Charles Murphy

gurfateh, ok. deal. If i ace it - Then let me know where and when your exam is!

i'm really sorry guys but due to my exams, i can't keep up with all the posts anymore. so i will only be posting occasionally for the next 2 months.

Gurfateh, In light of my discussion on the other thread, i apologise in advance if my last post is offensive in any way. Charles

gurfateh sorry meckhane, I must apologise when I am in the wrong. I ask forgiveness from everyone here for that comment and I apologise again for offending anyone. When I said: I did not mean you. Rather I meant it in a general sense. I did not think long enough about how to write this particular sentence so I apologise. You said And you are correct. This comment is illogical. I am very glad that you picked up on this point because it shows me that we both are on the same wavelength when it comes to logic. But I was trying to stress a point at the same time too. I guess my frustration may have leaked out a bit and this is not the way discussions are to be done. So what did I mean by this statement? Basically, I am saying (as you yourself pointed out) that it would be illogical for me to experience a faith without first affirming it to myself. Now I don't mean "I need to prove it correct". Not at all. Rather, I am just saying it musn't be false. Because that is as far as pure logic can take you. Pure logic is a definitive negative test but not a positive one. As for the rest of my post, maybe I was unclear but I don't think I said anything that was wrong. I said: And you said: Ok. I should not have said "try it out method" or "man-engineered falsehoods" but I was trying to save time in typing but I won't do so this time. I will expound fully this time. By "try it out method" i meant the following: To become a sikh and then affirm its truth after becoming a sikh. Then to become a Jew and then affirm its truth after becoming a Jew. Then to become a Hindu and then affirm its truth after becoming a Hindu. And so on and so forth. Now you might say to me: That once I have affirmed sikhsm as the truth (by that i mean, to realise its teachings are true), there is no need to become a Jew. But actually I do because a Jewish man (or woman) might say the same thing you are saying to me. That if I become a Jew, through that step will I realise the completeness of the Jewish faith (that is, its teachings are true and that anything I could not understand before will become manifest). And since it is my own personal approach, to approach every faith from a no-assumptions point of view, it would not be correct for me to say to them for instance: That since sikhsm is the truth(i.e. its teachings about God and salvation are true etc) through my experience, Judaism (its teachings about God which are different to sikhsm) can not also be true because I would be assuming Sikhsm (as being true) and then deducing that Judaism can not be which is clearly not a correct approach. Thus if I choose not to use logic, I am compelled, in the interest of fairness to 'experience' every faith. So in short what I was saying is that I have to approach every religion in the same way. Either a logical approach(which is what I am doing) or an alternative approach such as becoming a part of it. And I was emphasising that this alternative approach (i.e. experiencing each faith) is likely to create biases in my thinking as I approach various faiths. So to expound on this last point. Let us say, I were to live as a Jainist for 1 year in order to 'experience' it. Then the following year, I decide it is time to 'experience' Buddhism for a year (in the interest of fairness). My time as a Jainist might influence my thinking and make me more biased against the Buddhist religion (because for instance Buddhists do not believe in a God). So I hope this is clearer albeit more wordy. Now I used the term "man-engineered falsehoods". You said you didn't understand what I meant and then later on you said that you didn't agree with this notion. Ok. Well by this term I meant two things at once and I was trying to save typing space. As you know I am revising for my exams and I can no longer spend lots of time thinking of the clearest way to put things but in future I will say less rather than be less clear. The latter part refers specifically to something that is false. So for instance, Buddhism says there is no God. Sikhsm says there is one God. Let us take both statements from a logical perspective. There is one God - call it assertion A There is no God - call it assertion B Can both statements be true (in the same sense at the same time)? Well, we first have to express one statement as the negation of the other. If we can do so, then the answer is a resounding 'no'. So... 'There is one God' implies 'There is a God' - i think this is a fair implication which is self-evident. Call it assertion C. 'There is no God' can be rewritten as 'There isn't a God' - i think this fair as well. Call it assertion D. And now we have our two statements as negations of each other. 'There is a God' - sikh view - Assertion C 'There isn't a God' - buddhist view - Assertion D According to logic 'C' and 'Not C' (where 'Not C' is clearly equivalent to D) cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense so we have a logical fallacy and thus only one of the two statements above is true. But more to the point in question - one must be false. And whichever assertion is false is the assertion that I describe as a 'falsehood'. But let us continue a little further down this same line. Now since I am using logic, I am presuming (and maybe this is an unfair assumption) that God would not reveal a 'falsehood'. He would not inspire men to write something about him which is false. So I must conclude that when a 'falsehood' is put forward by a man about God, then that falsehood is from the man and not from God. Thus it is 'man-engineered'. So I hope that I have expounded in a way that makes me clearer (and hopefully fairer) in my comments. Now you said: My assumptions were: 1. "approach every faith from a no-assumptions point of view." is a fair approach. 2. "God would not reveal a 'falsehood'. He would not inspire men to write something about him which is false." You might disagree with these assumptions but I don't see anything wrong about them. Now you said: And this is a good explanation. But note the following from my own post. So your comment: was unfair. But thanks for explaining it to me anyway. Have I researched elsewhere? yes. I came to the forum because it was my belief that speaking to people of this faith would help me understand things more clearly (and it has done so). But when I speak with someone about religion, I try to assume as little about their religion as possible which is why I have restricted all my questions and queries to topics discussed on this forum only. Would it be fair of me to challenge you on a point that was made on another forum or web site? And I don't think I have done so. Meck, as a sikh, it will not be easy for you to notice when you have overlooked a subtle point when explaining something to me about your religion - its human nature. If I speak to a mathematician about trigonometry, he will assume that I have a certain amount of knowledge of his field and will not explain the basic things such as "What is a triangle?". This is because I have studied maths and you would expect someone of my age to have studied maths well enough to understand these simple things. But I have NOT studied Sikhsm before. So I don't know the simple things. You have to treat me like a kid when you're explaining things. So when Iron-Singh says: I have deliberately challenged him so that I can get a response to help me understand. I want him to see why I don't understand. Otherwise, how do you explain something if you don't know where I lack knowledge. By offering my understanding beforehand, I ensure that your response will take it into account otherwise your response would be a waste of both of our times if it does not satisfy my understanding and this is the reasoning behind some of the questions I set. I am not here to challenge but to learn. I will leave the "heaven and hell" concepts alone for the time being. This thread is about the nature of God and I have learned a lot about your faith. And I hope that will continue. So now that I have explained myself, you must also explain yourself. You made the comment: Now that you understand what I mean by a falsehood, you will realise that this needs some explaining. I presume your notion of "all faiths are true" means something other than "the teachings of each faith are true". Otherwise, how do you reconcile the mutual exclusiveness of for instance the buddhist belief - 'There is no God' and the sikh belief - 'There is one God'? You set a question which I have actually covered already many times and I won't hide the fact that the answer is purely my opinion. Vijaydeep more or less set the same question. You said: You see, we will have to agree to disagree on this whole issue because I don't agree with the first half of your statement. Pure logic, which is just the law of non-contradiction (I think you know it by now) and possibly the law of implication (if A implies B, then if A is true, B is necessarily true) is a definition of falsehood. In that I mean, it defines what cannot possibly be true. So I don't see logic as being something that is tangible. I don't believe God created it but rather he defined it. I admit I have said previously that God 'created' logic but I always meant it in a "he defined it" sense. And I take this opinion because of the fact that the law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption. So this is my assertion: "The law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption. It is known intuitively and directly presented to our consciousness." Now you might say: It is merely your opinion that logic is a priori and a universal given And you might take yourself as an example by asserting that you yourself do not except the law. Don't you realise what you are doing! You are logically deducing that since you don't believe in the law of non-contradiction (by your assertion), and my assertion asserts that you do, then since your assertion is a negation of mine, then my assertion must be wrong! But by doing so, you have just used the law of non-contradiction thus refuting yourself in the first place. So I think my assertion of: "The law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption. It is known intuitively and directly presented to our consciousness." is justified. And if this is so, that is God has defined this assumption for me and has presented it to my consciousness (i.e has made it manifest to me) then why would he then present himself as something that is false? So we can agree to disagree if you wish but for me logic comes first because I believe that God will never contradict logic. Otherwise, why did he define it?

Gurfateh (did i get it right?) i don't have a lot of time at this moment. But i think i need to explain why 'experience' is not a definitive test for truth. To begin with, there are people of all kinds of faith who will tell you that they have 'experienced' the truth in their faith and therefore they don't need to understand it or try to make sense of it in any way. if you don't believe me, then try http://www.christianforums.com/f222-testimonies.html and you will see what i mean. There are people who pray to objects and will tell you they have experienced the truth. There isn't a single religion in the world which does not have a certain group of followers who will claim to have 'experienced' the truth of their faith. And to be honest, it is difficult to call every one a liar. So does this mean that all the religions are true? Of course not, because every religion is mutually exclusive from the others. What is the explanation? Well, the traditional faiths will say "the devil fooled so and so into thinking that his belief was true" or "God misguided so and so because he rejected the truth at an earlier stage in his life". I don't know what the sikh will say but there are limitations on the possible reconciliations for this problem. If we are to assume that God does misguide people because of their rejection of truth at an earlier stage in life or that the devil can fool you into thinking that you are realising the truth then clearly "experience" is a dangerous thing and you need something else to help you filter out the 'false experiences' from the 'true experiences'. Maybe these reconciliations by the traditional faiths will not satisfy everyone but sadly what else can you say about other people of other faiths also realising the truth (and concluding that their faith is correct)? Logic, however, is different. A faith will either contain logical confilicts, logical contradictions, unreasonable requests or it will contain none of the above. No-one can pretend their faith is logical, but they CAN pretend to experience God, or enlightment(buddhism) or Jesus(pbuh) or WaheGuru. If truth is determined by 'experiences' then I declare every faith to be true. That is, God pervades his creation(sikhsm) and God is distinct from creation(traditional). God will judge you on the day of judgement(traditional) and there is no day of judgement - just reincarnation(sikhsm, hinduism). There is one God (Judaism, Islam), God is 3 and 1(Christianity), God is all and one(Sikhsm) and there are many Gods(hinduism). And this is clearly ridiculous. So I think I have shown you that "experience" is very unsafe. With all due respect, what will you say to God, if the truth lies elsewhere? At least I can say, "God - all glory belongs to you - owner of all that you have created! You gave me a brain to think and reason. And I did so when considering all of the faiths. And using the logic you gave me, I could not discern your message from the false messages. And it was not correct for me to use a "trial and error" approach or an "experience them all" approach on a matter so important as this. So please have mercy on me!" and I think I have a fair case. In your case, it might be (and please don't take offense) "I realised the truth through an amazing experience and I concluded that I was a true believer!" God replies, "But clearly you were wrong as you can now see! Were there not people who claimed similar experiences in other faiths. Explain yourself in truth!" What would you say then? "I thought they were lying"? or "I didn't see the logic in the other faiths"? (well, you wouldn't be able to use this second response because it would be hypocritical) So while I am NOT saying there are any logical problems with sikhsm, I can not understand why you are so eager for me to drop logic as a tool when looking at your faith. If the truth lies in sikhsm then there is NO WAY it can contradict logic in any way, as logical fallacies only exist where two statement which are mutually exclusive are both claimed to be true at the same time AND MOST IMPORTANTLY (a point you keep seeming to miss) IN THE SAME SENSE. This is why your "1+1" counter-example does not work. I will expound on this later but I am very busy and I must get back to revision. Charles

I have got some exams coming up very soon so I will have to take a break from this forum till the end of may/beginning of june. However, I will be back. And we will restart from where we left of. Good bye for now. And thank you everybody for your insights into this faith.

I think the more important question is: Does it confuse you? I guess this deserves a whole topic on its own. If you wish to explain how heaven and hell (presumably in the traditional sense, or is it some other sense?) fit into the picture when we already have reincarnation and 'realisation' then please start a new topic. The truth is I can already see some trememendous problems with the idea of 'hell' in sikhsm. If we assume that creation is divisible (which we can't!), then wouldn't God just be sending himself to hell? In fact, God would be sending himself to God? (as vijaydeep would say) And what does this mean? If we say creation is indivisible, well 'hell' is a creation right? And so it is incorrect to treat it as a separate entity from the rest of creation and thus it is meaningless to say one is going to hell.

i'm still reading through your post carefully to understand what you said but i will certainly respond once i have understood it (or most of it). On first read, i am not very happy with your arguments against logic. And I will expound on this much later. You also seem to misunderstand what i meant by 'true space' and i disagreed with the idea that mass must exist for space to. I will expound on all these things later. For now, i will read your post in more detail. I'm just replying to answer your 2nd post for now. While the teacher-student analogy bears some conformance. We are still at the stage of finding out who that teacher is (in keeping with the analogy). I already believe in One God and I am a strict monotheist. For the time being, it might be better for me to pursue the answers to my 11 questions. I believe that these 11 questions should give me a bit more insight into the Sikh belief. So let us stick with that for the time being.

I respect this position but as someone from the outside it would be totally unrealistic to disregard logic or make it secondary because otherwise I would have to also experience every other faith as well. But I guess, if you believe in reincarnation, you should have enough time to do such a thing. One thing I am certain of, is that this is certainly my first life - i don't know about the rest of you so if (or when) i am reincarnated, i'll be able to filter out many of the other faiths as man-engineered falsehoods. And I guess, the "try it out" method wouldn't be so unrealistic. But as it is, i might die tomorrow and if the truth is in the traditional faiths, then I do not want to go to hell. Or do you expect me to declare myself a believer in every faith out of safety? If I were to use your "trial and error" approach, it would be more wise to adopt a faith that warns of hell than one that simply says "you'll go back to earth and live a more miserable one". But personally, I don't want to do that. I choose my beliefs based on what I think is true from what is false. And I believe that God has drawn that line for me. It is called logic. What do you expect me to think when I read something like this? I almost feel that you are mocking me here. Or do you think I don't understand the meaning of 'nameless'? So either this is some kind of metaphor or it is outright self-referentially refuting. I don't think the problem here needs explaining - it is self-evident. Mechhane Jannat, i will read the rest of your post slowly and i try to understand all that you have said - thank you for your time and patience.

I will address two problems first: 1. The issue of using 'he' for God. I do not believe God has a gender either. It is rather out of ease of reading and writing that I use the pronoun 'he' and I use 'he' instead of 'she' purely out of respect and for no other reason. So I hope you will not object to me continuing in this way. 2. You said: Many people who do not study mathematics to a high level or do not fully understand mathematics often make this same mistake. Infinity is not a number but rather a concept. This is why mathematicians, when speaking correctly, only say a value tends to infinity. It is true that we speak about it as if it is a number (as an informal slang) but it is not a number at all. It represents the fact that due to the definition of 'addition' being unbounded, we can add 1 to any number and find an even larger number. Now this very loose application of the word infinity that you are applying to God creates some questions. What does it mean to be infinite? If God is infinite then by your belief creation must also be infinite. So please elaborate. Now onto the important part of your post: Technically, you have solved the problem by saying: and But then you almost spoilt it by saying With all due respect, is this some kind of "get out of jail" clause? :shock: Now I think we finally have agreed that creation is indivisible. You asked me to use the word 'continuous' but they have slightly different meanings. And the indivisibility of creation is neccessary if God is also indivisible. So like you said there is no reunion - there is just God and as you put it we need to 'realise' the truth. I am just wondering to myself how long it will be before one of your replies contradicts the indivisibility constraint on creation and we are forced to start debating this same issue again. Anyway, some other questions have come to mind. Such as why are we conscious? if creation is indivisble. But these are questions which are unfair to ask. I can not expect your faith (without first 'realising' the truth i guess) to have all the answers - thank you for your efforts in making me understand. Now, you said a lot about logic which i strongly dissaproved of and you constantly confused the idea of logic, the idea of reason and the idea of science which i tried to distinguish between in my previous post. Most (if not all) of your so-called counter-examples attacked 'science' and what can be perceived as a scientific fact. None of your examples as i saw it could disprove the neccessity of logic. The irony is, you were attempting to use logic in order to refute it. Let us be clear about what logic is: (As given by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic) Or (As given by http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&l...q=define:logic) Logic is a tool we apply to assertions(statements) regardless of their content in order to distinguish between what is true, false or conditional upon another assertion. I will give you an example. We both know the definition of 'addition', 'equals', '3', '5' and '2'. These are defined in a certain way. Now the question is: can the assertion '3 + 2 = 5' be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense? The universal law of non-contradiction, the first of four axioms in logic says 'no'. Are you telling me you disagree? I think this is self-evident. Universal Law of Non-Contradiction: Professor Craig S Hawkins notes: The other laws can be found online. Suffice to say that the Universal Law of non-contradiction is the main one. You said: I'm afraid this is proof that you don't quite understand what truly defying logic means. In this example (if it really is true), the bishop defied 'science' (i.e gravity). He didn't defy logic! To defy logic is to break the universal law of non-contradiction. Let 'A' be the assertion that the catholic bishop fell to the ground. We would need to observe the catholic bishop as both having fallen to the ground (A) and remaining in the air (Not A) at the same time in the same sense to say he defied logic. This is the point I am stressing here. Logic has nothing to do with the content of the assertion Logic is reasoning over the truthfulness of a set of statements jointly. Where you confused logic for science At best, these all break scientific beliefs not logical laws. (If they are really true) The cure for aids is a scientific discovery so I don't see how this even breaks any scientific belief. Where is the logical fallacy? This does not break the universal law of non-contradiction. It does not lead to a logical contradiction. Now you said: I disagree. Let us say that all laws of Science are determined by God. We will drop this notion of 'laws of nature' and speak in a monotheist sense. Now the laws of Science govern the way things work as decided by God. The law of logic and all of its derived laws govern the way we should think and this draws the line between truth and falsehood. Now if God created logic and made it inherent in our nature then it is God who has drawn this line between truth and falsehood. So why would he stand on the side of falsehood? You suggested that it could be a test! So God wants us to deduce that something is false and then for no good reason believe in its truth? I believe God created logic as a means for his creation to recognise his message using this God-given faculty. You set some interesting challenges for me and I was grateful to you for that. Here they are: I have honestly never seen the proof of this theory. If you know something I don't please tell me. As such, I will say to you that multidimensions is theoretical physics at the speculative level. Now we are getting somewhere. This is the first time I had to sit back and really think about what you said and it was an interesting challenge you set me. The truth is: "What is space(i.e a vacuum)?" You could argue that space, that is, true space(i.e a vacuum), is the abscence of energy and matter. So you see, since my belief about the nature of God assumes a creator who is distinct from his creation (but is All-knowing) - I can define space as I just have. Even if we believe, however, as the Sikh belief does, that creation is indivisible and that God is that entire creation then we need to ask ourselves whether we believe space is creation or not. In my definition, a Sikh could argue that space is NOT creation. It is the abscence of it. And so space itsn't created. For instance, who creates darkness? Darkness is the abscence of light. When no other light is there, we have darkness but we refer to it (incorrectly) as if it is some other kind of light. Thus space is there by default (because it is not creation). But I don't know the full implications of such a stance on your belief. Since the unmanifest form of God is not creation, then there is no problem there. It is conceivable that even in empty space, the unmanifest form of God still exists. I just wonder what your complete belief about the unmanifest form of God is. For instance, where do you believe the unmanifested God resides? So regarding: I've given you a better answer above and it does not contradict logic. Thank you for the challenges - I enjoyed reasoning over them.

Having read this slowly, i feel that i pretty much understand what you were saying here. But I was little unsure about what you meant by "So we are all made in Gods form" and "BUT this creating ability is limited by the contraction of God that occurs when he manifests". However, I don't really want to pursue this much more. But feel free to clarify if you wish. The idea of things existing only when they are perceived is a school of thought even amongst non-religious persons. The classical argument being for instance, "if a camel is in a field but no-one is perceiving it then how do we know it is there?" On the other hand, there are classical arguments against such as: "A person reasons that since right now no-one is perceiving his brain, therefore his brain doesn't exist. But how did he reason without a brain? So his brain must exist even though he doesn't perceive it." Or: "If I leave my house in the morning and come back in the evening and find that the house is burnt down. I am told by fire experts that the fire was probably caused by an electric spark. Now no-one was around to perceive the fire yet we all witnessed the result of the fire. But by the rule of neccessary perception (basically what you have described) the fire could not have taken place. But we know it did from the evidence of the burnt house. So a fire did exist without the need for its perception." But there are also arguments supporting your view as well. :wink: I respect your admiration for the name of God. Please tell me what the name of God is.

Hey there, i haven't read the reply by dynamic in great detail but it should suffice to say that i am a little happier with it and maybe we can move on to question 3 while i consider your response in more detail. Expect me to raise some points about it later though. :!: As far as vijaydeep's response goes, i'm afraid what you have posted does not solve the difficulty. It may however be due to the fact that i used the word 'atomic' and you misunderstood the sense in which i am using it. This is the definition of 'atomic' that i was using in my previous post: (As given by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atomic) "<jargon> (From Greek "atomos", indivisible) Indivisible; cannot be split up." I also think it is neccessary to remind you of the definition of the word 'entire' because i feel that you have missed the essence of its meaning. (As given by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entire) "Of one piece" "Having no part excluded or left out; whole" So these are the defintions i was assuming. Or did you have some other meaning for these words? Now that we have (hopefully) cleared up that difficulty. Let us consider your response. An atom is not atomic. Scientists used to believe the atom was the smallest unit of matter which is why the word 'atomic' is derived from the word 'atom'. But now we know it isn't as you have yourself pointed out. In fact None of the items mentioned above are atomic - none of them are indivisible. And you pointed this out yourself. But your saying God is atomic. And so none of these examples work. You have basically reiterated the problem here. Since God is indivisible by your own words. Then anything that is God is the entire manifestation of him. Right? So to say that if we have two different atoms (existing at the same time) and that each one is the entire manifestation of God is a logical fallacy. If the first atom is God entirely (and we assume as you did that the atoms are separate atoms that are not connected) then this negates the second atom from also being that same God entirely at the same time. Unless, you are saying there are more than 1 God? If you are, then the problem is solved and we can move on. And it is not me that is putting the limits on God. It is you because of your saying that God manifests into creation. If that is so, then the manifested form of God is neccessarily constrained by the laws of logic and science. And if God is indivisible then he can not manifest into two dinstinct and separate entities at the same time. The key thing to remember here is the indivisibility constraint that you have placed on God. Therefore he can only manifest entirely and not partially. So what did he manifest into? Atom 1 or Atom 2? If God is in two places at once then how is he indivisible? There is one solution as I outlined above and that is to concede that creation is also indivisible. If you don't concede this then you cannot reconcile the conflict between the indivisibility of God and his ability to manifest into two distinct entities at the very same time. So creation must be indivisible to solve the problem. However, this still doesn't allow God to be both Atom 1 and Atom 2 at the same time because the indivisibility constraint doesn't allow for it. What it does do, is make referring to subsections of creation meaningless. i.e there is no subsection to the universe. The Atom is no longer an individual entity and it makes no sense to refer to it. So we say God manifested into creation and we do not distinguish any further than that. And so I must logically conclude that all subsections of creation are apparant and that everything is connected. That is fine up till here. But I'm afraid that the indivisibility constraint on creation does not allow the referencing of the soul to carry any real meaning. In short, i'm saying (and please don't take it offensively): "To say: "We must reunite our souls with God"" is no different from "uoiu nhjkfh tuoiu ehjeio dh jhf djhdf" Both mean the same thing. Nothing. Because there is either no soul or soul is another word for "universe". There is no such thing as "heaven", "earth", "me", "you", "soul", "table", "lamp" etc as individual entities. Refer back to the definition of "indivisibility" to remind yourself of the essence of this word. Indivisibilty very really means that there is nothing smaller than the universe. And the universe is just the entire indivisible God manifested. So i agreed when you said that 'separation was apparant'. So what is there to union? If you have just 1 single indivisible atomic enitity, then what is there to union??? There is nothing to union. You need at least 2 things for a union but we only have 1. We just have the universe which is God manifested entirely. So I hope that I got you to understand the problem here. Once you start talking about the soul or anything else as a separate entity you break the indivisiblity constraint on creation that was neccessary (see above). And if the soul IS God then there is nothing to reunite. We still only have 1 entity. Ok. Lets move on to logic. You said: Well logic and science are two closely related ideas. Science is a field of study. Logic, just like Maths is just a 'tool' that we apply to solve problems in various areas of extended science. Now your complaint is that logic is an axiom. Well, i will concede that logic is based on axioms which are self-evident. The formulisation of logic is man-made but the actual logic itself is not man-made. It is part of our nature of thinking. There is just one axiom of logic and that is the universal law of non-contradiction. It has existed since the beginning of time. Now either logic was created by God or it has always existed (i.e. beyond God). I don't think either of us would like to take the latter case. So if God created logic then he would be an unfair God if he were to reveal knowlege about himself through his chosen men (i.e gurus, khalsa etc) that contradicted the logic he himself created for mankind. So I think logic is a blessing from God and the truth from God will never contradict logic. That of course is my opinion and you are free to have your own. As such, I do believe in the universal law of non-contradiction and I think it is absurd not to. If you don't believe in this law then I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. You said: With all due respect, I could not see the logic in this argument. Logic is a tool we use to discern truth from falsehood. Logic does not concern the syntax of a statement but rather the semantics of it. So it doesn't matter whether we call it a camel or not, so long as the semantics of what we are saying is correct the assertion will be true. And how do we recognise truth from falsehood? We use logic and reason. That is my belief. I don't have a problem understanding the concept of God manifesting into two different things at different times! But the problem is whether he can do so at the same time while remaining indivisible unless of course we are saying that creation is indivisible and that only 1 thing exists. And I outlined the implications of this on the idea of reuniting one's soul with God above. The difficulty can be split into two parts - Belief 1. The idea of God being indivisible and "God is everything" and "there is one God." Belief 2. The soul or spirit (not sure which) can be reunited with God by various means. This implies that creation is not indivisible. You are clearly distinguishing between the soul and the rest of creation and by using the term reunite are further implying the idea of disjunction between soul and God. The problem with your responses is that you deal with only 1 belief at a time. This would not normally be a problem but your explanation of belief 1 (creation is indivisible and we are all one entity) undermines belief 2. And belief 2's implication (creation is divisible) undermines your reasoning for belief 1. I hope you can see the problem now. Dynamic, i will read your post later. Could you move onto question 3 meanwhile. Thanks.

Vijaydeep singh I want to discuss this idea of indivisiblity for a while because I am not certain I get it. After this, I will move on to the rest of your post. If something is atomic then it is indivisible i.e. it has no parts, if you touch it, you are touching all of it. if you see it, you are seeing all of it. But crucially, if something is truly atomic, then it does not make sense to refer to subsections of it. So in the traditional concept of God, it does not make sense to refer to God's leg for instance unless it is being used as a metaphor for something else. With this, to say that God is both indivisible and that all creation is the entire manifestation of him, makes referring to individual parts of creation as now meaningless. Because he is indivisible. Correct? it does not make sense to refer to heaven because (as you'll agree) there is just God. What does a part of God mean if he is indivisible? It has no meaning anymore. So it is fine up till this point. But then you say the aim is to reunite your soul with God. How can we refer to the soul? The indivisiblity concept does not allow any meaning in the idea of soul. There is just God - 1 atomic entity. For instance, if i say to you, "Is your soul a part of God?" If the answer is 'yes', then God does have parts and cannot be described as indivisible. If the answer is 'no, because God does not have parts - he is just God' then your claim is that your soul is an entirely separate entity from God. If the answer is 'no, your soul is God(who is indivisible)' then your soul is just another name for God and then what is there to reunite? And your soul cannot be both God entirely and a part of God because this a logical flaw. So to me the divisibility of God is necessary to explain the conflict of reuniting your soul with (the rest of) God but your soul still being a manifestation of (part of) God. Also, if we assume God is one indivisible God. And that the entire creation is a manifestation of that one indivisible God, then how can parts of that creation(me and you in relation to the universe) also be the entire manifestation of that one indivisible God. Simplified, how can the entire manifestation of God be a part of the entire manifestation of God? We have two solutions here. Either we concede that God is divisible and that parts of God manifest to different parts of creation (as i believed before your last post) or we say there are no parts to creation and that creation is also indivisible. (i.e either God matches up with creation or creation matches up with God.) But the latter conclusion brings us back to the problem of referencing the soul. If creation is one indivisible entity, then how can we reference the soul individually? If we try to reference the soul then we are once again faced with the question of "Is your soul a part of God?" and I have outlined the predicaments of this above. So there is a conflict between the notion of reuniting your soul with God and the indivisibilty of God. It is a very complex and subtle conflict but if you read what I have said carefully and try to maintain the entire picture in your mind, you will see the problem. Or have I overlooked something?

What does Gurfateh mean? Should I be saying it? If so please tell me! Well dynamic, you have put a smile on my face and made me feel a little bit more optimistic. I don't want to argue anything in truth! I am honestly surprised at how difficult this is becoming. My problem is that I feel that my questions are being avoided. For instance, all I want to know, as i would ask a christian for instance is, "Did Jesus(pbuh) claim to be God?" Obviously, their understanding of God is different from yours. Or to a muslim, "Did muhammad(pbuh) claim to be a messenger of God?" The reason why I ask this question is that if God has messengers (that is people charged with the job of propogating the truth and his message), Gurus (people who realised the truth) or incarnations (God on earth) then surely they have to identify themselves clearly for us to know this. So my frustation is that what i thought was the easiest question (question 1) seems to be so hard. Why isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' given to me then we move on. I have changed my question in light of my understanding of sikhsm to "Did Guru Nanak claim to be a Guru?" And i don't mean "did he say 'i'm a guru'?". I mean 'did he make a remark to anyone indicating clearly that he had some realisation of the truth and all knowledge that he spoke was from God?' Or is it that Guru Nanak did not know he was a Guru? But we infer his Guruhood(sorry but i think you know what i mean) from his life story? You answered my second question. But i still don't know what a soul or spirit is. So as far i see it, what you said is like saying: The ten gurus shared the same chair and the same table. Because a chair and table are both creation which are manifestations of part of God? Now i have requoted what you said replacing 'soul' with 'chair' and 'spirit' with 'table' so that you can know exactly how I understood it. Maybe it will help you explain to me in more detail the special purpose of this soul and spirit if they have one (and they must!). Do you now see why this is so hard to comprehend for me? I know already that each chair is a manifestation of a part of God because it is creation but how does this imply we share the same chair? Assertion: You have your chair in your room and so do I. and they are both manifestations of a part of God. Prior Knowledge: They are different and distinct parts of God How does this imply we share the same chair? What does it mean to have the same chair? The irony is, no-one has been able to convince me of the trinity as a logically able concept when we consider God as a separate entity. So using this comparison doesn't help me. So the chair is in the book? That's fine. The problem is the fact that some of the Guru's were alive at the same time. How can the holy table be in two Guru's at the same time? Or is that it was only in the leading Guru at any time? What does this holy table do when it is in you? I've already been told by vijaydeep singh that realisation is by God's mercy - or do you disagree with this? So what is the significance of the holy table? Why do you consider the holy table divine? It is just a creation - a manifestation of God, like the chair and like your own body. No different. Correct? You said: "it is this holy table which is an essance of God" I'm not sure if by saying "essence" you mean any thing different from "manifestation". If so, what do you mean? If you mean "manifestation", then this does not make the holy table any more special than the chair. You said: "when he first met God (disappeared into a river for 3 days) then the joht (the holy table) entered into his body" I think your saying: Guru Nanak, who is a manifestation of part of God, met the entire unmanifested God (because both coexist at the same time), then another manifested part of God (the holy table) entered into him (i.e exists within him like another bodily organ). Correct?

This was a very difficult post for me to completely understand. Not because of the way it was written but because of its content. In fact, i have decided to just enquire about the first half of your post while i reconcile the second half of your post in my mind. To begin with, i need to make it clear to you that I am approaching Sikhsm from a no-assumptions, Atheistic viewpoint (i may make assumptions later). That means I am only using logic to piece together everything I have been told until I have a complete and coherent picture of what's going on. Therefore it is entirely unhelpful to me to give me metaphors and analogies. I don't want that. I want the real thing - the explanation! Up till now, I am still unclear as to what the soul is in Sikhsm. I have for the moment assumed it is just another part of creation like a chair is. This is what I like - a very clear explanation of what you meant by "unknowable" in your earlier post. i was very happy with this. I understood that the unmanifest form of God (which exists entirely at the same time with the manifest form of God) cannot be perceived by sensory organs. Thank You. You followed up with: I think you are saying that two manifested parts of God (you and me for instance) are somehow connected by the entire unmanifested God. Correct? How are they connected? I said: Are you saying that my entire understanding is wrong or just part of it? What was wrong in what I said? "no time" - i understand to mean "does not happen". If something occurs at no time, i understand that to mean it did not happen if it is an event. In this context, i can only understand it as implying that God does not occur at all (i.e there is no God) which is clearly not what you meant so please elaborate on this. As for the unmanifested God, I will place no such limits (Have I done so? How?) But as for the manifested God, it is creation and creation obeys the scientific laws. I need to think about the rest of your post.

What do you mean by the "space" is "false"? The bolded statement confused me. From what I understood so far about Sikhsm is that there is one God. And that the "book" is a manifestation of a part of Him. And that the "us" is also a manifestation of another part of Him. So is that what you meant? Or are you saying something else? I think your saying: The atom is a manifestation of a part of God and the entire universe is the complete manifested part of God? I'm sorry but I don't understand this. This is a later question (questions 7 and 8 ) and we will return to this interesting point. I assume you mean 'in God's control'. Did they claim this? Is this unique to them? Hold on. don't you mean part of God? Because there is only one God. And creation is a part of the manifested part of God? So you actually meant: Isn't heaven a manifestation of God? since it is part of Creation. Also, the atom is a manifestation of God. They are both manifestations of the same God. But crucially, i have understood that different created things are manifestations of a different and distinct part of the same God. Now you say that heaven is in the atom? which means that (hold your breath) 'a part of God' is a part of 'a part of God'. How can heaven be a part of the atom if heaven and the atom are themselves different and distinct parts of God? Or is the bolded assertion wrong? And what is your meaning of 'realisation' in the following sentence? I am presuming that the soul and spirit are part of creation. Are they special in some way? Scientifically, the mind is a product of the brain. From the above, you must have some other understanding of the mind. What is it? And is it part of creation? What does it mean to die? i.e. What changes take place in a human at death? Concerning the bold part, I think your saying: During life, a person has some individual sense (where does this come from?) and also there is some God sense present in the living individual which I presume controls the person as well. Most people don't realise the God sense in them. At death(what happens? Please explain.), their individual sense dissapears and all that is left is the God sense. Correct?

Well i reread your post. i couldn't understand all the words such as "mammon" or "Pan Deipotencism". But I understood a bit more of what you were saying. However, it seemed a little off the point. I was asking about the nature of God. Towards the end, i got the impression that you were saying God = Energy = Mass. Correct? But from what Mekhane'ch Jannat said Mass is just the manifest form of God. So did you mean Manifest God = Energy = Mass?

Thank you. I would like to clarify a few things I was unsure of. Do you mean that creation is Him (as was posted in the other thread) at the fundamental level? (i.e when you touch a book, you are very literally touching God) Or do you mean that there is a definite distinction between Him and creation but the two are side by side at the fundamental level? (i.e for each atom of creation, lies next to it an atom of God) (brackets are mine) In what sense, did you mean by transcend? This depends on your meaning of pervade of course. Did you mean in the "surpassing" sense? (i.e God is greater than creation) Or did you mean in the "independant" sense? (i.e. God exists above and is independant of creation) I didn't want to guess so I just want to clarify the matter. Forgive me for being a layman. I think your saying: "The unmanifest form of God" You have to remember that this is the first time I am learning about this faith. So please clarify this for me. What I understood from the 3rd paragraph and what I know already is: God has two forms. A manifest form and an unmanifest form. Parts of him are manifest (creation) and and the other parts are unmanifest. The unmanifest forms already know what they will become when they become manifest because this is hardwired into the individual parts of God. When God wants to perceive parts of himself, these parts of God become manifest. Did I understand correct? What is the soul? What role does it play? I presume it is part of creation (otherwise it would just be an unmanifested part of God and thus not a soul.) I may have some follow-ups to this. I disagree. We know that God has 2 forms. We know that God is made up of many many parts (i.e. every atom in universe). We know a lot about (most of) the manifest forms of God through science. We know that the unmanifest form already contains knowledge of its future manifestation (if there is one). We know that God controls this manifestation by when he wants to perceive himself. So we know this much already about God. And like you said, (bold is mine) And if he can be realised then he can be known. Or what did you mean by realisation? (Did I presume too much?) What is universal conciousness?

What I understand so far: 1. Nothing but God exists. 2. Creation is a very real manifestation of God. What I mean here is that, if you touch a book, you are very literally touching a part of God. 3. The entire creation (all atoms in universe and I presume waves?) constitues God as a whole, however, individual created things only constitute part of that whole God. Now, where does the soul come into this? What is the soul? OK. I am happier with this. I guess my question needs some adapting. Do the Guru's claim to have this realisation given to them by the parts of God inside them. Are they the first to experience this realisation? If not, who else experienced this realisation?

I found reading your post extremely difficult. I couldn't make out all the words or phrases you were trying to say. It seems like you speak German because you keep saying "das". (Am I right?) Please forgive me if I ask someone else to also respond on this topic.

Christians believe Jesus is the begotten Son of God. They also believe in all the prophets in the torah because Jesus confirmed them. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God and also believe in all the prophets of the torah. They believe that the messages of the other prophets have been corrupted. They believe that God's final revelation (The Qu'ran) is the literal word of God and also that he has promised to guard it.

yes, in a sense i agree. i believe God is merciful and i believe God can guide whom he wants. But i believe that guidance comes in the form of the guided being made pious. And thus worship of God. Like i said, our understanding of salvation is very different.

thankyou drawrof, but what is the nature of God. I know that sikh's believe in one God. But what is the nature of this God. i.e His attributes, the nature of creation and the relationship between the two. Or did i miss something in your response? (apologies in advance.) The link you gave me talked very vaguely on the nature of God and did not mention much about creation nor the relationship between God and creation.

I have always assumed that if there was a God, then there is only one God. So I am a strict monotheist. I have always believed that worshipping that one God is the correct thing to do. Inherently, I've always believed in a simple distinction between creator and creation. I do not believe they mix. But of course, this is all just my own belief. The sikh belief is somewhat different in the nature of God although it agrees in the oneness of God. I have not read extensively into the sikh belief concerning the nature of God. So I would like someone to kindly explain the sikh belief regarding the nature of God, the nature of creation(if there is such a distinction) and the relationship between the two. Thank you

i guess it comes down to our understanding of God which we disagree on. In my understanding of God, good deeds bring you closer to God in a metaphorical sense but not a literal sense. I believe in the separation of creator and creation. I do not believe the creator creates himself or parts of himself. As a result, i believe worshipping that creator is the correct thing to do. you said: My understanding of salvation is also different. Salvation to me means being at peace with your creator. That is, your creator is pleased with you and you are pleased with him. And that salvation is only achieved through worshipping(i.e obeying his commands) him. So i think we will just have to agree to disagree for the time being