# How Do You Know God Exists? Does SGGS Prove God Exists?



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

If god doesn't exist then you must concede that praying is pointless. Why try and communicate with a being that doesn't exist? 

If you do meditate on God's name, then you are making a huge time investment into something, and if it turns out there is no god then you've probably wasted alot of time. Also a lot of money, why go and Mathadek at the Gurdwara and spend time there when all the money being invested into a Gurdwara can be invested into cancer research or poor countries, im not talking about the few pennies you put in when you mathadek i'm talking about all that money that goes into the heating, construction, etc etc...

The fact that the Sikh establishment, customs and activities such as prayer exist mean that as a Sikh you must believe there is a God, if there was any doubt, if you thought you were taking a gamble on believing in God you wouldn't do any of it, its just too much time and money... so what proof does Sikhism give that there is a god? Iv read some translations of SGGS always talking about how we should love God and how we should abandon maya and material things... but where does SGGS actually PROVE that god exists?

Sikhs claim to be rational thinkers, to be a Sikh I guess means to be a "Learner"... if this claim is true then everything that a Sikh does must be built on the foundation that God exists, so lets assume you are rational, you guys must hold the proof, the undeniable proof that God exists...


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 24, 2013)

To the one who has FAITH proof is possible ,to the one who does not ,its always hard.
The pillar to the GOD's existence is faith
obviously you will love some one if he exists only
would you love someone who does not exist?
imagine yourself loving ,crying each and day for someone to whom you one day find never exists
so when Guru Granth Sahib Ji talks about love ,so obviously it is established that GOD exists
It is all in FAITH
many say that we cant see god so god doesnt exists
but same goes for AIR ,you cant see it but you can feel its existence everywhere
without AIR life will cease to exist
its one personal experience first which leads a person to FAITH

talking about the investment ,is not hard and fast that you just go gurudwara and do mathatek with some pennie or money 
you can also help a poor in needy around and give a food to the hunger 
SIkHISM doesnt solely talks about blindly loving GOD and forgetting love and compassion for others around ,it makes u HUMAN and then moves onto higher level of connection 
In todays time seeking a proof for the god is not a problem but being a HUMAN is 
in my view i find questions on HIS proof or not sometimes vain
you cant experience it till you become HUMAN
and going by what i have read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib it gives a perfect way to how love and be compassionate to people around,how not to judge others and find faults in others and just to look inside and search for the imperfections and rectify them
take a time ,read sri guru granth sahib and you will find it more useful than just having a proof that god exists or not
When Guru Granth Sahib Starts With EKONKAR
it is well established that god do exists
it starts only from the FAITH On One God who is the creator of you and me ,creator of people who love Him and serve his creations and the came creator of those who doubt his existence 
i am sure many learned people here can give you a better and valid answer than meeacesign:


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

"Eik Onkar"... This is the premis of sikhism, probably the most known line of sikh prayer. But if the evidence for Eik Onkar is faith then this contradicts Guru Nanaks teachings of being rational.

"One God" and "Many Gods" are two notions which cannot exist at the same time, if there is one god there are not many, if there are not many then there is not one... why does Faith lead to "Eik onkar"?

I'm not much of a theology person... i'm still trying to get my head around it before I can confidently assert that I don't believe in god but under a simple argument of causality then we can see that there being one god is just as likely as there being many gods.

Take an object like a table;

A table is made from wood and metal, lets take one component of that: Wood

Wood is taken from a tree which rquires light and water, lets take one component of that; water

Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen lets take one component of that ETC ETC... now lets say there is no infinite regress, that there is an end to this chain. Lets call this end X. X is the creator, X is essentially God.

Now lets take another object, spoon. lets apply the same process, a spoon is made of metal, one component of metal is blah blah blah etc... we end up to the end of the chain, which is Y

Who is to say that X = Y? cant X and Y be different ultimate causes of creation? "Eik Onkar" is an assertion which to me seems a little bit silly, it has no rational basis


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 24, 2013)

can you be specific what exactly your question is?
does god exists or there are many or multiple GODS?


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> "?
> 
> I "Eik Onkar" is an assertion which to me seems a little bit silly, it has no rational basis



this is the difference now between people who doent not believe and will contradict himself and others 
 but the least thing they can do is be more careful with the choice of words than SILLY
one side you are saying Guru Nanak was rational and other side you are saying that his Bani Ekonkar is irrational
so from which point i should give you answers?
sir disccussion proceeds with respect and proving valid things
not like presenting one and then using other to contradict the same for other things which you dont believe 
sorry sir this discussion can only procceed ahead if you be more careful with the choice of words ane be specific
your choice of words for ENONKAR shows how much respect you have for Guru Nanak DEV and his work


----------



## findingmyway (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> If god doesn't exist then you must concede that praying is pointless. Why try and communicate with a being that doesn't exist?
> 
> If you do meditate on God's name, then you are making a huge time investment into something, and if it turns out there is no god then you've probably wasted alot of time. Also a lot of money, why go and Mathadek at the Gurdwara and spend time there when all the money being invested into a Gurdwara can be invested into cancer research or poor countries, im not talking about the few pennies you put in when you mathadek i'm talking about all that money that goes into the heating, construction, etc etc...
> 
> ...



The biggest proof for me is the world around me!!
Start your reading here and then return with your understanding
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/atheism/35294-is-atheism-the-ultimate-sikhi-2.html#post146097 (Randip ji's post)

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/38357-what-is-prayer-should-sikhs-pray.html


Please explain how 1 Oankaar is irrational? (Notice the number). Are you purporting multiple Gods? Or are you saying there should be multiple sets of natural laws? How would 2 creators with different forms of gravity co-exist? lol


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

Thats the point i'm trying to make. Guru Nanak encouraged rational thought, to me that means starting with a known premiss and then working your way up. How is the assertion of "Ek Onkar" based on any known premiss. "Ek Onkar" is treated like a fundamental truth, built on a foundation of nothing.

I apologise if you took offence to my use of the word "Silly", perhaps i got carried away.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> Thats the point i'm trying to make. Guru Nanak encouraged rational thought, to me that means starting with a known premiss and then working your way up. How is the assertion of "Ek Onkar" based on any known premiss. "Ek Onkar" is treated like a fundamental truth, built on a foundation of nothing.


to you whatever YOU find rational is rational
and not irrational is irrational
isn't it??
"Ek Onkaar " the Hymn ,the starting of Guru Granth Sahib is the work of Guru Nanak Dev Ji whom you yourself accept was rational
don't You?
Ek onkaar is HIS teaching only

now you yourself says that teachings of Guru Nanak was Rational
and On the other hand refuse to accept "Ekonkaar " which itself Guru Nanak Dev Ji Said and conclude it to be irrational

So who is irrational ?
Your Thinking OR "EKonkaar"?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

anon ji thanks for your posts.





anon said:


> Thats the point i'm trying to make. Guru Nanak encouraged rational thought, to me that means starting with a known premiss and then working your way up. How is the assertion of "Ek Onkar" based on any known premiss. "Ek Onkar" is treated like a fundamental truth, built on a foundation of nothing.
> 
> I apologise if you took offence to my use of the word "Silly", perhaps i got carried away.


It is very ironic how many are so mis-guided by accident, through their parents, some of the preachers and other ways to very pristine and clear guidance and wisdom that our Guru ji shared and encapsulated in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Let us simply recognize what our Guru ji observed and noted for us,


One creator
Cannot be defined
Limitless
Infinite
Can be understood in parts and effort should be made to so understand and live with wisdom you so find
Mool mantar or first line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an example but is not exhaustive


One creation
All together
All of one source

Consonance
Live with the wisdom of creator and creation that one seeks as a Sikh
Live recognizing all that you are within and all that is without on the outside

So for me your assertions are from lack of understanding of our Guru ji's teachings and of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and not because of what these teachings are or what is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



arshdeep88 said:


> to you whatever YOU find rational is rational
> and not irrational is irrational
> isn't it??
> "Ek Onkaar " the Hymn ,the starting of Guru Granth Sahib is the work of Guru Nanak Dev Ji whom you yourself accept was rational
> ...



Its called proof by contradiction. What im doing is starting with a premiss... that premiss is then taken to be true, you look at the implications of that premiss and if you find the implications to be false then you can reject the initial premiss.

Now im not using proof by contradiction per se... what i'm saying isnt as "Water-tight" as proof by contradiction, a little jumps and skips are needed. The initial premiss is this "Guru Nanak was a rational parson who encouraged rational thought and questioning beliefs". then Guru Nanak tells us that there is "EK Onkar", there is one God, yet he does not give us a shred of evidence, the statement "Ek Onkar" is not built on a rational foundation, so what follows is that we can kind of reject this initial statement that "Guru Nanak was a rational person who encouraged rational thought". I just think its wrong for Sikhs to claim he was a man of rational thought, he appears to me more as a Spiritual person rather than a Scientist or a philosopher.


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



findingmyway said:


> The biggest proof for me is the world around me!!
> Start your reading here and then return with your understanding
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/atheism/35294-is-atheism-the-ultimate-sikhi-2.html#post146097 (Randip ji's post)
> 
> ...




I'm not saying there are multiple gods. I don't think i posess enough information to make such a bold statement. I'm just saying using the arguement of the "ultimate cause" lends itself to polytheism just as well as it does to polytheism. Its why I find the rejection of polytheism in favour of monotheism to be something which isn't based on anything.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> Its called proof by contradiction. What im doing is starting with a premiss... that premiss is then taken to be true, you look at the implications of that premiss and if you find the implications to be false then you can reject the initial premiss.


i can only laugh about this statement of yours to be honest 
what proof can you give just by contradicting?
THING is you are contradicting YOURSELF ,read your posts yourself
i earlier said the same that whatever YOU find rational is rational
and whatever not is not
your thinking is just like of a FROG's who has never tried to get out of the well in which he resides and just contradicts everything

Again no one from this forum of yours said Guru Nanak Mahraj Ji was rational or such,we don't need you to state who he was or not
all world knows about HIM
whether Guru Nanak was spiritual ,rational or not that is none of your concern 
all world knows about HIM that include Non SIkHS  too who have much higher understanding and wisdom than merely Yours
it is you only who stated and then started contradicting the things which you don't believe taking the name of Guru Nanak Dev Ji
so much majesty of HIS is that you have taken his name to contradict few things too (unfortunately for your knowledge the things you contradicted is his teaching too)

i see no use discussing further as a person who contradicts himself and then concludes for the proof. What stand such a person  can have ?

going by your ways proof me That you are rational than we can go on talk and discuss and try to get what you want to say

till then i think its waste of time to answer you or even respond to you

as ambarsaria sir rightly said take some time read Guru granth sahib ji first then come back to discuss ,we all will be very happy to answer your queries then
right now you yourself font know what to ask and what not
Sat sri Akal


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

Well... I hope I didn't offend you... but I do intend to take our advice. but i dont want to read SGGS until I can trust the author. TBH I don't know much about Sikh history so before  I start reading SGGS I think I would much rather read about the history of the 10 gurus. Are there any books you can reccomend?



> what proof can you give just by contradicting?



Proof by contradiction, or _reducio ad absurdum_ is a very powerful tool. It is used all the time. I'm sure you have used it a few times in your life without knowing too...
Mathematically it can be used to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational. It can also be used in philosophy and just in general conversation too.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

anon ji take your own advice.  _"reducio ad absurdum_" also means recognizing things in first person or going to the source.  





anon said:


> Well... but *i dont want to read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji* ....


Only first person connection to Guru ji's is through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Books and  all that are of little to no value if you ignore Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in this aspect.   You are not alone there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions  who want to take the easy way out compared to what is needed .  Reading a book(s) but not the source.  Reading  someone's interpretation, getting bad influences, teachings, and then becoming armchair athletes, coaches irrationally baseless.  It is self  serving at best.

Whereas I don't want to discourage you from posting but if you are dishing out absurdities you need to stop and reflect in your approach to all this.  Just a suggestion.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_Member16 (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



*

 “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.







( Some people drink from the foundation of knowledge, others just gurgle! )

****************************​An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, 
such as a God, cannot be proven or disproved;
 therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.  *


- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic​

*Praise of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by modern Scholars* 

The Sikh scriptures are unique among the religious "Holy Books" of the world in that they don't just offer spiritual guidance for the Sikhs alone but impart guidance and assistance for all the peoples and religions of the world. 

The Siri Guru Granth is a supreme treasure for all mankind. It is the true and permanent spiritual guide of the Sikhs. Guru Granth Sahib transcends creed and caste, cant and convention. It does not belong to the Sikhs alone. It consecrates the sayings of 11 Hindu bhagats and as many bard poets and seven Muslim saints, along with the teachings of six Sikh gurus. No other religion has included in its holy book the sayings of others, however revered. The Guru Granth Sahib provides unique and unequalled guidance and advice to the whole of the human race. It is the torch that will lead humanity out of Kaljug, (the dark era) to a life in peace, tranquillity and spiritual enlightenment for all the nations of the World. 

*
 Rev. H.L. Bradshaw of the U.S.A., Sikh Review, Calcutta.* 

Sikhism is a Universal world Faith…a message for all men. This is amply illustrated in the writings of the Gurus. 

Sikhs must cease to think of their faith as just another good religion and must begin to think of Sikhism being the religion for this New Age. 
*
 Also: *

The Guru Granth Sahib of all the world religious scriptures, alone states that there are innumerable worlds and universes other than our own. The previous scriptures were all concerned only with this world and its spiritual counterpart. To imply that they spoke of other worlds as does the Guru Granth Sahib, is to stretch their obvious meanings out of context. The Sikh religion is truly the answer to the problems of the modern man.  


*Mrs Pearl S Buck, a Nobel laureate*
(From the foreword to the English translation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by Dr Gopal Singh Dardi) 


*Miss Pearl S. Buck, a Nobel laureate wrote: *

When I was in India in 1962, one of the notable events of my Visit was the presentation to me of the English version of Sri Guru-Granth Sahib, translated and annotated by Dr. Gopal Singh. 

I was deeply grateful to receive this great work, for in the original it was inaccessible to me, and this was a matter of regret, for I have had many Sikh friends, and have always admired their qualities of character. 

Now that I have had time in my quiet Pennsylvania home to read their scriptures slowly and thoughtfully, I can understand why I have found so much to admire. 

The religion of a people has a profound and subtle influence upon them as a whole, and this is true whether individuals do or do not profess to be religious. 

I have studied the scriptures of the great religions, but I do not find elsewhere the same power of appeal to the heart and mind as I find here in these volumes. They are compact in spite of their length and are a revelation of the concept of God to the recognition and indeed the insistence upon the practical needs of the human body. There is something strangely modern about these scriptures and this puzzled me until I learned that they are in fact comparatively modern, compiled as late as the 16th century when explorers were beginning to discover the globe upon which we all live is a single entity divided only by arbitrary lines of our making. Perhaps this sense of unity is the source of power I find in these volumes. They speak to a person of any religion or of none. They speak for the human heart and the searching mind.  

*Archer in his book on Sikh faith *

The religion of the Guru Granth is a universal and practical religion…Due to ancient prejudices of the Sikhs it could not spread in the world. The world needs today its message of peace and love.  

*Dorothy Field in her book, The Sikh Religion* 

Pure Sikhism is far above dependence on Hindu rituals and is capable of a distinct position as a world religion so long as Sikhs maintain their distinctiveness. The religion is also one which should appeal to the occidental mind. It is essentially a practical religion. If judged from the pragmatic standpoint which is a favorite point of view in some quarters, it would rank almost first in the world (emphasis by the author). Of no other religion can it be said that it has made a nation in so short a time.  


* And also: *

The religion of the Sikhs is one of the most interesting at present existing in India, possibly indeed in the whole world. A reading of the Granth strongly suggests that Sikhism should be regarded as a new and separate world religion rather than a reformed sect of Hinduism.  

*Arnold Toynbee, a historian 
Main article: Arnold Toynbee *

Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975) was a British historian whose twelve-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, 1934-1961, was a synthesis of world history, a metahistory based on universal rhythms of rise, flowering and decline, which examined history from a global perspective. His work includes over 50 titles on various aspects of world history. 

Toynbee has given very high and prominent place to the Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji in Sikh History. He calls Guru Ji a "divinity of highest rank." He gets emotional when he writes about Guru Sahib’s contribution in the formation of Khalsa. Again and again he emphasizes the fact that there cannot be any person like the Sikh Gurus. 

*(Foreward to the Sacred Writings of the Sikhs by UNESCO) *

Mankind’s religious future may be obscure; yet one thing can be foreseen. The living higher religions are going to influence each other more than ever before, in the days of increasing communications between all parts of the world and branches of human race. In this coming religious debate, the Sikh religion and its scriptures, the Guru Granth, will have something special of value to say to the rest of the world.  

*Dr. W.O. Cole of U.K.* 

who has written more than half a dozen books on Sikhism. In 1985, he visited India where in a keynote lecture by him on the Mission and Message of Guru Nanak Dev, he gave a message to the Sangat there and through them to all of humanity: 

Remember the tenets of Guru Nanak, his concepts of oneness of God and Universal Brotherhood of man. If any community holds the key to national integration of India, it is the Sikhs all the way.  

After the lecture, he was asked what drew him to the study of Sikhism. (Quoted from Spokesman, Toronto, Canada) He replied: 

Theologically, I cannot answer the question what drew me to the study of Sikhism. You may call it, the purpose of God. But to be more specific, the unique concept of universality and the system of Langar (free community meal) in Sikhism are the two features that attract me towards the study of Sikhism. Langar is the exclusive feature of Sikhism and found nowhere else in the world. Sikhism is the only religion which welcomes each and every one to its langar without any discrimination of caste, creed, color, or sex.  
*
 Bertrand Russell *

This is the man who destroyed Christianity (same applies to Islam and Judaism) and exposed its absurdities; but even this great man got stuck when it came to Sikhism! In fact he gave up and said "that if some lucky men survive the onslaught of the third world war of atomic and hydrogen bombs, then the Sikh religion will be the only means of guiding them." Russell was asked that he was talking about the third world war, but isn't this religion capable of guiding mankind before the third world war? In reply, Russell said, "Yes, it has the capability, but the Sikhs have not brought out in the broad daylight, the splendid doctrines of this religion which has come into existence for the benefit of the entire mankind. This is their greatest sin and the Sikhs cannot be freed of it." 

*Swami Nitya Nand *

A Hindu mystics mentions his experiences with the Sikh faith. (he is believed to have expired at the age of 135 years) writes in his book “Gur Gian”: 

I, in the company of my guru, Brahma Nand Ji, went to Mathura…While on pilgrimage tour, we reached Punjab and here we met Swami Satya Nand Udasi. He explained the philosophy and religious practices of Nanak in such a way that Swami Brahma Nand Ji enjoyed a mystic lore. During the visit to the Golden Temple, Amritsar, his soul was so much affected that he became a devotee of the Guru. After spending some time in Punjab he went to Hardwar. Though he was hail and hearty, one day I saw tears in his eyes. I asked the reason for that. 
He replied, “I sifted sand the whole of my life. The truth was in the house of Nanak. I will have to take one more birth in that house, only then will I attain Kalyan.” 

After saying that the soul left his body. 

Swami Nitya Nand also wrote his own experience: 

I also constantly meditate on Waheguru revealed by Nanak. I practiced Yoga Asanas under the guidance of Yogis and did that for many years; the bliss and peace which I enjoy now was never obtained earlier.  

*President George W. Bush* 

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who was the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009 and the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. He was the eldest son of Barbara and George H. W. Bush (born June 12, 1924). His father also served as the 41st President of the United States (1989–93). 

George Walker Bush praised the Guru Granth Sahib in the following terms: 

Our Nation has always benefited from a strong tradition of faith, and religious diversity has been an important part of this heritage. The Guru Granth Sahib has provided strength, wisdom, and guidance to hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in America and millions more around the world. 

I applaud the Sikh community for your compassion and dedication to your faith. By sharing its message of peace, equality, and the importance of family, you help change lives, one heart and one soul at a time. Bush added, Laura (Bush’s wife) joins me in sending our best wishes. 


* Authenticity of Guru Granth Sahib*

This is what Max Arthur Macauliffe writes about the authenticity of the Guru's teaching: 

"The Sikh religion differs as regards the authenticity of its dogmas from most other theological systems. Many of the great teachers the world has known, have not left a line of their own composition and we only know what they taught through tradition or second-hand information. If Pythagoras wrote of his tenets, his writings have not descended to us. We know the teachings of Socrates only through the writings of Plato and Xenophanes. Buddha has left no written memorial of his teaching. Kungfu-tze, known to Europeans as Confucius, left no documents in which he detailed the principles of his moral and social system. The founder of Christianity did not reduce his doctrines to writing and for them we are obliged to trust to the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Arabian Prophet did not himself reduce to writing the chapters of the Quran. They were written or compiled by his adherents and followers. But the compositions of Sikh Gurus are preserved and we know at first hand what they taught."  

- http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Worldwide_praise_for_the_Guru_Granth_Sahib


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

anon ji



> The initial premiss is this "Guru Nanak was a rational parson who encouraged rational thought and questioning beliefs". then Guru Nanak tells us that there is "EK Onkar", there is one God, yet he does not give us a shred of evidence, the statement "Ek Onkar" is not built on a rational foundation, so what follows is that we can kind of reject this initial statement that "Guru Nanak was a rational person who encouraged rational thought".



Please inform us of which "reductio ad absurdem" argument you are really using. Proof by contradiction does not apply in the example you have given of Guru Nanak's supposedly "contradictory claims." 

First * Ik Oankar* has to be rejected using proof by contradiction;  then the claim *Guru Nanak was supposedly a rational person *has to be rejected using proof by contradiction. As proof by contradiction is generally applied to untenable mathematical or logical syllogisms it may not even be relevant to your examples. Nonetheless, one cannot reject a claim made independently in one proposition, and then use the contradiction to disprove a claim made in another independent proposition.

You have to take the *Ik Oankaar argumen*t, and demolish that first if you can. And then proceed to disprovve the idea that *Guru Nanak was a rational person* using a separate set of arguments. Demolishing the Ik Oankaar argument in no way negates that Guru Nanak was a rational person, any more than demolishing the idea that he was a rational person negates Ik Oankar. You would only be to show he was possibly irrational; and/ or that he was possibly mistaken about there being Ik Oankaar.

It is also looking to me as if you may be talking yourself into the reductio ad absurdem called "self-annihilation." I can't tell at this point because we are lacking your definition of "rational" which is not the same thing as "logical."


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



*An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, 
such as a God, cannot be proven or disproved;
 therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.  *


- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic​
For anyone who is seriously motivated to look into what philosophers have argued about the existence of god, Soul_jyot ji has posted an important statement. More than one philosopher will say that a person has to start with the position of an agnostic - thinking, *"I don't know *if there is a god (one or more, Ik Oankaar or something else." Starting as an agnostic, even if you have to pretend you are an agnostic temporarily and for the sake of argument, allows you to think your way out to the edges in one direction or the other, to atheism or to belief, with the kind of neutrality needed to check and correct your own thinking. If you start with the idea that there is a god because.... or there is no god because... you are essentially trapped. Conclusions are always pre-determined by original assumptions. In other words, having pet logical paradigms is like being encased in an iron lung. You won't have the freedom you need to breath independently, think independently.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

> *"Eik Onkar"* is an assertion which to me seems a little bit silly, it has no rational basis



It depends how you would personally understand and describe what Ik Ong Kaar means by forgetting what others say,understand or describe it.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

First, there are many types of proof considered by logicians to be valid.  _Reducio ad absurdum_ is one of the these valid proofs.  This relies on Aristolelian logic which states that a statement is either true (A) or not true (not A).  There are other logic systems.  Buddhist logic, as I studied it, has 4 truth values instead of 2 and, if memory serves, Jain logic has 7 truth values.  Proof by assertion - "I say it, so it's true" - and proof by intimidation - "agree with me or I'll hurt you" -:realangrymunda:  are not usually considered valid in any logical system.

Whichever logic system you use, however, one thing is necessary.  There must be agreement on the meaning of your basic terms.  In this discussion, I think the most basic term would be "God."  I cannot even begin a reasonable discussion until I know what you mean by "God."  Yes, there are undefined terms in any logic system, but those are only for concepts so basic that everyone understands what they mean, for example, "point" in geometry.  God is a complex idea that needs definition before I can go any further.  

A more important point to me is, why would I want to convince anyone that "God" exists ? I'm happy to discuss my beliefs and listen and consider yours, but not for reasons of debate.  :noticekudi:  


It's interesting to hear different points of view, but ultimately fruitless.  Theists will remain theists, atheists will remain atheists, agnostics will remain agnostics.  Because I am an egotistical manmukh, I will give my opinion:  the existence of God, however defined (in any reasonable way...I once knew a guy who defined God as his refrigerator), can be neither proven nor disproven.  I am among those who believe in God, and since I concede that God's existence cannot be proven, I suppose some would call me agnostic.  That's OK with me.  The label is unimportant.  All that is important is how I live my life.  :icecreamkudi:

BTW, Gödel's incompleteness theorem (which has been deductively proven by Aristotelian logic:  http://web.yonsei.ac.kr/bkim/goedel.pdf ), states that in any useful mathematical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven to be true.  It is a very small step to see this as a universal truth, not just mathematical.  I see God, as defined by me, to be in that category, true but unprovable.    

I urge you to look at the proof, just so you'll know what a real mathematical proof looks like.


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

> anon ji
> 
> Quote:
> The initial premiss is this "Guru Nanak was a rational parson who encouraged rational thought and questioning beliefs". then Guru Nanak tells us that there is "EK Onkar", there is one God, yet he does not give us a shred of evidence, the statement "Ek Onkar" is not built on a rational foundation, so what follows is that we can kind of reject this initial statement that "Guru Nanak was a rational person who encouraged rational thought".
> ...



thanks for the reply... I think your right in saying I wasn't using Proof by Contradiction in a very water tight sense. I agree with you there and i have been a bit woolen in structuring my argument.

What i'm trying to say is that the statement "Ik Onkar" is one of the first things we learn as a child. If there is one line of prayer that is associated with Sikh scripture more than any, it is "Ik Onkar", the question I was asking was: Does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji provide any reasoning behind this statement? Does it use rationality (i'll explain what I mean by rationality in a moment)  to construct the notion of one God.

It would appear that you are much more knowledgeable when it comes to constructing arguments and proofs, i'm still learning and so when i say rational what i mean is, taking something we know to be true and then extrapolating that things we know that must be true. I see you used the word "logical", and maybe I am misusing the word "Rational" and meant logical.

As for "Self-Annihilation", i myself have never come across that term, but what i mean to say is the starting statement is

 "Guru Nanak Dev Ji is a promotes Rational conclusions (Rational thinking as given by my definition above)" , the contradiction statement would be "Guru Nanak Dev Ji asserted "Ik Onkar" without providing any rational basis for this assertion" therefore Guru Nanak Dev Ji can not be a rational thinker.

Of course he MAY have provided proof for the existence of god, which is why i have created this thread, right now I am pre occupied and i fully intend to read Sikh history and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, however if i'm honest the main reason why i want to know more is because I want to know why Sikhs believe in God, and how Sikh scriptures and Gurus have demonstrated that there is indeed a God. If there was a "God Proof" paragraph in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that you could point out it would interest me very much.

And like I said in the begging, for a Sikh to show the level of Commitment that they do their reason for believing in a God must be watertight and philosophically robust. I would be very interested in hearing a philosophically robust case for God.

I mean no disrespect and I understand at times I have perhaps used the wrong words here and there.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

> It is also looking to me as if you may be talking yourself into the reductio ad absurdem called *"self-annihilation."* I can't tell at this point because we are lacking your definition of "rational" which is not the same thing as "logical."



How does one say "self-annihilation" in Latin?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> How does one say "self-annihilation" in Latin?



There may not be a direct translation. I can't translate it now off the top of my head because like Punjabi in Latin, first you translate the noun "annihilation" and then you use the Latin equivalent of "ape" which is "ipse." Put them together then trasnslate and it sounds horrible in English. Will give a go at it. lol

p/s There is a direct translation "sui annihilatio" which means "one's own annihilation" which means more like "suicide." That would not be what we are looking for. lol


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

It is like saying,"I tried your cake and it is tasty, I am not interested in the recipe but please explain why it is tasty to me".


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



spnadmin said:


> There may not be a direct translation. I can't translate it now off the top of my head because like Punjabi in Latin, first you translate the noun "annihilation" and then you use the Latin equivalent of "ape" which is "ipse." Put them together then trasnslate and it sounds horrible in English. Will give a go at it. lol



Please make it sound "tasty" atleast.


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> It is like saying,"I tried your cake and it is tasty, I am not interested in the recipe but please explain why it is tasty to me".



I don't feel like I am doing that, I am asking for the recipe, I am asking for the ration construction of thought which leads to the statement of "Ik Onkar". 

In other words... I don't have time to bake the cake now, but if you could tell me a few of the ingredients that made it nice i'd be interested to know.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Please make it sound "tasty" atleast.


In one short sentence, the answer to "why I am a Sikh."  *Sri Guru Granth Sahib is so very infinitely tasty.*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

> p/s There is a direct translation "sui annihilatio" which means "one's own annihilation" which means more like "suicide." That would not be what we are looking for.



I think that is exactly we are looking for as it turned out to be. In other words, as the Gladiator would say to his Gladius; a minor mea culpa.:redturban:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> In one short sentence, the answer to "why I am a Sikh."  *Sri Guru Granth Sahib is so very infinitely tasty.*



Well said as usual Mai ji. And I totally agree with its yumminess.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

anon ji

You are doing it again. If Guru Nanak makes an illogical argument about god, then that is all that can be concluded. One cannot jump from that conclusion to say that he is irrational. If Guru Nanak is proved to be not-rational, one cannot jump from that conclusion to say he is wrong about "god." Or for that matter that "god does not exist."

Irrational people often make defensible statements. People who are wrong about some things are not necessariiy irrational.

It is also a good idea to take a serious look at what Mai Harinder Kaur ji has posted, because all of the arguments I have encountered against the existence of "god" here at SPN come out of college logic classes. They, the arguments, have their origins in Aristotelian logic and have passed through many incarnations over centuries. Essentially they represent western ways of thinking that are premised on a western way of parsing reality. Arguments fashioned in this way may have no relevance at all to views of "god" that Guru Nanak, or many Hindus, or many Buddhists are talking about.

Jains have an even more fascinating argument that negates "God" but does not negate the divine.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> I don't feel like I am doing that, I am asking for the recipe, I am asking for the ration construction of thought which leads to the statement of "Ik Onkar".
> 
> In other words... I don't have time to bake the cake now, but if you could tell me a few of the ingredients that made it nice i'd be interested to know.



Please read again my very first post and then we shall continue. You have said too many things which meant out to be naught, without exactly knowing what your personal understanding of the subject is, no matter how _absurdum_ it may be.


----------



## anon (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



spnadmin said:


> anon ji
> 
> You are doing it again. If Guru Nanak makes an illogical argument about god, then that is all that can be concluded. One cannot jump from that conclusion to argue that he is irrational. If Guru Nanak is proved to be not-rational, one cannot jump from that conclusion to argue he is wrong about "god" or for that matter that "god does not exist."



Okay I understand now, I see that I was making too many strong statements with the incorrect reasoning. 

Reducio Ad Absurdum was used incorrectly here. I also see you have to some extent answered my original question. You say that the Sikh/Hindu ideas of god are different to the western depiction, by that im assuming you mean that Sikhs believe god to be less " Tangable" or less of an entitiy, perhaps more comparable to a "force"? or an energy?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> O
> 
> You say that the Sikh/Hindu ideas of god are different to the western depiction, by that im assuming you mean that Sikhs believe god to be less " Tangable" or less of an entitiy, perhaps more comparable to a "force"? or an energy?



*No, I am not saying that at all*. 

I am saying that eastern concepts of "god" are extremely diverse and very subtle. There is no single definition of "god" within Hinduism. Similarly you can see just from this thread that Sikhs differ as to the nature of god and some do not even sanction the use of the word. I would recommend that you take a look at Jain arguments about "god" if only to get a sense of how subtle the eastern perspective can be. Discover how much debate actually occurs, within a single path in the east. 

Another thought.  All traditions, east or west, have ways of explaining "reality" that can be very different. What is "real" may govern the ways in which "god" is understood.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



spnadmin said:


> *No, I am not saying that at all*.
> 
> I am saying that eastern concepts of "god" are extremely diverse and very subtle. There is no single definition of "god" within Hinduism. Similarly you can see just from this thread that Sikhs differ as to the nature of god and some do not even sanction the use of the word. I would recommend that you take a look at Jain arguments about "god" if only to get a sense of how subtle the eastern perspective can be. Discover how much debate actually occurs, within a single path in the east.
> 
> Another thought.  All traditions, east or west, have ways of explaining "reality" that can be very different. What is "real" may govern the ways in which "god" is understood.




My point exactly.  When discussing "God," we may all be discussing different concepts.  Until we settle on something which we can use as a definition, we shall get nowhere.  This difficulty is compounded by the fact that we come from cultures that have very different concepts of what "God" or "a god" is.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 24, 2013)

Anon ji
You must be one of the unfortunate one's who hasn't had a visit or encounter with God.

Do I have proof he exists ??
Well I can't be totally sure, because all I really know is that I exist because I have a name that was given to me !!
BUT, God does visit me regularly and I have an ongoing ancounter with him.
The only problem is that he is so humble that he never has once said ''I am GOD'' or ''They call me GOD!''

Foolishly, I have just assumed he is GOD just like I have assumed to call you ANON !!!


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> My point exactly.  When discussing "God," we may all be discussing different concepts.  Until we settle on something which we can use as a definition, we shall get nowhere.  This difficulty is compounded by the fact that we come from cultures that have very different concepts of what "God" or "a god" is.



A fundamental problem however remains. If some or none of these views of god can be demonstrated to "exist" according to scientific methods of proof, we still shall get nowhere. 

Who wants to tackle the use of the words "exist" or "existence" on a scientific basis? My question is serious. The word "exist" itself could be out-of-place when discussing Ik Oankaar. I would say scientific bias, but let's be cool and use scientific basis instead.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 24, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

anon ji I believe spnadmin ji also addressed response to your post.  I have a comment in part,





anon said:


> Okay I understand now, I see that I was making too many strong statements with the incorrect reasoning.
> 
> ........  _Sikhs believe god to be less " Tangable" or less of an entitiy, perhaps more *comparable to a "force"? or an energy*_?


Brother let us review mool mantar as most if not all Sikhs can relate to it,



> *ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥*
> *Ik▫oaŉkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaŉ gur parsāḏ.
> *
> 
> ...


What the above speaks to is some of the guiding observations by Guru ji's from human perspective.  This is further elaborated in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to include infinite, formless, not describable in completeness and so on.​ 
When you flag it as "_*comparable to a "force"? or an energy*_*"* for Sikhs you are going directly against the teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Do some Sikhs talk it like so?  Of course they do.  Are they correct in doing so?  I am not judge as over a life time one evolves if one is ever learning as a Sikh.  We come through many ideas and points of learning.  If the mind stays open and learns we pick up much new, build on much we have known, and discard some that we have known.  That is part of being human and Sikhs are human too.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 24, 2013)

Ambarsariaji, I love the way how sometimes you make it so simple !!:redturban::winkingmunda:


----------



## Ishna (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

I'm gonna go join Akasha ji in the naughty corner cos this statement has just knocked me out of the race:



> When you flag it as "comparable to a "force"? or an energy" for Sikhs you are going directly against the teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.


 
Why do we bother with the term 'Sikh' when everyone has such vastly different opinions?  How can we all be looking at the same Guru Granth Sahib Ji and all getting a different message or understanding?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

Ishna ji

Orthodoxy will be the end of Sikhi. It will only create more fanatics.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 25, 2013)

> If god doesn't exist then you must concede that praying is pointless. Why try and communicate with a being that doesn't exist?



hah! if God does exist then it is still pointless praying, not praying is not just an agnostic pursuit! I do not find anything here that is not Sikhi.....



> Also a lot of money, why go and Mathadek at the Gurdwara and spend time  there when all the money being invested into a Gurdwara can be invested  into cancer research or poor countries, im not talking about the few  pennies you put in when you mathadek i'm talking about all that money  that goes into the heating, construction, etc etc...



Again a very Sikh outlook, I agree. The Gurdwaras today are nothing but social clubs, mostly mired in vedicism and or Abrahamic practice, in fact, the ones I like the best are Gurdwaras specifically for certain castes, brilliant!



> The fact that the Sikh establishment, customs and activities such as  prayer exist mean that as a Sikh you must believe there is a God, if  there was any doubt, if you thought you were taking a gamble on  believing in God you wouldn't do any of it, its just too much time and  money.



ah now here your actually wrong, you see if people really believed that God existed, they would not pray, they would not have customs, activities or rituals, they would just do as God wished them to, so, by default, those that pray, that follow rituals, customs, they are actually the agnostics, because they are not convinced. Those that have a staunch belief in God will be in connection 24/7. They will not adopt a special time or a position to communicate. 



> so what proof does Sikhism give that there is a god?



Firstly, you talk of God as an Abrahamic father figure, Sikhism does not see God as such, God is viewed as the ultimate Creator, and in my view, is the Creator energy, you can either be in tune with this energy, or not, that is your choice, but if you want proof that God is sitting on his cloud throwing his thunderbolts, and dishing out rice pudding, your onto a loser. What Sikhism does talk about is a way of life, a take on life if you will, Sikhism gives you the ultimate truths, whether you accept them and make them work for you is a different matter. Can one prove ultimate truths? why of course, take gravity, no one is going to argue with gravity.... or birth, or death, or indeed taxes lol



> Iv read some translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji always talking  about how we should love God and how we should abandon maya and material  things... but where does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji actually PROVE that  god exists?



Ok, translations are a waste of time, so don't put too much weight on that, they try and copy the style of the Abrahamic, which seeing as Sikhism could not be more different, is a shame, please take a look at the lifestyle of the tenth master. Did he abandon maya, did he abandon material things? no, he did not, because Sikhism is not a 'live in poverty and be happy' type of religion, it is one where you concentrate on being in consonance with the Creative energy, if you want material things, if you want maya, fine, but just do not be sucked into it thinking this is all there is, because such things can be lost in the blink of an eye. The time we have here on this earth we rent, and the life we lead, with the right attitude can be very pleasurable, we can sleep in comfortable beds, we can all drive range rovers, we can eat well, but we can also give something back to Creation, and if our bed is uncomortable, or we have to drive a lan cruiser instead, well its not the end of the world, we should not let such minor facets affect our attitude to  life, or affect our optimistic view, we should do our best, the best that we can do, but ultimately, whatever happens, we should accept with grace, that does not mean give up, it means try harder, it means realise your goals, no matter what they are. Do you know what the difference is between a Sikh driving a Bentley and a non Sikh driving one is? The Sikh enjoys the Bentley, and is grateful to Creator and Creation for the chance to drive one, but it does not change him, he is not full of pride and ego, he can be the humblest and nicest man on the planet, the Bentley is just a car, a vehicle, however, most drive such cars to impress on others how wealthy they are, they get pleasure from the envious looks, they get pleasure from being envied, now what we are talking here is nothing to do with religion or even God, it is to do with the correct attitude to live a fruitfull and pleasant life, one that is balanced, one that cares. 

As for proof, I cannot offer you any proof, but as I believe that when I am dead, I am dust, proof really does not affect me, I am not going to meet God, nor am I going to sit by his side sharing his cloud, I am going to be wormfood, but, the one thing that does interest me, how can I conduct myself on this earth while I am here so that my life is true, so that I am true, and that is by being a Sikh. 



> Sikhs claim to be rational thinkers, to be  a Sikh I guess means to be a "Learner"... if this claim is true then  everything that a Sikh does must be built on the foundation that God  exists, so lets assume you are rational, you guys must hold the proof,  the undeniable proof that God exists...



I could not care less whether God exists or not. Such information will not change my life as I believe God has set the rules and started the game, I am more interested in the game and following the rules. Consonance with Creation is the closest I am ever going to get to the concept of meeting 'God'.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

Your thought is actually flawed because through science we know that everything... anything you made up of matter will be broken down into atoms, which break down into electrons and quarks (protons and nutrons break down to quarks)  every quark (aside from the different up and down quarks) and every electron are the exact same, no matter which atoms they inhabit.  So you see, no matyter what you break down will ALWAYS = X.  There is no Y because everythig is made of the same exact thing!  

Even more interesting is the fact that electrons and quarks do not reside in a steadfast place and time. They pop into and out of existence, randomly, and nobody knows where they go!!  Also, electrons can behave as both a wave and/or a particle....



anon said:


> Take an object like a table;
> 
> A table is made from wood and metal, lets take one component of that: Wood
> 
> ...


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



harry haller said:


> Firstly, you talk of God as an Abrahamic father figure...they try and copy the style of the Abrahamic...


 
Dear Harry ji 

I don't write on this forum as frequently now, and actually haven't been on it for over three months, nonetheless I feel that I perhaps should interject here given that the idea of the _Abrahamic _conception of God has been raised. 

I want to clarify for the sake of this discussion just what that Abrahamic conception is really like 

What I think is important to realize is that while the Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the Baha'i Faith (as well as Zoroastrianism which isn't strictly Abrahamic but shares the same broad philosophical outlook) - might have many followers who share the understanding of the Supreme Creator that you identify as _Abrahamic _this is not necessarily the same as how theologians and mystics have actually understood God. 

You are identifying, I feel, more of the _popular religion _of laity, if anything. 

Here is how one of the Catholic Church's most important teachers, the Syrian mystical theologian Dionysius (who is used as an authority by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart and all others) explained God: 



> "...The cause of all things
> embraces all
> and is above all,
> is not without being or without life.
> ...


 
So when you speak of the Abrahamic God, that is the Abrahamic God as Catholic theologians, Muslim Sufis, Jewish thinkers, Baha'is and others understand Him. 

Dionysius says that he is *NOT FATHERHOOD*!!!!!! :grinningkaur:

While Sikhi says that God is "Truth", Catholicism agrees in one respect ie: 


> "...We must recognize the truth in everything. I mean, we must love in God and for God's sake everything that has being, because *God is Truth itself*, and without God nothing has being..."​
> *- Saint Catherine of Siena (1347 - 1380), Dominican mystic and Doctor of the Church*​


 
However as Dionysius explains above, we would go further in saying that he cannot be called "Truth" nor any other name, since he is ineffable and inexppressibe yet within everything that exists. 

Sikhi seems to agree with this too since the Granth describes God as "Nameless". 

BTW I should actually note that in the original Greek Dionysius calls God "it", however the translator noted that he considered this to be too impersonal in English so rendered it freely as "he". ​


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Vouthon said:


> Dear Harry ji
> 
> 
> Sikhi seems to agree with this too since the Granth describes God as "Nameless".



Vouthon ji

It is good to see you posting again. I actually need to express profound disagreement with your quoted statement above. Sikhi does not "agree" simply because the idea of "nameless" occurs in the Granth. There are several statements by Dionysus that also contradict the Granth. 

Robins and turtles both lay eggs. The fact that they share this attribute makes them similar on this one point. Perhaps robins and turtles are even similar in other ways. But robins are not turtles. 

Those things that are "not the same" very often help us understand was is fundamentally true about, for and in a particular religion. The drive to conclude that all religions believe the same things, follow the same god, etc. stress sameness in order to assimilate the "other," and through assimilation destroy.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



spnadmin said:


> Vouthon ji
> 
> It is good to see you posting again. I actually need to express profound disagreement with your quoted statement above. Sikhi does not "agree" simply because the idea of "nameless" occurs in the Granth. There are several statements by Dionysus that also contradict the Granth.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Spn, 

Thank you for your post! 

Oh I am not suggesting that Dionysius and Sikhi teach the same about God. By no means. Dionysius is Christian, not Sikh. He believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ, doctrines that are anathema to Sikhi. 

My point rather was that we can have a conception of what a certain religion understands about God based upon popular notions, rather than how theologians and thinkers in that faith actually understand God. 

I sometimes feel that when people speak of "Abrahamic", they often assume that Islam and Christianity teaches about a God who sits on a cloud and rewards and punishes, whereas those two religions in theological respects have a much more developed conception of the Creator. 

I am simply quoting Dionysius to illustrate my belief that we should not assume that within Islam and Christianity everyone holds to a conception of God in line with what Harry identified as "Abrahamic". 

My point is not even particularly related to the Sikh conception of God but rather generalizations of religious ideas about God. 

Kind regards, 

Vouthon


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

Vouthon ji

Thank you for your clarification. Given your clarification... then I do have to agree this topic is not something to wrap up easily, nor do I think that subjective experiences of the divine should be dismissed.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

Vouthon ji,

Guru Fateh. Welcome back.

If you believe in what Dionysus says god is the/an it, then where does Jesus, the son of God fit into your thought process? 

Secondly, where did the 10 commandments come from if god is the/an it?



> I sometimes feel that when people speak of "Abrahamic", they often assume that Islam and Christianity teaches about a God who sits on a cloud and *rewards and punishes, *whereas those two religions in theological respects have a much more developed conception of the Creator.



All the scriptures of the different Abrahamic religions talk about reward and punishment. That is the main concept of god in the Abrahamic religions. If it were not true, then the concept of Heaven and Hell would not exist also the beliefs in rapture and purgatory would be absent.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh. Welcome back.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Tejwant ji 

Peace be with you brother! 

Thank you very much for your questions, I will answer them as best I can: 



> If you believe in what Dionysus says god is the/an it, then where does Jesus, the son of God fits into your thought process?


 
Before I do could you please clarify for me what you mean by "the/an it"? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking first :grinningkaur:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

Vothon ji,

From your own words:



> *BTW I should actually note that in the original Greek Dionysius calls God "it"*, however the translator noted that he considered this to be too impersonal in English so rendered it freely as "he"


. 

Let's talk about the original, not about how the translator interpreted "it".


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Vothon ji,
> 
> From your own words:
> 
> ...



Tejwant Ji, could the above quote by Vouthon be referring to the usage of 'it' to denote that God is neither male nor female? In other languages, it's easy to refer to a genderless persona that is still a conscious entity... however it's very weird to refer to any conscious entity in English as 'it' In the same way that all translations of Gurbani into english refer to Waheguru as 'he' when in the original there exist plenty of reference to the creator being neither male or female but possessing qualities of both (as Father AND Mother for e.g.) So in Vouthon's quote could it be that the original was trying to say that God is without gender - rather than trying to say that God is inanimate/without awareness??


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Akasha said:


> Tejwant Ji, could the above quote by Vouthon be referring to the usage of 'it' to denote that God is neither male nor female? In other languages, it's easy to refer to a genderless persona that is still a conscious entity... however it's very weird to refer to any conscious entity in English as 'it' In the same way that all translations of Gurbani into english refer to Waheguru as 'he' when in the original there exist plenty of reference to the creator being neither male or female but possessing qualities of both (as Father AND Mother for e.g.) So in Vouthon's quote could it be that the original was trying to say that God is without gender - rather than trying to say that God is inanimate/without awareness??



Akasha ji,

Guru fateh.

If that were the case, then Jesus would not be the only Son of God.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Ishna said:


> I'm gonna go join Akasha ji in the naughty corner cos this statement has just knocked me out of the race:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we bother with the term 'Sikh' when everyone has such vastly different opinions?  How can we all be looking at the same Guru Granth Sahib Ji and all getting a different message or understanding?



The question is not impertinent and the reason is simple.  Being a Sikh means that I have chosen this particular path as the one most suited to me.  Each of us is at a different point in our development, as human beings and as Sikhs.  As with any writing with deep meaning, the meaning we get from reading Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji will change as we develop and grow. 

This is also one reason why saying the same nitnem day after day is meaningful.

One thing I particularly like about being a Sikh is that the religion treats me like an adult.  Not a lot of little rules governing every aspect of my life, but rather a way of being in the world, a philosophy that I follow according to my understanding, mostly gleaned from reading and contemplating SGGS ji.  .  Yes, there are a few rules for Sikhs in general, and a few more for those who choose to accept the blessing of Amrit (the Khalsa) as outlined in the Sikh Rehat Maryada.   These are still few compared to other religions.

A Sikh is expected to have and use good judgement in all aspects of life.  None of us succeeds totally, but we are expected to try.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Ishna said:


> I'm gonna go join Akasha ji in the naughty corner cos this statement has just knocked me out of the race:
> 
> Why do we bother with the term 'Sikh' when everyone has such vastly different opinions?  How can we all be looking at the same Guru Granth Sahib Ji and all getting a different message or understanding?



Ishna ji and Akasha ji,

Guru Fateh to you both.

Allow me to share my 2 cent worth.

Interesting questions and doubts raised by both of you which are understandable.  The good problem with us humans is that we need comparative studies especially when we are trying to map our spiritual paths. There are mainly two ways about it. 

One way is that we are told to have a blindfolded faith/belief because god is some superman, whom only the few have the direct access to, and those few have all the power to mind control the followers. Rewards and punishment are integral part of this. Tickets to Paradise or Hell are subjectively selected. Carrots and sticks are often used by the “owners” of the religions. Cans and cannots are the external impositions one must adhere to as dictated by them.

The other way is like the Sikhi way where the Genome of the Munn is given to us as the foundations of the selves and depending on our desire, perseverance and quench; we can erect any kind of buildings on the foundations for us to dwell in. Wills and willnots are the self-rules cultivated from the internal manifestations through it.

All the rest depends on the Sikh, the student, the seeker because it is the journey of the individual to carve his/her own path with the help of this Genome, whose blueprint is in 1429 pages of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

Thank you brother Tejwant :gingerteakaur:

This is very difficult for me to explain, but I will try. Please ask again if I fail to express myself clearly. 

First here is a literal translation of a part of the original from the _Classics of Western Spirituality _edition of the Dionysian corpus: 





> "...It has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it. Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding...it is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these..."
> 
> *- Dionysius the Areopagite (5th-6th century Catholic mystic) *


 



> *1. If you believe in what Dionysus says god is the/an it, then where does Jesus, the son of God fits into your thought process?*


 
When Dionysius speaks of God in the above, he is referring to the unknowable Divine Essence or Ground of the Godhead. This is God in his Inmost Being or Selfhood, as known Only to Himself beyond all differentiation of forms. In Himself, God cannot be known or expressed by human minds since he is neither _this nor that. _

In Catholic spirituality, a difference is delineated between _God _and the _Godhead _not in fact but as regards human perception_. _Human beings, because the nature of God is so simple and formless, perceive a distinction in the nature of God between _God _& _Godhead_. Thus the Infinite One has a twofold character according to human awareness - an impersonal aspect (above knowledge) and a personal aspect (knowable in relation to us). 

The former is the Supreme Being in its immanent aspect, according to the perception of man, and for Catholics this is God as revealed in the Trinity of Divine Persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

The latter, the Godhead, is the unknowable wilderness of the Divine Essence shared by the Three Persons, which is eternally still and at rest. This is God in its transcendent aspect according to human reason, and here we can know nothing of it save by negation ie _what it is not. _

God is Impersonal in Himself but personal in relation to us, whereby he manifests Himself as having Three Personalities: 1) the Father 2) the Word (or Son) & 3) the Holy Spirit. 

Read: 

"The Father is the unconditioned Origin, Strength and Power, of all things. The Son is the Eternal Word and Wisdom that shines forth in the world of conditions. The Holy Spirit is Love and Generosity emanating from the mutual contemplation of Father and Son...the Spirit is the self-giving presence of God that permeates and sustains creation. The Spirit is the bridge between eternity and time, between the transcendent ‘wholly Other’" (Evelyn Underhill). 

In this second sense, the _Personal _aspect of God as man perceives it, God has revealed attributes exemplified by the Persons such a: Truth, Goodness, Love, Merciful, Wise etc. etc. 

Jesus, in Christian understanding, is the incarnation of God the Word or _Logos - the Second Person. _According to the Bible: 

"*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of all men. The light shines in the darkness ... The light which enlightens every person coming into the world...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."* 

the Holy Spirit is _Love - the Bond of Love between the Father and the Word, and the Bond of Love between God, Creation, creatures and all things. _

This love between the Persons of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, flows out into all creation, gathering up all creation in one divine embrace which lies at the very heart of God's being. 

The Father is the Lover, the Son the Loved and the Holy Spirit the Love between the two and who flows out to all creation. God thereby eternally contemplates in Himself in this way. 

Beyond these Three Persons, there is the dark, unconditioned abyss of the Divine Essence, God in His Most Impersonal aspect according to human understanding - The Godhead. 

The Godhead is the Unity of the Three Persons. 

When we die, according to Catholic mysticism, we return to the Divine Essence. We are caught up into the very embrace of the Divine Persons and sink into the imageless nudity of the Godhead, where there are no distinctions of Persons, only one Eternal, Infinite, Inexpressible void in which all beings lose their way and are lost. 

God however is eternal flow and ebb. He flows out into multiplicity, into differentiation, into the Three Persons and then flows back into the bare oneness of the Godhead. 

We, when we return to God, take part in this endless flowing and ebbing. We sink into the Godhead and are lost to ourselves, and ebb back out simultaneously into our independent "I". That is why Catholic mystics describe God as a Sea that ebbs and flows. 

To quote Evelyn Underhill in summation from the Wikipedia article on her: 



> *The Three Persons "exist in an eternal distinction for that world of conditions wherein the human soul is immersed". [63] By the acts of the **Three Persons** all created things are born; by the incarnation and crucifixion we human **souls** are adorned with love, and so to be drawn back to our Source. "This is the circling course of the **Divine life-process**." [63]*
> *But beyond and above this eternal distinction lies "the superessential world, transcending all conditions, inaccessible to thought-- 'the measureless solitude of the Godhead, where God possesses Himself in joy.' This is the ultimate world of the mystic." [63-64] There, she continues, quoting Ruysbroeck: "we can speak no more of Father, Son and Holy Spirit nor of any creature; but only of one Being, which is the very substance of the Divine Persons. There were we all one before our creation; for this is our superessence... . There the Godhead is, in simple essence, without activity; Eternal Rest, Unconditioned Dark, the Nameless Being, the Superessence of all created things, and the simple and infinite Bliss of God and of all the Saints." [64][12] "The simple light of this Being... embraces the unity of the Divine Persons" as well as envelopes and irradiates the ground and fruition of human souls in the Divine life-process. "And this is the union of God and the souls that love Him."* [64-65][13]


 
I hope that this was helpful to you Tejwant ji. Catholic mysticism is quite different from Sikhi in respect of the Trinity. It reflects the unique Christian belief in God as Trinity which Sikhi does not share, although there might be some similarity, perhaps, in our understanding of the Godhead and even attributes of God in the personal sense.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Akasha said:


> Tejwant Ji, could the above quote by Vouthon be referring to the usage of 'it' to denote that God is neither male nor female? In other languages, it's easy to refer to a genderless persona that is still a conscious entity... however it's very weird to refer to any conscious entity in English as 'it' In the same way that all translations of Gurbani into english refer to Waheguru as 'he' when in the original there exist plenty of reference to the creator being neither male or female but possessing qualities of both (as Father AND Mother for e.g.) So in Vouthon's quote could it be that the original was trying to say that God is without gender - rather than trying to say that God is inanimate/without awareness??


 
Dear Akasha, 

It means both actually. God has an Impersonal and Personal aspect according to human understanding. He has a dark, unknowable Essence in which all beings are lost and according to Christian teaching a personal aspect that is the Essence's manifestation in a Trinity of Personalities. 

Also, yes, it means that God is neither male nor female. In Christianity God the Word incarnated in the Son, however the other two Persons are neuter as far as gender. The Father could equally be called "The Mother". ''As truly as *God* is our Father,' said the 14th century Catholic mystic Juliana of Norwich, 'so truly *God* is *our Mother*.' 

God the Father (or Mother), God the Holy Spirit and God the Word in essence are beyond gender distinctions. 

In Essence God is neither male nor female. I think that some religions (monistic ones such as certain interpretations of Hinduism) have only the conception of God _in the Divine Essence _which is why God is Impersonal for them.

Other religions focus on both the Impersonal and Personal aspects of God. This is called a "synthetic" view of God.


----------



## anon (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



spnadmin said:


> *No, I am not saying that at all*.
> 
> I am saying that eastern concepts of "god" are extremely diverse and very subtle. There is no single definition of "god" within Hinduism. Similarly you can see just from this thread that Sikhs differ as to the nature of god and some do not even sanction the use of the word. I would recommend that you take a look at Jain arguments about "god" if only to get a sense of how subtle the eastern perspective can be. Discover how much debate actually occurs, within a single path in the east.
> 
> Another thought.  All traditions, east or west, have ways of explaining "reality" that can be very different. What is "real" may govern the ways in which "god" is understood.



Thank you for your reply and thank you everyone for your responses, I have read them all unfortunately I am not well equipped in a knowledge of Sikhi or Philosophy to answer them all, which is why i treat this forum as a learning experience. I hope I later have more time to respond to you all.

Of course my knowledge of Sikhi is lacking, but you can see how making the assumption that the proposed "sikh god" as a defined entity which is more akin to "the man in the clouds" rather than energy has come about.

We are often taught that the Gurus are manifestations of God, a phyiscial manifestation would imply that God is perhaps for of a being rather than a force, also sikhs give god a name, and in SGGS we are told to love God.

This is why i have always felt that the "Sikh God" is one which has a conscious and is a living entity. Of course my interpretation is very uninformed so perhaps i was mistaken in making this assumption.

As a sidenote I dislike it when people say that we should not speculate or attempt to understand the nature of God, I would atleast like to ascertain that he exists before i start to "love" him or show him any affection.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Secondly, where did the 10 commandments come from if god is the/an it?
> 
> All the scriptures of the different Abrahamic religions talk about reward and punishment. That is the main concept of god in the Abrahamic religions. If it were not true, then the concept of Heaven and Hell would not exist also the beliefs in rapture and purgatory would be absent.


 

Dear Tejwant :sippingcoffeemunda:

Excellent question! And thankfully this is an easier one for me to answer than the last one (which led me into the realms of philosophy, and lets just say I'm not a qualified philosopher lol). 

The Early Church Fathers interpreted all passages in the Bible which attribute human emotions to God as metaphors for man's sake. It is like God stooping down to the level of the people. They are images, rather than literal descriptions. These Fathers are authoritative in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches but not in Protestant Christianity. 

Because certain forms of Christianity reject the Church Fathers and believe in _sola scriptura (bible alone) _it has led to an abuse of the sacred text whereby images that describe God metaphorically in anthropomorphic terms are taken as literal - because there is nothing else to indicate otherwise. 

Here are some quotations from the Fathers of the Catholic Church: 




> Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)





> And now, if, *on account of those expressions which occur in the Old Testament, as when God is said to be angry or to repent, or when any other human affection or passion is described, (our opponents) think that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us, who maintain that God is altogether impassible, and is to be regarded as wholly free from all affections of that kind*, we have to show them that similar statements are found even in the parables of the Gospel; as when it is said, that he who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, who slew the servants that were sent to them, and at last put to death even the son, is said in anger to have taken away the vineyard from them, and to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen to destruction, and to have handed over the vineyard to others, who would yield him the fruit in its season. And so also with regard to those citizens who, when the head of the household had set out to receive for himself a kingdom, sent messengers after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us;’ for the head of the household having obtained the kingdom, returned, and in anger commanded them to be put to death before him, and burned their city with fire. But *when we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of*. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood.
> 
> (De Principiis, 2, 4, 4; ANF, vol. 4)
> 
> ...


 
So Catholics do not take the language that you speak of literally (although sadly most Evangelical Christians do and this has filtered into the popular mind-set both in Christianity and outside it). 

As you can see this is not a "new" thing. Its how Christian theologians traditionally understood their scriptures till the Protestant Reformation. 

In Catholic mysticism heaven and hell are seen as states of mind or being that a person puts themselves in. It is not imposed on one by God. 

This is not just taught by mystics and theologians now but is the official view of the Catholic Church: 



> "...The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy...[It is] a condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life...The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair..."
> 
> *- Blessed Pope John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)*


 

Thus Angelus Silesius the mystic notes: 




> "...The vengeful God
> of wrath and punishment
> is a mere fairytale.
> It simply is the Me
> ...


 
Just like Augustine said above the fault is in "our" eyes not in the "light" (God). God never changes, it is our own state of mind which conditions how we perceive God to be. 

Now there is a point in the spiritual life where the idea of a punishing and rewarding God is abandoned altogether and the reality of God is known: 




> "...In order to attain perfect union, we must divest ourselves of God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people..."
> 
> - *Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest *


 

I hope that was useful Tejwant.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Vouthon said:


> Thank you brother Tejwant :gingerteakaur:
> 
> This is very difficult for me to explain, but I will try. Please ask again if I fail to express myself clearly.
> 
> ...



Vouthon ji,

You are giving so many different and contradictory statements from different people which thickens this Gumbo. Many also call Jesus God and we know Jesus was a human. 

*



			"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
		
Click to expand...

*
Which particular *Word* became God? Are the Gospels which were not added at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD not the Word? Who decided that? For example the Gospel of St. Thomas or of Mary and many others that the Vatican has in possession? 

I would like to have your person view regarding this, because quoting others makes it more confusing and tangled.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

PS: Many claim that the concept of Trinity was borrowed from Hinduism and modified.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 25, 2013)

Anon ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> We are often taught that the Gurus are manifestations of God,



Who is WE and who said that where by whom? Please offer concrete examples?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> 
> You are giving so many different and contradictory statements from different people which thickens this Gumbo. Many also call Jesus God and we know Jesus was a human.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Tejwant, 

Thank you once again for your reply. 

When Christians refer to the _Word _we are not referring to a scripture such as the Granth or the Bible, which is I think what has confused you somewhat. 

_Word _is an English rendering of a Greek term _Logos _it means from wikipedia:



> *Logos* (pron.: /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω _lego_ "I say") is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "*word*," "speech," "account," "reason,"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge...
> 
> The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.
> 
> ...


 

I know it can seem like "gumbo". Philosophy is difficult to explain and understand since it uses alien terms at times to explain archaic concepts. Since I'm not a philosopher I find it difficult to explain metaphysical speculative theology in a way that I don't have in explaining purely religious or spiritual concepts. 

Jesus is considered to be the incarnation of _this Word of God, the rational ordering principle of the universe, the divine animating principle of the universe. _

This Word (Logos) is identified as being Jesus in Christian belief. 

I hope that makes it clearer lol


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> PS: Many claim that the concept of Trinity was borrowed from Hinduism and modified.


 
Dear Tejwant, 

The Christian Trinity _does _bear some similarity too the Hindu _Trimurti _of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. It is a fruitful topic for interfaith dialogue between Christians and Hindus. The key difference however is that in Hinduism the three are seen as separate deities emanating from the Self (Brahman). Christianity rejects polytheism. We believe in one God not three and numerous other lesser deities. 

Nevertheless it would be wrong to think that either tradition influenced the other. Vedanta was not even known to the early Christians. Only the disciples of St. Thomas reached India and they don't even exhibit any traces of the Upanishadic teachings. 

Christianity arose from Judaism in a Hellenized, Greek world. If anything, Christianity would have been influenced by Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Neo-Platonism and the various other ancient Greek and Roman philosophical systems. 

Hinduism did not have any influence on the Early Church. Greek philosophy did however because that was the culture in which the religion was born into. 

Kind regards, 

Vouthon


----------



## findingmyway (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> What i'm trying to say is that the statement "Ik Onkar" is one of the first things we learn as a child. If there is one line of prayer that is associated with Sikh scripture more than any, it is "Ik Onkar", the question I was asking was: Does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji provide any reasoning behind this statement? Does it use rationality (i'll explain what I mean by rationality in a moment)  to construct the notion of one God.
> 
> If there was a "God Proof" paragraph in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that you could point out it would interest me very much.



All 1429 pages of the SGGS!!!!



> We are often taught that the Gurus are manifestations of God, a  phyiscial manifestation would imply that God is perhaps for of a being  rather than a force, also sikhs give god a name, and in Sri Guru Granth  Sahib Ji we are told to love God.



The Guru means teacher so the Guru's were teachers of a new way of life. We are all manifestations of God, as is everything that exists. God is omnipresent. Loving God = loving yourself, loving all life forms = wanting to do the right thing.



> I don't know much about Sikh history so before  I start reading Sri Guru  Granth Sahib Ji I think I would much rather read about the history of  the 10 gurus. Are there any books you can reccomend?



History can be distorted and manipulated to suit different agendas. First study SGGS to equip you with the knowledge to interpret history. *You can never know or understand Sikhi without attempting to read SGGS.* Always go to the source for knowledge. The rest is hearsay and personal interpretations. Even when I write academic transcripts, we are taught never to quote a secondary source but read the original paper that was quoted.

The only other thing I have to add is relating to evidence in the real world. Have you seen the BBC show Secrets of Our Living Plant? It shows how diverse species are interlinked for survival and how ecosystems develop. Its quite incredible! Science can explain the how but not the why. Science can show the mechanisms but not the wonder and awe at how everything has come together!! As someone who works in science research, I need no further proof :blinkingkaur:


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



anon said:


> .
> 
> As a sidenote I dislike it when people say that we should not speculate or attempt to understand the nature of God, I would atleast like to ascertain that he exists before i start to "love" him or show him any affection.



If you really want to
see nature around you
see beautiful creation around ,creatures made n stars heavenly bodies around,start looking things around
and start giving thoughts and questioning yourself too 
if you are more scientific persons and only believe in proofs, study science too
study how laws of various things work?
why all things adhere to laws with no exception?
what makes these things to work under the rule of the laws?
one of the famous scientists Sir Isaac Newton who discovered laws of gravity too believed in creator of all beautiful planets and heavenly bodies and the nature
Einstien said energy can neither be created nor be destroyed
so from where does the source of all this energy around came from?

its allright if you dnt want to love him too ,its not hard and fast 
and nor the creator is selfish to ask you to love him 
atleast love people around
you can see people atleast and think they do exists?cant you?
then love them ,make things better for people around


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Akasha ji,
> 
> Guru fateh.
> 
> If that were the case, then Jesus would not be the only Son of God.


 
But it wasn't Jesus that was the one who was being referred to as 'it'.  

A male and /or female can have a son.  For that matter a genderless God could have son (assuming that God is allmighty) 

And as for Jesus = God, there are plenty of quotes in the Bible where he himself said he was the 'son of man' which he actually was quoted as saying more than he was the son of God.  That points more to prophethood more than as the only 'begotten' son... which btw begotten means through the act of sex, which I have to assume the creator is beyond. 

I think something may have been lost in the translation and time....


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Akasha said:


> Tejwant Ji, could the above quote by Vouthon be referring to the usage of 'it' to denote that God is neither male nor female? In other languages, it's easy to refer to a genderless persona that is still a conscious entity... however it's very weird to refer to any conscious entity in English as 'it' In the same way that all translations of Gurbani into english refer to Waheguru as 'he' when in the original there exist plenty of reference to the creator being neither male or female but possessing qualities of both (as Father AND Mother for e.g.) So in Vouthon's quote could it be that the original was trying to say that God is without gender - rather than trying to say that God is inanimate/without awareness??


 
Just to add. Neither God as what Jesus called the “Father,” “Son,” or “Holy Spirit” has gender. You are absolutely correct eacesignkaur:

Scholars have noted that Dionysius presents through his usage of "it" a conception of God that is genderless. 

It is a pity that we do not have in English more personal but gender neutral terms.

Nonetheless Dionysius also denies that God is a "Being". He is conscious but not a Being like me or your good self: 



> "...Dionysius denies that God is a being...*He transcends being, all conceptions of being as presence, as well as the categories of gender*..."
> 
> *- Kevin Hart*


 


'Father' and 'Son' are not literally suggesting male gender. That would be preposterous. 


These terms are simply used so that one does not get the impression that God is not a personal creator. 


We should likewise, according to Dionysius, not fall into the trap of thinking that because God is conscious this means that he is conscious in the same way as a creature, or human person. His consciousness is so exalted that to our minds' alone it would seem like unconscious impersonality if we even tried to comprehend it. 


There is actually biblical precedent for the fact that God is genderless and so is properly "it" (even though this word cannot be used in English because it is cold, impersonal and lifeless): 




> "...Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likes of male or female..."
> 
> *- Deuteronomy 4:14-17*


 

As Moses explains above in Deuteronomy, God has no form and so should not be depicted as male or female because he is genderless in essence. 


The Early Christian Fathers were equally concerned with defending the truth that God is genderless, even when metaphoric masculine imagery of "Father" and "Son" was used: 




> "...*When we speak of God, we use a masculine word, but let no thoughtless person accuse us of saying that God, is a man*. It is not gender that is expressed but rather his name, its customary meaning and the way in which we habitually use words. *The deity is not male,* even though his name is of the masculine gender. In contrast, [pagans] attribute gender to the gods, by calling them either “god” of “goddess.” *We cannot believe that God has a body, because if he did, he would have to be either male or female*..."
> 
> 
> *- Arnobius, (died c. 330), Early Christian apologist (Against the Nations, 3.8, ACD vol 1, p38)*



Of course, God has been depicted as male more often than female. For some reason people have feared the potency of feminine metaphors more than masculine ones. It is difficult to depict the CREATOR through images that are gender neutral, hence why the ancient Israelites were forbidden by Moses to create any depictions of God. 


See also Lactantius on the fact that God does not reproduce sexually because he doesn't have a body, like the Ancient Romans believed regarding their gods and whom Lactantius is debating with: 




> *Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320), Early Catholic Church Father*
> *Chap. viii.—that god is without a body, nor does he need difference of sex for procreation.*
> 
> It is proved, therefore, by these witnesses, so numerous and of such authority, that the universeis governed by the power and providence of *one God, whose energy and majesty *Plato in the Timæus asserts to be so great, that *no one can either conceive it in his mind, or give utterance to it in words, on account of His surpassing and incalculable power*. And then can any one doubt whether any thing can be difficult or impossible for God, who by His providence designed, by His energy established, and by His judgment completed those works so great and wonderful, and even now sustains them by His spirit, and governs them by His power, being incomprehensible and unspeakable, and fully known to no other than Himself? Wherefore, as I often reflect on the subject of such great majesty, they who worship the gods sometimes appear so blind, so incapable of reflection, so senseless, so little removed from the mute animals, as to believe that those who are born from the natural intercourse of the sexes could have had anything of majesty and divine influence; since the Erythræan Sibyl says: “It is impossible for a God to be fashioned from the loins of a man and the womb of a woman.” And if this is true, as it really is, it is evident that Hercules, Apollo, Bacchus, Mercury, and Jupiter, with the rest, were but men, since they were born from the two sexes. But *what is so far removed from the nature of God as that operation which He Himself assigned to mortals for the propagation of their race, and which cannot be affected without corporeal substance? *
> *Therefore, if the gods are immortal and eternal, what need is there of the other sex, when they themselves do not require succession, since they are always about to exist? For assuredly in the case of mankind and the other animals, there is no other reason for difference of sex and procreation and bringing forth, except that all classes of living creatures, inasmuch as they are doomed to death by the condition of their mortality, may be preserved by mutual succession. But God, who is immortal, has no need of difference of sex, nor of succession.*


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*

Folks it does not hurt or may even be appropriate to keep focus on what is in front of our noses.  However we must recognize that the message and guidance from Guru ji in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is quite a bit beyond that.

  Read the following at your leisure and let us review what difference does it make in the long term activities in the universe what any one of us thinks.  The only difference that our myopic infatuation of the micro aspects of the universe, albeit looking for proofs to believe, believing without proofs or not believing in God or creator.  Let us remember though that what ever God or creator or lack thereof is, the wisdom or the truths behind all creation, it will always be mystery in part small or large vis-à-vis our lives and how we live.

  Guru ji’s teaching in this regards is “consonance”.  Consonance with all life and non-life that abounds around us.  Cherish life, cherish nature and be synergistic part of all that is around. 

Hence,



 If we develop wisdom to avoid catastrophes as flagged in the article, that is also consonance.
Intercept and blow the peace of rock before it hits us
Lasers, missiles, bombs conventional or otherwise

If we don’t that is also consonance.
Many things come to be because we are not capable at that moment to respond or we ignore consonance in the first place
The consequences of this are consonance as and when things happen based on environ of the moment

*Note:  *Closing your eyes, blindly praying, throwing water at it, etc., is not Sikhi.  Check your bearing and get real.

Sikhism teaches us to keep all of this in a perspective while learning about all forever more and live improvingly with each passing day.

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

http://news.yahoo.com/large-asteroid-heading-earth-pray-says-nasa-005545942.html
*Large asteroid heading to Earth? Pray, says NASA*

  By _Irene Klotz_ | _Reuters_ – 3 hrs ago





  Reuters/Reuters - The passage of asteroid 2012 DA14 through the Earth-moon system, is depicted in this handout image from NASA. REUTERS/NASA/JPL-Caltech/Handout

  By Irene Klotz

  CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - NASA chief Charles Bolden has advice on how to handle a large asteroid headed toward New York City: Pray.

  That's about all the United   States - or anyone for that matter - could do at this point about unknown asteroids and meteors that may be on a collision course with Earth, Bolden told lawmakers at a U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on Tuesday.

  An asteroid estimated to be have been about 55 feet in diameter exploded on February 15 over Chelyabinsk,  Russia, generating shock waves that shattered windows and damaged buildings. More than 1,500 people were injured.

  Later that day, a larger, unrelated asteroid discovered last year passed about 17,200 miles from Earth, closer than the network of television and weather satellites that ring the planet.

  The events "serve as evidence that *we live in an active solar system with potentially hazardous objects passing through our neighborhood with surprising frequency*," said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat.

  "*We were fortunate that the events of last month were simply an interesting coincidence rather than a catastrophe*," said Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, who called the hearing to learn what is being done and how much money is needed to better protect the planet.

  NASA has found and is tracking about 95 percent of the largest objects flying near Earth, those that are .62 miles or larger in diameter.

  "*An asteroid of that size, a kilometer or bigger, could plausibly end civilization*," White House science advisor John Holdren told legislators at the same hearing.

  But only about 10 percent of an estimated 10,000 potential "city-killer" asteroids, those with a diameter of about 165 feet have been found, Holdren added.

  On average, objects of that size are estimated to hit Earth about once every 1,000 years.

  "From the information we have, we don't know of an asteroid that will threaten the population of the United   States," Bolden said. "But if it's coming in three weeks, pray."

  In addition to stepping up its monitoring efforts and building international partnerships, NASA is looking at developing technologies to divert an object that may be on a collision course with Earth.

  "The odds of a near-Earth object strike causing massive casualties and destruction of infrastructure are very small, but the potential consequences of such an event are so large it makes sense to takes the risk seriously," Holdren said.

*About 66 million years ago, an object 6 miles in diameter is believed to have smashed into what is now the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, leading to the demise of the dinosaurs, as well as most plant and animal life on Earth*.

  The asteroid that exploded over Russia last month was the largest object to hit Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event when an asteroid or comet exploded over Siberia, leveling 80 million trees over more than 830 square miles (2,150 sq km).

    (Editing by Kevin Gray and Paul Simao)
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
What you think?

  Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *I added emphasis in the article to flag certain aspects related to our thread.


----------



## Ishna (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



> NASA is looking at developing technologies to divert an object that may be on a collision course with Earth.


 
I think the same argument for "don't use IVF because it intereferes with Hukam" applies here.  If we can't use technology to create life we shouldn't use it to divert an asteroid.

*If* I was using that argument...


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Ishna said:


> I think the same argument for "don't use IVF because it intereferes with Hukam" applies here. If we can't use technology to create life we shouldn't use it to divert an asteroid.
> 
> *If* I was using that argument...


 
I know, we shouldn't use glasses to read either !
or beta blockers to control our blood pressure !lol
Just joking and taking it to the extreme !


I know what you mean and I can't really argue about IVF because i'm sure that a desperate couple who have been trying for years and years won't just accept hukam and not use science and IVF. I'm sure they would see the IVF as part of hukam itself and an opportunity.
I feel selfish on speaking on their behalf because I really don't know the experience of the agony and torture that they encounter mentally.
So my heart goes out to anyone that has or is going through this suffering.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



Ishna said:


> I think the same argument for "don't use IVF because it intereferes with Hukam" applies here.  If we can't use technology to create life we shouldn't use it to divert an asteroid.
> 
> *If* I was using that argument...



But, isn't technology part of the Hukam?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 27, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.



> "From the information we have, we don't know of an asteroid that will threaten the population of the United States," Bolden said. *"But if it's coming in three weeks, pray."*



This is a saying normally used as a metaphor. Nothing literal about it. Now we have enough technology to foresee these things years ahead and have the chance, and the challenge to create something to combat it before it smashes on us. " Let's pray" for the latter.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## itsmaneet (Mar 27, 2013)

I know Waheguru exists .... but still to know how .... may be by the grace of Waheguru smtime get to know tht as well ...


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 27, 2013)

*Re: How do you know God Exists? does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji prove god exists?*



itsmaneet said:


> I know Waheguru exists .... but still to know how .... may be by the grace of Waheguru smtime get to know tht as well ...



Gur parsad.


----------

