NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God

[Mohsin]

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

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]

NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God - Part 2

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]

Re: NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God - Part 2

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]

Re: NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God - Part 2

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

 

[Islam-Sikhism]

NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

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]

Re: NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God - Part 2

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]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

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]

Re: NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God - Part 2

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]

Re: NEW COMMENT: The Impossible God - Part 3

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