NEW ARTICLE: The Impossible God

[amardeep]

regarding the sirgun/nargun issue u came up with, i did a little bit of reading, but i could not find much. and then i read the article on the sikhism_islam interfaith site at i just made me laugh lol.


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

this is what you are doing. you are trying to reduce God astagfarallah!

tell me according to Islam, is it possible to know the limits of Allah? does he even have limits? if you say yes, then you have degraded Allah Subhana Wa Tala and reduced him into something which we can comprehend in our small minds. even in Islam i think it is said that our minds will never know the ways of the Lord.
It is in no way possible to describe the Lord, not even in Islam. The Quran mentions features about him, for instance in the bismillah we hear that he is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the forgiver etc. but do u think this is all? Do you think that the Quran tells you all there is about God?

jay ha-o jaanaa aakhaa naahee kahnaa kathan na jaa-ee.
Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.


Sirgun Nargun is about God being “formless” and then “not formless” at the same time.

You say this is a contradiction. I say this is pure logic. We as humans have a limited mind. We cant understand everything. We are limited. We can do a lot of progress in life, but at some point we have reached our limit and there is then no way to cross that limit. Let me give you an example:

Every year in the Olympics we see a 100 m run. And lets say that they break the world record each year and the record is now on 10 seconds. Amazing that they keep on breaking it each year, but we as humans are limited. At some point we well not be able to break our own records. We will never be able to run 100 meters in 2 seconds. Gurbani states this:

“The Lord created all creatures and they have been assigned different tasks.”


“He has so constructed His World that no one creature or species is exactly like the other.”
(AGGS p. 1056)

So the same way you cant compare an animal to a human, then you cant compare a human to God, as God is above is all.

as I have just shown you, humans are limited and they can only do things to a certain degree. But this is not the case with God:

His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind? Page 5, Line 7

On the sikh islam site they say that God is limited and there are certain things he can not do

but His limits cannot be found. Page 5, Line 9

you try to use your human mind to explain God. That’s the same as if you go to an airplane, open up its motor and try to explain which wire goes where, even though you know nothing about airplanes. The same way the airplane motor is decreasing your mind limit, so has God limited our minds.

So as dhillon has stated many times; God cant be described with logic.
Even your scripture says so in the Surat Iklas saying:
112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.

This is exactly sikhis point. There is NOONE like him. There is noone in this world or universe that is sirgun and nirgun besides God.


Then you say that these things contradict. This is hilarious. I could say the same thing about the Quran. In the bismillah we hear that God is forgiving, mercifull and compassionate, yet in all of these ayat we hear about Gods wrath. How can he be compasionate, and still be angry at the same time? By being compasionate , it should dispel his anger should’n it? Lol..can u see where im going?

001.007 002.059 002.061 002.090 003.112 003.134 003.162 004.093 005.060 005.080 006.040 006.147 006.148 007.071 007.097 007.098 007.152 007.162 008.016 010.027 012.107 012.110 013.013 014.021 014.044 015.090 016.026 016.034 016.045 016.058 016.094 016.106 016.113 017.015 017.057 018.055 020.081 020.086 021.042 021.046 021.087 022.002 024.009 025.065 029.010 029.029 033.025 034.005 040.029 040.083 042.016 045.011 047.028 048.006 054.037 054.039 057.013 058.014 059.002 060.013 067.018 069.047 076.010 104.006

You say that God can be described with logics and rationality. Then tell me. Everything we know of his mortal. Nothing exists forever, so how can God be immortal? God has been around for 105453543543543543545454354354354354355 times 44354353324254053 times 5432547875987574587858475 billion years, BEFORE he created the universe. Yet he was not doing anything as the world is only 3-4 billion years old. Wow this is rational huh. We live and die, but God has been around for so long lol…



Tell me. is there a limit to God?

Ma Salaama.

Dhillon Paaji if i have said anything wrong then please do correct me.

 

[Trumble]

So now you call me a fool! It seems insolence is common to people of religions that 'transcend' logic!

READ IT AGAIN !!

I have just messaged you about your "warning", but after that ridiculous tirade, I see no reason not to reproduce it here.

complaints against staff action are to be done through private messages.

Let's just kill off a couple points though, before I go. Firstly

So now you acknowledge that the word is being used in two different senses (which refutes your previous claim that Both use the word in exactly the same way) but you claim that it is irrelevant! And supposedly I am waffling!!

Yes, you are waffling in increasingly desperate fashion. The two 'senses' I acknowledged were merely the positive and negative uses of the same word, i.e as in something that is logical or illogical. Most people would take that as a given. Things can be green, or not green. Cubes or not cubes. The second sense you have tried to introduce has nothing whatsoever to do with that - you claimed that 'logic' can be used to represent something outside of the context of a human methodology for rational thought. You tried, you failed, and have dodged the question repeatedly ever since.

Flawed reasoning is simply reasoning that has not been conducted in accordance with the correct methodology. One refers to correct reasoning, the other to incorrect reasoning.

You just repeated exactly what I said.

I did indeed. As what you said just indicates that word can be used in both a positive and negative fashion. So what? You thought you could change what we were discussing to something completely irrelevant and somehow think I wouldn't notice?!

Because you fail to establish that there is a box in the first case.

I haven't failed because I haven't even tried. The only way I could establish it in a way you would find satisfactory is through "logic and reason", but by necessity logic and reason cannot even recognise anything outside themselves, let alone address it via philosophical debate. Such an attempt would therefore be completely futile.

Enough. One cannot explain colour to the blind. And no, that wasn't an insult either.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I have just messaged you about your "warning", but after that ridiculous tirade, I see no reason not to reproduce it here.

This has been handled via pm.

The two 'senses' I acknowledged were merely the positive and negative uses of the same word, i.e as in something that is logical or illogical.

Yes, the word logical is actually used in a connotation that denotes illogical reasoning. So the word cannot actually be taken in the same sense in both cases. In one sense (logical fallacy) it refers to the human methodology you mentioned and does not relate whatsoever to the validity of the reasoning within the methodology, and in the other it actually clarifies the validity of the argument (logical consequence).

See the following article which I personally think is a good explanation of logic and ontology, where they also provide a reference to the discussion on the normativity of logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/

Most people would take that as a given. Things can be green, or not green. Cubes or not cubes.

In case you haven't noticed, the same word is used for both opposites in the example. I don't see how anyone could confuse it with analogies like "green and not green" or "cube and not cube" since the same term is not used to refer to both!!

And throwing insulting words like 'desperate', 'fool', 'dishonest', 'ridiculous, or the latest addition - 'blind' does not make one's arguments any stronger, nor does it help in refuting those of one's opponent.

I haven't failed because I haven't even tried.

Then don't criticize others for 'failing to peep out of a box' if you acknowledge that you can in no way support such claims. What do you accomplish by doing so? What do you think you are achieving by telling me to peep out of a box which can not possibly de demonstrated to exist?!

Why did you come and start arguing with me if you wholeheartedly acknowledge that all your arguments are futile?

Enough. One cannot explain colour to the blind. And no, that wasn't an insult either.

Yes it was. You just insinuated that I was blind.

 

[ISDhillon]

"And throwing insulting words like 'desperate', 'fool', 'dishonest', 'ridiculous, or the latest addition - 'blind' does not make one's arguments any stronger, nor does it help in refuting those of one's opponent."

but you make no hesitation in telling someone that they are childish, like a school boy who keeps asking why, you remember, even though it doesnt offend me i still find you hypocritical cos such a thing maybe offensive to someone else.

Then don't criticize others for 'failing to peep out of a box' if you acknowledge that you can in no way support such claims. What do you accomplish by doing so? What do you think you are achieving by telling me to peep out of a box which can not possibly de demonstrated to exist?!

if you criticize a religion by branding them false by declaring the religion to be illogical, then you are doing the same thing, if we openly tell you that our god defies logic then why do you even bother to logically falsify the religion, you are basically doing it for youre own appeasement, because all that you have worked hard for in life is with one stroke made irrelevant. and for all the arguments that you use to support the existence of youre logical god, a warped interpretation of the scripture is hardly valid proof.

Why did you come and start arguing with me if you wholeheartedly acknowledge that all your arguments are futile?

why do you brand religions which openly decalre that their god defies logic to be false, say they are not coherent to the laws of logic but you go further and start to mock them, it would be ok if you just left it that you seem to think you have a divine right to falsify religion with youre own defintion of truth, you really think anyone other than yourself is going to buy it?, how many americans and eauropeans have converted to sikhism? thousands yearly, apparently the need for a logical god isnt what it used to be.

Yes it was. You just insinuated that I was blind.

[/QUOTE]

no you cannot describe colour to a blind man, you cannot decribe a god which transcends the law of logic with logic, its impossible

it has nothing to do with you being blind.

Sorry to but in,:thankyou:

ISDhillon

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

but you make no hesitation in telling someone that they are childish, like a school boy who keeps asking why, you remember, even though it doesnt offend me i still find you hypocritical cos such a thing maybe offensive to someone else.

Really? How so? It's true I commented on your debate tactics but I don't recall directly insulting you (and for the record, Trumble maintains that he did not directly insult anyone either).

if you criticize a religion by branding them false by declaring the religion to be illogical, then you are doing the same thing, if we openly tell you that our god defies logic then why do you even bother to logically falsify the religion

I'm not trying to logically falsify your religion because I don't need to - you told me your religion is not in accordance with logic and reason, and that's fine with me.

And where have I mocked or insulted Sikhism?

how many americans and eauropeans have converted to sikhism?

But you said Sikhism itself does not even endorse conversions because it views all religions to be valid - a self-contradicto- oh, right, no logic.

thousands yearly, apparently the need for a logical god isnt what it used to be.

Read what major media organizations have said about Islam:
http://www.menj.org/fastest/

It's not an argument, anyway, so I don't know why you're mentioning it.

Regards

 

[jss]

regarding the sirgun/nargun issue u came up with, i did a little bit of reading, but i could not find much. and then i read the article on the sikhism_islam interfaith site at i just made me laugh lol.


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

this is what you are doing. you are trying to reduce God astagfarallah!

tell me according to Islam, is it possible to know the limits of Allah? does he even have limits? if you say yes, then you have degraded Allah Subhana Wa Tala and reduced him into something which we can comprehend in our small minds. even in Islam i think it is said that our minds will never know the ways of the Lord.
It is in no way possible to describe the Lord, not even in Islam. The Quran mentions features about him, for instance in the bismillah we hear that he is the Compassionate, the Merciful, the forgiver etc. but do u think this is all? Do you think that the Quran tells you all there is about God?

jay ha-o jaanaa aakhaa naahee kahnaa kathan na jaa-ee.
Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.


Sirgun Nargun is about God being “formless” and then “not formless” at the same time.

You say this is a contradiction. I say this is pure logic. We as humans have a limited mind. We cant understand everything. We are limited. We can do a lot of progress in life, but at some point we have reached our limit and there is then no way to cross that limit. Let me give you an example:

Every year in the Olympics we see a 100 m run. And lets say that they break the world record each year and the record is now on 10 seconds. Amazing that they keep on breaking it each year, but we as humans are limited. At some point we well not be able to break our own records. We will never be able to run 100 meters in 2 seconds. Gurbani states this:

“The Lord created all creatures and they have been assigned different tasks.”


“He has so constructed His World that no one creature or species is exactly like the other.”
(AGGS p. 1056)

So the same way you cant compare an animal to a human, then you cant compare a human to God, as God is above is all.

as I have just shown you, humans are limited and they can only do things to a certain degree. But this is not the case with God:

His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind? Page 5, Line 7

On the sikh islam site they say that God is limited and there are certain things he can not do

but His limits cannot be found. Page 5, Line 9

you try to use your human mind to explain God. That’s the same as if you go to an airplane, open up its motor and try to explain which wire goes where, even though you know nothing about airplanes. The same way the airplane motor is decreasing your mind limit, so has God limited our minds.

So as dhillon has stated many times; God cant be described with logic.
Even your scripture says so in the Surat Iklas saying:
112.004
YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.

This is exactly sikhis point. There is NOONE like him. There is noone in this world or universe that is sirgun and nirgun besides God.


Then you say that these things contradict. This is hilarious. I could say the same thing about the Quran. In the bismillah we hear that God is forgiving, mercifull and compassionate, yet in all of these ayat we hear about Gods wrath. How can he be compasionate, and still be angry at the same time? By being compasionate , it should dispel his anger should’n it? Lol..can u see where im going?

001.007 002.059 002.061 002.090 003.112 003.134 003.162 004.093 005.060 005.080 006.040 006.147 006.148 007.071 007.097 007.098 007.152 007.162 008.016 010.027 012.107 012.110 013.013 014.021 014.044 015.090 016.026 016.034 016.045 016.058 016.094 016.106 016.113 017.015 017.057 018.055 020.081 020.086 021.042 021.046 021.087 022.002 024.009 025.065 029.010 029.029 033.025 034.005 040.029 040.083 042.016 045.011 047.028 048.006 054.037 054.039 057.013 058.014 059.002 060.013 067.018 069.047 076.010 104.006

You say that God can be described with logics and rationality. Then tell me. Everything we know of his mortal. Nothing exists forever, so how can God be immortal? God has been around for 105453543543543543545454354354354354355 times 44354353324254053 times 5432547875987574587858475 billion years, BEFORE he created the universe. Yet he was not doing anything as the world is only 3-4 billion years old. Wow this is rational huh. We live and die, but God has been around for so long lol…



Tell me. is there a limit to God?

Ma Salaama.

Dhillon Paaji if i have said anything wrong then please do correct me.

I would just like to add to that. The Islam-Sikhism site states that sargun-nirgun at the SAME TIME is a contradiction within itself. If people try to describe God with their own limited understanding then they will see it as a contradiction. However if the almighty God/Allah/Raam/Vaheguru is the creator of everything around us then how can he be limited to thought. Why can he not be with and without attributes at the same time?
As Gurbani states in mool mantar (the opening verse of Guru Granth Sahib Ji) God is 'akaal moorat,' akaal meaning 'timeless' or and moorat meaning 'image'.
God is the undying and beyond the confines of time, he is above that, so again how can he not be nirgun-sargun at the same time?
God being limitless is something which ISDhillon veer ji continually is trying to point out but his arguments are falling on death ears. Sheer ignorance.

 

[amardeep]

then read my arguments.

so you say that Allah according to Islam is a changing God that switches mood from happy to angry? lol does that make sence? that is what human beings are doing. God in sikhi is not angry. if he punishes people, it is according to their own actions, and he does it, not out of anger, but out of justice. the same way the judge in the court does not throw people on deathrow out of anger, but out of justice.

hahahah you are trying to give Allah human values and attributes..

lol..

there is no reason to discuss with most muslims, as they understand nothing but Islam.

 

[Soldier2000]

Ansar post number 7 =

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

Dhillion post number 8 =

"Most definitely "

Thank you for sharing beliefs with us!

 

[jss]

Who are these so called laws of logic created by? Yourselves?

 

[amardeep]

why are u asking me these questions, when u can see that muslims on this board are also using "laws of logic" when it comes to God?

ask them also, and whatever they answar, that is also my answer..

 

[amardeep]

Astagfarallah to those who reduce God into something Human and something we can understand with our minds.

ASTAGFARALLAAAAH

 

[Mohsin]

God is nothing like us humans

He is different in his own way. We believe for example god has a hand, but not like we have a hand, with a palm and 4 fingers and a thumb. He in his own infinite divine and unique way has a hand. Similarly we believe God can speak, but now like how we speak, with a mouth and lips that move permitting sounds to be heard. In his own unique infinite and divine way God can speak.

Anyone who says God has a hand like us humans have, is committing shirk

 

[Mohsin]

Astagfarallah to those who reduce God into something Human and something we can understand with our minds.

ASTAGFARALLAAAAH

We only understand of God of what he has told us about him. We have not seen his face, God will give that reward to mthe people of heaven. But for now we have only been told he is a light, so thats how we imagine him when we pray. Similarly wityh other things we only understand God of what has been explained to us, because as you say Gid is nothing like us as it says it Surah Ikhlas

 

[jss]

why are u asking me these questions, when u can see that muslims on this board are also using "laws of logic" when it comes to God?

ask them also, and whatever they answar, that is also my answer..

Lol i'm not asking you questions veer ji/bhenji

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Dhillon,
This is the post I missed.

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

You keep dodging whether instinct is according to logic. Personally I believe instinct dictates logic but instinct itself is not bound by the laws of logic.

First you've responded to a comment that has nothing to do with instinct. Instead of answering my question, you've now asked me about instinct. Well I already explained that you can speak about this on different levels. The individual them[self] does not use reasoning when reacting on instinct. But their actions can be analyzed on another level to determine whether it was logical or illogical, and yet another level to determine if it is logical to suggest someone acted in this manner.

this is why I change the scenario

And that is the problem with thsi discussion. I have given you scenarios that illustrate the flaw in your argument but instead of responding to the scenarios you change them and then respond to them. So you are not responding to my arguments you are responding to your altered version of my arguments. But at least you admit that you changed the scenarios!! ;D

You still fail to show how the precursor to spontaneity is in accordance with logic.

Precursor for who? We're talking about levels remember.

But you say that during a miracle all the natural laws are suspended then why cant the laws of logic be suspended

Because I do not believe they are the same. Suspending the law of gravitation is not the same as suspending the law of noncontradiction. Unless you can prove otherwise, which is simply not possible within the framework of a logical discussion.

you never seen how your place in a room changes the picture In a hologram, the point of change the picture is neither a circle or a square but it is also both at the same time, how comes that point is not in accordance with logic. That point is a living contradiction.

Please take a picture of this fascinating image and send it to me. I want to see this circle-square!

But the throwing would be spontaneous how would I even know, if he told me then I may object.

But his actions are supposed to be illogical.

I just said that you would not know why?

Just because I don't know why they did it does not change anything. I simply wouldn't know if their action was illogical or not. But that doesn't change the status of the action itself.

Something not in accordance with logic yes, but that is not invalid

Can you give me an example of something not in accordance with logic yet not illogical? I think I may have already asked you this.

your prophet was illiterate but you all gain youre wisdom from him lol.

The one who recieves knowledge directly from God is better educated than anyonbe else on the planet.

They can do something about it remember living by youre instinct so don’t try to represent something you have no understanding of.

But he knows they cannot object to his behavior on logical grounds so as long as he can overpower them they can do nothing.

Not allowed, just possible, and compared to SGGS the Koran is no match interms of science

The Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a revelation from God. I didn't attack your holy book, so you're clearly out of line with this comment.

how many people on the net mock Koran compared to sggs.

I agree, more people attack the Qur'an and insult Muslims than those who insult and attack Sikhs. What does this prove? If you try to use it to prove the validity of Sikhism over Islam, you are commiting a logical fallacy.

Transcending logic? – going to a place where logic is a creation in isolation but not an absolute.

Can you give a universally acceptable example of a place where there is transcending of logic?

The rest of this post is a repetition of the same claims previously debunked or answered above.

you still have alot of my outsanding arguments to answer.

As above.

tut tut again the pride does not allow one to see, we dont advertise to the media like you

I advertise to the media? Why don't you just say I bribed CNN, ABC, BIC, Time, etc.? lol

The comments about conversions is really off-topic here. If you want to discuss you can do so in a seperate thread. Otherwise I will be obliged to delete your comments and penalize you for going off-topic.

Regards

 

[amardeep]

in surat iklas we can hear that no one is like him.

yet in the Quran we hear that he has a hand, he has a throne (which implies he can sit )

a king has a hand and a throne..

so what you talking about "no one like him" ???

and in various hadeeth we can read that he has fingers, legs etc.

and you are calling our definition of God weird??? haha Oh my God you must be kiddin me.

PLEASE DO NOT PASTE LISTS OF ALLEGATIONS, YOU CAN DISCUSS EACH INDIVIDUALLY. FEEL FREE TO CREATE A SEPERATE THREAD. ALSO, KINDLY REFRAIN FROM POSITN GINSULTING REMARKS - IF YOU FEEL THAT OTHERS HAVE ALSO DONE THIS THEN PLEASE REPORT THEIR BEHAVIOR SO THE MODS CAN DEAL WITH IT RATHER THAN REACTING IN A SIMILAR MANNER.

i normally dont debate this way, but you have clearly made me angry..

 

[ISDhillon]

Well said Amardeep Ji reps for you

Ansar ji reading this post I see you have committed the classic Adansar al’-adl fallacy lol

Listen to me, I have done some extra reading, when you achieve self-realisation you reach the heights of human reason and this is known as anand/bliss if it had been illogical then surely my guru would have opposed it being illogical but no he called it bliss because their was no words for its description. This bliss transcends logic. Human reason will only take us to a certain point and then we must go on without it. Self-realisation is not unknowable but it is not fully comprehensible I think this is our problem and why we are carrying on this pointless debate. I understand now that instinct is irrelevant to logic; however self-realisation which is the core of Sikh teachings transcends logic. I was reading a book on self-realisation and logic and they said that it is a state where it is neither fully logical or fully illogical but logic itself compels us to move towards this state which is outside of this realm, and I believe that’s what sggs does you may disagree but that is completely fine with me. Things which transcend logic: god, faith and beauty (btw I am not clever just got this from a book): so human reason is finite and probably flawed, god is not infinite therefore he must be able to pass the test of logic but also he is not to be limited by logic. I want to write more but am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so will have the answers you require about my religion soon.

Kind regards,

ISDhillon:thankyou:

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I want to write more but am reading a really good book on self-realisation and logic so will have the answers you require about my religion soon.

Thank you. Until then I will close the thread so that we do not continue to go off-topic.

Peace.

 

[ISDhillon]

Re: What do they believe?

If you don't know, then you shouldn't comment on it.

If you know then why dont clear the misconception another moderator on this thread didn't mind engaging in a discussion on the killing of apostates why dont you tell us what it is you exactly believe, mind you the doctrine has changed significantly from the time my guru was here so I am sure the answers have changed nonetheless at that time the claims were as khoza had suggested this is backed up by janamsakhis of all the gurus udasis.

I don't mind if you want to use this thread for explaining Sikhism, but you are using it for attacking Islam and Muslims and attributing false views to them - Islam has not denied the vastness of space and the existence of other galaxies.

Actually I could say the same if someone is going to spread lies about our gurus then we have to meet that challenge no-one is deliberately attacking Islam this is a reaction to the absurdity and ignorance I have seen throughout my time on this forum. I can bet in the next few days someone will again come on the thread and claim our guru was a muslim, this has been taught to children through their upbringing and represents a deliberate intent from muslim elders to malign the magnificence of sikhism. I would also like to say that I have been discriminated against on this forum by yourself with regards to the warning, I have actually seen other members since do the same offence I was accused of I wonder if they received a warning we would never know. I would also like to say that when you tell participants on this forum to reply to moderators directly at least you could have courtesy to answer their pm instead of waiting for them to repeat their pm.

And the Qur'an is God's revelation of guidance for the human being, not a human's astronomical observations.

An angels not gods. Yet logic is an indicator prized above all else. A humans? - who's attacking now, you have no proof that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji came from a human it says that it is a direct revelation from god and I have proven that koran is not, end of story.

If the thread is not going to be used for a discussion of Sikhism then it can be closed and the individual allegations against Islam examined in alternate threads.

You must do what you think is right. BTW I do not feel you answered my question properly regarding the impossible god I showed you how youre examination of our scripture was not accurate by showing the limits of logic but you never answered this just closed it, I would prefer it if you could answer my response as I do not feel that I have had closure.

Thanks in advance,

ISDhillon

 

[Mohsin]

Re: What do they believe?

You must do what you think is right. BTW I do not feel you answered my question properly regarding the impossible god I showed you how youre examination of our scripture was not accurate by showing the limits of logic but you never answered this just closed it, I would prefer it if you could answer my response as I do not feel that I have had closure.

ISDhillon

You said in that thread you were going to read some book on logic so you he stopped the thread