# 2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

Now, originally I was going to try to "write" this argument out. But it was essentially based on a conversation that followed after a remark I left on a facebook status .

The status said: "We have just enough religion to make us hate; but not enough to make us love"

To which I replied: "If even alittle bit of religion is enough to make us hate, then alittle bit more isnt going to help "

The following debate between me and a muslim colleague is the result of that facebook reply . And while i would try to "write out my argument" I was rather impressed by my friends "rebuttles" so I will simply copy/paste it and leave and attachment as well. It's a long read but I think you guys will enjoy it. And, as always, I'm looking forward to hearing some of your rebuttles. (lol, and yes, this debate happened over facebook so its *easier to read if you download the attachment*.) FYI this argument has nothing to do with islam, its strictly philosophy and logic. 

Amanee: The person with the facebook status I originally replied too
Mustafa: Amanee's friend who saw my reply and chose to debate
Gurinder: Me

        <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/gurindersingh/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <oocumentProperties>   <o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>   <o:Revision>0</o:Revision>   <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>   <oages>1</oages>   <o:Words>2879</o:Words>   <o:Characters>16415</o:Characters>   <o:Company>UBC</o:Company>   <o:Lines>136</o:Lines>   <oaragraphs>32</oaragraphs>   <o:CharactersWithSpaces>20158</o:CharactersWithSpaces>   <o:Version>12.0</o:Version>  </oocumentProperties>  <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>   <o:AllowPNG/>  </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>   <w:TrackFormatting/>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <wrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</wrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>   <wrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</wrawingGridVerticalSpacing>   <wisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</wisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>   <wisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</wisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <wontAutofitConstrainedTables/>    <wontVertAlignInTxbx/>   </w:Compatibility>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!--  /* Font Definitions */ @font-face     {font-family:Times;     panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;     mso-font-ch{censored}t:0;     mso-generic-font-family:auto;     mso-font-pitch:variable;     mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face     {font-family:Cambria;     panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;     mso-font-ch{censored}t:0;     mso-generic-font-family:auto;     mso-font-pitch:variable;     mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}  /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal     {mso-style-parent:"";     margin-top:0cm;     margin-right:0cm;     margin-bottom:10.0pt;     margin-left:0cm;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:12.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;     mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;     mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;     mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.textexposedshow     {mso-style-name:text_exposed_show;} @page Section1     {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;     margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;     mso-header-margin:35.4pt;     mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;     mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1     {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0cm;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:12.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;     mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;     mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;     mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;     mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]-->  <!--StartFragment-->  *A Case for Agnostic-Atheism*
  <o> </o>
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Look who is talking!!
Amanee, I can name two people who are professional experts and fully certified in the industry of making Mustafa's blood boil. You are the first on the list, and the other is one of my guy friends. LOL

Gurinder: you seem to have got some skills at driving her crazy. Keep it up bro. And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent manner so we can bring you to Islam
Gurinder Singh 
Mustafa: I would gladly put my argument fourth  But is a facebook status the best outlet for my argument? Im not sure. Is there any other way I can post my argument? 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
you can post it on this thread?
Or, if you are interested, we can start a fan group bro. From experience, the discussion will grow preeeeettttyyyy big 
Gurinder Singh 
The problem I have with starting a debate on this thread is the fact that im essentially hi-jacking amanee's status.  Secondly, all three arguments would take up alot of room and require more room to respond to. Starting a fan group would be ok with me, has it been done before tho? 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
no no bro, the idea is to be short and concise. Don't give me paragraphs upon paragraphs. Just simple statements. Imagine it is TWITTER.
Gurinder Singh 
Twitter is a horrible format for debate . Having said that, I'll see what I can do. Condensing logic is pretty hard to do cuz every step is a result of the previous step and a part of the next step. Moreover, I'd like to present all three arguments at the same time as opposed to one by one. But, ill see what I can do, ill get back to you tomorrow after my midterm  
Perhaps I should take Amanee up on her offer and present the three arguments at a Islam Awareness Week? If you attend those events it would be so much easier to discuss in person I think. (I'm in no rush as you can see ). 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Yeah, twitter might be a bit unnatural, but it is a good idea to say exactly what we mean and only what we need to say bro.
yeah dude, i was at the IAW, not everyday though.
And i don't suggest you present all three arguments together, because that is not TWITTER at all. One at a time, u can even take half at a time.
Gurinder Singh 
All right, in lieu of the three arguments I originally wanted to present (to provide proof for my position). I'll simply tell you why it is that I hold this position. 

But it's important that you understand my position first . I'm not religious (despite the appearance  its a facade). I'm not Atheiest (in the full sense of the word). And I'm not Agnostic. 

(There's a difference between the terms "Agnostic/Gnostic" and "Atheist/Theist" in that they are non comparable—the first two deal with assertions about knowledge [either I don't know or I know] and the second two deal with assertions about belief [either I don't believe or I believe] so one cannot classify "Agnosticism" as a Belief System like Theism or Atheism).

I'm an Agnostic-Atheist. What that means is that I don't know if God exists in general (Agnostic) but I refute the possibility of an "Abrahamic God" (Atheism) while acknowledging the possibility of a "God" that holds drastically different properties (But in order to understand my view of God, I would have to explain it to you using the three arguments, we'll bypass that step for now). 

For some comparison between me and you. I'm assuming you are a Gnostic-Theist in that you can say "I know that Allah exists." If you are a Agnostic-Theist please feel free to correct me. My problem with Gnostic Atheism/Theism is that they both become dogmatic. They assert absolute truths about the nature of God when in reality you cannot be absolutely sure—you can only believe/assume you are sure. 

So that's my position first of all: Agnostic-Atheism. Now I'll talk about why I refute the possibility of an Abrahamic God. 

(BTW, you dont really have to respond to this post, this is not vital to my argument that I'm about to make in "Twitter Style." I only provided this as background  because I wouldn't wanna be labeled as simply an Atheist or Agnostic). 
  Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to. 

I cannot believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. In my opinion, God (if he exists) cannot do the illogical. You might say "God is above logic" or "God created logic" but that would be euphemistic—your essentially saying "God is illogical." Simply put, anything that cannot be described logically is Illogical.

If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math and certain Scientific assertions can be considered "absolutely true"). And I
see no problem with that. However, such a God would be in direct violation of the characteristics that Islam attributes to God. 

Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist. 

Inorder to believe he did exist, one would have to admit that their belief is either illogical or God is constrained to logic—neither of which sits well with Islam.
<o> </o>
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Fantastic arguments. Definitely not Twitter style 
Anything else you want to say?
Gurinder Singh 
Yuhhh I mean... if it was twitter style. All i could really say is. "You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5, I do not." But thats no fun  lol. Ummmm... nothing else to say  feel free to respond. 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Alright. Thanks for giving me the floor. 

From what I have read from your two posts, you certainly don't know what YOU believe in. So allow me to dig a little deeper to define your belief system.

Do you believe in a higher entity that is of greater capabilities than us? Call that entity a God, or Supreme Power or Ultimate Source...
Gurinder Singh 
I believe that if there is a higher being. He is bound to the rules of logic, math and science. 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Alright, so you still don't believe in a higher being? I see that because you said "if"?
Gurinder Singh 
Well I explained that i'm an agnotic-atheist. Im open to the idea of God... just not the idea as represented in the bible, quran etc because I think that the Abarahamic God defies logic. I can certainly believe in a God that obeys the laws of logic, math and science. That did not create us directly. That does not sustain heaven or hell (my first argument would have dealt with this). That cannot do the illogical (my second argument has to do with this). And that hasnt given us a "moral system" that is absolutly true (my third argument would have dealt with this). But if my God has all those characteristics, then its as good as not having a God. I guess what im saying is, I can believe in God but not the God you believe in and the God i would believe in is ultimately pointless. If the God I can believe in is pointless, then its just as good as not believing in him.
  Just as a side note  i think a pointless god would be a beutiful thing. But thats just a personal perspective 
  <o> </o>
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Good answer.

So, allow me to start here.
You have said the you are open to the idea of a God that is bound by math, science and logic.

My hold on this argument is that Math, Science and Logic can be unbounding factors in the first place. 

For example: who would have ever imagined that we have 11 dimensions in our universe? so far at least.
When humanity started, did we really know 11 dimensions?

Allow me to note also that the theory started with 11 dimensions, then moved to 10 dimension, which became the fashion, resulting in 5 different equations. After a short while, these five equations were proven to combine in the 11th dimension.

Suppose we want to define God by Math, Science and Logic, OUR math, science and logic. Would God be expanding and shrinking? would God be changing every time we discover a new dimension or equation?

To what extend can we define God by OUR math, science and logic?

Or wait, maybe OUR math, science and logic is only limited, and it is NOT all the math, science and logic that we are subjected to.

Another example:
with quantum mechanics, we know that an electron particle can exist in two places at once. This discovery is what we have so far too. We didn't know this before, but now we have the proof such as the double-slit experiment.

So, to what extend our math, science and logic can define God?

The floor is yours.
Gurinder Singh 
To reiterate, this is what I said earlier:

"If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math AND CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS can be considered "absolutely true")."

I do not think "all" scientific assertions are absolutely true. That's why I made a point of saying "some." I realize that you can use Quantum Mechanics to justify almost anything you want. Its been used to justify praying to bottles of water in order to make the water stronger (In the documentary: What the bleep do we know) and its been used to justify the existence of God. But quantum mechanics is a theory—and any theory is refutable (it is a necessary pre-req for a theory to have to be refutable). So for example, while I believe in the theory of evolution, I do not include "evolution" as a "scientific assertion" that is "absolutley true"—therefore, i do not use evolution to forward my disbelief in the abrahamic god. Similarily, I dont think any man of science would say Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity or String Theory are "absolutly true." When I said "some scientific assertions" What I had in mind were the "laws of physics" for example: The conservation of energy. 

Now, if your going to define God as something similar to Quantum Mechanics. I have no problem with that because your acknowledging that God can be refutable. God is a theory. That position is "Agnostic-Theism" your acknowledging you could be wrong. And my problem is with Gnostic—Theism, the idea that you know your not wrong. And if you believe god is irrefutable then your comparing him to math, logic and SOME scientific assertions.
Mustafa Abousaleh 
  If you notice how my discussion went, I used "OUR" to enable the fact that our Math, Science and Logic are incomplete. 

My idea was to ask you: if our math, science and logic is incomplete, how can we define someone who is higher than us with incomplete standards?

If we were to do that, we are only assuming a changing being according to our knowledge. Note, that that more we know, the more we realize we don't know. 

The result of this argument is that if we were to define a higher entity, a higher being, God, then we can't bind him by math, science and logic, because if we do, we are not reaching to the Ultimate Source, the Creator, even if that Creator (for now let's assume your belief) didn't create us directly.

Do you agree?
  <o> </o>
Gurinder Singh 
I should have dealt with this in my earlier post. I dont think there is a such thing as "OUR" logic, math and science. Simply put, "our" logic, math and science are as true here as they are across the universe (therefore, "our" logic, math and science are "universal" and "omnipresent" like god should be). 

If your saying God is "higher" or "above" our logic, I dealt with that position earlier. I said that saying "god is above logic" is like admitting "god is illogical." Saying god is "above" logic is a euphemism for saying God is illogical. Again, anything that isnt logical... is illogical... (thats a logical argument btw ) ... there is no third category of semi-logical. 

And like I said before. The only way u can continue to believe in god is if you believe God is illogical (or if u prefer, you can believe god is above logic, math and science; like i said, it means the same thing) or if God is bound by logic. 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
You are giving me only one option of beliving in illogical god. How can you only define that as the "only" other option?

For example: If you make a computer and program it, you are practically its designer. The computer is governed by the logic you designed it with. Are you bound by the computer's logic?

If God designed us with a certain logic, he is the Creator of this logic, why do we bind him by that logic? Is it fair to do that?

I know what your next argument will be, but I want to hear if you are convinced yet so far.
Gurinder Singh 
"God created logic" is the same as saying "God is above logic" and like i said before, that too falls into the same euphemism for "God is illogical"

BTW, im giving you two options, not one. Admittedly, neither of which you probably like. But logically speaking, they are the only two conclusions you can draw. 
BTW, computers happen to be great at Logic and Math  better then us. But their logic and math is the same as ours, there just faster. I think your analogy supports me... not you? So I would say, both me and the computer are bound by the same logic. I did not "create" its logic. I gave it my logic. And I imagine that god would have gave us his logic if your metaphor was equivelent. 
Mustafa Abousaleh 
Wait, what do you study?
I am an electrical engineer and I work with computers all the time, program them, build them and destroy them.

If computers have the same logic as us, then they would have taken over the world.

Also, why do scientists and researchers continue to try to build the "human robot" if computers have our logic?

I am picking on this point because it is important and that's what many people get stuck on.

If we look at the point from two different perspectives:

1. Computer perspective = human perspective: to the computer, the world is limited by how it operates and thinks. Everything it thinks of and creates is limited by the way the designer made it. For example, the computer will not come up with rules that are not previously programmed in it. To the computer, the designer himself is limited, because the computer can't go out of its ways and compute how the designer thinks. Statistically speaking, the logic of the computer is a subset of the designer's logic

2. Designer Perspective: to the designer, the computer is only one machine which he was able to facilitate its logical operations and give it enough to do a certain job. From the designers perspective, the machine's logic is limited. The designer is the higher entity, the source of this logic, but not all of the logic.
  Makes sense?
  <o> </o>
Gurinder Singh 
I'm a Cognitive Systems major so this is also my area of expertise. I see the point your trying to make, but perhaps your missing out on the philosophical implications of the points I'm trying to make. So this time ill explain them in greater detail.

Your saying there are two areas. One area is filled with "computer logic" and the other area encompassing that area is filled with both "computer logic" and the "human logic" that we have yet to program in the computer (perhaps we'll never be able to program the computer in such a way so as to completely have human logic). Does this mean—human logic is above computer logic? No, and here's why.

There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.

The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." Lets call this area "godly logic" that is unknown to us and we may never know it.

Now if a human deduces 4 from 2+2. There is no way that a God can contradict that human and deduce 5 from 2+2. BUT WAIT! That's exactly what the abrahamic god can do? 

Therefore the Abrahamic god is still Illogical by contradiction. The only other possibility is that human's are illogical and that 5 is actually the sum of 2+2. 

One other point... while I was thinking of metaphors this came to my head. Incase your wondering if the phrase "God is above logic" is equivalent to the phrase "God is illogical." Lets change the subject... lets say... "President Bush acted as if he was above the law" I would say that phrase is indeed equivalent with the phrase "President bush acted unlawfully." Its odd how being "above the law" sounds bad but being "above logic" sounds good? Just something I noticed  
Furthermore, the phrase "President bush is above the laws" implies that President bush created the laws (or atleast his own laws that contradict the laws for everyone else). 
  However, I will concede that at the very least you have shown that with your computer analogy, if God exists (and if he created us) then it is possible that our logic is incomplete. But even with incomplete logic—logic is still universal, and it is the same for us as it would be for him OR for a "future version of ourselves" that has access to that logic. For example, 2000 years ago we did not have access to the complicated math equations we have access to today. This doesnt mean that the math in question was "above us"—it was simply out of our reach. Even then, the future math was unable to contradict the math at the time: 2+2=4 regardless of whether the derivative of 4x=4 (a mathamatical truth that they did not have access too at the time). So with my above post, i sought to account for the hypothetical "lack of complete logic." And wat I showed was: you cannot contradict the "base" logic (known truths), even if you go higher up... from computer to human, or human to god. Contradicting the "base" logic (2+2=4) would be illogical. Consequently, if god's unknown logic happened to contain 2+2=5 then it wouldn't "complete" logic—it would entirely destroy logic. 

With my relation to the President Bush anaologies, i sought to show you how your belief of god being "Above Logic" and god being the "Creator of logic" is consistant with my conclusion of God being "illogical." And quite frankly, your religion demands that position from you. As much as you dont wanna say "god is illogical" you have already said it (albeit, you said it by saying the other two forms but thas why i added the bush analogy—to show you that they are identicle ways of saying the same concept).

Anyways, I'm assuming you've gone to sleep or are studying for midterms like me . We'll pick up were we left off tomorrow?


*END*


He didnt leave any replies after that last message. Maybe you guy can pick up were he left off. 

  <!--EndFragment-->


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

This is a re-hashing of the same argument you now refuse to engage me in.  So let me make this rebutal of these two points as clear as I can for you.

You said:

'There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.'

I have already showed this to be false, and the methoed I used was to show that it is a question of better knowledge.  In maths this is a correct asumption to make(and assumjption because you say this yet do not show it to be logicaly true).  However the question may also be posed as a non mathimatical riddle, which the computer will give a maths answer to due to the programing of it.


'The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." '

Would it also be true of God, how so? Can you provided us evidance to show this assumption to be correct?

Logicaly speaking once an anolgy is made it needs to be  'like for like' for it to work.  To procliam that if this is true for humans and their creation computers, then it must also be true for God and Gods creation humans, is not like for like and is also total assumption unless you can show us how.

Show me why if it is true for A then it is also true for B?

In logical terms I'm sure you'll know that what we have here from you is a premise.  I say that this premise is false and call upon you to show me why it is not.


----------



## Navdeep88 (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian,

have you ever been in love? in my opinion, falling in love is 1+1=a gazillion...its all encompassing...its beyond logic but by no means is it pointless... if it was logical, then it could be decoded, it wouldn't be magical or pure or beautiful. Its a hue, its a vision, its felt. and God has to be felt to be believed. unfortunately, there is no formula to set up a situation where a person is guaranteed to fall in love, just like there is no formula to make someone believe, it just kinda happens.


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Navdeep88 said:


> Caspian,
> 
> have you ever been in love? in my opinion, falling in love is 1+1=a gazillion...its all encompassing...its beyond logic but by no means is it pointless... if it was logical, then it could be decoded, it wouldn't be magical or pure or beautiful. Its a hue, its a vision, its felt. and God has to be felt to be believed. unfortunately, there is no formula to set up a situation where a person is guaranteed to fall in love, just like there is no formula to make someone believe, it just kinda happens.


 

Navdeep ji,

I would dearly love to agree with you here, but in all good conciousness I find I cannot.

Love has been shown already to exist due to verious chemical compounds within the brain which have already been 'decoded' and higlighted.  we know for sure which compounds make the brain feel the emotion of love.

Nor is it beyond logic, we can surly all see the beinfits that being in a loving relationship has for the society of the human animal?
That is to say there are elvolutionary reasons why we have developed such a thing as love.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 26, 2010)

Sorry to intervene in an interesting discussion about love in the last two posts. I have a need to return to the initial post that claims the title of the thread.

Let's take a look at the thread title. Is anyone else bothered as I am by the way in which language is used. Not the first time BTW on this forum and others that terms like atheism and agnosticism are re-invented by participants in the discussion. Reinvented until they migrate completely away from a normal range of meanings or definitions found in dictionaries and encyclopedias. 

Without a minimal degree of commonly shared meaning I am left asking how a discussion is supposed to make sense? Are people OK with a free-wheeling approach toward language? Or am I doing violence to individual creativity when I ask this question?:


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Sorry to intervene in an interesting discussion about love in the last two posts. I have a need to return to the initial post that claims the title of the thread.
> 
> Let's take a look at the thread title. Is anyone else bothered as I am by the way in which language is used. Not the first time BTW on this forum and others that terms like atheism and agnosticism are re-invented by partners in the discussion. Reinvented until they migrate completely away from a normal range of meanings or definitions found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
> 
> Wihout a minimal degree of commonly shared meaning I am left asking how a discussion is supposed to make sense? Or are people OK with a free-wheeling approach toward language?


 

I'm partly with you Narayonjot ji, and partly not.

I'm thinking (and it is a rather new thought to me hence still thinking about it) that all of us can only understand subjectivly about the words we use.  There are of course dictionary defintions for words which we used adhere to but our experiances shape our understanding of, well of everything really, including language.

In debate I think it perfectly aceptable to re-define the words you use(not to far) as long as these new definitions are agreed on by all who take part.  The main reason for doing this as far as I can see is to limit verbosity.  There are many complex ideas that arise in a typical forum debate and the more complex the intial idea, then more complex are the ideas need to be discussed and agreed upon before any kind of concensus is reached.  So if we can all agree on perhaps one or two words that express these expanded ideas it makes it easyer for all involved.

The point though is prior discussion and agreement on definitions.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 26, 2010)

Lee ji

In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?

My correction. *The phrase should be agnostic-atheism as if agnostic can be a condition, qualifier, characteristic of atheism. This makes no more sense than "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxy{censored}s.*

And,

If agreed up definitions are out of alignment with what most of the established meanings in literature on the subjects of agnosticism and atheism contend -- then how do we avoid looking like naifs or fools in the eyes of informed readers?


----------



## Sinister (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian,

Using logic to personally refute the existence of a socially constructed enigma such as god (abrahamic or otherwise) is all well and good….it’s mostly a matter of taste. But are you at all interested in using logic to reach illogical conclusions...have you ever tried that? And how would that affect your arguments above, on fuzy words like god, logic, and religion? 
<FONT size=3><?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Not only is god illogical but any reductionist will tell you that logic itself reaches (approaches) illogical conclusions many times over…None of the physical sciences reconcile/accept logical absolutes in any outcome or viable observation...everything is agnostic by default.

Irrational numbers (like square root 2, sqrt{2}) exist yet are beyond definitive knowledge and comprehension and are considered reductio ad absurdum. Where { sqrt(2)= 1/cos (pie/4)=1/sin(pie/4)}… (other irrationals include e, sqrt(61), and Pi,etc.)

Let us suppose that 2+2=4, sure, but logically one could argue 2+2 also= NO SOLUTION ....ad infinitum/ e /root 2 or/ pi or any other variation of a non rational number according to a mathematical anomaly known as proof of infinite descent. In Fact, any rational number can be written as the sum of two irrational numbers in an infinite number of ways. 

If two numbers sum to a rational number then either both numbers are rational or both numbers are irrational. (The proof of this by contradiction is trivial.) Thus, given a rational number, _r_, then for ANY irrational number, _i_, the irrational pair (_i, r-i_) sum to _r_. So, the statement can actually be strengthened to say that there are an infinite number of ways of writing a rational number as the sum of two irrational numbers. 

Rational is an evaluation of the effort to attain the belief and logical is an evaluation of the belief itself. A true rationalist would argue that both are based upon sentiment.
The existence of paradoxes within logic are not uncommon. I will give you a simple one…Zeno's Paradox of motion...i posted it on this website not to long ago...you can look it up. 

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/leisure/24681-motion-impossible.html


We can even discuss quantum mechanics at length. How deep is your background in the study of quantum mechanics? Judging from what you have posted above I think you should dwell more on that.
In the physical world you run into the heisenberg uncertainty principle…the irrationality of the most fundamental observation in science…MEASUREMENT…which cannot be be deduced to any level of certainty. 

I am not saying that logic is useless, it is very important tool for the reliabilist (probabilist) but it does have loopholes and traps that cannot be rectified.

cheers


----------



## Navdeep88 (Feb 26, 2010)

Lee said:


> Navdeep ji,
> 
> I would dearly love to agree with you here, but in all good conciousness I find I cannot.
> 
> ...



Lee Ji,
with all the information we have about decoding love, then we should be able to logically formulate a situation where a person is 100% GUARANTEED to fall in love? is that possible? ive read some stuff by helen fisher, and pretty much what she came up with when it comes to compatibilities of personality is that BOTH opposites and alikes attract....logical? not completely. somewhat. not really. dunno if i make sense :{- or im just talking gibberish... i think in the same sense, there is no formula to make one beleive in god...everybody kinda gets there on their own way?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

First and foremost, for you to join Abrahamical religions with Sikhi is illogical- using your own words. This shows that either you do not know what Sikhi is or you have no idea what 3 Semitic religions are?

So, which one is it? I need to know before we can move further in our interaction under this sphere of thoughts.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> I have already showed this to be false, and the methoed I used was to show that it is a question of better knowledge. In maths this is a correct asumption to make(and assumjption because you say this yet do not show it to be logicaly true). However the question may also be posed as a non mathimatical riddle, which the computer will give a maths answer to due to the programing of it.




I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke.




> Logicaly speaking once an anolgy is made it needs to be 'like for like' for it to work. To procliam that if this is true for humans and their creation computers, then it must also be true for God and Gods creation humans, is not like for like and is also total assumption unless you can show us how."




My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical. 




> have you ever been in love? in my opinion, falling in love is 1+1=a gazillion...its all encompassing...its beyond logic but by no means is it pointless...


Your taking a mathematical problem, removing it from its mathematical context and providing an unmathamatical answer. If you've read my thread carefully, I wouldn't say that this kind of example is "pointless" I would say its "beyond logical" (illogical). So we agree. 

Wikipedia "Qualia" for my take on the definition of "Love" I dont have enough time to go over it here .



> Let's take a look at the thread title. Is anyone else bothered as I am by the way in which language is used. Not the first time BTW on this forum and others that terms like atheism and agnosticism are re-invented by participants in the discussion. Reinvented until they migrate completely away from a normal range of meanings or definitions found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.



It hasnt been re-invented its been corrected IMO . Dictionaries are not great sources for defining terms in debate as Lee went on to expand upon. A dictionary definition for either side of the debate leaves out important information. For example, I once had a christian argue that Homosexuality cannot be genetic because genetic traits must be passed on from parents to childern and then she used a "Dictionary definition" to support her claim. In which case I had to provide her with example of Down Syndrome for her to truly understand the scope of "Genetic"



> In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?



Woah.. i didnt say atheism = agnosticism  they are non-comparable terms in my mind.

I lifted my defintion of "Agnostic-Atheism" from this video. Check it out.

YouTube- The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship



> But are you at all interested in using logic to reach illogical conclusions...have you ever tried that?




I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical?



> I





> rrational numbers (like square root 2, sqrt{2}) exist yet are beyond definitive knowledge and comprehension and are considered reductio ad absurdum. Where { sqrt(2)= 1/cos (pie/4)=1/sin(pie/4)}… (other irrationals include e, sqrt(61), and Pi,etc.)




Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown  he can be an irrational number lol. I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument? If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity. The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical. 




> The existence of paradoxes within logic are not uncommon. I will give you a simple one…Zeno's Paradox of motion...i posted it on this website not to long ago...you can look it up.




Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit. And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything  (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps? 




> First and foremost, for you to join Abrahamical religions with Sikhi is illogical- using your own words. This shows that either you do not know what Sikhi is or you have no idea what 3 Semitic religions are?



My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a discussion on that somewhere on this site too. 

Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as an illogical entity. Thats all im saying.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 26, 2010)

> My argument has nothing to do with abrahmic religions or sikhism but  rather has to do with the concept of God. I will agree though, that the  sikh god is alittle different then the abrahamic gods (i only recently  learned of that via the "Nirgun-Sargun" concept). So this is more of a  proof for the irrationality of abrahamic god's and there  characteristics— However, the sikh concept of "Nirgun-Sargun" is  consistant with irrationality and is illogical as well. Theres a  discussion on that somewhere on this site too.
> 
> Im saying, by all means believe in god. He can exist. But he exists as  an illogical entity. Thats all im saying.


Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.



> *Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism*, requires that you  believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient  (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every  way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along  with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if  he wanted to.





> Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible,  Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist.


These above quotes from you show that you have bundled them all together and now you are going back on your words that you have done in your post above, which is illogical. It is, in your own words, 2+2=5 for you.

Whenever you want to interact with others to  state your logic and reason in the right manner, make sure that you do not change it when challenged. That would be illogical.

Have you studied SGGS? According to your statement above, one can assume that you have for sure. You claim to have studied the scriptures of all 3 Semitic religions and also the SGGS, otherwise your above statement is either false or illogical or both.

Please share the verses from SGGS that prove your point. This is the only logical thing for me to ask and for you to do.

Please do not give any one liners but the whole Shabads, also give your own interpretations if you copy & paste the literal translations from the net.

Waiting for them.

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 26, 2010)

Yes, Caspian ji

I copied you incorrectly. Yes I should have written that I have problems with the notion of "agnostic-atheism."  That does not in any way change my complaint. I corrected my statement and added this.

*The phrase should be "agnostic-atheism" as if one  was a condition, qualifier, characteristic of the other. This makes no  more sense than the term "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxy{censored}s.*

"Agnostic-atheism" is a mismanagement of the English language. Agnosticism and atheism are categorically different.


----------



## Taranjeet singh (Feb 26, 2010)

I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills. 

You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.

Till that is done 2+2=5 , is  better than 2+2=4. 

We should look into the perspective of the authors/posters as well. If logic is illogical then every illogical thing will look logical and that is what is happening here. 

Is 1>1? or
Infinity =Infinity?

One can have scores of permutations and combinations. Leverage will always with the one who is better equipped to prove that illogic is >Logic.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 26, 2010)

Taranjeet singh said:


> I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills.
> 
> You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.
> 
> ...



Taranjeet ji,

Guru fateh.

Very well said. No one could have put it better, otherwise it would be logically illlogical.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 26, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Yes, Caspian ji
> 
> I copied you incorrectly. Yes I should have written that I have problems with the notion of "agnostic-atheism."  That does not in any way change my complaint. I corrected my statement and added this.
> 
> ...



I love Jumbo Shrimps.


----------



## Sinister (Feb 27, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I believe thats exactly what I have done. I used logic to show god is illogical?


 
it's a shame Epicurus and spn beat you to it in a much simpler manner.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/24649-an-evil-god.html 

and i have shown the difference between logic and rationality. a word that you use interchangeably which is illogical. you also use agnostic-atheist in the same breath which i also disagree with.





Caspian said:


> Thats great! I completely agree they exist and are illogical! And I'm not saying god doesnt exist—throughout my entire argument i said ther may be a possibility of God existing. But given his characterisitics, if he does exist, then he is illogical—ORRRRR like you have shown  he can be an irrational number lol.


 
god is not a number. i was merely trying to show you the limits of logic and the difference between rationality and logic.




Caspian said:


> I fail to see how this conflicts with my argument?


 
it doesn't ;P




Caspian said:


> If anything its added support for the existance of an illogical entity.


 

It has? i dont think it has.





Caspian said:


> The problem i dealt with in my argument is the belief that god IS LOGICAL. I dont mind if he exists but im showing you that his existance is irrational. He is not logical.


 

you used the words irrational with illogical. they are not the same (as i stated in my earlier post).

god can be illogical but irrationality is much more subjective in my opinion and based upon a holistic assesment of environment.

as I explained in my last post. 

god's existence (if he exists) may be illogical (beyond logical analysis) but his existence itself could be rational and be shown to be capacitated by nature itself.





Caspian said:


> Zeno's paradox had been solved by the "Calculas" concept of Limit.


 
nope...not to my knowledge...a paradox cannot be solved it can expressed but not solved.




Caspian said:


> And I have read your entire post, a good chunk of it depends on the concept of Infinity. Which is a useful concept in math, as are many irrational numbers and such. But I dont think there can truly be an infinite amount of anything  (I believe, even this universe is finite). But my views on infinity are for a different post perhaps?


 
perhaps


----------



## Navdeep88 (Feb 27, 2010)

*ਜਿਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀਓ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਪਾਇਓ* ॥੯॥੨੯॥
*Only the one who is absorbed in True Love shall attain the Lord.*


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Lee ji
> 
> In your own words, please explain to me how aetheism = agnosticism or vice versa in a way that will not lead a discussion into hopeless confusion?
> 
> ...


 

Narayanjot ji,

Agnostic-Atheisim, means to me that the athiest takes atheisim as the default because as an agnostic she realises that we have no objective evidance one way or the other and so 'no God' is the most likely, so they belive.

I have had this thing out many times with Athiests, and many of them would tell you that Atheism is either:

A) A non belife in a creator God.
B) A belife that a creator God does not exist.

A types are more likely to proclaim themselves Agnostic - Athiests.


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I still fail to see the logic behind your proof. I came to you with an argument based on logic and you used an illogical joke to disprove? At best, even if you contend that you are right I wouldn't go so far as saying the computer was wrong. Your contradiction of the computer's answer is the very definition of "illogical" it is akin to my example of God telling the Humans that 5 is the answer for 2+2. If you want to pursue this point any further, give me a new example in which u can contradict a computer's "right" answer and still be right? Lets move away from your joke.




Heh once again I'll explain that my joke, or riddle if you like was just to highlight the fact that the computers 'output, is dependant on the computers 'knowledge' which is of course programed by the 'creator'(Humans).

Bearing that in mind then the example shows that the 'output' of the computer can always give a logicaly incorrect answer depedendant on how the question is posed.  The creator can read the question 'what is 1 and 1?' and figure out that it is not a purely mathimatical question but a riddle and thus give the correct answer.  The computer unless otherwise programed (lack of knowledge) will read the question as a purly mathimatical one and give in this instane an incorrect answer.


This is what I have been saying my freind, it is not a case of any lack of logic and more a case of a lack of understanding.  Remember too that 'logic' does not come in but on flavour.






Caspian said:


> My analogy depends not on the hierarchy of creator and creation (computers > humans > god). But rather depends on the nature of logic. I think logic applies equally to god as it does to anything below it, I think that because if it doesnt—then god becomes illogical.


 
And I have already addressed this one too.  In essance it comes down to two things.  So God is illogical so what?  I have said I have no problems with this, and further I have claimed that what this means is that humanity can simply not fully comprehend God, and so as the computer we lack the knowledge to do so. 

Now answer this one, you think that logic must apply to God can you let me know why you think such a thing?


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

> Caspian ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Yes, I have bundled them together... not because this has anything to do with "Islam, Sikhism, Christianity or Judaism" but rather it has to do with God in general. And wen I talk about the concept of "God in general" i cant help but bring in countless religions by default. I don't intend to talk about the religions specifically though. If you read my argument, keep in mind that it was with a muslim but no where did we specifcally talk about Islam—it was purely philosophy. So in that respect, i can still use the same argument on a sikh site (like this one) PROVIDED that the sikh god is similar to the islamic/christian/judeo god. In my opinion it is similar enough (there are differences and i have acknolwedged them) for me to use this argument... unless your denying that the sikh god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all knowing — in that case my argument is flawed wen it comes to the sikh god. 



> *The phrase should be "agnostic-atheism" as if one was a condition, qualifier, characteristic of the other. This makes no more sense than the term "jumbo shrimp." Both are oxy{censored}s.*


Its not an oxy{censored} (the concept behind the name) but if you take the dictionary definition of both agnostic and atheist it may seem like an oxy{censored}, that i will admit—but theres no adequate single word to describe the position so I will simply describe my postion in a bunch of words  

"Agnostic-Atheism" is the phrase i use to describe the position where one can acknowledge the possibility of a god but still reject the possibility of specific gods due to their characteristics (such as the christian god). Basically, its a "I can believe in a god just not your god" approach.



> I think this thread has also become to show off the writing/language skills.


Language skills are important—just like math skills. And when u use language in a "mathamatical way" thats wat can be described as "logic"—logic is an important thing. So if this thread is about showing off logical skill—i cant disagree. 



> You cannot beat the ultimate reality that 2+2=5. It shall always remain so till one is inclined to prove it through the language. This kind of approach will end only when the 'I' factor gets diluted by adopting at least some faith in the One who created this creation.
> 
> Till that is done 2+2=5 , is  better than 2+2=4.


Waitt a second... this is not wat I said so i dunt know wat ur referring to? Reality is 2+2=4. and "2+2=4" is better then "2+2=5" (i dont even no how u can call "2+2=5" the ultimate reality, perhaps ur being sarcastic?) or you've got everything backwards? 



> We should look into the perspective of the authors/posters as well. If logic is illogical then every illogical thing will look logical and that is what is happening here.


Again, backwards. I didnt say logic is illogical, I used to logic to show how god is illogical. Furthermore, im not trying to show how everything illogical will look logical, thats not wats happening here. Did you even read my post? Im trying to show u how what you think is logical is really illogical (not the other way around). 



> it's a shame Epicurus and spn beat you to it in a much simpler manner.
> 
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interf...-evil-god.html (An Evil God)


Im familiar with there arguments  But my argument in a nut shell is "Do you believe in a god that can make 2+2=5. Yes? Well your god is illogical" doesnt get much simpler then that . You go on to talk about a difference between irrational and illogical—i really dont think the difference is big enough to warrent distinction in this context. If so, your going to have to explain how because i didnt get it from your previous post (that deal with how u can use logic to reach irrational conclusions but u can also use logic to reach illogical conclusion—wats the dif?).


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. YouTube- 1+1=Window Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong. 

I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics. 



> So God is illogical so what? I have said I have no problems with this, and further I have claimed that what this means is that humanity can simply not fully comprehend God, and so as the computer we lack the knowledge to do so.
> 
> you think that logic must apply to God can you let me know why you think such a thing


If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical?


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. YouTube- 1+1=Window Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong.
> 
> I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics.
> 
> If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical?


 

Meh!  Shall we rewind a little to remind ourselves of the sticking point between us?

Initialy it was your stance that determinism negates free will.  As proof of this you gave an anology of God watching a movie.  I said that this anology does not really work, as it assumes too much of what God is and how God works.  I then said that you need to show me the proofs for these assumptions before we can belive this anolgy.

You did not attempt to do this, instead you counterred saying that I must belive then that God is 'above' us, and then you gave your example of how 2+2=4 and that a man could not contradict a computer when it gives such output.  Supposed to show that logicaly speaking the creator cannot contradict the logic of the created.

Here is the thing then this anolgy rest soley on pure maths.  Indeed in pure maths 2+2= 4, whether the computer says so or the man, and the correct answer must be 4 and so in  this instance than creator cannot indeed contradict the answer form the computer.

My claim is that a computer is always limited by it's programing, I used a riddle to show the differance in the comprehension of a question does make a differance in it's answering.  What is my intent in doing this?

To show you that the creator can always contradict the asnwer of the created evem if it appears that the creatd is correct.  Unless the question is fully understand the created can indeed make what it assumes is a correct answer yet the creator knows is incorrect and thus the creator can contradict a correct answer form the created.

You say two things about this, the second one is that you do understand my meaing, which leads me to great confussion, because if you did then why would you argue that it is illogical?  It makes perfect sense to me.

Yet again let me explain this one to you.  I really have no problems with the concept of an illogical God, as really when we say this what we mean is that our compehension of God is incompleat and so just like the computer what we know of God may appears to US to be illogical.

I think you'll find that in fact counter to your assertion that not many religions nor religious people will see things  this way, I think the vast majority of them see things exactly like this.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 1, 2010)

I guess I am saying that deconstruction of language may seem like a brainy thing to do. But perhaps it is better reserved for the corporate world and government where the creation of new meanings is typically the result of the desire to manipulate the minds of the innocent and create a  herd mentality. 

Atheism and agnosticism cannot be the same thing. We need only to analyze their structure.

a + theism
a + gnosticism

I have gone on the record so that anyone wanting to be reasonable, in the future will see that someone cared.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

> Atheism and agnosticism cannot be the same thing. We need only to analyze their structure.
> 
> a + theism
> a + gnosticism
> ...



But i don't see why where having this argument because I agree that atheism and agnosticism cant be the same thing. Did you ever get around to watching that youtube video I posted? Becuase that essentially says the same thing... i mean, even in my original post i spent a great deal talkin about how atheist and agnostic are non-comparable terms. So im right there with you but i think your misreading the lable "agnostic-atheist" to mean "being both agnostic and atheist"


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

A couple of things.

I have no idea if logic breeds ethics in you but common sense would dictate that it does. So, kindly address each post to the person your are responding to which would be ethically logical.

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me the Shabads with your own interpretation from the SGGS, our only Guru to prove your point, otherwise, your repetition becomes nothing but an illogical babble.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 1, 2010)

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.


> Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way.


Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

This is my 2nd time trying to reply -_- my internet is screwing up. Anyways...



> I have no idea if logic breeds ethics in you but common sense would dictate that it does. So, kindly address each post to the person your are responding to which would be ethically logical.


Dually noted . But easy there tiger! You don't have to be so passive aggressive. Simple saying, "Can you adress the names of the people you quote" would have sufficed . Didn't have to call into question my ethics (ouch ). 

Tejwant Says:


> Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me the Shabads with your own interpretation from the SGGS, our only Guru to prove your point, otherwise, your repetition becomes nothing but an illogical babble.


I'm going to be short, because the last two times i had written longer responses but they never went through for some reason. 

Okay anyways. I'm not going to send you any shabads from the SGGS with my own interpretations of them. It would be pointless for my argument. There is nothing in the SGGS that can directly support (or refute for that matter) my argument. I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue). But if there is no shabad in the SGGS to support my idea—does that mean its "illogical babble?" I think not. Theres no Shabad in the SGGS to support the concept of 2+2=4; nonethelss, the concept is not "illogical babble." I didnt set out to target Sikhism either (or any religion in specific) instead I set out to talk about "God in general." I feel that the concept of God shares many key similarities throughout many religions (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence) so my argument is meant to be as general as possible. If you feel like you must envoke the SGGS to answer any of my points, by all means do so (I'll assume the SGGS is your area of expertise; Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise). Having said that, I kind of liked my Muslim colleagues responses though, because he was able to raise valid counter points without evoking Islam. That just goes to show that my original post has nothing to do with religion at all—you greatly mis-interpreted my intentions in that regard. It has everything to do with philosophy and logic.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

Bhagat Says:



> Tejwant Singh ji,
> If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.
> Quote:
> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
> Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?


Thnx for the reply! And I thank you for helping me clear that up . But yes, I'm just saying that the Gods of those 4 religions share some characterisitics. So, No... I'm not saying that the Sikh God is not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent (And like you, I'm confused as to whether that is what Tejwant is saying—but if it is what he is saying, and he is right in the context of the SGGS and Sikhi in general, then i take back my whole argument ). But, as a result, I'm saying "if he is all that" then those characteristics contribute to God being illogical (he can still exist, but then he exists as an illogical entity). Why is he illogical? Must read the rest of my original post  Download the .doc file if you have too, its easier to read. But essentially the jist of my argument is: 

Can God make 2+2=5? (Or to put it more "exactly": Can god violate the laws of logic, math and science?)

*Yes:* Then he's illogical
*No: *Then he's pointless

But the reasoning behind my logic is what is more important then the conclusions themselves, I guess. As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic). He would be like a machine designed to turn itself off as soon as it is turned on. 

YouTube- The Most Useless Machine EVER!

Existing for the sole reason of existing and nothing more.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian ji, 
sorry about the confusion. My reply (with the question) was to Tejwant Singh ji only.
That was an awesome debate with Mustafa, BTW! 


> As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic).


Could you elaborate on this?


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

Bhagat says:



> Quote:
> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> As a side note however, I think a pointless God would be a beutiful thing (a god that abides the laws of science, math and logic). </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
> Could you elaborate on this?


Well i only call him a pointless God because "I dont know what point he would serve for us" (i think he would serve no point for us directly) so its an informal nickname at this point. But a god that abides by the laws of logic, math and science, is akin to describing these very laws as "godly" (indeed, they are omnipresent [the logic/math/science we use on earth would apply equally anywhere in the universe] , omnipotent [you cannot be above the laws of logic math and science] and omnicient [we don't yet know "all logic, math and science" but knowing it "all" would make us "all knowing" ] if not literally then in the highest figuritive sense; and by virtue of their properties, they are self-limiting _WITHOUT_ being self-contradictory). Studying and understanding this kind of god is as possible as "experiencing this god." The "pointless" nickname is due to the inability for this god to sustain a heaven or hell, to punish or reward, to create us directly, to require us to pray or provide us with an absolute moral system (all of which are illogical at best). Indeed, he would be very pointless to us, he would not be a "personal" god, we would have no use for him directly but by studying him (and keep in mind, wen i say him, i refer to logic, math and science) we gain greater insight—thats all, and thats a beutiful thing  Its a god i can believe in . Consequently, this god would only be as old as our universe as I believe the laws of logic, math and science are immergent properties that came to exist on the onset of the big bang (this is me just talking theory, getting away from my more concrete philosophical approach). It would still leave us with an interesting question as to what existed prior to this big bang—thats a gap where i might be more inclined to acknowledge the possibility of an illogical god. A god that could make 2+2=5 in that case may accidently have triggered the big bang in the process  which subsequently destroyed him and left us with a logical god  (just musing myself  dont take me too seriously in the last couple sentances lol)


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 1, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Tejwant Singh ji,
> If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.
> 
> Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?



Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please define God in Sikhi for me because the Abrahamic God according to the OT, NT and the Quran is angry,vengeful and jealous God, has human characteristics which means he is immersed in duality. NT also says that God would make people rape woman and he kills babies.

Is God in Sikhi according to you a personified deity and has the above chracterstics?

Once you have defined Ik Ong Kaar for me from the Sikhi view point then we can take this interaction further and learn from it.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 1, 2010)

Tejwant Singh ji


Tejwant Singh said:


> Bhagat Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Whether the Sikh God has those qualities or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. Only the "omni qualities" are being looked at. Again I ask you, are you disputing any of those? If yes then we should take this interaction further...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

It clearly shows from your post that you are distorting what I said,  which is not logical.

Please read my post again. Sorry if you feel defensive about it whether  it is logical or not, I will leave that to you. But there is nothing to  get uptight and read between the lines. 

So, let me ask you in a different way where you do not feel the way you  did.

Does logic ( your favourite term) breed ethics?

If it does then in what manner and if it does not then should it?

It is a simple question about logic, your expertise as you claim.



> Okay anyways. I'm not going to send you any shabads from the SGGS with my own interpretations of them. It would be pointless for my argument.There is nothing in the SGGS that can directly support (or refute for  that matter) my argument.


So you mean you do not have an argument to prove  your logic? Thanks for admitting that.



> I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue). But if there is no shabad in the SGGS to support my idea—does that mean its "illogical babble?" I think not.


First and foremost you have to define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi through SGGS. If you are not able to define HE/SHE/IT, then you have no argument to start with.



> Theres no Shabad in the SGGS to support the concept of 2+2=4;


You know it very well that SGGS is not a math book, hence it can not have your stated concept which would be illogical but it has a wonderful poetry. 

Is there any book in math that defines 2+2=5? If there is, please share with us.



> nonethelss, the concept is not "illogical babble."


It is nothing but illogical babble if you can not even define with the help of SGGS what Ik Ong Kaar is.



> I didnt set out to target Sikhism either (or any religion in specific) instead I set out to talk about "God in general."


If you can not give examples from the scriptures of the different religions and define God according to them then you have no argument.  It is illogical to say " God in general" because there  is nothing like that. If your logic of " God in general" were true then there would not be millions of denominations in Christianity and millions of other different religions. It sounds very illogical  from your own aspect of logic



> I feel that the concept of God shares many key similarities throughout many religions (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence) so my argument is meant to be as general as possible. If you feel like you must envoke the SGGS to answer any of my points, by all means do so (I'll assume the SGGS is your area of expertise;


It is your duty and responsibility to prove  your claim with the  facts from different scriptures, not mine. This is the only logical thing for you to do. It  is your argument, not mine.

I just want you to prove  it in a logical manner otherwise it is nothing but hot air.


> Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise). *Having said  that, I kind of liked my Muslim colleagues responses though, because he  was able to raise valid counter points without evoking Islam. That just  goes to show that my original post has nothing to do with religion at  all—you greatly mis-interpreted my intentions in that regard.* It has  everything to do with philosophy and logic.         Philosophy, Logic and 'Language Skills' are my expertise).


I hope you use these skills to prove what you claim. Simply put.

Caspian ji,

Either you are very naive or you do not read the posts sent to you in a logical manner. Your Muslim friend was very open and frank on the offset to let you know that he wanted to convert you. Of course he was trying to respond from his religious viewpoint to no avail. I do not know how you missed that point. As, he found out he could not, he eventually went mum which is the  case in most Muslims which happens quite often here. The case in point is Nasir from Iran who disappeared after he was asked some direct questions about his religion.

Just to refresh your memory, following is what your Muslim friend said:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830


> Mustafa Abousaleh
> 
> *And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent  manner so we can bring you to Islam*



 Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 1, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> Whether the Sikh God has those qualities or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. Only the "omni qualities" are being looked at. Again I ask you, are you disputing any of those? If yes then we should take this interaction further...



Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

We can only look at the " omni qualities" of an entity (deity) provided we know the definition of the said entity ( deity) according to the particular religion.

If we are not able to, then we can not take this interaction further....

Tejwant Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 2, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Bhagat Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


The definition includes the "omni qualities"...  Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know. 
Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Tejwant Says:



> First and foremost you have to define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi through SGGS. If you are not able to define HE/SHE/IT, then you have no argument to start with.





> f you can not give examples from the scriptures of the different religions and define God according to them then you have no argument.





> It is your duty and responsibility to prove your claim *with the facts from different scriptures*, not mine. This is the only logical thing for you to do. It is your argument, not mine.


I don't have to talk about sikhism in specific at all. Furthermore, your criteria that "anything only makes sense if it is supported by the SGGS" is horribly restrictive (how would an atheist find support for his position in the SGGS. It seems very closed-minded of you to refuse to listen to an argument if it does not include the SGGS. But notice how you said "with the facts from different scriptures" this argument is about the validity of certain facts—how would try to prove that those facts are in valid by using the SGGS to support those facts? Lol you already know I cant logically do that but your saying that's the only logical thing to do? I dont think so . I think a religious person can find justifications for God outside of their respective holybooks. Similarily, a person such as me, can use an argument against the idea of god without so much as touching religion  or looking at a holy text. Indeed that was my goal, to provide an argument that would apply to as many faiths equally (im in the business of making a point too right  and ill take a page from the SGGS and try to make my point as universal as possible ).  
Listen to Bhagat singh—this discussion is not about all the characteristics of the Sikh god—this discussion is about wether or not the sikh god has those 3 characterisitics and if he does, what conclusions can you draw from that. 

Bhagat Says:


> The definition includes the "omni qualities"...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I agree! Why is it that you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh god? Do other aspects of the sikh god explicitly contradict my argument? If they do, they would be helpful to look at wouldnt they . If they don't, there's again no point bringing them up—we would just be wasting time.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> The definition includes the "omni qualities"...  Each religion takes those and just goes down their own path with it, all of that is irrelevant if the whole argument surrounds just the "omni qualities". We can study separate parts of something independently, you know.
> Perhaps, you should tell us why you want to look at other aspects of the Sikh God. Let the interaction proceed further...


Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.


Definition of which God from which religion? If each religion sees its God differently than these definitions of "omni characteristics" change as well. Some God can fly on a magic carpet to be anywhere, anytime, some may ride a Pegasus to do the same. So, once again your argument does not hold any water.

You have to define each God in its own spectrum of the religion in order to define these "omni charateristics" and how they are seen in each religion for the God they worship.

If some religions believe their God to be a personified deity then these qualities have a different meaning.

So, as I have asked you and Caspian as well  before  and I have no idea  why both of you are reluctant  to defining God  in the religions Caspians have mentioned.

Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we?

I am all for the interaction to go further. It is Caspian and now you creating the road blocks. Not me. When someone puts up an argument, it is his/her duty to show the basis of it. There is nothing in general sense when we are talking about specific things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Tejwant Says:
> 
> I don't have to talk about sikhism in specific at all. Furthermore, your criteria that "anything only makes sense if it is supported by the SGGS" is horribly restrictive (how would an atheist find support for his position in the SGGS. It seems very closed-minded of you to refuse to listen to an argument if it does not include the SGGS. But notice how you said "with the facts from different scriptures" this argument is about the validity of certain facts—how would try to prove that those facts are in valid by using the SGGS to support those facts? Lol you already know I cant logically do that but your saying that's the only logical thing to do? I dont think so . I think a religious person can find justifications for God outside of their respective holybooks. Similarily, a person such as me, can use an argument against the idea of god without so much as touching religion  or looking at a holy text. Indeed that was my goal, to provide an argument that would apply to as many faiths equally (im in the business of making a point too right  and ill take a page from the SGGS and try to make my point as universal as possible ).
> Listen to Bhagat singh—this discussion is not about all the characteristics of the Sikh god—this discussion is about wether or not the sikh god has those 3 characterisitics and if he does, what conclusions can you draw from that.
> ...



Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Your posts clearly show that you have a habit of distorting what I have written thus far. All my responses were based on your posts. I request you to re read them with a calm mind and come to the terms of your own logic.

What you have shown so far is that your logic is based on "ends justify the means" which is hilarious to say the least. Logic is the conclusion through the means, not the other way around as you have presented your so called general arguments. Logic requires specifics and read your earlier posts, you mentioned specific religions. As you have put yourself in a trap created by your own logic, I am sorry to say that you have to learn from your own trap how to come out of it logically.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 2, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Bhagat ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...




Tejwant Singh ji,
I respectfully disagree.
You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on. 
I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Tejwant Singh ji,
> I respectfully disagree.
> You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
> I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".



Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is OK to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. It is part and parcel of the educational process.

It is not up to me to make any argument. It is up to you to define each God in each religion mentioned by Caspian so these qualities can be qualified how they are defined by the individual religion.

I have no idea why you are reluctant to doing that. We all have opinions. You have expressed yours and I have expressed mine which is fair and square.

I will leave it to that.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Lee (Mar 2, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Tejwant Singh ji,
> If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.
> 
> Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?


 

Let us all remind our selves of something important to this discusion.

'Ek okar'

One God people, only the one.  Bareing this in mind then we can say that any attribute that any religion gives to God is merely as a result of our lack of understanding of the totality of God.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> Tejwant Singh ji,
> I respectfully disagree.
> You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
> I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".


Could not have said it better myself. Tejwant, im not "mis-analysing" you and me and bhagat are defintly not setting up road blocks. We seem to differ on one very important issue and that is whether or not you can analyse part of something. You feel we must define everything inorder to analyse part of it but both me and bhagat feel that is unneccessary and does not allow for broad comparison. So like bhagat, I'm going to respectfully disagree (even if that puts the discussion at a standstill) until you provide examples for your reasoning outside of broad statements such as:* Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we *— because there is nothing innately true about that sentence (even if it was true, simply saying it doesnt make it true without providing reasons/examples) and even then, i have defined the sikh God as "omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent" if you find fault with my definition then by all means show me the fault in my definition? Perhaps then we can move on?


----------



## Lee (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue).


 
How so?  

What exactly do you mean by this?

I ask because I simply cannot see how a seemingly intelegent person as yourself could belive such a thing.

Let me offer this.  We humans are questers, we are interested (on the whole) in learning about things, the world around us, how things work, we ask questions and we posit possiblities.
Amongs the biggest of the questions we ask are the intertwined: 'What is it all about?' and 'How did we get here?'

Science started as a means to answer these questions, ahhh but it was not the first sphere to attempt such a thing.  God answers both of these questions, and science arose out of religion.  So you see I can see some clear logical reasoning why the concept of God may have arisen, can't you?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

I will give you a hand to come out of your own trap where your logic dictates that ends justify the means, which itself is illogical.

Ik Ong Kaar is described very well in the Mool Mantar in Sikhi. Other Scriptures that you have mentioned in your argument also define their Gods in their ways. Study them and then share  them with us your logic. Only by taking this logical step you can define what each charaterstic means in each religion. This is my last post if this discussion does not move forward. Means justify the ends in logic. The other way around as you have done is simply illogical as mentioned above.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> So you see I can see some clear logical reasoning why the concept of God may have arisen, can't you?



IMO The concept of God arose from biological roots  I would love to explain if you want me to, but in a different post! Cuz that has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with biology, psychology and neurology.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> I will give you a hand to come out of your own trap where your logic dictates that ends justify the means, which itself is illogical.
> 
> Ik Ong Kaar is described very well in the Mool Mantar in Sikhi. Other Scriptures that you have mentioned in your argument also define their Gods in their ways. Study them and then share them with us your logic. Only by taking this logical step you can define what each charaterstic means in each religion. This is my last post if this discussion does not move forward. Means justify the ends in logic. The other way around as you have done is simply illogical as mentioned above.
> 
> ...



Just for example's sake (because you have no provided me with one) lets assume that I was beggining this debate in a Christian thread instead of a Sikh thread (because I don't have time to go over the Mool Manter and all that right now). Now, i would start off my debate in the very same way—posting my argument and on that christian forum, a "Christian-Tejwant" would ask me to define the christian god in specific. Now aside from the omni-qualities i did define the christian god with (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresance) I know that the christian god is suppose to be Loving, Jealous, Vengeful (at times), Part of the holy trinity (and i can go on and on about his other characteristics). Are any of these characterisitics important to my argument ? Of course not—but if any of the christians felt like they were important to my argument, its their duty to bring them up. For example, a 'Christian-Tejwant" might want to use an argument about God's capability for infinite love to dispell my argument (lol just an example). But it is not my duty to distincly define any other characteristics of god that I find unneccsary to my example, it is your job to attack my definition if you see it as unfit and so far i have no seen you say "your definition is wrong" instead you keep asking me to include the entire definition of the sikh god but like my example of the christian god, there are many unneccesary qualities that arent needed for my argument.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Just for example's sake (because you have no provided me with one) lets assume that I was beggining this debate in a Christian thread instead of a Sikh thread (because I don't have time to go over the Mool Manter and all that right now). Now, i would start off my debate in the very same way—posting my argument and on that christian forum, a "Christian-Tejwant" would ask me to define the christian god in specific. Now aside from the omni-qualities i did define the christian god with (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresance) I know that the christian god is suppose to be Loving, Jealous, Vengeful (at times), Part of the holy trinity (and i can go on and on about his other characteristics). Are any of these characterisitics important to my argument ? Of course not—but if any of the christians felt like they were important to my argument, its their duty to bring them up. For example, a 'Christian-Tejwant" might want to use an argument about God's capability for infinite love to dispell my argument (lol just an example). But it is not my duty to distincly define any other characteristics of god that I find unneccsary to my example, it is your job to attack my definition if you see it as unfit and so far i have no seen you say "your definition is wrong" instead you keep asking me to include the entire definition of the sikh god but like my example of the christian god, there are many unneccesary qualities that arent needed for my argument.



Caspian ji,

Good start.As Jesus is considered God in Christianity then if he was omnipotent then why did he die in the first place? I am just taking your argument and please be specific in your answers. I have not even touched the other parts because when you have the time to study the Mool Manter, you will notice what kind of Ik Ong Kaar Guru Nanak talks about. Did Guru Nanak call himself God? Did he call himself the Prophet as Mohammed claimed?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> Caspian ji,
> 
> Good start.As Jesus is considered God in Christianity then if he was omnipotent then why did he die in the first place? I am just taking your argument and please be specific in your answers. I have not even touched the other parts because when you have the time to study the Mool Manter, you will notice what kind of Ik Ong Kaar Guru Nanak talks about. Did Guru Nanak call himself God? Did he call himself the Prophet as Mohammed claimed?
> 
> ...


Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)...* unfortunately** it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! *That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)...* unfortunately** it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! *That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.



Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.



> I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities.



Well, I have just proved one of your omniqualities wrong with the Jesus' death. So, you better start all over again because it has everything to do with your argument. Your premise of the argument has been proved wrong. It is not my duty to give other definitions. It is your argument and your premise. So, stop passing the buck.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> Well, I have just proved one of your omniqualities wrong with the Jesus' death. So, you better start all over again because it has everything to do with your argument. Your premise of the argument has been proved wrong. It is not my duty to give other definitions. It is your argument and your premise. So, stop passing the buck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol. No  your wrong (BUT YOUR RIGHT TOO! were gettin somewhere ).

Your wrong in thinking that you proved my argument wrong because both me and you have come to the same conclusion (i have a few other conclusion as well). That omnipotenance cant exist (albeit, your way is not as logically sound because one could say "Jesus was not god" like a muslim for example). 

The whole point of my argument was to suggest that God cannot be truly "Omnipotent." So you proving omnipotenance ot be false through "Jesus death" is supporting my conclusion. (I proved Omnipotence couldn't exist, but through different means). I'm beggining to think you didnt even read my argument, you just stopped at the premises. So now we are both in agreeance, God cannot trully be Omnipotent without becoming illogical (in my argument, the illogical is shown by God making 2+2=5 and in your "counter example" Jesus's death contradicts omnipotenance and that is illogical).

The only problem is. Your argument ONLY applies to christianity. My argument applies equally to christianity as it does to islam, judaism and sikhism  

*Explantion: (very stripped down explanation) 

Your argument
*Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

*My argument*
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent). 

So both of our conclusions are consistant

Thank you.

Regards,

Gurinder Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Lol. No  your wrong (BUT YOUR RIGHT TOO! were gettin somewhere ).
> 
> Your wrong in thinking that you proved my argument wrong because both me and you have come to the same conclusion. That omnipotenance cant exist (albeit, your way is not as logically sound because one could say "Jesus was not god" like a muslim for example).
> 
> ...



LOL... You are wrong again. Your premise was not your conclusion. Your premise was the foundation of your whole argument. You have to define what God is  in your premise to give any qualities to the definition of that entity. That is the reason I asked you to define Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi which you have not been able to and you have lumped all the gods together in your premise. If all gods were the same then there would not be any need for more than one faith/religion. You have no logic but you claim to have one which has been proven wrong. Now, you claim to know more than I do that I have not read your posts. 

As asked before and you did not respond. Do ethics breed logic?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> You have no logic but you claim to have one which has been proven wrong. Now, you claim to know more than I do that I have not read your posts.
> 
> As asked before and you did not respond. Do ethics breed logic?
> 
> ...


I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:

*Explantion: (very stripped down explanation) 

Your argument
*Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

*My argument*
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent). 

So both of our conclusions are consistant

As you see, in both of our arguments "Gods omnipotenance" is a premiss. Along with other premises that through contradiction arrive at one of two conclusion. One of which for both of us is that "God cannot be omnipotent" (or god has to be logical in my case). The way your arrived at ur conclusion is the exact same way at which I arrived at my conclusion but my argument is more general then ur argument, thats all. My argument was meant to be general. In case your wondering if you can even do this kind of an argument in logic—yes you can, its called "proof by contradiction" where if u want to prove that God is illogical (or god is not omnipotent in ur case) then you start with the premis "God is logical" (or god is omnipotent in ur case). And you try to contradict that premis to come to the conclusion that god cannot be logical (or god cannot be omnipotent in ur case)

Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.


 

I have a theory...Only those who hear the music, dance.

In the mammalian brain.

first comes sense (sensory reflex/autonomic responses..most primitive)

then comes emotion (emotional centers are located in older areas of the brain)

then comes purpose, strategy or higher level logic or reason and Morality. (all in the same step)

then it wiggles back...first sensory (skipping emotion)... realization and analysis of outcome from sensory centers which feedback to adjust emotion. 

even something as simple 2+2=4 requires emotion to trigger purpose (intrigue/curiosity/Longing/Trust)... without these no human can solve 2+2=4.

Morality, like logic, is conceived through emotion because emotion gives birth to purpose. Realization and even Social communication of both morality and logic can impact emotion in a feedback loop. 

Therefore I posit that just as those who emotionaly feel that they have to solve 2+2=4 are using the same emotions to give purpose in defining and constructing reality which innately constructs god.

In conclusion, god and logic are both bred from emotion and are both subserviant to purpose.

and like you said before...if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a. therefore god and logic are the same thing. therefore god cannot be illogical....because the illogical serves no purpose.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Sinister. I enjoyed your theory (i do have a few issues with it) but I dont think the conclusion you drew conflicts with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. It's just I go one step further and say "a logical god is a pointless god." other then that, I dont agree that logic (or math for that matter) has an emotional underpinning. The pursuit of logic may have emotional underpinnings, but not logic itself which is wat i was arguing over. 



> even something as simple 2+2=4 requires emotion to trigger purpose (intrigue/curiosity/Longing/Trust)... without these no human can solve 2+2=4.


Im not talkin about " why humans solving problems" (for which their may be some emotional/moral underpinning). I'm talking about the logic itself. Furthermore, you do not need emotion to solve 2+2=4. A computer does so readily without emotion. 



> Morality, like logic, is conceived through emotion because emotion gives birth to purpose. Realization and even Social communication of both morality and logic can impact emotion in a feedback loop.
> 
> Therefore I posit that just as those who emotionaly feel that they have to solve 2+2=4 are using the same emotions to give purpose in defining and constructing reality *which innately constructs god.*


How does "reality" innately construct god? 2+2=4 is an innate (a priori) truth. If you want to argue that God is an a priori truth as well. Then their should be no way that god can contradict other a priori's. So a god that is limited by logic, math, science is a God that I can believe in. Your "theory" seems to be pointing at a similar version of god (i have problems with your theory, but correct me if I'm wrong—your idea of God, according to your theory, cannot make 2+2=5? If that's the case, I have no problem with it, I just find it pointless). 



> In conclusion, god and logic are both bred from emotion and are both subserviant to purpose.
> 
> and like you said before...if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a. therefore god and logic are the same thing. therefore god cannot be illogical....because the illogical serves no purpose.


Lol, the "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck" was an "inside joke"  I forgot the context in which i said that quote, feel free to remind me. Buts it's generally considered an inside joke in response to the "Chinese Room" argument in cognitive systems  (which is my major). But I agree with you. God cannot be illogical—but then that God cannot make 2+2=5 right? And for reasons listed in my original debate—a logical god is a pointless god. (which i find beautiful as I said a few posts above )

So... correct me if im wrong... but I dont think we disagree? Your conclusion is mostly consistant with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. I enjoyed your theory (i still dont think you need emotion for logic because without us the laws of logic, math and science still exist but "emotions" dont).


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Personally, I believe that both ethics and morality (along with the belief in god) have biological underpinnings. Im tempted to make a thread about it with recent scientific evidence from biology, psychology and neurbiology as i was telling Lee. I'll think about it.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> So... correct me if im wrong... but I dont think we disagree? Your conclusion is mostly consistant with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. I enjoyed your theory (i still dont think you need emotion for logic because without us the laws of logic, math and science still exist but "emotions" dont).


 
AHAHAHAHAHAAHHA (sorry...im not laughing at you...just that this is what it comes down to over and over and over in every discussion i have)

your computer argument is not valid because each computer is a reflection of human sentiment and input. (similiar to how a hammer alone cannot build a house). even AI could just be a series of logarythmic calculations that respond only to human input...even AI systems are not autonomous because the intiation of purpose must intially start from a human emotion.

a computer cannot solve 2+2=4 without human input...a computer has no purpose to solve (because a computer has no emotions) without a human a computer can only be Semi Human Instinctive.

does the existance of truth require belief?
what are the emotions associated with belief?

epistemological gridlock...the internalist vs the externalist....the end of reason because there is no right or wrong...just emotion, taste and dare I say Chaos


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:
> 
> *Explantion: (very stripped down explanation)
> 
> ...



Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Wrong again.LOL.

I used your premise. I challenged your premise. Show me where I claimed the above in any of my posts. You claim to be logical but you distort what people say and I have no idea how logical it is.

Does denial breed logic?

I repeatedly said that you can not talk religions in general and bundle them to find some means to the ends you have already concluded, which is illogical to start with.

And for you to say that your premise- the foundation of your argument is your conclusion as you claimed  in the other post is like saying," my basement is my penthouse".

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

I wanna avoid telling you guys to "take a philosophy course and youll understand" because thats equivelent to telling me to "read the mool mantar and youl understand" But you did not challange my premis in the way you think you did. Even my own argument i challanged my premis. THATS WHY ITS CALLED A PROOF BY CONTRADICTION! :damnit: lol 

So let me reiterate. 
If i want to prove the validity of "God is not logical" (not A)I can do this through "proof of contradiction." I have to assume first that "God is logical" (A) and (so that becomes my first premis) and then i have to introduce valid premis's that may lead to a contradiction. The introduced premises are as follows

God is Omnipotent (B)
If God is Omnipotent Then God can Make 2+2=5 (If B Then C)
If God is logical then God can not Make 2+2=5 (If A Then not C)

So the argument follows the format:

  A
  If A then not C

  B
  If B then C

  C and not C <---- Contradiction

  Therefore in order to resolve the contradiction one of the premises has to be false. Either A (God is logical) or B (God is omnipotent). Its perfectly fine for me to contradict one of my own premises ( i know that you find fault with this, but thats how a proof by contradiction works). So if you find fault with this argument, please show me exactly where I went wrong. Dont just say "WRONG LOL" (makes you sound ignorant). Becuase your saying that you contradicted my premise, and ur using that to tell me I need to revamp my logic, but contradicting the premis is the whole point of the argument. 

Proof by contradiction is often used when you wish to prove the impossibility of something. You assume it is possible, and then reach a contradiction. Heres the wiki link, read up on it before you tell me any of my premises or assumptions are incorrect. I know there incorrect, thats the whole point of a proof by contradiction you have to show them to be incorrect. Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

 If you still cant see this, then I guess all i can say is "Take a philosophy class and you will see this" or :blowme: (lol i find that emotican to be a rather odd choice to include in a religious group )


----------



## Sinister (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> *How does "reality" innately construct god? 2+2=4 is an innate (a priori) truth.* If you want to argue that God is an a priori truth as well. Then their should be no way that god can contradict other a priori's. So a god that is limited by logic, math, science is a God that I can believe in. Your "theory" seems to be pointing at a similar version of god (i have problems with your theory, but correct me if I'm wrong—your idea of God, according to your theory, cannot make 2+2=5? If that's the case, I have no problem with it, I just find it pointless).


 
Well for someone who understands philosophy I would expect more than just a description of 'pointless'. (universal causation deems that impossible)

But what you say makes no sense what so ever.
<?"urn:<img src=" /> 
Because if a logical god is pointless, so is logic. And anyone can just reverse your argument and argue that logic is pointless and be just as right.

Of co{censored}, in a human biological system everything (belief) is dependant upon meaning and purpose, which are both derived and dependant upon the process of emotional satisfaction/well-being and survival/reproduction.

Therefore a variable, like god, is innately constructed within society, just like logic because they both play a role in constructing purpose. Read Rene Descartes “Meditations of First Philosophy-Sixth Meditation” which was a treatise written in 1600’s, in which he pondered the innateness of god:

‘Descartes asks himself where he received the idea of God. He “believes” (emotional basis) that his idea of God was innate in him just as the idea of him is innate in him”. Descartes dubs this the pre-containment principle. He then goes on to say that all things must have a cause and that all causes may affect another thing, (deemed the principle of universal causation). So using all this Descartes states that he has an idea of God, and the only possible cause for this idea is God himself, because only God contains enough formal reality to cause the idea with that much objective reality.’ (Cartesian circle)

Morality, a form of logical analysis is essential for survival. Religion is an exercise in morality that may just improve emotional self-being and chance of survival. (which would aptly explain the existence and long term perpetuation of such beliefs in an omnipresent deity…and the political organization of religion)

Pointless things are redundant and thus are energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in a social medium. The perpetuation of pointless in society is not only detrimental/counterproductive one could logically argue that it is impossible and it would be rooted out through an evolutionary process such as natural selection. (or perhaps never have even come into existence)

The woman who looks at tea leaves to determine the future is illogical or maybe logical to others (emotion based)? But she is not pointless.

Likewise a logical god is not pointless. And god is innate.

Again 

Does the existence of truth require belief?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am a Sikh which means a student, a learner, a seeker. So, I do not mind being ignorant. You said the same thing in your earlier post. It shows a lot more about you than about anyone else.

Now you are twisting things again and have concluded that it is only you who knows what Philosophy means which is nothing but shows your arrogance and self centeredness. It seems that you live in your own cocoon which you call  logic. You have failed to understand what I have said which is not surprising because for you to have the ends in your mind you have to twist things to concoct means which is not logical.

Once you define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi which has been asked to you many times so you can be proved wrong again, then we can move this discussion further, otherwise it is over for me. I have no idea why this fear of learning!

Is this logical?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

> Because if a logical god is pointless, so is logic. And anyone can just reverse your argument and argue that logic is pointless and be just as right.




If i was slightly more pessimistic. I might just say "yup, everything is either illogical or pointless" and leave it at that lol. But this is the first valid point i've run into in a while (im not counting the 1+1=windows and mis-understandings of proof by contradiction). 

Lol i also said a logical god is a beutiful thing but u opted not to pick up on that . I've explained why I called god "pointless" i assumed you have read up on it but I assumed wrong (its not your fault, theres alot of messages in this thread). Anyways "Pointless" is a placeholding nikname I have given because I dont see a point for a logical god to exist. A logical god cannot sustain heaven and hell, does not require your prayers, hasnt given us an absolute moral system and he cannot punish us for not believing in him... pretty much every way in which you can think of him, he is not. Hes essentially the figuritive embodiement of logic, math, and science then. And if thats case, why not cut the middle man and get straight to the logic, math and science.

To use an anology. The role of "God" in the creation of the universe is "pointless" if the big bang theory is right. The question is "what created the big bang" to which the answer by many religious people is "God." But that answer begets the question "what created god" and w/e answer you can think of to explain that can be instead, directly used to explain the creation of the universe. Therefore the concept of God is pointless in the creation of the universe. 

Essentially what im saying wen i say pointless is "not needed." I think a logical god is "not needed" if that makes more sense to you. Because we can jus eliminate god from the picture entirely and deal with logic directly. If you think otherwise, i would love to hear what reason a logical god may have for existing? 




> Descartes asks himself where he received the idea of God. He “believes” (emotional basis) that his idea of God was innate in him just as the idea of him is innate in him”. Descartes dubs this the pre-containment principle. He then goes on to say that all things must have a cause and that all causes may affect another thing, (deemed the principle of universal causation). So using all this Descartes states that he has an idea of God, and the only possible cause for this idea is God himself, because only God contains enough formal reality to cause the idea with that much objective reality.’ (Cartesian circle)


Its too bad that whatever Descarte's preached (famous as he was) ended up being largely ignored in favor of John Locke's empircism which makes no mention of God. If this is a debate about Descartes Rationalism vs Locke's Empiricism we wont agree with much . I'm an empiricist, i believe in "innate truths" like you do. But I don't believe God is one of those innate truths—but if he is, I have no objection, he just has to be logical like i said. 



> Morality, a form of logical analysis is essential for survival. Religion is an exercise in morality that may just improve emotional self-being and chance of survival. (which would aptly explain the existence and long term perpetuation of such beliefs in an omnipresent deity…and the political organization of religion)




If morality is a form of logical analysis, it can be at times—largely flawed. But i agree with the general idea that Religion can be seen as something that once had the ability to increase the survival rate. But i think its defunct now but that has more to do with religion and god being out-dated evolutionary off shoots. 




> Pointless things are redundant and thus are energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in a social medium. The perpetuation of pointless in society is not only detrimental/counterproductive one could logically argue that it is impossible and it would be rooted out through an evolutionary process such as natural selection. (or perhaps never have even come into existence)




Yuh, i think the God of yesterday is, today, largely redundant and energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in social medium. I think the concept of god is detrimental/counterproductive and I believe it is slowly being rooted out (not through natural selection like a gene, but through a similar process whereby society/culture is naturally selected). The reason why it is being rooted out seems (in my mind) to coincide with the better educating of the public. Thats why the concept of god didnt die out to begin with, people who were unarmed with basic logic simply accepted the concept much like a child willingly accepts the concept of santa clause. But its a good thing that the human race is growing up now .




> The woman who looks at tea leaves to determine the future is illogical or maybe logical to others (emotion based)? But she is not pointless.
> 
> Likewise a logical god is not pointless. And god is innate.
> 
> ...




She herself is not pointless to others, in the same way that Santa clause is not pointless to childern. But the idea of lookin at tea leaves to tell the future and the idea of santa claus itself is pointless. Neither of the two things are true—you have to will urself into believing them to be true inorder for them to mean anything to you. God is in the same boat. For people like me, once you realize that a logical God cant send u to hell, cant put u in heaven, cant really do anything that God was advertised as doing—then he becomes pointless. For others, ones who believe there prayers work, that an after life awaits them, that they have morals to uphold in his name—the concept of god is not pointless to them, but their god is not logical in the objective sense, its only logical to them and for no other reason then "they believe hes logical"

Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4, that stuff cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong. 

I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe its possible for god to exist although I believe god does not exist and I believe the canucks will win the stanley cup  (but i can be wrong about all of those, thats why its more fitting to say "believe"). However I cannot say the same for 2+2=4, proof by contradiction, or the laws of physics (i do not believe in those concepts in the same way I believe in the earlier concepts because These concepts cannot be falsified—they are not theories, or idea's, which can be falsified). That stuff is true regardless of belief—innately true.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4 cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong.


 
theres the rub in your argument ... you are an externalist

for many, the internalists, the existance of truth is dependant upon belief (which is triggered by emotion). if you do not beleive 2+2=4  it will never =4. a justified true belief for the internalist is entirely dependant upon the subjective mind...subjective reality

and chosing one side of the dichotomy is not wrong or right (like you try to justify) but it leads to the construction of a very different reality in different people. and people sometimes chose both..shifting from one to the other (extranilism to internalism)...continously contradicting themselves.

this is epistemological gridlock. accept it.
  :meditation:


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Justified True Belief refers to what you can classify as knowledge. For "P" to consider "X" to be knowledge "P" has to satisfy 3 conditions

1) X is true
2) P believes X is true
3) P is justified in his belief that X is true

But if your familiar with the "Gettier Problem" even the JTB definition of knowledge is insuffecient. Its usually the "justification of the belief" that is at fault in a gettier problem. If your unfamiliar with the Gettier Problem, id be willing to explain but I'll assume that if you know wat JTB is then you most likely know wat the gettier problem is (although i didnt no about the gettier problem myself until recently ).

Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on  (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though .


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 2, 2010)

Sinister Ji, interesting take on emotion, a few posts back.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. *But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on  (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve *(although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. *Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress.* *Modern science is entirely empiricist.* But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though .


 
WOW! you study cognitive science and then you say modern science is entirely empiricist?  I guess einstein was wasting his time with his thought experiments.

Sometimes I think you actually have grasped something but then you say something really really absurd...which raises doubt about your understanding of philosophy.

care to explain how internalism stifles progress in a coherent manner?

internalism is the belief that all knowledge resides within the mind (doesnt exclude sensory input) and externalism is the belief that all knowledge resides outside the mind.

no belief whatsoever at any point hinders the process of attainment of knowledge.

"Externalism in the historiography of science is the view that the history of science is due to its social context - the socio-political climate and the surrounding economy determines scientific progress.

Internalism in the historiography of science claims that science is completely distinct from social influences and pure natural science can exist in any society and time given the intellectual capacity."


----------



## Caspian (Mar 3, 2010)

Okayy.... well this might be my fault. I assumed when you meant "externalism" and "interanalism" you were equation that to empiricism and rationalism (even i mix empiricism with rationalism (they both have strengths and weaknesses) [mixing the two is called pragmatism i think].) My bad, false assumption. 

But im essentially going by this wikipedia description of Externalism

"*Externalism* is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that the mind is not only the results of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain) but also of what either occur or exist outside the subject. It is often contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges out of neural activity alone. Externalism articulates the hunch that the mind is not just the brain or what the brain does."

Your description of externalism doesnt sound anything like it? Particularily when you say.



> nternalism is the belief that all knowledge resides within the mind (doesnt exclude sensory input) and externalism is the belief that all knowledge resides outside the mind


Because u leave urself the option of including external sensory input but you dont leave the externalists with a similar option of including internal process. Having said that, the wikipedia definition simply says "the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside." it doesnt take the extreme position of "all knowledge resides outside the mind" if that was the case i wouldnt call myself an externalisit.... i realize that truth resides outside the mind but beliefs (if they can be considered knowledge) reside completely within the mind. So again, im a bit of a pragmatist?

Apologize for the false assumption. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track (i still think all of modern science is empiricist. But with regards to externalist and internalist—i'd say im both. Im part rationalist as well, you kind of have to be when debating about religion especially. But wen we were talkin about ethic's, moral's and the like, i take an empiricist stance. 

So summarizing here.

Logic = rationalist stance
Ethics, morals = empiricist stance
And im equal parts externalist and internalist. Knowledge resides both inside and outside the mind for me


----------



## Sinister (Mar 3, 2010)

my definition is better because it is simpler to understand.. and if you read it again it is exactly what I have said...I have studied this philosophy for years

what about internal sensory input? (brain in a vat?)

absurd but just as true...and it does not hinder the attainment of knowledge in any way shape or form.

that is if you can still call it knowledge "DUN DUN DAAAAAA!" :rofl!!:


----------



## Sinister (Mar 3, 2010)

so lets get this straight

you have come around and changed your position and are now

an internalist and an externalist 

you are both a rationalist and an empiricist

you believe that ethics and all morals are learned ENTIRELY through experience? (which is clearly debatable)

and you believe that logic is attainable only through rationalism. (which is also debatable)

wow you are pretty illogical and pointless

Goodnight!:tongue:


----------



## Caspian (Mar 3, 2010)

> you have come around and changed your position and are now
> 
> an internalist and an externalist


I havent changed my position. I clarified it. It was my fault though and I apologized for making that original assumption. 

I would say I'm a moderate externalisit. Yup yup. I'm not going to hold the position that "all knowledge is outside the brain" but if were talking about truth then yes im completely externalist. The reason i mentioned both is because you intertwine truth with belief and for reasons I have stated (like the falsity of belief) I dont think you can do that. Beliefs reside inside the mind but the "truth is out there" (dun dun dun dun dun *xfiles theme* lol) 

And LOL @ any brain in the vat position. I guess you must have really enjoyed the Matrix?



> you are both a rationalist and an empiricist
> 
> you believe that ethics and all morals are learned ENTIRELY through experience? (which is clearly debatable)
> 
> and you believe that logic is attainable only through rationalism. (which is also debatable)


Strictly speaking, im an empiricist. To be scientific demands empiricism. And i think ethics and morals all have evolutionary roots (there is nothing a-priori about them—they are not inately true so they are best understood through empirical methods). Logic on the otherhand (like math) can be "a-priori" or inately true and if religion contends to have some a-priori truths, then i'll debate with a rationalisit approach. Its not illogical and pointless, its a valid position (although your use of ad-hominid attack is pretty illogical and pointless in and of itself  but all is far in fun and games, wouldnt it be awesome if we really were brain in vats? ). The position itself is called Pragmatism as I have said before.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> "the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside." it doesnt take the extreme position of "all knowledge resides outside the mind" if that was the case i wouldnt call myself an externalisit.... i realize that truth resides outside the mind but beliefs (if they can be considered knowledge) reside completely within the mind. So again, im a bit of a pragmatist?
> 
> Apologize for the false assumption. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track (i still think all of modern science is empiricist. But with regards to externalist and internalist—i'd say im both. Im part rationalist as well, you kind of have to be when debating about religion especially. But wen we were talkin about ethic's, moral's and the like, i take an empiricist stance.


 

Um sorry, but no. What you are positing is not pragmatism as much as it is cognitive disonance. Because pragmatism involves denial of fact-value distinction (and here you are doing the complete opposite) and not to mention pragmatism involves practicality. In no way can believing in both internalism and externalism lead to any practical outcomes!(do not confuse these with rational and empirical)

According to logic you cannot both believe in both externalism and internalism. What you can say logically and pragmatically is, “I do not know whether the existence of truth requires belief” (it is what a pragmatic person would say) but to be both sides of such a dichotomy is not pragmatism it's just cognitive dissonance…lunacy and it is illogical.

And that is a case for Agnosticism <?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




None of this 2+2 business makes much sense

Im gonna take you back to the Socratic roots of logic: the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all.

And no finer words have been spoken for the Agnostic.

you are not an agnostic if you do not honestly believe this...and neither are you an atheist

let me tell you about my understanding of sikhism (cause for some odd reason you clearly wish to avoid the sikh concept of god...even after the respective member Tejwant Singh numerously told you to analyze the mool mantar):
to be agnostic is to be uncertain about the existance of god (in sikhism god is equated to truth). so for a sikh an agnostic is someone who is uncertain about the truth. and logically to be an atheist would be to deny the truth (equivalent to some sort of neitzschean nihilism or even 'brain in a vat').

to be a true agnostic means 'no certainty', which means, you cannot be certain of the uncertainty of truth but you must be uncertain about the uncertainty of truth (ad infinitum). 

now,
you do not deny the existence of truth, according to your replies 2+2 does indeed =4....but neither do you seem to be uncertain of the truth you seem certain about the 2+2=4 (judging from your posts)...

so in effect you are neither an atheist nor an agnostic...nor an atheist-agnostic but just another sikh because you believe in existence of truth...
and because God=truth
you also believe in god

welcome to club!


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 3, 2010)

I am confused as to how God = truth. 

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
God =/= a verified or indisputable fact


PS I was thought Sat*nam* meant God's *name* is true..


----------



## Sinister (Mar 3, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> I am confused as to how God = truth.
> 
> Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
> God =/= a verified or indisputable fact
> ...


 
Sach Khand vasai Nirankar
of the concept of god dwelling in the realm of truth ('Sach Khand')

Not only is gods name truth, god is truth (for a sikh)

SATnam -- god is both Sat and Satya

Aad Sach 

Jugaad Sach

Haibee Sach 

Nanak Hosi Bee Sach

so you are right God just does not = truth 

god = truth
Sach Khand - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

what happens to reality if god is the verified indisputable fact? (if such a thing could exist to being with)
clear?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 3, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> I am confused as to how God = truth.
> 
> Truth = a verified or indisputable fact



Bhagat ji

I have tried in the past, albeit unsucessfuly, to convince you that truth need not be, and is not always taken in philosophy, to mean a correspondence with facts. You continually reject this argument. I did not make it up. It has been a constant theme in both science and philosophy for centuries.

Try this Test of Truth in Philosophy by the acclaimed philosopher Mortimer Adler.

ADLER ARCHIVE: Tests of Truth in Philosophy, by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

In that context God need not equal an indisputable fact. Logical tests of God as Truth have been offered since the time of the ancient Greeks (see other threads on this point). These tests are not scientific of course. But tests of truth in philosophy are not limited to scientific tests.

P/S Sat Nam is in some versions translated to mean God's name is truth. That translation is a good as agreement or disagreement as to whether Truth is the Name of God. Or, conversely whether God is the Name of Truth. These sentences are *not based *on an identity argument such that: 

_T = NG is not the same as G = NT_


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

Caspian said:


> IMO The concept of God arose from biological roots  I would love to explain if you want me to, but in a different post! Cuz that has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with biology, psychology and neurology.


 

Well yes of course all thoughts from mankind ultimatly stem from biology as they come from the brain.

The issue I wish to address though is your insitance tha the concept of God is illogical.

What do you mean by this?  I have already outlined how the concept of God can have arose via a process of logical thought, do you then disagree with that, or do you mean someting differant?


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:
> 
> *Explantion: (very stripped down explanation) *
> 
> ...


 
Caspian Ji,

Tejwant ji is correct you know, about defining what God is first.  Look at your premise.

'God is omnipotent, God is logical..'

If God is indeed omnipotent, then anything is within God's power to do, including anything that our limited minds may pecive as contradictionary.

So you inital premise brakes down after the first two words.  If we accept God's omnipontancy then the the part which reads 'God is logical' must be false, yes?


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

Sinister said:


> I have a theory...Only those who hear the music, dance.
> 
> In the mammalian brain.
> 
> ...


 
Soprry my freind I disagree.

Emotion is the enemy of morality.  vengance comes from emotion, yet moraly and logicaly vengance serves very little porpouse except to stem the emotion of hatered(not that is is very suscesfull in doing so).

Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationaly, sans emotion.


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> I am confused as to how God = truth.
> 
> Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
> God =/= a verified or indisputable fact
> ...


 

That is interesting Bhagat Ji.

But what then is Gods name?  Is it literaly 'True', do when then whorship an entity who goes by the name 'true'?  This seems kinda silly to me.  SIll because God is all that there is, so we can then call God earth, tree, river, or perhaps even Mr Bill Gates.  God cannot be rendered down to just the one name, 'Ik onkar' remember, so perhaps God is truth?

Yes this makes sense to me.  We are warned about duality, what can be the only way out off duality?  To seek the truth, the one and only objective truth that we have, which can only be God.  'Ik onkar, sat naam'

1 God, who's name is truth.  Heh perhaps?


----------



## Sinister (Mar 4, 2010)

Lee said:


> Soprry my freind I disagree.
> 
> Emotion is the enemy of morality. vengance comes from emotion, yet moraly and logicaly vengance serves very little porpouse except to stem the emotion of hatered(not that is is very suscesfull in doing so).
> 
> Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationaly, sans emotion.


 
<FONT face=Arial>You have not only misunderstood emotion you have gravely underestimated the extent to which this primal psychological force/agent plays in creating humanity:
<?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Emotion is NOT the enemy of morality…it is the enabler of morality.

Hunger is a physical emotion…It sustains life 

Not all Emotions are not autonomic responses because cognitive emotions can be controlled and directed with the help of reason/logic and rationality. But that does not mean that they cannot influence reason themselves.

Emotions are the primary reactive force to external sensation…logic is not privy to this.

Love sustains life
Joy, trust, fear, surprise, anticipation, anger, disgust, sadness, etc … all sustain life

Will or willpower… which gives rise to the very ability to perform an action is an emotion based upon an emotion.

Emotions ARE humanity. 
Morality is a product of humanity
Therefore
Morality is a product of emotion.

Ask yourself this

What governs taste? (that’s what an individuals moral convictions can be summed up as…taste) 

Is it emotion? Is it reason? Or is it both?

Case study

A man sees an unknown woman being beaten by someone else, and he decides to intervene and put a stop to it. (this ‘decision/action’ not only reduces his chances of survival… it in no way can help him perpetuate his gene pool)…so from a rational biological point of view the best option would be to flee and tell the authorities what had happened. But he confronts the assailant to protect the woman (moral conviction). 

This man reacted from primal emotion. (fear, anger, rage, empathy a convulted mess of emotions that directed an impulse of decision and then prompted action)

Knowing fully well what would happen if he did nothing…guilt (another strong emotion)

In fact Morality and the emotion of Guilt are COMPLETELY intertwined.


You see now how important emotions are in the creation of morality?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 4, 2010)

Sinister said:


> You have not only misunderstood emotion you have gravely underestimated the extent to which this primal psychological force/agent plays in creating humanity:
> 
> Emotion is NOT the enemy of morality…it is the enabler of morality.
> 
> ...




Sinsiter ji,


Guru fateh.


No body could have explained this better than you. You have a natural knack for going deeper in to the ocean of human psyche like a perfect pearl hunter of the within.


Kaam,krodh, lobh , moh  Hankaar are all emotions that according to Gurbani rob us from our true potential of what we can really be. We can not eliminate them because they are what make us humans but we can control these five thieves from robbing us so that we can use them to our advantage to better ourselves as human beings.


So, as the saying goes," Keep your friends close but your enemies even closer so we can keep an eye on them". The above five thieves come in the latter category.


Thanks for sharing this lovely and deep thought.


Regards


Tejwant Singh


----------



## Lee (Mar 5, 2010)

Ahhh Sinister ji,

Nope I still disagree.  Let me just say you have my wrong, of course I understand the role emotions play for humanity.  In a real sense we humans act on both intelect and emotion, and this is all right and proper.

Morality though should be free of emotion.  You example is a good one and so I'll carry on with it if you don't mind?

Morality is concerned with what is right or what is wrong, in your example I can still reach the same conclusions that the man reached and act accordingly without being motivated by any of the emotions you have named.

According to my own cold, rational moral measure the man should have helped the woman as the woman was clearly not able to defend herself against the attacker.  It is moraly wrong for the strong to oppresed the weak becuase to do so would take choice form the one being oppresed.  

Fear nor anger, nor guilt is required to reach this conclusion.  Indeed are we not told to endevour not to give in to such emotions anyway?

If we twist your example a little bit and decie that the woman was a martial artist, but of course her would be saviour can have no way of knowing this.  Would it still be the moraly correct thing to do to re-act in anger and attack the man you witness attacking the woman?

I would have to say no.  The woman is capable of protecting herself, and so the man who witnesses the woman being attacked, gives way to his anger and wades in unnessacirly.

Not needed and not moral as in this example the woman is not being oppresed.

Let me just reiterate for you that I belive it is far better to apply cold rational morality than for anybodies moral stance to be govenend by their emotions.

This of it like this.  The death penalty is wholey immoral under any circumstances.  This is a very strong moral stance that I take.  Not becasue I nessicarily belive in any form of sancticity of life.(death and killing is part of the natural order), but becuase I belive that for one human to limit or disregard anothers choices(God given free will) is amongst the worst of sins.  Death takes all choices from, you, the killer of a human then takes all choies away from that human.

So we can't kill a killer., or we do exactly what they have done.

Yet the death penalty is a highly emotive concept, and people will forego their intelect and thus their morality because of it.  Emotions simply cannot be part of the dealth penalty debate.  It clouds thought, and it clouds morality, it makes us say and do things that in normal circumstanes we would not do or say.

Emotions are very important for us humans, they serve no good in moral issues though, none at all.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 5, 2010)

You can disagree till the cows come home it will not change the fact that emotions make up humanity.


What is fundamentally different in your posts is you are trying to discus what ‘ought to be’ and I am telling you what ‘is’.

Take for example the feeling of empathy…which is a binding emotion you completely left out of the discussion and is central for morality…and in all fairness it was discussed in the aforementioned post.

You only mention, for the sake of convenience, fear and anger…the negative emotions that do not bind us together. (but are nonetheless also needed for survival)..a very selective and incomplete critique.




Lee said:


> Ahhh Sinister ji,
> 
> Nope I still disagree. Let me just say you have my wrong, of course I understand the role emotions play for humanity. In a real sense we humans act on both intelect and emotion, and this is all right and proper.
> 
> ...


 
BUT WHY Would you help her? What impulse would allow you to make such a decision? Why is the strong oppressing the weak amoral according to your rationality? and couldnt you help her by just contacting the authorities rather than becoming a vigilante? wihtout emotions you cannot become partial and you cannot make decisions.
[FONT=border=]<?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So the impulse of decision would come from the fact that someone felt empathy, sympathy, compassion and guilt? [/FONT]





Lee said:


> Let me just reiterate for you that I belive it is far better to apply cold rational morality than for anybodies moral stance to be govenend by their emotions.


 
yes this is called sociopathy. and plenty of such people exist out there.





Lee said:


> This of it like this. The death penalty is wholey immoral under any circumstances. This is a very strong moral stance that I take. Not becasue I nessicarily belive in any form of sancticity of life.(death and killing is part of the natural order), but becuase I belive that for one human to limit or disregard anothers choices(God given free will) is amongst the worst of sins. Death takes all choices from, you, the killer of a human then takes all choies away from that human.
> 
> So we can't kill a killer., or we do exactly what they have done.
> 
> Yet the death penalty is a highly emotive concept, and people will forego their intelect and thus their morality because of it. Emotions simply cannot be part of the dealth penalty debate. It clouds thought, and it clouds morality, it makes us say and do things that in normal circumstanes we would not do or say.


 


Now lets take your scenario of the death penalty
I could find the death penalty highly immoral through the feeling of empathy.
Or I could even try to justify the death penalty through the feeling of empathy. Or I could just be carrying it out on the basis of rage and anger (like you said).

However in your model, death penalty is just plain wrong and could not rationally be carried out and is ONLY the result of impulsive negative emotions.

Not to mention I could make the argument that the death penalty is a highly rational concept…after all its cheaper just to get rid of em and make more room than to lockem up, feed, clothe and expend energy in rehabilitation for up to 30 years with no gaurentee of successful re-integration into society. In fact, COLDLY & RATIONALLY, a person could make the case that all long-term hard prisoners should be executed in the most cheapest and effecient manner…yet what blocks this?…empathy
(and don’t give me that “death penalty is really expensive” jargon…cause the developing world just does it with a rope or a bullet to the back of a head)

Morality is not cold hearted analysis of external stimuli (nor should it be)…quite the opposite.

Morality without emotion is just sociopathic behaviour (a person who has no affection or empathy)…sociopath’s do things for the sake of doing them. And that is NOT how society, culture, science, religion and laws were made. They were born through feelings.

No human can function without emotion. And no human can be moral without emotions. And proof of this is diseases that correspond with inhibitions in the emotional centers of the brain, that lead to psychopathy when there is no emotion and when sensation of emotions is carried to extreme cases…you get autism.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 5, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Sinsiter ji,
> Guru fateh.
> No body could have explained this better than you. You have a natural knack for going deeper in to the ocean of human psyche like a perfect
> pearl hunter of the within.


 

Tejwant ji, Like I said before; Only those who hear the music will dance 
And if I can carry a catchy tune through my posts and make someone dance…I would consider it well worth the effort!

<FONT size=3><?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


HA! Pearl hunter…perhaps not :crazy:


For consistencies sake, just call me an entertainer.


----------



## Lee (Mar 8, 2010)

Sinister said:


> You can disagree till the cows come home it will not change the fact that emotions make up humanity.




*Sigh* And again sir you have me wrong. I have already adressed this, but to clarify yes I agree that emotions make up a large part of what a human is, this though is not the point that I am addressing.  





Sinister said:


> What is fundamentally different in your posts is you are trying to discus what ‘ought to be’ and I am telling you what ‘is’.


 
Well yes and no Sinister ji.  If I for instance make a claim that my own morality is deviod of emotion and instead works only on reason, then this is how I am.  Or to use your own phrasology for me this is 'what is'  Now we can belive that I am the only one,  do not think it would be true though. So you are half right and half wrong. You are correct that I view my own moral stance as being the correct way to view morality and so you are correct that I urge others to emulate me. Or 'Ought to be'.




Sinister said:


> Take for example the feeling of empathy…which is a binding emotion you completely left out of the discussion and is central for morality…and in all fairness it was discussed in the aforementioned post.





Sinister said:


> You only mention, for the sake of convenience, fear and anger…the negative emotions that do not bind us together. (but are nonetheless also needed for survival)..a very selective and incomplete critique.




Again you have me wrong.  You are guesing my motives for saying what I do and getting them wrong my freind.




Sinister said:


> BUT WHY Would you help her? What impulse would allow you to make such a decision? Why is the strong oppressing the weak amoral according to your rationality? and couldnt you help her by just contacting the authorities rather than becoming a vigilante? wihtout emotions you cannot become partial and you cannot make decisions.
> [FONT=border=]<?"urn:
> 
> 
> ...


[/FONT]

Again I have already answered this, but here it is agian.

It is moraly wrong for the strong to oppresed the weak as in doing so negates the choices for the oppresed 



Sinister said:


> yes this is called sociopathy. and plenty of such people exist out there.


 
Whooooa there fellow. Are you here equating a morality deviod of emotion and instead based on reason as socialpathic?  Remember I have twice agreed that emotions are normal and needed for us humans, and that I talk only of how I see a persons morality should be? 




Sinister said:


> Now lets take your scenario of the death penalty
> I could find the death penalty highly immoral through the feeling of empathy.
> Or I could even try to justify the death penalty through the feeling of empathy. Or I could just be carrying it out on the basis of rage and anger (like you said).
> 
> ...




Well you say that I disagree.  As you say using emotion, specificaly empathy you can't make up your mind on what is moraly correct the death penalty(empathy for the victim and family) or no death penalty(empathy for the criminal).

Using only reason, we can see the crime of killing is moraly wrong.  If this is true then we cannot perfom an immoral act in killing the killer.  That is reasonable without emotions. Now if we throw emotions into the mix then we get people baying for the blood of the murder.  Or put another way, moral confusion as people call for the killing of the killer, thereby making themselves inplicit in the same imorral act!



Sinister said:


> Morality without emotion is just sociopathic behaviour (a person who has no affection or empathy)…sociopath’s do things for the sake of doing them. And that is NOT how society, culture, science, religion and laws were made. They were born through feelings.
> 
> No human can function without emotion. And no human can be moral without emotions. And proof of this is diseases that correspond with inhibitions in the emotional centers of the brain, that lead to psychopathy when there is no emotion and when sensation of emotions is carried to extreme cases…you get autism.


 
Completely wrong and quite ad homine if you ask me.  Morality devoid of emotion is merely morality devoid of emotion.  Socialpathy is the lack of emotional attachment to others specificly empathy.

The rest is of course rubbish.  My morality IS devoid of emotion, I am not a socialpath, I feel massive empathy towards the plight of my fellow man, I am married with children have many many many freinds.


----------



## Sinister (Mar 8, 2010)

*UGH*…O.K look, I don’t want to hijack this thread but scientifically/rationally you are absolutely wrong.
f
Your premise “Emotion is the enemy of morality. Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationally, sans emotion” is illogical, in and of itself. It is illogical because you lack an understanding of the physiological role emotions play in the workings of the human mind. 
<FONT size=3><?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Emotions are not phenomena within the brain itself but involve physiological changes of the whole body (look at the post you made at the beginning of this thread…it agrees with this premise). Humans are given two tools, emotion and reason that help make a moral decision.

The limbic system (Paleomamalian brain), which includes; the hippocampus, amygdala and anterior thalamic nuclei support a variety of functions that include initiating and realizing emotions, behaviour and memory.

*In fact, memory and context is impossible without emotional arousal. You would not even recall a moral decision if not for being aroused emotionally. In fact ‘selectivity of attention’ is an emotional process as well. Without emotions and firing of your limbic system someone like you and me cannot even narrowly define spatio-cognitive cues. You wouldn’t even be able to read my post.*

The basolateral amygdala is the part that is essential for ‘emotional memory’ consolidation via the stria terminalis pathway to the nucleus basalis and nucleus accumbens…the stress hormones adrenaline and glucocorticoids – in low, acute concentrations, not sustained high levels – act in basolateral amygdala to enhance memory consiladation. As always synaptic potentiation requires NMDA receptors and a coincidence of pre- and postsynaptic depolarization. However, the potentiation process is greatly facilitated by the local release of dopamine. The amygdala is not the storage site of long-term emotional memories, and may not even be needed for their recall. It is however necessary for the initial consolidation of the memory itself.

If indeed, which I highly doubt, your moral decisions were free from emotions (like you say), it would also entail that you did not learn your morals and each decision you make is independent of your memory centers (which physiologically I could prove wrong by sticking you in an functional MRI and yelling unpleasantaries to you for wasting my time).

Have you ever experienced emotions while you slept?…truth of the matter is only the dreams that are most potently emotionally experienced are the only ones that are remembered…and only the things that are remembered are of any consequence because anything that is not a memory does not exist…and the weird thing is, the only way things in dreams can be constructed is by regurgitating long term memories which were imprinted in a Hebbian synapse by emotions themselves.

Pretty wild, eh?


Even in Sikhism, something like Langar and Seva were not cold rational experiments of morality conducted by the guru’s. The origins of Langar and Seva come from emotional states...born from love, empathy and compassion. 

“In light of these general functions, we may describe three moral functions of emotions:
1. Emotions have an epistemic role of initially indicating moral salience and hence the general moral response. Emotional sensitivity helps us to distinguish the moral features of a given situation, and as such serves as an initial moral guide.
2 Emotions have a motivating role of supporting moral behavior and opposing immoral behavior. In accordance with their general mobilizing role, emotions help us to mobilize the resources needed for moral behavior, which is often not the most convenient course of action.
3. Emotions have a communicative role of revealing our moral values to others and to ourselves. Since emotions express our profound values, emotional experiences can reveal these values. Taking care of another person with sympathy and compassion can reveal our evaluation of the person to ourselves and to the person himself Sometimes we do not know how much we care for someone until emotions such as jealousy, fear, or compassion are generated.”
From: Emotions and morality


If you still have not fundamentally grasped the neurophysiological and philosophical importance of emotions in constructing morality, then I am afraid there is not much to say other than you disagree for all the wrong reasons. 

Do me a favour and go to the above link, read, understand and evaluate it until you know what you want to say, because you sound confused and coldly irrational.

And why is rationality cold by the way? You weren’t using emotion to describe rationality were you?…cause that would be very very ironic


----------



## Sinister (Mar 8, 2010)

Lee said:


> The rest is of course rubbish. My morality IS devoid of emotion, I am not a socialpath, I feel massive empathy towards the plight of my fellow man, I am married with children have many many many freinds.


 
Morality is a slave to emotion | COSMOS magazine

if you do indeed feel empathy; what is to say that you use rationality to govern your morals and not emotions?


----------



## Lee (Mar 9, 2010)

Sinister Ji,

You keep telling me what it is that I don't understand, you are wrong my friend.

Let me find a differant way of saying this then.

As Sikhs we are warned by Guru ji of the 5 thieves, the problems these can cause and we are told we must strive to control them.

It is clear then that emotions can be suppresed or in other ways ignored.

This then is all I say.  It is far, far better to approach moral question within an emotional viod.

Emotions and morality mixed gives unclear and clouded morality.

Lets take a real world and personal example.

I have many siblings and the next one down from me (a brother) has a 20 year old daughter who still lives with him.  A few months back her boyfreind beat her up.

What is the moraly correct response to such a thing?

The very first thing that my brother thoughtof, was right lets get the *******.  A normal human emotional response right?  Yes it is, I defy anybody to not feel the same in the same prediciment.

However when his anger had subsided he instead called the police.

Emotionaly speaking thoughts of doing violence to thoes who do violence is generaly the first thing that is thought.  Logicaly we see that if we do this, we then engage in the behaviour that we have found immorral in others.

The moraly correct thing to do would be to call the police, have him arrested and then charged, which is in fact what happend.

If you like lets me have an example from you, and well bash it out and see what happens?


----------



## Lee (Mar 9, 2010)

Sinister said:


> Morality is a slave to emotion | COSMOS magazine
> 
> if you do indeed feel empathy; what is to say that you use rationality to govern your morals and not emotions?


 

Hah Narayanjot ji, well you'll just have to take me at my word on that score.

Humanity is a social creature, a certian amount of empathy towards others of your species is unaviodable.  It doesn't though necisarly follow that because one feels empathy that this is the grounding for his morality, does it?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 9, 2010)

Lee said:


> Hah Narayanjot ji, well you'll just have to take me at my word on that score.
> 
> Humanity is a social creature, a certian amount of empathy towards others of your species is unaviodable.  It doesn't though necisarly follow that because one feels empathy that this is the grounding for his morality, does it?



Lee ji

I do not know why the question is directed at me because I have been staying out of the conversation of late. 

But I will answer. The answer is - according to the field of developmental, cognitive and social psychology - A RESOUNDING YES! To be more specific. A certain level of intellectual development is needed to "take the perspective another human  being" to see experiences the way someone else sees it.  This psychosocial milestone is reached for most between the ages of 6 through 8, of course with individual differences. Moral development ensues at this point. 

When that happens, when the milestone is reached, then one is able to recognize that "pain" felt by YOU is not unlike "pain" felt by ME. We are able to map the feeling of our own pain onto the experience of someone else because we can now see things from their vantage point. Up to that point, the idea, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (pardon my borrowing of this Christian notion) makes no sense to a child. 

This recognition is the onset of "empathy" and from that point we are able to identify with the misfortunes of others and show sympathy and even altruism. Without the experience of our own pain, what would intellect be able to make of the information of the suffering that surrounds it?  *So I agree with Sinister ji *

One thing that has not been mentioned is that sociopaths are people who are unable to identify with the pain of someone else. They tend to be extremely intelligent people whose intelligence has run amok. They feel nothing. Intellect and emotion must temper one another in order to be able to live in harmony with other human beings.


----------



## Lee (Mar 9, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Lee ji
> 
> I do not know why the question is directed at me because I have been staying out of the conversation of late.
> 
> ...


 

Ahh Narayanjot ji,

My mistake I saw that you had appreciated Sinister ji's post and mistakenly atrributed the post below it as yours.

This is undoubtedly true.  Yet I still stand by my stance.  

Are you saying that those people who we call socialpaths are incapable of making moral desicions?

It is true that a socialpath will not feel much empathy, but does that disclude him from knowing intectualy right from wrong?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 9, 2010)

*Profile of the  Sociopath*

This website  summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior  of sociopaths.  

Glibness and  Superficial Charm   

Manipulative and Conning 
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving  behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly  hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to  be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.  

Grandiose Sense of Self 
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."  

Pathological Lying 
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible  for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get  caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.  Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.  

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt 
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their  core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and  opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices  who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let  nothing stand in their way.  

Shallow Emotions 
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it  is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged  by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would  upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their  promises.  

Incapacity for Love  

Need for Stimulation 
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are  normal.  Promiscuity and gambling are common.  

Callousness/Lack of Empathy 
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only  contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage  of them.  

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature


----------



## findingmyway (Dec 20, 2010)

Caspian,
I find your argument flawed as it only refers to an Abrahamic version of God. The Sikh belief of a Godlike entity is described by Mool Mantar. This is how I see things;

Why would God make 2+2=5 when God created 2+2=4? God is all powerful in order to be able to create everything -the laws of logic, the laws of math, the laws of physics etc. God is omnipresent as God is throughout that creation. Things have come together beautifully to create all the life we have here on Earth. Any number of factors being slightly different would have thrown things out and resulted in a completely different combination. Therefore, God is not pointless. Everything science discovers and explains was created in that way by God.
Secondly, 2+2=5 may well exist on another planet. We do not currently have the expertise to know whether this is the case or not so how can we possibly say it is not happening?! To rule out 2+2=5 as logical in another situation as it is not within our grasp is very elitist


----------

