Do We Need God?

[skepticSikh]

i think the question i was really getting at was blasphemy, and why we are so scared of it that we accept a philosophy without critical thought.

[Guest Akirtghan]

^ you believe in love mate?

[Guest Dancing Warrior]

skepticSikh

I would say it is not blasphemous to healthily question, debate, analyse etc, philosophy.

[smartsingh24]

I understand the god of the gaps theory as the theory in which true-believers filled in gaps of understanding with God. Basically, they looked at stars and said "god did it". Which is exactly what you said. But I don't see why that counteracts any of what I said. This theory is not a theory, it's just the way a true-believer, who discounts logic and makes leaps of faith, makes.

Again, i agree with you dancing warrior; the right answer to that little issue of whether buddha was an atheist is actually deeper than what it may seem. What you describe is pantheism, or very close to pantheism. Or maybe not...because its about the primordial essence, and pantheism purports that the world itself is god. I guess buddha doesn't conform to just a few philosophical descriptors...

i also was rather amused by that "save yourself" post. What is my last chance? What are you even talking about? A reasonable mind can still live morally and be a good person in this world, so there is no compulsion on my consciousness (apart from that imposed by the recognition of the fact that others are just as conscious as me). I can reasonably understand the essence of the message that so many philosophers have hinted at; ofcourse, i don't know everything, but still. And answer me, if you purport to have studied science and math, and to have that little thing called critical thinking and rationality, how come you don't apply that logic to every compartment of your knowledge? How come you don't question religion? Why do you not want to ask questions? What is the harm of inquiry?

This life is your chance. I don't know if it's your last chance, but this is the height of reincarnation, and you're supposed to use this as your chance to meet God and liberate yourself from reincarnation. And, quite frankly, Science and Math are quite different from English, Philosophy, Religion and other studies. In Math, you are given the basics, 1+1=2, etc. In Religion, you are also given the basics, There is one God, etc. But then you have advanced studies in Math and Science, such as Calculus and Organic Chemistry. In Religion, there is also advanced studies, but it requires a different skill set, just as Calculus requires more knowledge than 1+1=2. And it isn't the fact that I don't want to ask questions, It's that I don't Need to ask questions.

i think the question i was really getting at was blasphemy, and why we are so scared of it that we accept a philosophy without critical thought.

sorry, but you need to write out your full thought process for what you're writing to be considered critical thought. Otherwise, it just looks like skepticism without reason...

[skepticSikh]

well, love is a vague umbrella term for some basic things like trust, respect, treating another as a unique individual, and a general platonic sense of affection. I think we can pretty much agree on that....the rest you can find in the libraries full of poetry and philosophy, or in psychology and neuroscience journals.

to smartsingh: i really should explain what i mean by critical thinking. What i'm getting at is the idea of using logical, rational thought to analyze a phenomena. So, believing in a conclusion and inventing post-hoc rationality for the validity of it is NOT critical thinking. And it's my view that critical thinking, if used in these simple terms, is ALWAYS better than straight out believing something to be true (which is superstition).

The basic format of logic is the old If-Then statement, right? You make a premise, you apply a logical function to it, and THEN you arrive at a conclusion. The premise part has to be a fact if the conclusion is to be valid, and the logic also cannot be faulty. In math, you can think of it as functions. There's x (the input), then there's f(x) (the function applied to the input), and then, when you solve for the function, you get an output. This is what i mean by logic; in fact, math is the best example.

The reason i say all this is that when you say you don't need questions because u think your at the "height of reincarnation" and when u think this is your "last chance", you're making assumptions. That's the case with every true-believer; their belief is just that, a belief. Its illogical (by definition; i dont mean to offend) because it subverts the logical process by straight out reaching a conclusion. See, I'm not putting you down, or calling you stupid. I'm saying that you can never claim to be logical if you believe in a conclusion without first having a valid premise and logic. For centuries, the only explanation most people seemed content with was "God did it". Now that we have a fragile system of logical inquiry FINALLY in place (which is called 'science' by the way) that reaches conclusions logically, most people still don't follow it. So it is human nature to NOT follow logic, and to simply pander to their sense of contentment.

You talk about "basics", which i'll say are premises. God is really not a good premise to have, because everyone has a varying, personal view on the matter. Yes, its a personal choice to believe. But wherever science intersects with religion (in consciousness, in ghosts), science wins the logical battle (maybe not the PR battle).

And you know why science is the best way to reach truth? It is the only known method that is logical. Also, science can disprove itself, commit the most heinous of heresies against previous theories (think about quantum physiscs in relation to classical physics), and CHANGE and survive as a single entity. And lastly, a truth reached by science is never incontrovertible, because it can always undo itself given enough logic.

That's why i see science as the best, most impartial, most understandable, most rational, and the only chance humans have of discovering the REAL truth.

[smartsingh24]

well, love is a vague umbrella term for some basic things like trust, respect, treating another as a unique individual, and a general platonic sense of affection. I think we can pretty much agree on that....the rest you can find in the libraries full of poetry and philosophy, or in psychology and neuroscience journals.

to smartsingh: i really should explain what i mean by critical thinking. What i'm getting at is the idea of using logical, rational thought to analyze a phenomena. So, believing in a conclusion and inventing post-hoc rationality for the validity of it is NOT critical thinking. And it's my view that critical thinking, if used in these simple terms, is ALWAYS better than straight out believing something to be true (which is superstition).

The basic format of logic is the old If-Then statement, right? You make a premise, you apply a logical function to it, and THEN you arrive at a conclusion. The premise part has to be a fact if the conclusion is to be valid, and the logic also cannot be faulty. In math, you can think of it as functions. There's x (the input), then there's f(x) (the function applied to the input), and then, when you solve for the function, you get an output. This is what i mean by logic; in fact, math is the best example.

The reason i say all this is that when you say you don't need questions because u think your at the "height of reincarnation" and when u think this is your "last chance", you're making assumptions. That's the case with every true-believer; their belief is just that, a belief. Its illogical (by definition; i dont mean to offend) because it subverts the logical process by straight out reaching a conclusion. See, I'm not putting you down, or calling you stupid. I'm saying that you can never claim to be logical if you believe in a conclusion without first having a valid premise and logic. For centuries, the only explanation most people seemed content with was "God did it". Now that we have a fragile system of logical inquiry FINALLY in place (which is called 'science' by the way) that reaches conclusions logically, most people still don't follow it. So it is human nature to NOT follow logic, and to simply pander to their sense of contentment.

You talk about "basics", which i'll say are premises. God is really not a good premise to have, because everyone has a varying, personal view on the matter. Yes, its a personal choice to believe. But wherever science intersects with religion (in consciousness, in ghosts), science wins the logical battle (maybe not the PR battle).

And you know why science is the best way to reach truth? It is the only known method that is logical. Also, science can disprove itself, commit the most heinous of heresies against previous theories (think about quantum physiscs in relation to classical physics), and CHANGE and survive as a single entity. And lastly, a truth reached by science is never incontrovertible, because it can always undo itself given enough logic.

That's why i see science as the best, most impartial, most understandable, most rational, and the only chance humans have of discovering the REAL truth.

Fact of the matter is, you believe religion is post-hoc rationality. But, Sikhi is not. Sikhi states what has happened, what will happen, and what is happening. Look, and you will see. When I say that you are at the height of reincarnation, that is because Gurbani states that as human beings, we are at the height of reincarnation. That is absolutley indisputable if you believe in Gurbani. And, i'm sorry to say, but I don't see how that is illogical. The Gurus were messengers, and they carried with them the message of God. They had become one with God, and understood things that were so far beyond our minds that we'd probably collapse from information overload. The Gurus were our teachers, and just as a student studying math must take his teacher's word that 1+1=2, we have to take our Gurus word that there is One God, quite simply, because they know more than us. And therein, lies the problem. Even in this logical situation, where a child is taught that 1+1=2, he is still taking a leap of faith and trusting in his teacher. Similarly, we have to take that leap of faith and trust our Guru to have taught us the Truth. That there is, One God.

Please, tell me if this is not logical.

[skepticSikh]

firstly, i'll say that that little convo you quoted between t and g is probably from the matrix. So here's some deeper analysis. You know that in the matrix, the basic plot was that machines gained consciousness, defeated humans, and captured and put the ones that were left in huge simulators. The experience of the humans were entirely digital, and the machines somehow used humans as their energy source. Well, when Neo returns to "reality", how can he KNOW that that is real? Can that not be yet another simulation in which a third entity is controlling everything? Read up on the "simulation argumen"t; interesting stuff...

The very fact that you cannot put into words what love is means that it is "vague" (not "clear cut"). And it really is an umbrella term because it encompasses so many emotions and phenomena. I didn't just throw those words around.

And you say gurbani trumps science? do you think science is a religion? Because if that is what you think, i shouldn't even bother trying to talk to you. Why talk about logic to a person who doesn't know the first thing about science?

Science is a tool to discover the truth about EVERYTHING. The truth is not just about the planet and soil and excrement, it's also about the nature of consciousness, the cosmos, and life itself. Gurbani is a philosophical and religious document, but it is not scientific. It is not scientific because it doesn't have hypotheses or experiments that can be replicated. That doesn't detract from it one bit; its simply classification.

How can the two ever trump each other? Keep your beliefs in God strong, but don't diss on science. A tool of inquiry can never be worthless or pointless, just as philosophical thinking can seldom be worthless or pointless.

smartsingh's comment made me wish i had thought enough to say this: you CAN believe in the Gurbani and still be logical otherwise, because in many cases, Gurbani doesn't step into the realm of science. I DO however reject the idea that up in the clouds sits a creator God, because I've flown enough times to check.

Jokes aside, there is something i do disagree with in smartsingh's post. Taking the example of a child and a teacher, the child doesn't have to make a leap of faith because logic ensures that 1+1 will always equal 2. The teacher doesn't matter. Math is self-evident.

I DO agree that "leaps of faith" are involved, and for practicality's sake we do take those leaps in order to get thru life. For example, we trust an airlplane pilot to fly the plane expertly and get us down safe. But what I absolutely hate is when people put down logic. That happens because firstly, they've never had a critical thought in their lives, and secondly because they have built their whole life around superstitions and can't abandon them now. For instance, creationists, or homeopaths, or astrologers, or the nutty chiropractors who claim to heal everything with just some knuckle-cracking. THEY are the ones i think are beyond all reasonable help.

On the other hand, there are deist skeptics in the world too, who believe in a God but never abandon logic otherwise; its their personal choice. You can also, in today's world, believe that god initiated the world, and that the cosmos simply evolved from the big bang onwards on the basis of a few, basic, maybe discoverable laws. You can believe that and not be in scientific error. It is your own choice to do that. But please question your steadfast beliefs and know what you believe through science, and what you simply assume through leaps of faith.

[Guest Dancing Warrior]

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man

Albert Einstein :nihungsmile:

[Bundha]

Ehh Bhai Science vitch hee fussiaa !

[Bundha]

In gurbani Guru Gobind Singh Ji says “Sindh parbat medhani bin thumma gugun rehaya”

Guru Ji says that without pillars, without support this universe was created. Where was the premise here? Guru Ji did not take a detailed study in astrological physics to find this out, Guru Ji knew because they have transcended science and its laws. Guru Nanak Dev Ji says there are countless planets and worlds, did Guru Ji make a hypothesis and then carry out detailed observations and confirm his theories ? No, Guru Ji knew because he knew. Guru Gobind Singh Ji says that when God breathed out the whole manifest universe came into being (big bang?) and when He breathes in it will all disappear within Him (big crunch? – see, science on one hand said there will be a big crunch, now it says that the galaxies will drift apart forever, in a years time it will change its mind again, only God is consistent. Guru Ji has written it down, no need to change mind). When Guru Nanak Dev Ji went into the baini and disappeared for three days and went to AkalPurkhs court how does science explain that, apart from saying it is superstition or hearsay.

Point is you can teach a child 1+1 = 2 but try teaching it quadratic equations for Furrier or La Plass Transforms, it may recognise some of the individual symbols but will have no idea what is going on, it will be dumbfounded. Just like we are when we look at the wonders of God. We cannot understand because we have not reached that SPIRITUAL level, you can read science all your life ,it won’t make no difference. We feel oh so important with our scientific methods but we are like the child with a quadratic equation, we do not even know what we don’t know!

There was a time when Proton/Neutron/Electron were the fundamental particles, now they say the basic ones are Gluons, Meuons, photons, z-particles, in ten years these will have been split, but you know wot, sitting right at the most basic level is Akaal himself and how are the scientists going to discover Him, only he who is blessed, he who has the benevolent gaze of AkaalPurkh can find Him.

Can science explain thought? Emotion? Love ? it will say it is changes in chemicals but it goes a lot further then this further then science can ever go. Where did HIV come from? Anyone really know? These and many other things are manifest by akalpurkh, so many cancers these days, in the days of Sat/Tratra/Dwapar there were very little disease because there was so much Naam Simran, now we are so far away from the true path that new things appear day by day.

Gurbani has power, one that cannot be quantified by any scientific method, someone recently was cured of cancer with it, sure sceptics will always be that, sceptic, that is there loss. I know of persons who can know your thoughts, people who can be untterdhiaan and be a two places at once, can science explain this? There is so much science cannot explain and never will, because science crawls at the feet of akal purkh.