Nature Of God

[Charles Murphy]

gurfateh

sorry meckhane, I must apologise when I am in the wrong. I ask forgiveness from everyone here for that comment and I apologise again for offending anyone.

When I said:

But I guess, if you believe in reincarnation, you should have enough time to do such a thing.

I did not mean you. Rather I meant it in a general sense. I did not think long enough about how to write this particular sentence so I apologise.

You said

This comment seems illogical

And you are correct. This comment is illogical. I am very glad that you picked up on this point because it shows me that we both are on the same wavelength when it comes to logic. But I was trying to stress a point at the same time too. I guess my frustration may have leaked out a bit and this is not the way discussions are to be done.

So what did I mean by this statement? Basically, I am saying (as you yourself pointed out) that it would be illogical for me to experience a faith without first affirming it to myself. Now I don't mean "I need to prove it correct". Not at all. Rather, I am just saying it musn't be false. Because that is as far as pure logic can take you. Pure logic is a definitive negative test but not a positive one.

As for the rest of my post, maybe I was unclear but I don't think I said anything that was wrong.

I said:

One thing I am certain of, is that this is certainly my first life - i don't know about the rest of you so if (or when) i am reincarnated, i'll be able to filter out many of the other faiths as man-engineered falsehoods. And I guess, the "try it out" method wouldn't be so unrealistic. But as it is, i might die tomorrow and if the truth is in the traditional faiths, then I do not want to go to hell. Or do you expect me to declare myself a believer in every faith out of safety?

And you said:

Too many assumptions. Their is no "try it out method" Sikhism believes all faiths are true, no faiths are "man-engineered falsehoods" I really do not understand where you are coming from in this statement,

Ok. I should not have said "try it out method" or "man-engineered falsehoods" but I was trying to save time in typing but I won't do so this time. I will expound fully this time.

By "try it out method" i meant the following: To become a sikh and then affirm its truth after becoming a sikh. Then to become a Jew and then affirm its truth after becoming a Jew. Then to become a Hindu and then affirm its truth after becoming a Hindu. And so on and so forth. Now you might say to me: That once I have affirmed sikhsm as the truth (by that i mean, to realise its teachings are true), there is no need to become a Jew. But actually I do because a Jewish man (or woman) might say the same thing you are saying to me. That if I become a Jew, through that step will I realise the completeness of the Jewish faith (that is, its teachings are true and that anything I could not understand before will become manifest). And since it is my own personal approach, to approach every faith from a no-assumptions point of view, it would not be correct for me to say to them for instance: That since sikhsm is the truth(i.e. its teachings about God and salvation are true etc) through my experience, Judaism (its teachings about God which are different to sikhsm) can not also be true because I would be assuming Sikhsm (as being true) and then deducing that Judaism can not be which is clearly not a correct approach. Thus if I choose not to use logic, I am compelled, in the interest of fairness to 'experience' every faith. So in short what I was saying is that I have to approach every religion in the same way. Either a logical approach(which is what I am doing) or an alternative approach such as becoming a part of it. And I was emphasising that this alternative approach (i.e. experiencing each faith) is likely to create biases in my thinking as I approach various faiths. So to expound on this last point. Let us say, I were to live as a Jainist for 1 year in order to 'experience' it. Then the following year, I decide it is time to 'experience' Buddhism for a year (in the interest of fairness). My time as a Jainist might influence my thinking and make me more biased against the Buddhist religion (because for instance Buddhists do not believe in a God). So I hope this is clearer albeit more wordy.

Now I used the term "man-engineered falsehoods". You said you didn't understand what I meant and then later on you said that you didn't agree with this notion. Ok. Well by this term I meant two things at once and I was trying to save typing space. As you know I am revising for my exams and I can no longer spend lots of time thinking of the clearest way to put things but in future I will say less rather than be less clear. The latter part refers specifically to something that is false. So for instance, Buddhism says there is no God. Sikhsm says there is one God.

Let us take both statements from a logical perspective.

There is one God - call it assertion A

There is no God - call it assertion B

Can both statements be true (in the same sense at the same time)? Well, we first have to express one statement as the negation of the other. If we can do so, then the answer is a resounding 'no'.

So...

'There is one God' implies 'There is a God' - i think this is a fair implication which is self-evident. Call it assertion C.

'There is no God' can be rewritten as 'There isn't a God' - i think this fair as well. Call it assertion D.

And now we have our two statements as negations of each other.

'There is a God' - sikh view - Assertion C

'There isn't a God' - buddhist view - Assertion D

According to logic 'C' and 'Not C' (where 'Not C' is clearly equivalent to D) cannot be both true at the same time and in the same sense so we have a logical fallacy and thus only one of the two statements above is true. But more to the point in question - one must be false.

And whichever assertion is false is the assertion that I describe as a 'falsehood'. But let us continue a little further down this same line. Now since I am using logic, I am presuming (and maybe this is an unfair assumption) that God would not reveal a 'falsehood'. He would not inspire men to write something about him which is false. So I must conclude that when a 'falsehood' is put forward by a man about God, then that falsehood is from the man and not from God. Thus it is 'man-engineered'. So I hope that I have expounded in a way that makes me clearer (and hopefully fairer) in my comments.

Now you said:

Too many assumptions.

My assumptions were:

1. "approach every faith from a no-assumptions point of view." is a fair approach.

2. "God would not reveal a 'falsehood'. He would not inspire men to write something about him which is false."

You might disagree with these assumptions but I don't see anything wrong about them.

Now you said:

The idea of hell is tied up in the idea of reincarnation. There are many hells. One hell i read about is that a soul/Jiva is continiously "reborn" as a sperm.

And this is a good explanation. But note the following from my own post.

explain how heaven and hell (presumably in the traditional sense, or is it some other sense?) fit into the picture

So your comment:

I don't like you saying "The truth is I can already see some trememendous problems with the idea of 'hell' in sikhsm." You do not have much knowledge of Sikhism, i don;t know if you done research outside of this forum. But you have only talked to a few people on this forum, and they do not represent Sikhism in its entireity. So to make this statement shows that you are more concerned with making assumptions about Sikh Theory then seriously researching Sikh Theory.

was unfair. But thanks for explaining it to me anyway.

Have I researched elsewhere? yes. I came to the forum because it was my belief that speaking to people of this faith would help me understand things more clearly (and it has done so). But when I speak with someone about religion, I try to assume as little about their religion as possible which is why I have restricted all my questions and queries to topics discussed on this forum only. Would it be fair of me to challenge you on a point that was made on another forum or web site? And I don't think I have done so.

Meck, as a sikh, it will not be easy for you to notice when you have overlooked a subtle point when explaining something to me about your religion - its human nature. If I speak to a mathematician about trigonometry, he will assume that I have a certain amount of knowledge of his field and will not explain the basic things such as "What is a triangle?". This is because I have studied maths and you would expect someone of my age to have studied maths well enough to understand these simple things. But I have NOT studied Sikhsm before. So I don't know the simple things. You have to treat me like a kid when you're explaining things.

So when Iron-Singh says:

Hell and heaven are also not alien concepts to Sikhism, they have their place as well (hope this doesn't confuse you further).

I have deliberately challenged him so that I can get a response to help me understand. I want him to see why I don't understand. Otherwise, how do you explain something if you don't know where I lack knowledge. By offering my understanding beforehand, I ensure that your response will take it into account otherwise your response would be a waste of both of our times if it does not satisfy my understanding and this is the reasoning behind some of the questions I set. I am not here to challenge but to learn.

I will leave the "heaven and hell" concepts alone for the time being. This thread is about the nature of God and I have learned a lot about your faith. And I hope that will continue.

So now that I have explained myself, you must also explain yourself. You made the comment:

Sikhism believes all faiths are true, no faiths are "man-engineered falsehoods"

Now that you understand what I mean by a falsehood, you will realise that this needs some explaining. I presume your notion of "all faiths are true" means something other than "the teachings of each faith are true". Otherwise, how do you reconcile the mutual exclusiveness of for instance the buddhist belief - 'There is no God' and the sikh belief - 'There is one God'?

You set a question which I have actually covered already many times and I won't hide the fact that the answer is purely my opinion. Vijaydeep more or less set the same question. You said:

Logic is limited to an individual subject's discrimination, if you believe in god do you think he is limited as you and has to follow logic?

You see, we will have to agree to disagree on this whole issue because I don't agree with the first half of your statement. Pure logic, which is just the law of non-contradiction (I think you know it by now) and possibly the law of implication (if A implies B, then if A is true, B is necessarily true) is a definition of falsehood. In that I mean, it defines what cannot possibly be true. So I don't see logic as being something that is tangible. I don't believe God created it but rather he defined it. I admit I have said previously that God 'created' logic but I always meant it in a "he defined it" sense. And I take this opinion because of the fact that the law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption.

So this is my assertion:

"The law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption. It is known intuitively and directly presented to our consciousness."

Now you might say:

It is merely your opinion that logic is a priori and a universal given

And you might take yourself as an example by asserting that you yourself do not except the law. Don't you realise what you are doing! You are logically deducing that since you don't believe in the law of non-contradiction (by your assertion), and my assertion asserts that you do, then since your assertion is a negation of mine, then my assertion must be wrong! But by doing so, you have just used the law of non-contradiction thus refuting yourself in the first place.

So I think my assertion of:

"The law of non-contradiction is a universal assumption. It is known intuitively and directly presented to our consciousness."

is justified.

And if this is so, that is God has defined this assumption for me and has presented it to my consciousness (i.e has made it manifest to me) then why would he then present himself as something that is false?

So we can agree to disagree if you wish but for me logic comes first because I believe that God will never contradict logic. Otherwise, why did he define it?

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Forgive das for any mistakes he did.

Quote:

Gurfateh

As All names are owned by God so all Names are of God and God is Anam(Namelss).

One Name is Yehove derived from Oankar or Om.

What do you expect me to think when I read something like this? I almost feel that you are mocking me here. Or do you think I don't understand the meaning of 'nameless'? So either this is some kind of metaphor or it is outright self-referentially refuting. I don't think the problem here needs explaining - it is self-evident.

Well as we see God in all so individual names are God only so no one particular name.

Say we take a strip of iron and and axe of iron.

We cut strip woth axe.

Apprantly we will have two parts of strip,a gap between them and axe.

but in real we have axe,two strips and gap all as God.so nothing left as separate or differant.