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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take an object like a table;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anon said:

"?

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

Click to expand...

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

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

anon said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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


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

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

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

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

anon said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

anon ji thanks for your posts.

anon said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

• One creator
  • Cannot be defined
  • Limitless
  • Infinite
  • Can be understood in parts and effort should be made to so understand and live with wisdom you so find
    • Mool mantar or first line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an example but is not exhaustive
• One creation
  • All together
  • All of one source
• Consonance
  • Live with the wisdom of creator and creation that one seeks as a Sikh
  • Live recognizing all that you are within and all that is without on the outside

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

Sat Sri Akal.

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

arshdeep88 said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

findingmyway said:

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

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


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

Click to expand...

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

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

anon said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what proof can you give just by contradicting?

Click to expand...

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

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

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

anon said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Sat Sri Akal.

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

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

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

****************************​

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


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

Praise of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by modern Scholars

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

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


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

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

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

Also:

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


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


Miss Pearl S. Buck, a Nobel laureate wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Archer in his book on Sikh faith

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

Dorothy Field in her book, The Sikh Religion

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


And also:

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

Arnold Toynbee, a historian
Main article: Arnold Toynbee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertrand Russell

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

Swami Nitya Nand

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

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

After saying that the soul left his body.

Swami Nitya Nand also wrote his own experience:

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

President George W. Bush

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

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

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

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


Authenticity of Guru Granth Sahib

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

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

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

anon ji

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

anon ji

Quote:
The initial premiss is this "Guru Nanak was a rational parson who encouraged rational thought and questioning beliefs". then Guru Nanak tells us that there is "EK Onkar", there is one God, yet he does not give us a shred of evidence, the statement "Ek Onkar" is not built on a rational foundation, so what follows is that we can kind of reject this initial statement that "Guru Nanak was a rational person who encouraged rational thought".
Please inform us of which "reductio ad absurdem" argument you are really using. Proof by contradiction does not apply in the example you have given of Guru Nanak's supposedly "contradictory claims."

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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