Charles Murphy Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Hello there. I have found researching this faith very interesting. I have some questions I would like to ask to help me gain a more rounded understanding of this faith. Here they are: 1. Did the Gurus claim to be prophets of God? 2. It is said that the Guru’s shared the same spirit. What is actually meant by this? Could you explain this in layman terms? 3. How did Guru Nanak communicate with God? 4. Is the Guru Granth Sahib the literal word of God? Or is it the sayings of the Gurus as directed by God? Or is it just the sayings of the Gurus on their own accord? 5. Who was the first man? 6. Who was the first prophet? 7. What does sikhism say about the other so-called divinely revealed books of God? i.e hindi scriptures, torah etc 8. What does sikhism say about the other so-called prophets of God? i.e abraham, moses, buddha etc 9. If you believe that the traditional Prophets (i.e moses, abraham) are true, then what are your objections to the other traditional faiths? I.e. why the need for another divinely revealed book or prophet? 10. Who is the message of sikhism for? The world? Asia? Etc. 11. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib. How many are there? Is each one given the status of being the spiritual head of the religion? Thank you. I'm sure I'll have lots more questions as I discover more about this faith. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Gurfateh Charsles you are welcomed here and das(writer as humble slave of God will answer the query by mercy of Akal(eternal God of Sikhs and humans). Hello there. 1. Did the Gurus claim to be prophets of God? Prophets are those who make prophepessess about future. and are entity to themsleves. Our Gurus did not behold themselves as an entity. They used term like dogs,lowest of lower for themselves. even insects for them selves. They did not behold them selves as entity at all.They behold them as part or toll of God whose body is whole universe and beyind.within and without. So thier actions,bodies,wrods all were of God and not of them.Same is true for all of us.We do not know but they did realise this by mercy of God.(deutrinomy in old Trestment also say that all within and without is of God). So being non entity themselves they behold them as servent or slave of God like hand of das is typing the keyboard. 2. It is said that the Guru’s shared the same spirit. What is actually meant by this? Could you explain this in layman terms? Gurus behold that all humans have one soul.Das personal commetns are that sprit is another level of body. Soul is same as God and when a person is salvaged while being alive in body sprit(mind+soul) dies ie mind is dead and hence ego attached to mind.Only soul is left which is one with God. So in such situations when our body is under direct control of God so we say that al people with such state are having one brain ie brain of God. Like same electricity from same source enlighteing many bulbs but this is a realtive term.(it is like state of being in holy Ghost). 3. How did Guru Nanak communicate with God? In the body of Guru Nanak,Guru(God) of Nanak ie word had control and did let Gods own word come out.Same state can still be acheived by any mankind Sikh or non Sikh b ut by mercy of Akal.Present Guru Panth Khalsa idealy be like that.(lord Jesus said that His father does everything and no differance between him and his father) 4. Is the Guru Granth Sahib the literal word of God? Or is it the sayings of the Gurus as directed by God? Or is it just the sayings of the Gurus on their own accord? Every word is word of God.But some are realtive and some are absolute.Guru Granth Sahib Ji has verse to let us know absolute as in past Books of God were being misinterpreted by vested interests by influnce of mammon.but by will of God as God wanted Guru Panth Khalsa to be started. 5. Who was the first man? Creation has been made and destroyed many times since infinatly.So there could be infinatie Adem(PBUH).He is emtioned as Father but not as first Man. Like Before Adem of old testment and gensis we can not say that God never created universe before and destroyed it.God is onmin potant and can do make(create) and break(destroy) univers many time. We are told that God was First and will be last(omega and Alafa).Sprits are made but will be destroyed one day intial postion of nothing else but God can be obtained but presently also same thing is there but only few enlightened know. OUr God is beyond time,space and matter so as in circle we do not know who is first so we can not say where the first men could be.Within a same space we can can have first men of many times.Our God is Athan(spaceless) Japu Sahib,Akal(timeless) Dehheen(matterlesss). And we are same.It is not mysitisim but quantum theory(see srigranth.org(JapuJi Sahib)sridasam.org(Japu Sahib),it is just the start of ocean knwn as God who is unending. There is a question that has God been of any form then who made that god? And had God occpied sapce then place hwere that god sat,who made that space? 6. Who was the first prophet? God by self spoke in own body.That could be Angeera of holy Vedas or Adem(PBUH) of Holy Bible.or both. While das is writing something here on the same space some other world could exisit in some other time or say at micro organism level. 7. What does sikhism say about the other so-called divinely revealed books of God? i.e hindi scriptures, torah etc there are no hindi scriptures nor hindu scriputres as you said but they came much after wrold and Sikh faith(it is here since world /universe was made) was made. so there are Sanatan Dharmi(eternal faiths) scriptures called Vedas which are four.And we have four Semtic Books called Kateeb(Taurait and Jabur(old Testment),Anjeel(New Testment) and Holy Kuran). In our Guru Granth Sahib Ji it is clearly said. do not behold Vedas or Kateebs false but false are those who do n ot think over them. If you see God in all then why should you kill chicken (in Halal Manner). As God Has to manifest self in the form of Gurus are preivous words of God were not beeing followed correclty and reltive terms were given preferances over absolute terms(some Sikhs are doing same mistake with own scriptures but Panth itslef acts as Guru and fix the problem). As Halal or Kosher is dome to show differance between flesh and blood as apprant saying of God to Abraham(PBUH) who was formery Abram to put blood of animal on ground as blood is life.What God actualy meant was to kill animal correctly and not let it dei half and prolonged death.So did this correction was sent. As in Old Testment only in book of Issaiah,God is told to omin visible(verse is Oh God,what man has seen or heard beside thee since creation and what are tings which are waiting for Man).No answer to this malkes it statement shwoing God in things and all colurs(which are type of light,god is Anubhav Prakash(feeeling of light). 8. What does sikhism say about the other so-called prophets of God? i.e abraham, moses, buddha etc All the semtic Prophets were doing as God made them to do.But they were at the side of Truth(Das is uisng source more then Guru Granth Sahib Ji but these source do not go against the idelogy of Guru Granth Sahib Ji either). But Budhism and Jainism is not approved as Faith in Sikhs as these two do not recoganise God and give emphsis of deeds of man by himslef while Sikhs have faith that God is one who makes thing happen and man is only tool.(in old Testment again God says that I do good and evil and I bring peace and war). Even at soem place Jainism is condemned also for ritualism and acts which can lead us away from God. they can be more idealogy or life style but can not religeon and Budha and Bodhtisavas or Mahveers Parwanath and previous Thirthankers can never be Prophets as there is God there so how can we have some send by that as a mesanger. 9. If you believe that the traditional Prophets (i.e moses, abraham) are true, then what are your objections to the other traditional faiths? I.e. why the need for another divinely revealed book or prophet? Due to previous faiths going more after dead prophets and trying to tie God with rules of testments,Making follower go for heavan for good or hell for bad but such all things are decayable ,only God is eternal and will reamin and we need to sing Glory of the same. Only in God we have trust.No Guru,No Prophet,no incarntions. We are spritual and not fundmentialists.(Foolishness of God (as appear to us) is much more then ouor cleverness(Anjeel)) We try to influnce God by our acts but we need to know that God is the one makes us move as God wants(in Angeel,Lord Jesus say,Father I tok care of those who you sent to me,Same lord does came in fromt of Saul to make him Paul). So faith in God that mattters and not our deeds. 10. Who is the message of sikhism for? The world? Asia? Etc. Well Wrold is divided in Asia,Africa,Eurpoe etc. by men. Man made suez Canal or Panam Canal. Sea rouse and Pangea moved by nature into America,Aurstraila or new world. Bearing strip was a bridge. So Message of God of Sikhs is that he is in each atm and in vaccum so why to divide world.God is in earth in the form of Mother. So see God in all.And behave with all as you must behave with your God. To come to Panth behold all as family,win mind(ego or selfishnes) and this will win unioverse for you(all all willbne yours).(Japu Ji Sahib_ Panth(faith) moves to kill Duja Bhav ie semce of dultiy. That deals with concept about them and us but as there is no one beside thee oh Lord God so there is on one second(duja) to God and as God is in all then why to thinik that other person is differant from us. In life,In Water,In Land,In all From,in All Kings(God exists) Triya Charitar 266 Dasham Granth. 11. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib. How many are there? Is each one given the status of being the spiritual head of the religion? Sikhs have trinty in them but all three are one. It is words from God(Gurbani),which is our Guide and Guru Granth Sahib Ji are topmost and first of three books(Sri Dasham Granth and Sri Sarbloh Granth).and from the Former Frist we interpret the latter two. It is Called Sabad Guru ie verbal form of spritual guide. Then we also have Guru Panth ie Community by itself acts as Guru and guide going after the teaching of scriptures. It is strange but Panth Khalsa behold itslef as Avtar(incarntaion) or manifestation of God in present Era.As a Sikh das is part of that faith which considers self as own guide and no need of outsider. It is like concept of reveleation that people in Jerusalam decening on earth will act like God after last day of judgement. But we may obtain the state of being one with God while being alive. But both Guru Panth and Guru Granth Sahib Ji are made and can be destoyed by one who made them. Absloute guide is Gurbar Akal(eternal God of Sikhs). So our Guide is God via verbal manifeation of Gurbani. Fell free to ask more question and das gets divine pleasue to sing glory of his God Akal.Who is God of Jews and in our Faith Jews are behold as tribe of Aryan(Brahmins ie who recoganise God).(Sau Sakhi). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Ok. Let us take this 1 question at a time. I did not learrn what I was hoping to learn from your replies. 1. Did the Gurus claim to be prophets of God? Prophets are those who make prophepessess about future. Traditionally, a prophet is a person charged with the job of delivering God's message to mankind. So I disagree with your assertion here. and are entity to themsleves (a)What do you mean by this? So thier actions,bodies,wrods all were of God and not of them.Same is true for all of us.We do not know but they did realise this by mercy of God I think I understand what you are saying here. This realisation they had - (b)was it in the form of God telling them so? How did they get this realisation that they were parts of God and that everybody else is? ©Where does the wisdom of the Gurus come from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charles, Ok. Let us take this 1 question at a time. I did not learrn what I was hoping to learn from your replies. Das finds himself so far not been very succseeful to express Sikh Panth so far but that is in in Hand of God but concepts here a bit differnt so forgive Das and kindly bear with something which could be very new to yourself but if God wills das will be sucessful to satisfy your inqustiveness but will of God is must. 1. Did the Gurus claim to be prophets of God? Quote: Prophets are those who make prophepessess about future. Traditionally, a prophet is a person charged with the job of delivering God's message to mankind. So I disagree with your assertion here. If we se then this is one of the main attribute of most of the Prophets but as das agrees to you that they have message but it does tells about something to come and control of time is in hands of God. Quote: and are entity to themsleves (a)What do you mean by this? When we say one God then it means that nothing else but God exisits.And all creation is nothing but manfestation of God.So no one else but God.But most prohets did understood to be more as an entity which was off couse by will of God. but in our Gurus case they were limbs of God say hand of Man while univeerse is body of God.As still you belive creation and creator as differnt so you will find it diffcult to understand but you will be explainted more on thread about attributes of God. Quote: So thier actions,bodies,wrods all were of God and not of them.Same is true for all of us.We do not know but they did realise this by mercy of God I think I understand what you are saying here. This realisation they had - (b)was it in the form of God telling them so? How did they get this realisation that they were parts of God and that everybody else is? well here withing our body lives the soul and within cells of our body in atoms lives our God.God salvages many by just letting them relaise the truth. Only choosen few had god wanted all to be salvaged then why chould have manifestation of Maoommon being done by God by self which you call creation. God in many does has pleasures like that of doing Good or evil,but some he uses to help other relaise God. ©Where does the wisdom of the Gurus come from? From the God who was in them and is in you and me and all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 What I understand so far: When we say one God then it means that nothing else but God exisits (exists) 1. Nothing but God exists. And all creation is nothing but manfestation (manifestation) of God 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. univeerse (universe) is body of Godwell here withing (within) our body lives the soul and within cells of our body in atoms lives our God.God salvages many by just letting them relaise(realise?) the truth. 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? God salvages many by just letting them relaise(realise?) the truth. 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charles, Well das(vijaydeep Singh) will touch few points as you asked him. When we touch book then we do not touch anything in fact no action occurs.How? Because the same God is in book and same is in us so space from here to their is false. Concept of being Part of God is more to do with Bhagwat Gita's interpetations of Hindus(Sikhs have differnt though). Das tried to tel that thing that in matter and in vaccum there is some energy and that is also God. We till we realise the truth by mercy of God may have sense of Duality or Duja Bhave when we can think in this way () () () Here we can have three pranthaese for say Heavan,Earth and Neither world. But Truth is like ((())) Inside one is God and outside one is God but middle one is mamon where we may think that things seense to be happeninig.Nanak Gaya Jape Jayee(ie Oh Nanak things gone seems to go) but in real this is only apprant. The very same atom in your finger tip is same as whole universe.Both are one continues form of energy which is manifesting in various forms. As it is beyong physics so by phycifal things like words it is diffult but not impossible to let it be explained. We can say just to give exmaple that God has body of universe but truth is all unverse in manifestation of God. Then coming to Gurus saying about people before them. In fact in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji there are mention of some mediums onto whom truth was sent the verse sent onto those Saints are there in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Das told this thing before also that Vedas and Kateebs(Holy Bible and Holy Kuran) are behold as Truth but thier interpetations are differant in many aspects. and Dasham Granth also talks of various Prophets and incarnations sent by God in past also. Then coming to Gurus as thier Bodies were not in thier control but of God so it was God who spoke from thier within. As they spoke so their the God in thier vocal cord via thier neurotranmitter gave the verrses. Anyway there is a testomony(Sakhi) that Guru Nanak Dev Ji were taken to hevan from here he got command that tell world that As God does not act communaly so should we not fight of being say Hindu or Muslim. But as Verse tells us that Hevan or adobe of God is in each Atom and not somewhere in 7th Sky so going to heavan is more in term of realisation. Then lastly we come to soul. Say light covered by two or more black covers First is spirit and next is body(Das again repeats that these are relative terms jsut to let you understand but it is more minute). Purest form of God is soul ie Holy Ghost.It is in all of us.By will of God our mind is attached to it and makes it Spirit. As no one wants to die so our Mind wants to live for ever but if realisiation is done then mind is dead and spirit is dead and soul only remains. In fact indivdual spirits also sometime refered as Soul made with Body are decayable as anything which is made is destroyed(Salok Mahal 9 Jo Banat Hai So Binas Hai). So when mind dies or is killed by God by self and sense of person is no more and sens e of God overtakes we say Atam(Soul) Tatva(Essance) is visible. But mind,body and sprit they are in real also nothing else but Soul,in all there is one light and that (light) is that(God)(Arti,Dhanshari Mahal 1). so we can take Soul and God one and the same.In Orthodox Sikhs Gurubar Akal is Called Atam Dev ie Soul God. Das repeats at last that as Our God is Akhand ie undividable so there can not be any part of that. Assume youself in space where nothing else but light(or Darkness) and your body and mind both are same light(or Drakness).So there we will find not parts as such left. Das at last also wants to say that like Dumb can not speak of sweetness of Food so that expiriance can not be described by Physical tongue easyly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Because the same God is in book and same is in us so space from here to their is false. 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? The very same atom in your finger tip is same as whole universe.Both are one continues form of energy which is manifesting in various forms. 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? We till we realise the truth by mercy of God may have sense of Duality or Duja Bhave when we can think in this way () () () Here we can have three pranthaese for say Heavan,Earth and Neither world. But Truth is like ((())) Inside one is God and outside one is God but middle one is mamon where we may think that things seense to be happeninig.Nanak Gaya Jape Jayee(ie Oh Nanak things gone seems to go) but in real this is only apprant. I'm sorry but I don't understand this. In fact in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji there are mention of some mediums onto whom truth was sent the verse sent onto those Saints are there in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Das told this thing before also that Vedas and Kateebs(Holy Bible and Holy Kuran) are behold as Truth but thier interpetations are differant in many aspects. and Dasham Granth also talks of various Prophets and incarnations sent by God in past also. This is a later question (questions 7 and 8 ) and we will return to this interesting point. Then coming to Gurus as thier Bodies were not in thier control but of God so it was God who spoke from thier within. I assume you mean 'in God's control'. Did they claim this? Is this unique to them? As they spoke so their the God in thier vocal cord via thier neurotranmitter gave the verrses. 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: As they spoke so their the (part of)God in thier vocal cord via thier neurotranmitter gave the verrses. But as Verse tells us that Hevan or adobe of God is in each Atom and not somewhere in 7th Sky so going to heavan is more in term of realisation. 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? But as Verse tells us that Hevan or adobe of God is in each Atom and not somewhere in 7th Sky so going to heavan is more in term of realisation. Purest form of God is soul ie Holy Ghost.It is in all of us.By will of God our mind is attached to it and makes it Spirit. As no one wants to die so our Mind wants to live for ever but if realisiation is done then mind is dead and spirit is dead and soul only remains. In fact indivdual spirits also sometime refered as Soul made with Body are decayable as anything which is made is destroyed(Salok Mahal 9 Jo Banat Hai So Binas Hai). I am presuming that the soul and spirit are part of creation. Are they special in some way? So when mind dies or is killed by God by self and sense of person is no more and sens e of God overtakes we say Atam(Soul) Tatva(Essance) is visible. 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic_Banda Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Charles Im going to say something that may confuse the hell out of you.. if so forgive me You are asking what does sikhism say. If sikhism was one person I would gladly reference them, however its not its a community each with their own view and interpretations, if your looking for the supreme truth behind sikhism then join the club thats what this forums about and if you find it any time soon please let us all know It is also an organised franchise a business run by those portraying spirituality and awareness but really just holding a political grasp over a community. I have no intrest in that type of sikhism so best to ask someone else, Then there is the spiritual aspect of the religion, this is obviously completely personal and expressed and experienced entirely inside and cannot be expressed in words. Religion is a very complex object which has thousands of sides to it, a good attempt to catagorise religion can be found in Ninian Smart's The World Religions. You probably figured by now there are many clauses in arguments and contradictions in concepts and although im truelly greatful that vijaydeep is trying his best to explain, his text can become hard to read. So i'll give you my opinion of things, do not hold what I say as gospel, just my humble opinion. 1. Did the Gurus claim to be profits, - they themselves made no claim that being Guru elevated them to a higher state of existance then any other Har Jan, Har meaning God and Jan meaning Person, so any person of God, this would include Holy men, Prophets, Saints, etc etc. This implies that prophethood, having a direct message from God to give to the people isnt regarded as making that person more God like, being one with God (maybe this means in the sense from God as Jesus was, communicated directly to God as other prophets, or simply so engrossed in God that you merge into God conciousness as Arjan from the mahabharat) is what gives you a higher status. 2. The same soul different bodies. There is the case presented by Vijaydeep. All souls are part of God so we all share the same soul, There are also ideas such as the continuation of the divine soul, for example drawing on other world religions. The divine element of the trinity in christianity three things same Godliness. The imams in shia islam (not believed by all shias but some hold that the Imamate is passed from body to body but has always been Ali), So that divine element of Guru Nanak (becoming a Har Jan) being passed from one to the other through the 10 Gurus to the present 11th, Point to note: some sikhs would hold that in its 11th form it is existant in the Guru Granth Sahib, the Khalsa (baptised sikhs) and the weapons. - this is more based on personal beliefs and each sikh is different on this idea. The other idea is that the body of Guru Nanak originally had its original soul in it, when he first met God (disappeared into a river for 3 days) then the joht (the holy spirit) entered into his body, I kinda hijacking but not so negative. It was this holy spirit which was then passed on through the alternative bodies, it is this holy spirit we respect as divine and it is this holy spirit which is an essance of God, (It may be mohammeds holy spirit which could have been budhas, which could have been jesus etc etc) The 3 days thing is intresting and if your researching into other religions or looking to draw a comparitive or even a critique of sikhism to identify its flaws and preach it as a fake belief (whatever you intentions), let me know if you find anything else about the three. Mohammed was in the mountain before Gabrial came to him for three days, and Jesus well his meeting with God is believed by some to have truelly been while he was on the cross and three days after he resurrects, this being his proof of being a prophet and son of God. Whats with the three days .. ? Coz I once slept for three days !!! I;ll leave this here and come back to the other questions once we debated these few ones as im sure my limited logic is full of flaws misconceptions and general bullshit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charles, Quote: Because the same God is in book and same is in us so space from here to their is false. 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? Das repeats the same thing here that our God is Akhand(undivisable),Achhed(un pregamable),Abhang(un breakable) so we can not have parts of the same lie we can divide the earth by say making Canal. Nearest thing to this could be trying to make part of beam of light with simliar smaller beam in the same direction. This is mrealtive term again.Say by line of air trying to biferacte air. Laslty let us see further, If of the same body two things are idffernt there has to be a border between them.But between tow things does God exist and within Two things two.So not the Part it is more with Bhagwat Gita's interpetations of Hindus. Regarding Sapce,UIt is realtive and any thing can be true which is time tested. While space depends upon the matter ,if object is there then only we have space relative to it.Else it is just apparant and temporary. Quote: The very same atom in your finger tip is same as whole universe.Both are one continues form of energy which is manifesting in various forms. 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? To be more clearer we can say that no diferance between one atom and whole uinverse as both are God.Only we see by our mind like that they are idffeent. Why? Becasue from atom to univers there is n othing which divides the continuity.All is one Body.With no Gap. Quote: We till we realise the truth by mercy of God may have sense of Duality or Duja Bhave when we can think in this way () () () Here we can have three pranthaese for say Heavan,Earth and Neither world. But Truth is like ((())) Inside one is God and outside one is God but middle one is mamon where we may think that things seense to be happeninig.Nanak Gaya Jape Jayee(ie Oh Nanak things gone seems to go) but in real this is only apprant. I'm sorry but I don't understand this. Read it again.Das just wanted to tell that till we have faith that dultiy exsit we can never realise the truth but by mercy of God. On the same sapce where you are typing doe Das exist and you and Das and God and universe Exisit.And all the past ,present and futre exsists. Quote: In fact in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji there are mention of some mediums onto whom truth was sent the verse sent onto those Saints are there in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Das told this thing before also that Vedas and Kateebs(Holy Bible and Holy Kuran) are behold as Truth but thier interpetations are differant in many aspects. and Dasham Granth also talks of various Prophets and incarnations sent by God in past also. This is a later question (questions 7 and 8 ) and we will return to this interesting point. Thnks for intereset. Quote: Then coming to Gurus as thier Bodies were not in thier control but of God so it was God who spoke from thier within. I assume you mean 'in God's control'. Did they claim this? Is this unique to them? They said that till they had ega as beholding themselves as an entity they were not one with God but one God made ego go then they found being one with universe which is one with God. This is not unique to them but to thier God who can let it happen to anyone God wants(In fact such things were mentioned via others Saints ,who were not from Ten Gurus yet thier verse are mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib Ji eg Perhaps Saint Ravidas(Jab Hum Hote To Tu Nahi...) Quote: As they spoke so their the God in thier vocal cord via thier neurotranmitter gave the verrses. 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: no God can never be divided into Part.God is in whole creation which also is one which could be reasiled at higher level when we trevel in time,when only God is there.While Body may be here in front of world. Quote: As they spoke so their the (part of)God in thier vocal cord via thier neurotranmitter gave the verrses. No ther e is no part of God.A(no) Khand(part) and that is another attribute of our God. Quote: But as Verse tells us that Hevan or adobe of God is in each Atom and not somewhere in 7th Sky so going to heavan is more in term of realisation. 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? Das may lack some presentation skills so forgive him. Sikhs are taought to never forgive anyone(unlike Christians) but we are always told that we are lowest and full of mistake and shuold seek frogiveness from others in whom God lives. See the Paranthesis givne by Das which you did not understood.Hevan or Atom are manfesation which are merly visible but in real there are one. And what is your meaning of 'realisation' in the following sentence? when we actualy feel all is one and can tell this thing to others if God permits. Quote: But as Verse tells us that Hevan or adobe of God is in each Atom and not somewhere in 7th Sky so going to heavan is more in term of realisation. This happens when God wants to see the real unlmited expance of God. Quote: Purest form of God is soul ie Holy Ghost.It is in all of us.By will of God our mind is attached to it and makes it Spirit. As no one wants to die so our Mind wants to live for ever but if realisiation is done then mind is dead and spirit is dead and soul only remains. In fact indivdual spirits also sometime refered as Soul made with Body are decayable as anything which is made is destroyed(Salok Mahal 9 Jo Banat Hai So Binas Hai). I am presuming that the soul and spirit are part of creation. Are they special in some way? soul as individual does not exsit at all but is another name of God as per Sikhs,but sprit is like a body but again it is only apprant at one stage of spritual enlightenment but when treuth is relaised we see nither body nor sprit but God only. Quote: So when mind dies or is killed by God by self and sense of person is no more and sens e of God overtakes we say Atam(Soul) Tatva(Essance) is visible. 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? So far mind is not being found by Scince,But some people say that it is very smale near our heart and not in brain. anyway Das here meant term mind with ego or mind of individuality.Mind does not dies with death of human but may let spirit take another body. Mind can die when God ends ego while we are alive and we are salvaged they that.Say when a person is in Holy Ghost he does not speak what his mind wants to speak but Holy Ghost ie God only speaks.These are again not absoul;ute terms and being done to let you understand it. 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 our mind acts as God direct it,and Ego in us is also via God. Das never meant that there are two sense say Godly and egoly in us. Only God is in us,but that wants us to know that we are not one with God,when Same God wants us to see realty we realise the truth.And that may happen before death and and may not happen even after death for many. Das would like to say some more things here.Many things which are very usual also seem like to be mirealce if we try to explain them,s o far scince has only described them. eg How our Brain works somethinig can be said but Why does it work no one knows even till now,Say for instinct ,then why are such instincts? Sikhs can say as Gods wants it to work like that in same manner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 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!). There is the case presented by Vijaydeep. All chairs are part of God so we all share the same chair, 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? There are also ideas such as the continuation of the divine chair, for example drawing on other world religions. The divine element of the trinity in christianity three things same Godliness. The imams in shia islam (not believed by all shias but some hold that the Imamate is passed from body to body but has always been Ali), So that divine element of Guru Nanak (becoming a Har Jan) being passed from one to the other through the 10 Gurus to the present 11th, 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. Point to note: some sikhs would hold that in its 11th form it is existant in the Guru Granth Sahib, the Khalsa (baptised sikhs) and the weapons. - this is more based on personal beliefs and each sikh is different on this idea. So the chair is in the book? That's fine. The other idea is that the body of Guru Nanak originally had its original chair in it, when he first met God (disappeared into a river for 3 days) then the joht (the holy table) entered into his body, I kinda hijacking but not so negative. It was this holy table which was then passed on through the alternative bodies, it is this holy table we respect as divine and it is this holy table which is an essance of God, (It may be mohammeds holy table which could have been budhas, which could have been jesus etc etc) 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic_Banda Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Charles you are truelly an inspiritation, Dialogue has two side products confusion which leads to further ignorance, and understanding which leads to appreciaition. This doesnt neccesarily have to be between two people it can occur within oneself. Like I take my understanding of God and the Guru for granted to a point I am ignorant about it. Now another asks me to clarify and all I can do is be confused Funny little world. But yeh going back to the dialgue im glad your asking these questions helps us all think and understand, question our own understandings Gurfateh, is a smaller version of the sikh greating Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh (mainly came into common use in forums as the full salutation is too long to type, and an abbreviated form is more confusing trying to figure out how many V's there are). You can say whatever you please as long as its not offensive. Yes and No answers are hard to find in sikhism, as the root belief is prem, love, it takes more of a mystical approach then a logical approach, however as an Insider the mystical ways would appear logical. For yourself as an outsider the logical factor may be harder to grasp or infact non existant. lol Did Guru Nanak call himself Guru.? Simple answer ... Complex answer oh boy. !! Sikhism is academically seen as part of the bhakti movement (a religious order based upon the importance of personal devotion) hence the push towards a more mystical logic then mathematical logic of true and false. It is because of this push towards the devotional aspect Guru Nanak would have no need to call or claim himself as a Guru or Prophet or messenger, He can only share the devotional experience that is his message, hence the word (naam) - a mantra, and the importance of Kirtan. However being truely infinadoxical there is also the statement of other poets whose works are held in high esteem. The bhata de svaiye found in the Guru Granth Sahib, speak of Guru Nanak having been incarnated throughout the ages, (bascially saying that the incarnations of Vishnu are all infact incarnations of Guru Nanak). This may be read logically or as Vijaydeep attempts to point out be reference to the idea of a universal being all powerful which we are all apart of. Then there are the non Guru historically respected texts such as Bhai Gurdas Ji De Vaara (similar in some way to the hadiths of Islam, and the Gospels of Christianity) This text in particular is regarded as the key to the Guru Granth Sahib, without understanding the key the hidden messages of the Guru Granth Sahib can not be revealed. (Then again that is definate because if God wills it, then a deaf blind man who has never heard of the Guru Granth Sahib can realise all its glory - this would be going back to that mystical devotional idea) Chapter 2.. And the Dish Ran away with the spoon ! Lol I love your use of Chairs and tables perfect, truelly showed me how ignorant I am in my wording to just assume everyone understands things the way I do. Thanks for making it so obvious The idea of God is not based on one context, so God is not just indivisable, he is indivisable as something which is without form can obviously not be divided. (see the thread on Nature of God for discussions on being two opposing things at the same time and why we cant comprehend this. Also see the post on a guy who died for three days and came alive, (his NDE kind of gives a glimpse into a sikh perspective of God) Yet God is infinitely manifest meaning he can be split infinite amounts of time. I think this one context Vijaydeep provides an example of the rays of light. Light is called light, its one thing one beam of light, yet that one beam of light can be broken into many smaller beams each beam is still the original beam just now in many forms. Another example, is waves on an ocean, the waves ontop of the ocean are from the ocean they have raised above the ocean and we call that a wave it has a new name a new purpose maybe, but undeniably its still the ocean. If i was able to take that wave away from the ocean, one would not say this is the ocean they would say this is a wave. It is part of it yet not seperate from it yet seen as different. Maybe an example of water being in its different forms, a rain drop is still originally from the ocean just became evaporated, changed form left the ocean condensed changed form again and then fell to ground in another form. It will then pass from body to body, being absorbed into the ground, then soaked up by a plant, plants have water in them when you see a plant you wouldnt call it a body with the ocean in it. As the droplet has changed forms so many times it is now just the water in a plant, no longer the rain no longer the cloud, no longer the ocean. And according to the lovely water cycle this journey of the droplet will go from plant, to animal that ate the plant, to human who ate the animal, to pissed down the loo, to into the local rivers, and finally back to the ocean, where it originally came from. But thats in that one context. after all an ocean has limits it was created it is not infinite etc etc. that metaphorical journey of the droplet = journey of the soul is an example of that one idea. not a total science of the nature of the soul and God. Now part two. the tables and chairs. lol 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? It was only in the leading Guru at any time! This holy table is called the Guru Joht (the light of the Guru) or guiding light. What does it do when its inside me? Its like GPS and TOM TOM, it shows you the way lol, not like a voice saying CHARLES Do not eat the BLUE PILL. ! then agian who knows mystically even a burning bush would be acceptable voice of God. I agree with vijaydeep, realising that guiding light and knowing its there insted of being so lost in an illusion that we disbelieve its existance is realisation, and this is given by Gods grace. The soul is in us all its what makes this collection of carbon based atoms a living thing which dies and the other collection of carbon based atoms a rock. The only difference between human and rock is the soul, a human without a soul is a rock. an attractive, soft, one but still lifeless. The soul is the chair. and yes we all have a chair and yes that chair is God (just like the droplet mentioned earlier) not a part of God, so not his ear lobe. I wouldnt be able to say hey im Gods little toe, and your his eye lash nice to meet you. I couldnt quantify the soul as its not a manifest object yet it is manifest as it allows manifest objects to be alive, hence its called the ether ! or void or CHI 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? Well the holy table (the joht) is a chair which has emerged into a table. It has fully appreciated the table inside the chair and hence is now a bench.. both table and chair Lol new religion for carpenters. This is where mystical alchemy comes into play. Its all about the idea of transmutation. The soul will take on the characteristics of its form, such as the droplet may be urine, blood, nectar depending on which body it is in. To turn that droplet back into pure water H20 (slightly salty coz its from the ocean in our example) while still in the form it is in. Would require for its true original root existance (being the sea) to be realised by the droplet. Knowing its the sea it gains realisation reverts to its original form while inside the plant or whatever body it is and hey presto God in you God around you.. Your now a bench. You become a Har Jan (as mentioned earlier) how can the whole see be inside a plant or a person, well if the droplet was from the sea, and the droplet realises every other body around it which contains something that came from water will have the sea in it, it gains a higher state of awareness becomes liberated from the bonds of believing it is just blood or urine etc, It sees all as one universal h20, all becomes the ocean and the ocean is in all. However, this is according to the manifestated realisation the realisation of the unmanifest well to explain that we would need a language that can relate that which can not be comprehended. :twisted: sorry for the long reply I hope these metaphors and examples have shed light on your questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charlse, As God is incomaparble(Anoop) so it is difficult to tell about that by giving example of physical objects but Gurbani trys to use say one object to tell about some attribute. In comaprable here was used just to tell that there could be no other like God.So Das will further try to put as God wants him to type. 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. Here if we talk in term of physics then we can say that atomos can also be diintiegrated into say Protons,neutrons,Electrons etc. Proton can be further converted into Postron and Neutrion till al is converted back to energy. so here undivisbilty may be refer to continuty of homgenous thing. Say tell us take water of ocean.waves may be diffeent type but water is one which is true and having various form.Or say sparks or shape of fire or say dust.But they can be separted by some non water.non fire or non dust part. But when we come to God say in atoms say(Atom1) and (Atom2) both are God say Atom1=Atom2=God and even when they are bounded as mixture or compoound say (atom1)Conncetion(atom2) in real it is (God)God(God) and even ( and ) also is equal to God so GodGodGodGodGodGodGod and all is one God. 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. dAs can say all legs are legs of God as all tings belong to God and as God is in them so all legs are nothing but God. 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? God is continues and that is coorect and das is realy happy that he is little bit successfull to let you understand something but it should be lie that that in universe nothing else but God only exists. 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. Yes Hevan is also God as neither and earth are. So it is fine up till this point. But then you say the aim is to reunite your soul with God. Das or any one can not do this as we do not have our souls as Soul is God and God can only unite it is like realsig the Truth that we are united already. How can we refer to the soul? Soul is same as God. Spirit is apprant thing looking differnt from God but by will of God this differance is there else it is also God. The indivisiblity concept does not allow any meaning in the idea of soul. There is just God - 1 atomic entity. Yes in truth there one God which is indivisble ,continuous and homogenous but may not appear the same to all. 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? Das is ahppy that you have understood some extent which we call Duja Bhav(concept of Dulatiy ie being something other then God) Das will touch logic latter on. coming to reunion,separation is apparant only as God wants to act by self so same God acts as separate at one manifesationand same does act one there and then. In fact union is done by God when actualy God only starts to be seen evrywhere and in all. We all are having Same God in ourself and outside too and infact no differnet body,sprit or soul exsits but God. The way we dream/think ourselves doing say kicking the football into the goal postand ourselves defending the same goal post as goalkeeper it is simlar that God is at both and at all the sides. Das just made it as relative staement to let you know. Same homgenous thing called God makes such arrangement that we find ourbody and brain and differnt one for others but same let us know that we are one ,same and not differnat from anything outside our Body. So salvation in us is to rtecoganse our true self but not by ourslef but true self ie God,thatself. And your soul cannot be both God entirely and a part of God because this a logical flaw. when we comoe to logic then we must understand that it is based upon axioms which can not be explained by logic itslef but are taken foregranted. In India thats what we are told about axioms. Like logacally we can say that ball falls on earth OK? Due to Gravity(logical answer) Why is gravity(Nature of Earth or Mass is to attract other mass) Even is some nuclar explantion is Givne then further we can not explanin by reason and say it is its nature but why is tis nature? This is axiom.This thing is taken foregranted by observations and results of experiments but may not be logical others could be big Bang or sturdy state hypothiesiss. more on observations and descriptions. Apparntly God can act as differant and away from creation just for those God wants them to precive and those are also nothing but God so showing slef to self in differnt ways and seeing self in diffeernt way.(ape Data Ape Bhugta) 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. This can be there till we deem our soul as our and ourslef as an entity which is false as we are temporary and time bound. Say if we do not know about camel and see it,we may not recoganise it and may give it differnt name but if some tells us about Camel before hand then we can recogansie Camel but logically why should we call camel a camel just as some one at erlier stage defined it as such. so if we Go by as told by God by own manifestations in the form of Guides(Guru Panth) and Scripture(Gurbani) we are made to see that we are we but that God only by That God.Even without following any guide or Book then also God can let us recoganise ourself as(atam Cheene)God thatself. 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. the way waves are in water nothing else but water but same water can not be didived by same water.all is water in general.Das wants you to understand that here we are not treating water as bound of H2O.But as single entity. 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.) Creation is apparant and false as God took this from and can be back in the orgeonal form.Say you may change your face with changes of expression but you still are the one.So creation what you call is only temporary form of one God and itslef is One. See that mass is made up of energy only and gaps are filled by the same.And all forms of energy also has same unit joules and can change one form into another but still is one like Light energy-Device-elecrtical enrgy Light energy=God -=meduim of trasfer made up of matter ie energy=God Device=mass=energy=God electrical energy=God so you can not have any thing in the form of discontnuity over here and God is one only.Apparntly in differnt form. 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. Soul or what you seem to refer the spirit is nothing but form of God ,till God wants it to appear individualy it is apparntly like that but when God wants truth to be relised then sprit foounds itslef in Holy Ghost ie no spirit is left futher. 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 Till we say that our soul(read Spirit) is differnt from others and that also differnt from God till then this problem can come into our way. To over come that problem das can give you some tips. Say some one did tell you about Camel and you belived it and could recoganise camel. So fi you have faith and can with faith see God in all matter,space and time and energy and sprit and soul you may realise the truth. but for that will of God is nessasry and God also wants that God is relaised to the same form God which is apparntly Charlse Murphy.Same form via vijaydeep Singh trys to explain and same one does trys to understand in the from of Charlse murphy and same will recoganise if wants and not if does not. It is not mysitism as all is in front of us.Reason for saying that salvation is in hand of God was this only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 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. Here if we talk in term of physics then we can say that atomos can also be diintiegrated into say Protons,neutrons,Electrons etc. 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 Say tell us take water of ocean.waves may be diffeent type but water is one which is true and having various form.Or say sparks or shape of fire or say dust.But they can be separted by some non water.non fire or non dust part. 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. But when we come to God say in atoms say(Atom1) and (Atom2) both are God say Atom1=Atom2=God and even when they are bounded as mixture or compoound say (atom1)Conncetion(atom2) in real it is (God)God(God) and even ( and ) also is equal to God so GodGodGodGodGodGodGod and all is one God. 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'. coming to reunion,separation is apparant only as God wants to act by self so same God acts as separate at one manifesationand same does act one there and then. In fact union is done by God when actualy God only starts to be seen evrywhere and in all. 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: when we comoe to logic then we must understand that it is based upon axioms which can not be explained by logic itslef but are taken foregranted. In India thats what we are told about axioms. Like logacally we can say that ball falls on earth OK? Due to Gravity(logical answer) Why is gravity(Nature of Earth or Mass is to attract other mass) Even is some nuclar explantion is Givne then further we can not explanin by reason and say it is its nature but why is tis nature? This is axiom.This thing is taken foregranted by observations and results of experiments but may not be logical others could be big Bang or sturdy state hypothiesiss. more on observations and descriptions. 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. Charles Hodge comments (on christianity but the basic idea applies to all faiths): If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.(1) Hodge also states: It is impossible that He [God] should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which He has impressed upon our nature [i.e., the laws of thought or logic(2)]...Faith includes an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true. But it is a contradiction to say that the mind can affirm that to be true which it sees cannot possibility be true. This would be to affirm and deny, to believe and disbelieve, at the same time....The ultimate ground of faith and knowledge is confidence in God. We can neither believe or know anything unless we confide in those laws of belief which God implanted in our nature. If we can be required to believe what contradicts those laws, then the foundations are broken up. All distinction between right and wrong, would disappear...and we should become the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie.(3) 8. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:83-84. 9. For an excellent discussion of the relationship of biblical truths and revelation to the laws of thought or logic, consult Norman Geisler's tape "The Relation of Logic and Christian Theology," (Dallas: Quest Tapes, n/d). Also consult R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 72-82. 10.Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:51-53. You said: Say if we do not know about camel and see it,we may not recoganise it and may give it differnt name but if some tells us about Camel before hand then we can recogansie Camel but logically why should we call camel a camel just as some one at erlier stage defined it as such. 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. so if we Go by as told by God by own manifestations in the form of Guides(Guru Panth) and Scripture(Gurbani) we are made to see that we are we but that God only by That God.Even without following any guide or Book then also God can let us recoganise ourself as(atam Cheene)God thatself. And how do we recognise truth from falsehood? We use logic and reason. That is my belief. Creation is apparant and false as God took this from and can be back in the orgeonal form.Say you may change your face with changes of expression but you still are the one.So creation what you call is only temporary form of one God and itslef is One. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charlse, bEfore das starts das just wants to say that no one can tell the total numbers in infinty and it itself is a sort of defination and God can only be like that. 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. Gurfateh Das would like to say that as such in phuysics we are not able to get that thing in real actualy ie indivisble if we see in the frame of space,time or mass. 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" Then behod God as entire of visible and invisible tihngs taken togather and indivible due to being continues. 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. das was telling something about God which is difficult to be compared with single physical entity as god is incompareable in many aspects. Quote: Here if we talk in term of physics then we can say that atomos can also be diintiegrated into say Protons,neutrons,Electrons etc. 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 Quote: Say tell us take water of ocean.waves may be diffeent type but water is one which is true and having various form.Or say sparks or shape of fire or say dust.But they can be separted by some non water.non fire or non dust part. 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. It can work just assume the realtive statesment being made by Das just to porve something absolute.Try again.Say for Water. h2oh2oh2o h2oh2oh2o h2oh20h20 Say all these are reperesenting say ocean but all are same h2o and say let us have another stream of h2oh20h2o If we use this stream to make a visible boundary for cutting ocean and all other attributes of either are same we will not be able to cut water. Water is an examaple lie people use indivudaul soul as an examplme but in truth both are false as being physical and it still you can not cut ocean with stream of same ocean water.Stream is part of continuity. so thier exapme is been givne to let you understand the attribute of god ie contunity. Quote: But when we come to God say in atoms say(Atom1) and (Atom2) both are God say Atom1=Atom2=God and even when they are bounded as mixture or compoound say (atom1)Conncetion(atom2) in real it is (God)God(God) and even ( and ) also is equal to God so GodGodGodGodGodGodGod and all is one God. 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. Yes Das actualy wanted you to understand that all atomes are false.And all are actual one and the same God and even Logic is false due to being based upon illogical axioms. what we see is only apparant as someone conotroling us make us to see while we all are actualy continuols and homogenous. So far by logic quantum theroy taking on mulityuniverse within the same space is also illogical but yet it can preoved by some other observations which can so far be hypothicated but when scinece reaches there we can have other answers. In past heavan was held to be truth but at present it is also false but it is universe(Sky is not above us either which by observing may look above our head but say on the other side of the gloobe it is under our feet and that also be various small and big circlies and diameters. When we talk of God we need to understand that logic is also not perfect either. Yes Sea or water are not God but like the continuity of water when other same type of water tries to divide it remains continuose still in the same way when we say atom1 gap atom2 three are nothing but one God and yes three are one and if we see by logic that we se them three then it is apparnt and hense false. atom1 ie enrgy atom2 is enrgy and gap joining them has energy joioning them then three are energy(and enrgy is also God). Bonds of Atoms due to chemical or gravitational form are due to energy.And enrrgy does passes the Gap also there fore. Again it is just been told by relative stament to tell about concept of continuity. 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. So far logic and sicne are withing God and not above God. In fact still your sience can not say why does combustion happens in us ie we take water and food and with oxygen we get Energy and gets by product of Carban Di oxide.So far photosynthisis 's reason can not be explaned. Das is asking why does it happens and not how. and in fact sayiing that God is constrained by nature or logic is also someting which so far has n ot been proven.As matter may defy nature laws like say briging back to life of lazarus there chemcal change got reversed.Without father also did Mother mary had a son. Yes it may happen that just by super elercromaganiticfied of a person chemical things can be reveresed ie Lord Jesus did it to Lazarus. Unnatural a same sex can produe perhaps one in millium both Ova and egg.There are mnay exeptions to logic and natural laws. Recently das herad that in UK AIDS was cured and study is on for that. Your logic or sicnce says that a person can not live withour oxygen say for 10 minutes. It was shown in descovery in AIMS Delhi that a person was kept in small cabin(without oxygen for long then 10 minutes) for Two days. He used Yoga(premutation and combination of atoms to regenrate oxygen vai carban di oxide withing body). so attempts to bring God under lawas of nature is making God a not God.God is God as God takes care of Scince and Logic and can alter them as God wants. As in past we had oour Atomsphere more with Carbon Di Oxcide but later after unicelluars orgainsims came to make food by light we had oxgen as more.Logically why they did no one could tell.and still mn ay anaerobics organism also exists which could have stayed without making food from light. Laslty why can not same thing exist simluotainously with two roles both at same time.Say our nose can take air and can sense smell also at one place and at one time. Das just want you to assume Nose as one entity like he did for Ocean so that they can be more like one God and no one like that God exisits. 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? you took it as constraint while this is an attribute and it has more to do with continuity. Indivisblity comes as any other matter or thing which we could use to divide is same as God and same God can not be seprarted by same God inot Two. Das hopes you have got it or das can further keep on trying till God wants. If God is in two places at once then how is he indivisible? Because the place or space is also false or relative based upon matter. ie Two things are seen then only we say that they are at distance from realtion of one and another.But if both the things apprantly at two difernt place are one then there will be no distance left between them as both are one unit only.this happens in multidemisions ie for all things which exisits. There is one solution as I outlined above and that is to concede that creation is also indivisible. creation is God only and God is one and creation is false as it is only from taken by God. 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. Truth is that two differant entities are all but one say you,das and distance between two if all are but one God then as individual thrree things are false but God is trueth only.It is only apparant say like we make shadow from both of arms looking like horse but trruth is not that(this only a realtive statmetn to let you understand the thing). 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. das is sooroy that so far his attempts have taken you off the track but still das will try say God is in atom1 the Gap and atom2 so there is continuity of single one. 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. all the things which are entiy apprantly are the entity till God wants that to be appaered as an entity and wneh we reach realistion of Truth,the Duja bhav(Concept of Duality goes away).And das thinks that youare coming a bit nearere to what das meant.God only knows how near. and yes Atom is not an entity as it was made say by hydrogen(which keeps on fussing to give more chemicals say in star) and same hydrogen was formed by energy and can change back to the origeonal form of one continuose for of energy called Alfa in Angeel. And so I must logically conclude that all subsections of creation are apparant and that everything is connected. That is fine up till here. it is continous. 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" It is correct that we can not unite our souls(Read Sprit) with God as we do not have any thing which is ouor and only relaisation of Truth by mercy of God can happen(still a relatuive statement. 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'. Take continuty over indivisiabilty as all apparnt tools to didive are God only. Quote: coming to reunion,separation is apparant only as God wants to act by self so same God acts as separate at one manifesationand same does act one there and then. In fact union is done by God when actualy God only starts to be seen evrywhere and in all. 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. yes this is the truth.As individual for us it is not poosbile till God does it.In fact all things which compose us is God and same wants us to think ourself as entity and same is Truth.If this thing is realsied then we are found to be holy Ghost. Ok. Lets move on to logic. You said: Quote: when we comoe to logic then we must understand that it is based upon axioms which can not be explained by logic itslef but are taken foregranted. In India thats what we are told about axioms. Like logacally we can say that ball falls on earth OK? Due to Gravity(logical answer) Why is gravity(Nature of Earth or Mass is to attract other mass) Even is some nuclar explantion is Givne then further we can not explanin by reason and say it is its nature but why is tis nature? This is axiom.This thing is taken foregranted by observations and results of experiments but may not be logical others could be big Bang or sturdy state hypothiesiss. more on observations and descriptions. 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. This elf evidance can not be preoved by Logic. The formulisation of logic is man-made but the actual logic itself is not man-made. Say laws of man say killing by stoning are man made and could be something due to natural law of human genes or disorder which could be formulated(it is again not absoulte but appaernt thing only). Das would like and explnaion ie Why does Logic is not man made? say by human mind(again das can say it is way Gopd wants it to happen).But Can human explain why? 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. We still can not say why did it happen? and contradictions also can happen anyway like there was some Catholic bishop who did dfied the gravity also. Now either logic was created by God or it has always existed (i.e. beyond God). Logic is God(we can say from or manfestaion of God) but it is dynamic. 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. First and formost das would lie to say that we must not use term He for God as God is not Man or women as being in both. Logic is one with God,And all men are nothing else but God and as God is King of Kings it is silly ofr us to bound God with any laws which we apparnlty ptrecive be it any Testment or be it any interpetation of Sikh books which says that God is anyway bounded by something appereing to be created. 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. Das can say that there are many exceptions and as told about before and in fact Jeruslama can come back on erath aslo which by sceince and Logic does not look a realty at all.and those exections gives us one thing that God is one who creates Laws and can destroy them and make new one(Truth is that they are nothing else but apprant change in the form of one God).say Old Testment and New Testment.This is dynamism that at one opint of time order was to stone to death while at other time only thise were asked to stone who sined not.They were also told to judge not or you will be judged. Quote: Charles Hodge comments (on christianity but the basic idea applies to all faiths): If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.(1) Hodge also states: Das can say that there are mnay thing is which since is yet to understand but Bible had it in. Say it is even true that in one refreance frame still Sun is moving aruond the earth.But we need to redifine the concept of space. It is impossible that He [God] should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which He has impressed upon our nature [i.e., the laws of thought or logic(2)]... Das can say God take test of Us(God is there to) and if want does make us pass it. Faith includes an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true. But it is a contradiction to say that the mind can affirm that to be true which it sees cannot possibility be true. If we read the book of Job acutly Satan was sent to him by god to test him so his misry were for his good.Human mind anyway can fail us but that is also God. This would be to affirm and deny, to believe and disbelieve, at the same time....The ultimate ground of faith and knowledge is confidence in God. We can neither believe or know anything unless we confide in those laws of belief which God implanted in our nature. If we can be required to believe what contradicts those laws, then the foundations are broken up. All distinction between right and wrong, would disappear...and we should become the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie.(3) 8. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:83-84. 9. For an excellent discussion of the relationship of biblical truths and revelation to the laws of thought or logic, consult Norman Geisler's tape "The Relation of Logic and Christian Theology," (Dallas: Quest Tapes, n/d). Also consult R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 72-82. 10.Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:51-53. das repeats that there are mnay things which God can do which prove that God is above logic or Nature and coming to Satan in fact same lucifer is let loose is also a will of God,Rember that God is omnipotant and can defy scince and logic and attempt to show glory of God a limited and finite can not be work of Godly but of Satan(these are realtive terms as for Us Satan is false and appaent and Truth is only one God). You said: Quote: Say if we do not know about camel and see it,we may not recoganise it and may give it differnt name but if some tells us about Camel before hand then we can recogansie Camel but logically why should we call camel a camel just as some one at erlier stage defined it as such. 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. We can do mistake by understadning it as Girrafe or Okapi.Thats what das wanted to convey.(this is also apparnt thing). Quote: so if we Go by as told by God by own manifestations in the form of Guides(Guru Panth) and Scripture(Gurbani) we are made to see that we are we but that God only by That God.Even without following any guide or Book then also God can let us recoganise ourself as(atam Cheene)God thatself. And how do we recognise truth from falsehood? We use logic and reason. That is my belief. But God is above logic and reason even if hypothatically Das belives that you say Good made logic and reason. anyway Das can say that had God made it or created it(not the manfiestation) then who could have made the space where God made that? Say God made space then God needed some sapce to exist to make that space,and who made that space?Das is asking you about flalcy of reason or logic when it comes to God. so far in Genesis we see God in the form of sprit making everthing. Sprit occupies the space.Who made that space?for the exsitance of God which occupies some sapce(Heavan as Throne and Earth as footstool) space should be before that God and there should be another God who makes that sapce for that God. das wants to ask you about falasy of Logic and reason here itself. Only answer here could be that God by self is space and by self takes appaernt form(s) which are nothing but God(sun Samdhi Aap) ie onsrobing Zero(nothing) but God only. Quote: Creation is apparant and false as God took this from and can be back in the orgeonal form.Say you may change your face with changes of expression but you still are the one.So creation what you call is only temporary form of one God and itslef is One. 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. it is due to your understanding time as somthing true. Had time being True then revaltions at the end of Anjeel would have been just a hoax.They are true as there is something bigger then time and can control time and can make time to move as that want.Which is ,which was and which is to come. wor was reason of creation(Gospel of saint John) and it exisited and it exsit and it will be in future.(this is apparnt ans Word is God only). Say when Lord Says that his father works in him and may say our father in heavan and it can happen that both may exist at same time at two differnt places.Say when holy ghost decended God did not vacated the throne nor son who sits on rightside. Same God asks for removal of cup and same God sents an angel to reafirm the faith. Just relative term that same internet can exists in UK and USA.all is one only,. 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." Only God exist continously. 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. it is not uninion or reunion but realsation of truth or self recoganistion.That is only by will of God,that god only knows about truth. 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. Yes there is a problem whith das that he is still not being albe to let you understand another Concpt of our faith. Ie if God is everwhere then how can we act(sin or Good) at all or are individual entities(Last part of Gauri Sukhmani). so we no concept of reuninon as we already are one in God.another Realtive term say Das alreadyis wearingcloath then how can das wear them again but das must know that Cloaths are on his body. dass hopes you have understood something by now by mercy of God.For das you are God making das sing glory to the same by self.God Bless and Yehove have mecy on all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 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: bEfore das starts das just wants to say that no one can tell the total numbers in infinty and it itself is a sort of defination and God can only be like that. 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: it is not uninion or reunion but realsation of truth or self recoganistion.That is only by will of God,that god only knows about truth. and It is correct that we can not unite our souls(Read Sprit) with God as we do not have any thing which is ouor and only relaisation of Truth by mercy of God can happen But then you almost spoilt it by saying (still a relatuive statement.) 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) The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. Or (As given by http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&l...q=define:logic) Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments. the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference a system of reasoning 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: For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, "The law of non-contradiction is false," he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original) The other laws can be found online. Suffice to say that the Universal Law of non-contradiction is the main one. You said: We still can not say why did it happen? and contradictions also can happen anyway like there was some Catholic bishop who did dfied the gravity also. 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 and in fact sayiing that God is constrained by nature or logic is also someting which so far has n ot been proven.As matter may defy nature laws like say briging back to life of lazarus there chemcal change got reversed.Without father also did Mother mary had a son. Yes it may happen that just by super elercromaganiticfied of a person chemical things can be reveresed ie Lord Jesus did it to Lazarus. Unnatural a same sex can produe perhaps one in millium both Ova and egg.There are mnay exeptions to logic and natural laws. Recently das herad that in UK AIDS was cured and study is on for that. Your logic or sicnce says that a person can not live withour oxygen say for 10 minutes. It was shown in descovery in AIMS Delhi that a person was kept in small cabin(without oxygen for long then 10 minutes) for Two days. He used Yoga(premutation and combination of atoms to regenrate oxygen vai carban di oxide withing body. REQUIRES PROOF - but this is scientific anyway). so attempts to bring God under lawas of nature is making God a not God.God is God as God takes care of Scince and Logic and can alter them as God wants. As in past we had oour Atomsphere more with Carbon Di Oxcide but later after unicelluars orgainsims came to make food by light we had oxgen as more.Logically why they did no one could tell.and still mn ay anaerobics organism also exists which could have stayed without making food from light. 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. If we read the book of Job acutly Satan was sent to him by god to test him so his misry were for his good.Human mind anyway can fail us but that is also God. 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: so attempts to bring God under lawas of nature is making God a not God.God is God as God takes care of Scince and Logic and can alter them as God wants. 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: this happens in multidemisions ie for all things which exisits. 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. anyway Das can say that had God made it or created it(not the manfiestation) then who could have made the space where God made that? Say God made space then God needed some sapce to exist to make that space,and who made that space?Das is asking you about flalcy of reason or logic when it comes to God. 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: das wants to ask you about falasy of Logic and reason here itself. Only answer here could be that God by self is space and by self takes appaernt form(s) which are nothing but God(sun Samdhi Aap) ie onsrobing Zero(nothing) but God only. I've given you a better answer above and it does not contradict logic. Thank you for the challenges - I enjoyed reasoning over them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron-Singh Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 With all due respect, I think brother Vijaydeep Singh should desist from this discussion becasue of the linguistic challenges. I think it is very confusing, especially for a non-indian non-sikh, to understand a lot of what Vijaydeep says. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Chrales here we start. 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. Das just wanted to say that we need to resepct feamles also eqauly but feamles as per faith of Das are not anyway less respectful from males so she is nowhere less respectful. 2. You said: Quote: bEfore das starts das just wants to say that no one can tell the total numbers in infinty and it itself is a sort of defination and God can only be like that. 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. das want syou to know that when we divide 1 by 0 answer in inverted eight 8 like sayOO which we call infinty.It moves with the fact that unedning numbers and to be more clerer as unlimited while defination you give is for limited numbers. As das is from measurement sicine side we can say wha you said only for measuring something that we can not measure it correctly but nerest to it and therre that tendency factor comes.So das emat by term unlimited and zeros are unlimed in one or any other number.Das hopes you got it.Omanipotancy of God is unlimited. Now onto the important part of your post: Technically, you have solved the problem by saying: Quote: it is not uninion or reunion but realsation of truth or self recoganistion.That is only by will of God,that god only knows about truth. and Quote: It is correct that we can not unite our souls(Read Sprit) with God as we do not have any thing which is ouor and only relaisation of Truth by mercy of God can happen But then you almost spoilt it by saying Quote: (still a relatuive statement.) With all due respect, is this some kind of "get out of jail" clause? the alter statemtn is realtive as we dod not recogansie sprit as ant enttiy which is absolute but concept is more like removla of a sort of cover from eyes. 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. Das here wants to say that creation is concept for you and not for das but only God and apparant form of the same matter for Das.Das will try to remove the term creation when we go at the stage of sapce. 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. Thing here is that apparntly as you can find creation you can even apparntly didivde it also but that is appanrt only. Anyway, some other questions have come to mind. Such as why are we conscious? Our consicious if form of God only.It is not our but of God. 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. Well you can ask and God can answer as Sikhs are not the entity by self but God only is there and same for you also. 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: das will be very carefull and as we intreact more God in you will make Das mmore capalbe of presenting things better.Das only wanted to say that God is one who is above all and can even use very same thing to defeat the same thing.ie simluli simluy corosaius. Our Gurus did use the language of the same creed to remove the doubts of the same. Das would like to say for Das logic means Tark(Sankrti word) ie same statement which can be used to prove some fact but ultimatlyl they do come on some thing which may not be rpoved or explanied. (As given by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic) Quote: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. Or (As given by http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&l...q=define:logic) Quote: Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments. here das can say as you said in last defination that there could be disagreement between philosophers about logic's defiantion also.So das who does not belife in good or bad or true or false in absolute concept may not agree to logic in absoulte thing either. the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference a system of reasoning 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. but they are based upon physical things which are still unexplanied. best Exmaple here could be Marrying of sons of God with human women and then great flood of Noah's time which God only knows that why god did. 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. If you had studied management then you may not have said this. '3 + 2 = 5' is not always true in in fied at least ie managment.How? Das will use another basic exaple which could be easier for you to be understood and later we can use the same to prove upper thing wrong. say 1+1<2 1+1>2 1+1=2 you can say that last is true but other latter two can also be true then how? Well if both the 1 has confomity then thier getting togather can give sum or output more then thier value taken togather but seaprtly wiothout thier contact. And if they had contradiction then vice vers ie second case can occur. This happens in human factor. Say output of Pastor X is say one convert.Output of Pastor Y is 1 ocnvert but if they work togather and are usefull to each other then they can have more then two converts also. Universal Law of Non-Contradiction: Professor Craig S Hawkins notes: Quote: For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, "The law of non-contradiction is false," he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original) The other laws can be found online. Suffice to say that the Universal Law of non-contradiction is the main one. here das would put as such that as concept of true or False are passed when we come to God so there will of God works rahter God by self works.that is truth and all other things can be explined by that without contradiction. You said: Quote: We still can not say why did it happen? and contradictions also can happen anyway like there was some Catholic bishop who did dfied the gravity also. 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. here das can say that there could be difernt meaning of logic been used by yourself and Das.But yes it can happen that Bishop can be in air and on ground at the same time also.As air and grund are relative and Bishop also and all is God so one thing at many time does exsist. Where you confused logic for science Scince is porven by Logic often and failure of sicne gives failure of logic (what das emant by it)attched to it. Quote: and in fact sayiing that God is constrained by nature or logic is also someting which so far has n ot been proven.As matter may defy nature laws like say briging back to life of lazarus there chemcal change got reversed.Without father also did Mother mary had a son. Yes it may happen that just by super elercromaganiticfied of a person chemical things can be reveresed ie Lord Jesus did it to Lazarus. Unnatural a same sex can produe perhaps one in millium both Ova and egg.There are mnay exeptions to logic and natural laws. Recently das herad that in UK AIDS was cured and study is on for that. Your logic or sicnce says that a person can not live withour oxygen say for 10 minutes. It was shown in descovery in AIMS Delhi that a person was kept in small cabin(without oxygen for long then 10 minutes) for Two days. He used Yoga(premutation and combination of atoms to regenrate oxygen vai carban di oxide withing body. REQUIRES PROOF - but this is scientific anyway). so attempts to bring God under lawas of nature is making God a not God.God is God as God takes care of Scince and Logic and can alter them as God wants. As in past we had oour Atomsphere more with Carbon Di Oxcide but later after unicelluars orgainsims came to make food by light we had oxgen as more.Logically why they did no one could tell.and still mn ay anaerobics organism also exists which could have stayed without making food from light. 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. As logic explined the scintif c phenomina which were infact failed so logc wass defeated.But again AIDS make defense of body weak but here defence to such hiv was made.Still logicly can not be explnined as das goes by it.why did antibodeis been made? Quote: If we read the book of Job acutly Satan was sent to him by god to test him so his misry were for his good.Human mind anyway can fail us but that is also God. Where is the logical fallacy? This does not break the universal law of non-contradiction. It does not lead to a logical contradiction. Here Job felt bad while he should have flet Good as it was all by God and not inteteded by Satan.There is a contradiction that man of God being unhappy with the act of God. Now you said: Quote: so attempts to bring God under lawas of nature is making God a not God.God is God as God takes care of Scince and Logic and can alter them as God wants. 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. but God is not the static thing at all and is always dynamic and best proof Are the Old and New Testments 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? Is omnipotant God so weak that it can not change own creation(das is only talking in hypothaitcal sense). What debars God to alter Truth(St Jude) into false and false(Saul) into Truth(Paul).Putting contstraints on God by God's apparnant creation can be handiwork of some one who wants to prove God as non omnipotant and in some constraints and that could be a creation(apparntly) of God called Lucifer. God is everywhere and God is truth and concept of flasehood does not comes when we talk of absoute and can only come in relative things. 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? The test is from god unto God and we stand nowhere as we ourself are not at all something but God only is there. I believe God created logic as a means for his creation to recognise his message using this God-given faculty. Das can say that even if we go by your hypothaises then also God is above the logic and created thing can be destroyed by the creator if Creator is omnipotant. You set some interesting challenges for me and I was grateful to you for that. Here they are: Quote: this happens in multidemisions ie for all things which exisits. 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. so far we have made something more then 3dimensions in Computer Programing and we hope move ing simulating some similar things in futre but God does all. just one relative stament for yuo that how does it happens say overtly St Stephen was paining by getting stoned but inside he was happy andn one with God.Somewhere on the glode you and Das could be joined by a line and will be in same dimnesion say x,y or z but hey are only relative as wherever you are there das and univser exsits and iwthin and withiout and inbetween. Quote: anyway Das can say that had God made it or created it(not the manfiestation) then who could have made the space where God made that? Say God made space then God needed some sapce to exist to make that space,and who made that space?Das is asking you about flalcy of reason or logic when it comes to God. 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. das would like to say that it was not a challenge but das saw some very interesting facts in holy Bible which scince is yet to reach. 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. No as there could be space where energy or matter can exist also.If God has some body(in your case 'he' has so does 'he' could be separate from creation.Sapce can be occupied. Rather space can only be determined if some matter or enrgy is there which can determined by with relation to some matter.Say metric system to determine it say distance from one point(marked by some object) to another point.We need to have at least one object.Even vaccum also is sournded by or surrunds some object.In fact if we use your natural laws. Vaccum can only exsist if there is something which is not vaccum. 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. Yuo defined it as vaccum which can be only determined by mass ie oppsite to it.So there has to be some mass before to prove that your God was in some space. Let us againsee that matter. 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. Sapce is dependant upon matter so is hypothatically it is a creation or mnaifesation of god only in apparnt thing else space is also God. For instance, who creates darkness? Darkness is the abscence of light. Darkness may not be absensce of light at all.It is casued due to non return of light back to senseors.Say in blackholes light is even absorbed by the stroong gravity so we can not say that that Darkness is not due to absense of light ie a negtive term while that is very postive term. 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: Quote: das wants to ask you about falasy of Logic and reason here itself. Only answer here could be that God by self is space and by self takes appaernt form(s) which are nothing but God(sun Samdhi Aap) ie onsrobing Zero(nothing) but God only. I've given you a better answer above and it does not contradict logic. Thank you for the challenges - I enjoyed reasoning over them. Well das will give more elaboration over that. Das did not challenge you but saw something great in holy Bible which many people from Orthodox Church,Roman Cathlolics and perhaps one or two freinds of das from Yehova witness have givne considerations. Well as far as Sikhs are concerned unmanifested God and Manifested God are both the same.It is possbile that our relisiation takes us to that time when god was unmaifested form or when God again assume the same form in future, but again such are only relative things. In truth let us see what actualy could happen by saying that space is not the creation but it exists by default. There is some obejct which makes some place occupied by 'himself'(Rember the quotes just to show them that das doubts it).and vaccum dependant upon the same arround that makes the space not created by anyone but exsisting since eterntiy. In that case that space actauly rpovides the space for creation by that creator so there are Two factors of creations ie sapce and object creating that so Two God and and two eternal things. That object which is in space 'himself' does not know the limit of the space but is limited by space and by that this space is stronger to that god. Say that god creates somthing. from where does matterail is obtained for that.Say from slef body some enrgy is created which makes matter.Say if we take our body as atomic by your defiantion out tongue comes out of mouth and make some shapes otherwise it could be some excerta which has come out of us and is our creation but for that we needed food. Let us come back to space concept Say God is in etrnal space separte from 'himself'.By self power does God hangs 'himself' there. But being in sopce God has to have some definate mass as some vloume can make that mass in it.But how can God make other things more that 'his' own vloume ie creation.should 'he' inflate to change the volume. As you have been talking of faith then das knows that if ten Faithfull pray to Yehiove to let one faithfull stay away from lucifer then even if that person is surrunded by lucifer he does not comes into influnce of the same. Instead of answering it inpen Das can surly let you relaise that state of God which is not like the one das told but you need to tell fellow faithfulll brethern to let you stay away from lucifer it will be gurantee that yehove is not averse to path Das is gooing to tell you. Are you ready for thaqt then if yes then do tell das. Then coming back on your questions about our Das. We can simply say that our God occupies all the sapce and is single unit and in realthere is only apprant differance between Maniseted and unmanifested God and when we realise the former we are lasvaged even befor we die and das can surly show you that God by mercy of Akal.(Das by mercy of Akal can tell same by Dasham Granth Sahib). As per our defination of space as God is Sarbthav(all space) for us God is all space which is apparnt.And not tow factor for creation. In fact as per our interpetation of Gensis. God did create matter from self energy which is limitless(omn ipotant or all energy or capble to do unlimted things all things which can happen)).But as energy is self form so matter also is self form.only after matter does concept of space came before that time or space did not exisit.And as matter is from enrgy which is till the from of God and is under the control of God as it is not going to get free of that God who can do anything.so it is still one with the God. If we belvie that sapce exsisted before or with the God eternaly then we will have to belive that God occupied some space so God has to ahve form but form is due to creation and who created that form?If God did it by self that is God did have own form by slef then God did do one manifestation of self at least one and why can not further manifestation can be done? Sop far Das only Said that sapce is not a negtive term or vaccum but is relative to matter or mass and mass comes first before space and if God is of mass then God is also creation of something or say creation of self only. Akal willing if you want you can be shwon the truth.The way student has to follow instructions by teacher and following it correcly does knows the truth das can help you by mean of Gurbani ie verbal manifestation of the God.Yuo have to have the faith in one god for that and then das will tell you more on that. As thing there is more then five sense sometoehr thing ie brainn/heaert has to be used to reach till there but as constraint fail in front of God so we can do it by letters also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Chrales , Das wants you reply about if you want to see that Treu God and Das can help you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 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. Gurfateh Dear Chrales , Das wants you reply about if you want to see that Treu God and Das can help you. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijaydeep Singh Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Gurfateh Dear Charles, When we read about something we may not understand then seeing that thing in real. Well if das is not mistaken one picture is equal to hundered words and real thing could be more better to be understood then say picture also. Das is happy to say that out God is not far away but very near to us and if you want you can see that also.Das is anyway not the teacher.God in das wants God in you to realsie the self and if God in you want this may happen and when this happens you will find that what all has happned between us may not be acts of us but of that. Again to learn about Our Faith there is a need to learn about our God and that is more then sufficent. Coming to space to measure or define space we need to have units ie M,Sqaure meter or cubic meter and they are based upon some refreance frame which can not be void and has top be arbitary object at least from where we can have 3 or 2 values depeding upon which refreance system we use. anyway it does take time to remove prejudge things away like Lord made Apostles to remove the concept of Diana in Greece. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 wow, some great posts guys, keep it up. I ll read it with un- divided attention and reply if i m capable of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Murphy Posted March 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Gurfateh, In light of my discussion on the other thread, i apologise in advance if my last post is offensive in any way. Charles 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.