction. However if the almighty God/Allah/Raam/Vaheguru is the creator of everything around us then how can he be limited to thought. Why can he not be with and without attributes at the same time?
As Gurbani states in mool mantar (the opening verse of Guru Granth Sahib Ji) God is 'akaal moorat,' akaal meaning 'timeless' or and moorat meaning 'image'.
God is the undying and beyond the confines of time, he is above that, so again how can he not be nirgun-sargun at the same time?
God being limitless is something which ISDhillon veer ji continually is trying to point out but his arguments are falling on death ears. Sheer ignorance.

[amardeep]

then read my arguments.

so you say that Allah according to Islam is a changing God that switches mood from happy to angry? lol does that make sence? that is what human beings are doing. God in sikhi is not angry. if he punishes people, it is according to their own actions, and he does it, not out of anger, but out of justice. the same way the judge in the court does not throw people on deathrow out of anger, but out of justice.

hahahah you are trying to give Allah human values and attributes..

lol..

there is no reason to discuss with most muslims, as they understand nothing but Islam.

[Soldier2000]

Ansar post number 7 =

"So then there should be no problem with creation acting outside the bounds of logic, right?"

Dhillion post number 8 =

"Most definitely "

Thank you for sharing beliefs with us!

[jss]

Who are these so called laws of logic created by? Yourselves?

[amardeep]

why are u asking me these questions, when u can see that muslims on this board are also using "laws of logic" when it comes to God?

ask them also, and whatever they answar, that is also my answer..

[amardeep]

Astagfarallah to those who reduce God into something Human and something we can understand with our minds.

ASTAGFARALLAAAAH

[Mohsin]

God is nothing like us humans

He is different in his own way. We believe for example god has a hand, but not like we have a hand, with a palm and 4 fingers and a thumb. He in his own infinite divine and unique way has a hand. Similarly we believe God can speak, but now like how we speak, with a mouth and lips that move permitting sounds to be heard. In his own unique infinite and divine way God can speak.

Anyone who says God has a hand like us humans have, is committing shirk

[Mohsin]

Astagfarallah to those who reduce God into something Human and something we can understand with our minds.

ASTAGFARALLAAAAH

We only understand of God of what he has told us about him. We have not seen his face, God will give that reward to mthe people of heaven. But for now we have only been told he is a light, so thats how we imagine him when we pray. Similarly wityh other things we only understand God of what has been explained to us, because as you say Gid is nothing like us as it says it Surah Ikhlas

[jss]

why are u asking me these questions, when u can see that muslims on this board are also using "laws of logic" when it comes to God?

ask them also, and whatever they answar, that is also my answer..

Lol i'm not asking you questions veer ji/bhenji

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Dhillon,
This is the post I missed.

No, I said that the person did an illogical action and I challenged you to respond. As of yet, you have not.

You keep dodging whether instinct is according to logic. Personally I believe instinct dictates logic but instinct itself is not bound by the laws of logic.

First you've responded to a comment that has nothing to do with instinct. Instead of answering my question, you've now asked me about instinct. Well I already explained that you can speak about this on different levels. The individual them[self] does not use reasoning when reacting on instinct. But their actions can be analyzed on another level to determine whether it was logical or illogical, and yet another level to determine if it is logical to suggest someone acted in this manner.

this is why I change the scenario

And that is the problem with thsi discussion. I have given you scenarios that illustrate the flaw in your argument but instead of responding to the scenarios you change them and then respond to them. So you are not responding to my arguments you are responding to your altered version of my arguments. But at least you admit that you changed the scenarios!! ;D

You still fail to show how the precursor to spontaneity is in accordance with logic.

Precursor for who? We're talking about levels remember.

But you say that during a miracle all the natural laws are suspended then why cant the laws of logic be suspended

Because I do not believe they are the same. Suspending the law of gravitation is not the same as suspending the law of noncontradiction. Unless you can prove otherwise, which is simply not possible within the framework of a logical discussion.

you never seen how your place in a room changes the picture In a hologram, the point of change the picture is neither a circle or a square but it is also both at the same time, how comes that point is not in accordance with logic. That point is a living contradiction.

Please take a picture of this fascinating image and send it to me. I want to see this circle-square!

But the throwing would be spontaneous how would I even know, if he told me then I may object.

But his actions are supposed to be illogical.

I just said that you would not know why?

Just because I don't know why they did it does not change anything. I simply wouldn't know if their action was illogical or not. But that doesn't change the status of the action itself.

Something not in accordance with logic yes, but that is not invalid

Can you give me an example of something not in accordance with logic yet not illogical? I think I may have already asked you this.

your prophet was illiterate but you all gain youre wisdom from him lol.

The one who recieves knowledge directly from God is better educated than anyonbe else on the planet.

They can do something about it remember living by youre instinct so don’t try to represent something you have no understanding of.

But he knows they cannot object to his behavior on logical grounds so as long as he can overpower them they can do nothing.

Not allowed, just possible, and compared to SGGS the Koran is no match interms of science

The Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a revelation from God. I didn't attack your holy book, so you're clearly out of line with this comment.

how many people on the net mock Koran compared to sggs.

I agree, more people attack the Qur'an and insult Muslims than those who insult and attack Sikhs. What does this prove? If you try to use it to prove the validity of Sikhism over Islam, you are commiting a logical fallacy.

Transcending logic? – going to a place where logic is a creation in isolation but not an absolute.

Can you give a universally acceptable example of a place where there is transcending of logic?

The rest of this post is a repetition of the same claims previously debunked or answered above.

you still have alot of my outsanding arguments to answer.

As above.

tut tut again the pride does not allow one to see, we dont advertise to the media like you

I advertise to the media? Why don't you just say I bribed CNN, ABC, BIC, Time, etc.? lol

The comments about conversions is really off-topic here. If you want to discuss you can do so in a seperate thread. Otherwise I will be obliged to delete your comments and penalize you for going off-topic.

Regards

[amardeep]

in surat iklas we can hear that no one is like him.

yet in the Quran we hear that he has a hand, he has a throne (which implies he can sit )

a king has a hand and a throne..

so what you talking about "no one like him" ???

and in various hadeeth we can read that he has fingers, legs etc.

and you are calling our definition of God weird??? haha Oh my God you must be kiddin me.

PLEASE DO NOT PASTE LISTS OF ALLEGATIONS, YOU CAN DISCUSS EACH INDIVIDUALLY. FEEL FREE TO CREATE A SEPERATE THREAD. ALSO, KINDLY REFRAIN FROM POSITN GINSULTING REMARKS - IF YOU FEEL THAT OTHERS HAVE ALSO DONE THIS THEN PLEASE REPORT THEIR BEHAVIOR SO THE MODS CAN DEAL WITH IT RATHER THAN REACTING IN A SIMILAR MANNER.

i normally dont debate this way, but you have clearly made me angry..

[ISDhillon]

Well said Amardeep Ji reps for you:)

Ansar ji reading this post I see you have committed the classic Adansar al’-adl fallacy lol

Listen to me, I have done some extra reading, when you achieve self-realisation you reach the heights of human reason and this is known as anand/bliss if it had been illogical then surely my guru would have opposed it being illogical but no he called it bliss because their was no words for its description. This bliss transcends logic. Human reason will only take us to a certain point and then we must go on without it. Self-realisation is not unknowable but it is not fully comprehensible I think this is our problem and why we are carrying on this pointless debate. I understand now that instinct is irrelevant to logic; however self-realisation which is the core of Sikh teachings transcends logic. I was reading a book on self-realisation and logic and they said that it is a state where it is neither fully logical or fully illogical but logic itself compels us to move towards this state which is outside of this realm, and I believe that’s what sggs does you may disagree but that is completely fine with me. Things which transcend logic: god, faith and beauty (btw I am not clever just got this from a book): so human reason is finite and probably flawed, god is not infinite therefore he must be able to pass the test of logic but also he is not to be limited by logic. I want to write more but am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so will have the answers you require about my religion soon.

Kind regards,

ISDhillon:thankyou:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I want to write more but am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so will have the answers you require about my religion soon.

Thank you. Until then I will close the thread so that we do not continue to go off-topic.

Peace.

[ISDhillon]

If you don't know, then you shouldn't comment on it.

If you know then why dont clear the misconception another moderator on this thread didn't mind engaging in a discussion on the killing of apostates why dont you tell us what it is you exactly believe, mind you the doctrine has changed significantly from the time my guru was here so I am sure the answers have changed nonetheless at that time the claims were as khoza had suggested this is backed up by janamsakhis of all the gurus udasis.

I don't mind if you want to use this thread for explaining Sikhism, but you are using it for attacking Islam and Muslims and attributing false views to them - Islam has not denied the vastness of space and the existence of other galaxies.

Actually I could say the same if someone is going to spread lies about our gurus then we have to meet that challenge no-one is deliberately attacking Islam this is a reaction to the absurdity and ignorance I have seen throughout my time on this forum. I can bet in the next few days someone will again come on the thread and claim our guru was a muslim, this has been taught to children through their upbringing and represents a deliberate intent from muslim elders to malign the magnificence of sikhism. I would also like to say that I have been discriminated against on this forum by yourself with regards to the warning, I have actually seen other members since do the same offence I was accused of I wonder if they received a warning we would never know. I would also like to say that when you tell participants on this forum to reply to moderators directly at least you could have courtesy to answer their pm instead of waiting for them to repeat their pm.

And the Qur'an is God's revelation of guidance for the human being, not a human's astronomical observations.

An angels not gods. Yet logic is an indicator prized above all else. A humans? - who's attacking now, you have no proof that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji came from a human it says that it is a direct revelation from god and I have proven that koran is not, end of story.

If the thread is not going to be used for a discussion of Sikhism then it can be closed and the individual allegations against Islam examined in alternate threads.

You must do what you think is right. BTW I do not feel you answered my question properly regarding the impossible god I showed you how youre examination of our scripture was not accurate by showing the limits of logic but you never answered this just closed it, I would prefer it if you could answer my response as I do not feel that I have had closure.

Thanks in advance,

ISDhillon:)

[Mohsin]

You must do what you think is right. BTW I do not feel you answered my question properly regarding the impossible god I showed you how youre examination of our scripture was not accurate by showing the limits of logic but you never answered this just closed it, I would prefer it if you could answer my response as I do not feel that I have had closure.

ISDhillon:)

You said in that thread you were going to read some book on logic so you he stopped the thread

[ISDhillon]

You said in that thread you were going to read some book on logic so you he stopped the thread

that doesnt mean i stopped the debate i feel i portrayed the correct version in the last post, also i know you have been following this debate so what did you understand of the limits of logic from my last post?, I actually showed in that discussion that where ansar thought that treanscending logic was illogical was wrong but it seems that was the nail on the coffin, sometimes we get caught up in the discussion we dont realise the tide has been turned, and the thread was closed, simple fact is that transcending logic is not an opposite its about the finite nature of human reason and the infinite nature of god.:)

[Mohsin]

that doesnt mean i stopped the debate i feel i portrayed the correct version in the last post, also i know you have been following this debate so what did you understand of the limits of logic from my last post?, I actually showed in that discussion that where ansar thought that treanscending logic was illogical was wrong but it seems that was the nail on the coffin, sometimes we get caught up in the discussion we dont realise the tide has been turned, and the thread was closed, simple fact is that transcending logic is not an opposite its about the finite nature of human reason and the infinite nature of god.:)

Lol i'm sorry, but i disagree with you. I was beginning to feel sorry for you in the thread, i thought it was getting bad and was actually glad it got closed. I thought you were happy too since you didnt then react. guess i was wrong. PM Ansar and tell him to re-open it

[ISDhillon]

Lol i'm sorry, but i disagree with you. I was beginning to feel sorry for you in the thread, i thought it was getting bad and was actually glad it got closed. I thought you were happy too since you didnt then react. guess i was wrong. PM Ansar and tell him to re-open it

lol I doubt you even understand the debate you will have to prove to me or ansar how this explanation does not show that transcending logic is cannot be equated with being illogical remember this is the position ansar and the islam-sikhism people took and has been revoked, in fact i am laughing at you:giggling:


"Listen to me, I have done some extra reading, when you achieve self-realisation you reach the heights of human reason and this is known as anand/bliss if it had been illogical then surely my guru would have opposed it being illogical but no he called it bliss because their was no words for its description. This bliss transcends logic. Human reason will only take us to a certain point and then we must go on without it. Self-realisation is not unknowable but it is not fully comprehensible I think this is our problem and why we are carrying on this pointless debate. I understand now that instinct is irrelevant to logic; however self-realisation which is the core of Sikh teachings transcends logic. I was reading a book on self-realisation and logic and they said that it is a state where it is neither fully logical or fully illogical but logic itself compels us to move towards this state which is outside of this realm, and I believe that’s what sggs does you may disagree but that is completely fine with me. Things which transcend logic: god, faith and beauty (btw I am not clever just got this from a book): so human reason is finite and probably flawed, god is not infinite therefore he must be able to pass the test of logic but also he is not to be limited by logic. I want to write more but am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so will have the answers you require about my religion soon."

see the above that makes sense!!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Dhillon,

If you know then why dont clear the misconception

I did. See the last post. I said Muslims do not believe that the universe is somehow limited to just our earth. Our doctrines do not change; they are what is in the Qur'an.

this is a reaction to the absurdity and ignorance

Yes, I am reacting to absurdity and ignorance.

I can bet in the next few days someone will again come on the thread and claim our guru was a muslim, this has been taught to children through their upbringing and represents a deliberate intent from muslim elders to malign the magnificence of sikhism.

This is your problem - no coherence or relevance in your posts. Am I talking about your gurus? I am answering an allegation about Muslims' beliefs and now you start going on about who your guru was. You don't seem to understand when something is relevant and when it is not. Your posts are just littered with unrelated comments.

I would also like to say that I have been discriminated against on this forum by yourself with regards to the warning

Another off-topic comment. What does this have to do with my post to Khoza? Absolutely nothing. You are earning yourself another warning if you keep this up - if you have a concern about the moderation on this forum you can pm us. If we see fit we will reply. Otherwise, bringing this up in discussions on religion will only bring you more warnings.

I have actually seen other members since do the same offence I was accused of I wonder if they received a warning we would never know.

You won't. We will. We provide warnings to those who violate forum rules. You don't know who recieves a warning or who doesn't.

I would also like to say that when you tell participants on this forum to reply to moderators directly at least you could have courtesy to answer their pm instead of waiting for them to repeat their pm.

If a response is needed we provide it. If you have a problem you can send me a pm. Enough derailing this thread, or we will have to issue more warnings.

An angels not gods.

No God's revelation. I already said this. You are in no position to provide false information on Islamic issues. Do so again and you will have another warning.

A humans? - who's attacking now, you have no proof that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji came from a human it says that it is a direct revelation from god

Another off-topic comment. Did I say I was referring to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? No I did not. I was refuting the allegation against the Qur'an.

and I have proven that koran is not, end of story.

You have proven nothing with regard to the Qur'an, except for your ignorance of it. If you want to discuss a specific allegation then we can do so in a seperate thread or you will get more warnings for going off-topic in a thread on Sikhism.

BTW I do not feel you answered my question properly regarding the impossible god

Actually I answered every single one of your points:
http://www.islamicboard.com/311547-post95.html
Then, instead of responding you said that you were reading an interesting book and would get back to me later instead of continuing with the "pointless debate" (your words not mine):
http://www.islamicboard.com/311656-post97.html

ISDhillon I think this is our problem and why we are carrying on this POINTLESS DEBATE

...I want to write more but [I] am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so [you] will have the answers you require about my religion soon

So we see clearly that it was not I who failed to provide a response - YOU called the debate pointless, decided not to respond and told me you were reading an interesting book and would get back to me later on the topic. So don't ask me about a debate you yourself called pointless and decided not to respond in.

Until then, if you have any further comments on these issues you are to discuss them with me through PM, otherwise you will recieve more warnings.

Regards