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_sikhism/rebut/non_con/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

 

[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]

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'?