General Is There A God?

[Sinister]

well, I won't deny that. God is definitely used in the model of the world that we create in our heads, just like 2 + 2 = 4.
Certain definitions of God make better models than others. With certain definitions of God, the model is no different than when there is no God in the model. with other definitions, the model is distorted and screws up the individual's worldview.
But I don't think I am an internalist.

here is another linguistic excercise

universe (multiverse) vs nature

is the universe part of nature or is nature part of the universe?

and what is the substitute word that can describe both nature and universe in the same breath?

God....again whose linguistic equivalence does not exist in this case

 

[BhagatSingh]

Maybe devout Sikhs are too defensive to answer.:whisling:
Maybe they don't know themselves because the only time God really comes in to the discussions is when someone asks "does God exist?" they say "Yes God exists" and that's about it... then go about their daily lives without giving it much thought.

Sometimes they might say God is aloo paratha or butter chicken... and that ends the whole topic. Who doesn't believe in aloo paratha?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Dear Tejwant Singh Ji,

No, I didn't already have all the answers I was looking for - that is why I asked them in the first place. I was only giving you EXAMPLES of what one might have said - and Lee answered. Again, all I was looking for is WHY you believe in god and WHAT KIND of god - for my own curiosity. Just like me saying "what's your favorite pizza topping?" (mine is mushrooms).

I did not get mad that the rest of you had different answers - I was just saying that no one except Lee answered my original question of curiosity. It'd be like you asking someone what their favorite pizza topping was and they delved into a lengthy discussion about the history of pizza, how it's made, what defines it, etc. when indeed you were looking for "mushrooms, because they taste good cooked." I wasn't upset - I already know you have different viewpoints (you believe in god and I don't - it's not a surprise we have different viewpoints).

So again - I DID NOT already have the answers - those were just examples of what one MIGHT have said...but since they were only examples, I wanted to see what YOU and people here said, because I was curious how a devout Sikh would answer that question (so far, I had only asked christians/catholics/mormons). So I don't think I really proved your point.

Yes of course disagreements are part of the learning process - but we haven't delved into my original question! WHY do you believe in god, and WHAT KIND of god do you believe in. Of course I know we're going to disagree - but I don't know what your position is yet! You have to tell me first. So I didn't get disappointed that you did not respond the way I expected you to, just curious as to why everyone just avoided the original question.

I am not confused about the definition of god. God does not exist. I am not confused about something that does not exist. But I am curious to know why you believe what you believe (and what it is that you believe). I fully understand that different people have different definitions of god (Have you read nothing I've written?) Personal god, hands-on god, hands-off god, pantheistic god, combo of the above - yes I know what these mean, my question was simply which one do YOU believe and WHY? I mean it's a pretty simple question.

It is unbelievable that you said I "fail to realise that he/she/it may mean different things/entities/deities to different people." Of course I understand that! Why else would I have asked "WHAT KIND of god do you believe in?" I mean how much clearer can I be, when I asked you what kind of god do you believe in, doesn't that mean that there is more than one kind of god people believe in? If you asked me what is my favorite pizza topping, doesn't that mean that there is more than one pizza topping? Otherwise why ask?? I don't see how this isn't clear even still, and since I literally cannot make it any clearer, I now know how devout Sikhs answer my questions of curiosity (so yes I have learned something)

Atheist ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am sorry to say that you are wrong. You did lump them together. God is not a Pizza with different toppings but a different meal altogether to different people.

Of course your examples show the kind of responses you were looking for. The whole list is irrelevant.

Following is my response to you in one of the posts:

Secondly, in Sikhi god is not a belief, but Ik Ong Kaar IS. Beliefs do not need any truth. Mool Mantar explains what Ik Ong Kaar IS.
Read More:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504 (Is there a god?)

Please check your response because you did not agree with me and lumped every other religion together. And then I explained the reason why it is not a belief and showed you what you yourself believe to be true as well.

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Sinister ji, how about flying spaghetti monster? That one has always been my fav. Since the word God could mean things like Thor, Zeus, Ram, Krishna, Truth, Mystery, Friend of a certain imaginary nature, etc, i think the spagettious godness of the airborne spaghetti creature will come in handy.

Wait why can't we call known truth simply truth and unknown truths, mysteries.
Why have one word for it?
With your multiverse thing. Nature could mean nature of just one universe or nature as the sum of everything. Depends on the context you use it in. I think nature is quite capable as a word. God is capable but it could mean entirely different things, and you would have to explain it everytime. Why not use a word that already IS used for what you speak of?

 

[Sinister]

Sinister ji, how about flying spaghetti monster? That one has always been my fav. Since the word God could mean things like Thor, Zeus, Ram, Krishna, Truth, Mystery, Friend of a certain imaginary nature, etc, i think the spagettious godness of the airborne spaghetti creature will come in handy.

Wait why can't we call known truth simply truth and unknown truths, mysteries.
Why have one word for it?
With your multiverse thing. Nature could mean nature of just one universe or nature as the sum of everything. Depends on the context you use it in. I think nature is quite capable as a word. God is capable but it could mean entirely different things, and you would have to explain it everytime. Why not use a word that already IS used for what you speak of?

logically your argument just crumbeled

I was initially talking of redundancies

god, through linguistics is not a redundancy and cannot be replaced by the word nature like you posited (provided god=truth)

of co{censored} one could argue that flying spaghetti monster=god=truth

and sikhism posits this with the word Nirankar to name god...which translates to formless.

considering god is all that is imaginable and truth is subjective (which is perhaps why eastern traditions come up with millions of dieties/avatars to emphasize its indescribable nature)

 

[BhagatSingh]

i don't get why nature can't replace it??? lol I think this is where you show me how my argument crumbled ,if it did.

considering god is all that is imaginable

This is something different.. imaginable. I think there are truths we cannot imagine.

No, flying spaghetti monster = truth not flying spaghetti monster = god = truth. :meditation:

 

[Sinister]

I don't get why nature can't replace it???

ok i have thought it over

the only logical argument that can be made for the linguistic existance of god in pantheism...is by the belief that nature/universe is not coextensive with the word god. This requires the belief in the existence of a priori truth:

because nature is limited to universe and vice versa...the word god cannot be limited to anything...not even imagination....and therein lies the difference

In this panthiesm...god is the most holistic construct that can ever be expressed because god=all types of truths a priori and posteriori, that reconciles epistemology...

however this belief would require a particular reality...it would require that 2+2=4 can be argued to be a priori truth which separates it from nature which is truth that can solely be argued on the basis of empirical impressions.

in short, it requires the belief that 2+2=4 is true regardless of our experience in nature.

 

[Taranjeet singh]

Dear Sikhs,

I would like to know why you believe in god. I am intrigued - is it a personal experience? If so, what was it? Please elaborate on why you believe in god, thank you.

Athiest ji,

Many philosophers and thinker have been trying to solve this riddle, if we call it a riddle. Volumes of complicated mathematical models have been developed and are available on internet. These may be very fascinating but there would always be some doubts.

But the statements of Guru Sahibs are the statements from those who has seen the source of the lives and the entire creation. Entire Bani is from those who were never away from the creator. They have felt Him and see Him pervading everywhere. It was a direct knowledge of reality. Guru Sahibs have stated clearly.

siqgur kI bwxI siq siq kir jwxhu gurisKhu hir krqw Awip muhhu kFwey ] (308-5, gauVI, mÚ 4)
O GurSikhs, know that the Bani, the Word of the True Guru, is true, absolutely true. The Creator Lord Himself causes the Guru to chant it.
gurisKw ky muh aujly kry hir ipAwrw gur kw jYkwru sMswir sBqu krwey ] (308-6, gauVI, mÚ 4)
The Beloved Lord makes the faces of His GurSikhs radiant; He makes the whole world applaud and acclaim the Guru.

These words reflect that Gurus had the direct knowledge of the Truth and it is superior than the knowledge derived through any logical reasoning based on the observations and experiences of life. In Gurbani even the reasoning and logic presented is to be treated as convincing without any doubt as the enlightened Gurus make the observations. There should, therefore, be no doubt about the God.

God is to be experienced and the experience ,probably, cannot be shared. One has to fight own battle to experience the reality.It is individual journey of each soul.


Chardi kala

 

[jasi]

Wahe Guru Ji ka Khalsa whae Guru ji ki fateh.

"Truth is the highest virtue and higher than is truthful livings."

Our entire faith is based on truth as revealed by Shri guru Nanak Dev Ji.

It is matter of remembering the God so it makes no differences if you worshiped the truth or Allah,God,Ram.


EK NOOR TON SABHA JAG UPJIA KAUN BHALE KAUN MANDE."

Let us be proud being Guru Nanak Dev Ji 's Sikhs to love all.

"MATALB TO HAI SAMJHANA AGAR YEH MANO OR WOH MANO."

RIGHT ?

Cheers.

jaspai

 

[Lee]

2) I have read Mool Manter several times. I have memorized japji sahib and a lot of rehras sahib. I can do kirtan and play the tabla. My parents are quite religious and have explained many shabads and sikh history to us, so I do have a fairly good understanding of the basics

Atheist ji,

I think that the above os a great weakness for Atheists, although as an atheist yourself you would no doubtly see it as a great strength.

You want to know really how a person can hold to a belife that is both untested and 'unreasonable', which is to say the application of reason and logic holds the position of a creator God as an unreasobale belife due to lack of objective evidance.

There are two ways really to answer this, I intend to show you both.

For humanity the holding of any unreasonable belife is quite normal. Think about your own political persuiasions for example and where they originated from. Or think of love. You I hope feel that you are loved?

Which in a real way means that you choose to belive that those who by their words and actions declare their love for you, are NOT being dishonest towards you. Think of it. You mum loves you yes? How can you possibly know? She may tell you, and her actions may be loving actions, yet without the ability to read her mind, she may well be lying to you. Ahh yes of course it sounds ludicrus to belive so doesn't it. But can you provide me with reasonable objective evidance that shows me that she is not deciving you?

The second one is this.

Humanity is a vast ocean of individuals, each of us unique even though we may share much in common. I personaly just don't understand why anybody would be racist. I don't understand it, but I do understand that there are some people who's brains just work that way. Similarly I understand that some people do not belive in any form of God.

Then it is not beyond the realms of impossiblity that some people feel from birth a strong urge to search for meaning, and for some they find such meaning in the concept of a creative God.

 

[Atheist]

Dear Sikhs,

Thank you for your reponses, quite thought-provoking. I liked how Jaspi quote something similar to

"Truth is highest of all...higher still is truthful living" -Guru Nanak

No other religion has a quote that is similar to this (that I have seen at least). The challenge then becomes to define truth...I'll have to think about that one...

One definition in dictionary.com is "the true or actual state of a matter." But they used the word "true" to define "truth." Their second definition is "conformity with fact or reality." Do you think that we can use this definition to help define god in our own words, since by many people god and truth are virtually interchangeable?

Lee, thank you for your response. Good questions. I would wholeheartedly agree that holding an unreasonable belief by humanity is normal (ie, it happens all the time). However, as I'm sure you know, believing in something does not make it so (I run into this issue mostly with christians). It actually does not sound ludicrous to suggest that my mom might be lying to me. I am a physician (in training granted), and when we investigate things, we brainstorm all ideas, even the seemingly ludicrous ones, as possible options, and then we investigate objectively until we come to a conclusion (yes you already know this). Hence the term "evidence-based medicine." Is my mom lying to me? I can make, as you alluded to, objective observations when she is and is not interacting with me, and I can see her loving behavior and her non-voluntary behavior (boy she'd have to be a great actress to pull that one off). So there are at least some objective observations I can make that suggest she loves me. So in practice, I can conclude she loves me. Can I prove it objectively to you? What we could do is discuss which objective behaviors/signs/observations are consistent with love and which ones are not, and if you observed these then you could make a reasonable conclusion (not an unreasonable conclusion at that point). Granted this is not the same as observing a bacteria in a petri dish evolving, but there are at least some objective observations we can make, and one can see my mom doing them. There is always uncertainty simply because we are not perfect. For example, no one can disprove the existence of unicorns right? Because you simply cannot prove negatives (even god). So technically we are all agnostic to the unicorn right? But in practice, we are all actually a-unicornists. Similarly, in practice I can conclude that my mom loves me.

So the question becomes, can we do the same with god? So far I have not found a way to do this, however I am all ears (technically eyes) if you have a good suggestion. If it's something you want me to try, I would be willing to try and see what happens.

I totally and wholeheartedly 100% agree with you that people are different and some people's brains are just made a certain way. And I also agree that some people from birth feel a strong urge to search for meaning. This is why I said we're all actually sharing the same goal - to find the real Truth (with a capital T). It's not as important which conclusions we make, rather than how we got to them (but yes both are still important). If my search for the Truth ends up in me saying "oh wow, there IS a god" then that would mean I am that much closer to the real Truth! So, this is partially why I wanted to know why people here believe in god.

And, come on, god is not buttered chicken...he is clearly rajma...

 

[Taranjeet singh]

YouTube- ♥ ♥ ♥ MUL MANTRA-Snatam Kaur-SOMOS UNO...WE ARE ONE ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ MUL MANTRA-Snatam Kaur-SOMOS UNO...WE ARE ONE ♥ ♥ ♥




Hi Athiest ji,

Try it out and you should like it. It is Mool Mantra and defines God in sikhism, It is my understanding.

I find it beautiful, Hope you will also like it.

Chardi Kala

 

[Sinister]

No other religion has a quote that is similar to this (that I have seen at least). The challenge then becomes to define truth...I'll have to think about that one...

One definition in dictionary.com is "the true or actual state of a matter." But they used the word "true" to define "truth." Their second definition is "conformity with fact or reality." Do you think that we can use this definition to help define god in our own words, since by many people god and truth are virtually interchangeable?

Defining truth is the first step in discovering its lengthy attributes and brings anyone examining it closer to any holistic phrase, like god, that exists and is not a redundancy.

There is always uncertainty simply because we are not perfect. For example, no one can disprove the existence of unicorns right? Because you simply cannot prove negatives (even god). So technically we are all agnostic to the unicorn right? But in practice, we are all actually a-unicornists. Similarly, in practice I can conclude that my mom loves me.

So the question becomes, can we do the same with god?

Believing in something does not make it so (I run into this issue mostly with christians).

Belief in god purely on aesthetic completeness by its innate abilities in progressing an individuals understanding of not only truth but also the ‘ought’ is enough to logically justify it’s own soundness.

The word belief is not as pliable as you make it out to be and in many pyches requires a stringeant analysis. A unicorn serves no purpose and is therefore pointless, a negative, yet continues as an aesthetic idea. The construct of God, in the eyes of many atheists, is subservient to purpose, but this is not the case in all people, God can simply just be a mandatory linguistic variable that completes the understanding of truth.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Sinister ji,
You can call God truth or whatever else you like. Seriously though, are you gona lump imagination with it separately, and call it out of the realms of nature? Imagination is just creating models in your heads...

Anyways, that's not my point. I want to know how you converted Name is Truth to God is Truth.
I am talking about God in Sikhism. All the translations of Moolmantar translate Satnam as Name is truth. And that's because God itself is a highest form of consciousness. He is the soul of the universe, the Creator Being. He is not just truth, known and unknown, he is the supposed Creator of it.

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ੴ सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~

He also answers prayers and brings justice.

Page 97, Line 13
ਆਪੇ ਤਖਤਿ ਬਹੈ ਸਚੁ ਨਿਆਈ ਸਭ ਚੂਕੀ ਕੂਕ ਪੁਕਾਰਿਆ ਜੀਉ ॥੩॥
आपे तखति बहै सचु निआई सभ चूकी कूक पुकारिआ जीउ ॥३॥
Āpe ṯakẖaṯ bahai sacẖ ni▫ā▫ī sabẖ cẖūkī kūk pukāri▫ā jī▫o. ||3||
He Himself sits on the throne of true justice, answering the cries and prayers of all. ||3||
Guru Arjan Dev - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok

Guru Nanak Dev ji often says "hear my prayer." "i offer this praryer to you" ,etc. prayer to truth??? NO Prayer to a being of highest order.

------------------------

Jasbir Kaleka ji,
here's the answer to your question from one of you previous posts:

ਆਠ ਪਹਰ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਧਿਆਇ ਤੂੰ ਗੁਣ ਗੋਇੰਦ ਨਿਤ ਗਾਉ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
आठ पहर प्रभु धिआइ तूं गुण गोइंद नित गाउ ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Āṯẖ pahar parabẖ ḏẖi▫ā▫e ṯūʼn guṇ go▫inḏ niṯ gā▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Twenty-four hours a day, meditate on God. Constantly sing the Glories of the Lord of the Universe. ||1||Pause||

All Quotes taken from srigranth.org.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Sinister ji,

Belief in god purely on aesthetic completeness by its innate abilities in progressing an individuals understanding of not only truth but also the ‘ought’ is enough to logically justify it’s own soundness.

The word belief is not as pliable as you make it out to be and in many pyches requires a stringeant analysis. A unicorn serves no purpose and is therefore pointless, a negative, yet continues as an aesthetic idea.

How about a belief that you are Elvis? That may be brought on by the desire to become a better musician. It may even give you the confidence to become a better musician, hence serving a purpose. But it isn't true, and unsound.

The construct of God, in the eyes of many atheists, is subservient to purpose, but this is not the case in all people, God can simply just be a mandatory linguistic variable that completes the understanding of truth.

I agree that belief plays a large role in our development and behaviour. But isn't it better to acquire more true beliefs and less false beliefs?

Of course not everyone is like that but the existence of those who are not like that justifies the existence of those who are. get it? Ill let Sam Harris explain.
YouTube- Sam Harris On Religious Moderates And Islamic Fundamentalists (1/2)
YouTube- Sam Harris On Religious Moderates And Islamic Fundamentalists (2/2)

 

[vegangoth]

Dear Sikhs,

I would like to know why you believe in god. I am intrigued - is it a personal experience? If so, what was it? Please elaborate on why you believe in god, thank you.

It's most definatly a personal experiance for me and for those who follow my religion ( theistic Satanism) We belive that Satan see's us all as individuals and works with us on that principle. So while we share some similer experiances most of the time they are complety diffrent.

 

[Atheist]

Dear Everyone,

I truly appreciate everyone's input into this discussion. What I wanted to accomplish was to get a glimpse of different people's thought process when asked why they believe in god. Of course, the answers I got from Sikhs were quite different than christians, mormons, b'hai's, etc. But that was to be expected, as Sikh philosophy is, I hope everyone agrees, not very similar to christian philosophy, which you can sum up in a sentence.

It is clear that questions like "what is truth?", "what is belief?", and questions about our weaknesses (like our perceptions, emotions, etc.) are difficult to tackle. It even makes me wonder, what is proof? What is true evidence? How do we know that something is proven? Some things are easy to prove - for example that apples come in different colors, but some things are hard - like what happens after you die? My only guess to that question is that it is the same thing that happened before you were born.

Vegangoth, I appreciate your answer that it is a personal experience, and I must admit my own ignorance as I have never heard of your religion (I have heard of theism and Satanism, but I had not heard of theistic Satanism). From the name, I am guessing that followers of your religion believe Satan = God. Is that correct? I would be interested in hearing more about it (my goal is to have a better understanding of as many religions as possible).

BhagatSingh Ji, I appreciate your reponse too. Are you interpeting those shabads literally? I agree that the Guru Granth Sahib is very poetic and has metaphors, my question to you is how do you decide when to intepret something literally vs metaphorically? Generally speaking, I was raised to think that it's mostly literal (god actually answers the cries and prayers of all, though it's obvious that he doesn't have a physical throne that he sits on).

 

[Sinister]

Sinister ji,
How about a belief that you are Elvis? That may be brought on by the desire to become a better musician. It may even give you the confidence to become a better musician, hence serving a purpose. But it isn't true, and unsound.

Well,

This thread started off as irreligious by asking a question in the title ‘is there a god?’. Then it somehow evolves into a discussion and critique of religion because nobody seems genuinely committed in discussing philosophical strategies that help discern the variety of the 'naturally' constructed realities. Nobody seems to be asking the right questions; why does god exist or how god could exist? Or what is the nature of existence?

Now, it has come down to the posting of Sam Harris videos from youtube that have little if any ting to do with the discussion of god/philosophy but simply social religion.

What I argue is simple, skeptics will use words like ‘soundness’ to discuss against god but do a 180 turn and argue rather vigorously for the soundness of the belief in such things as time and material reality… or the soundness of the belief that the space-time continuum can be bent in order to explain something like gravity. Why does their skepticism stop?…lack of knowledge. If you ask me, the belief in materiality and such theories that cannot be comprehended, is just another ‘quantum leap’ of creating a model to understand outcomes (identical to a model of god).

Words like ‘spaghetti monster’ and ‘Elvis’ are floated but simply add up to nothing more than an expression of a primal urge (just like the word god), because if anyone truthfully and honestly believed the scientific proven notion that all matter and time exist as the result of a probability…those questions would not be asked with such a profoundly emotional underpinning or conviction.

So i would say to Mr. Harris (I dare not call him a DR.), ‘Skeptics’ just like the ‘Religious’ are an emotional bunch and show strikingly similar insecurities and urges when they express their beliefs of reality.

Our minds cannot comprehend quantum superposition, quantum leaps, (basically reality) but such things are not only observed but also considered scientific truths. Because how is it physically possible to observe a particle and then deduce that not only could it be in multiple places but IS in all these places at once until observed?

Uncertainty (for the pessimist) and Probability (for the optimist) are the only truths. For the pantheist then, god is a probability and can be argued for or against with equal legitimacy, depending upon a persons taste…but the only way to discuss god is to first acknowledge that our understood reality is nothing more than a probability otherwise disagreement is inevitable and nothing but a waste of time (which a material skeptic would argue exists).

the simple observation, that the subject of god, can effect the emotional state of a man should be enough proof of existence.

what is existence?

 

[Sinister]

Sinister ji,
You can call God truth or whatever else you like. Seriously though, are you gona lump imagination with it separately, and call it out of the realms of nature? Imagination is just creating models in your heads...

Anyways, that's not my point. I want to know how you converted Name is Truth to God is Truth.
I am talking about God in Sikhism. All the translations of Moolmantar translate Satnam as Name is truth. And that's because God itself is a highest form of consciousness. He is the soul of the universe, the Creator Being. He is not just truth, known and unknown, he is the supposed Creator of it.

sorry but you are wrong. we have already discussed this. Satnam translates to god is truth..not god's name is true...
......
ਸਚ ਖੰਡਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਵੇਖੈ ਨਦਰਿ ਨਿਹਾਲ ॥
Sacẖ kẖand vasai nirankār. Kar kar vėkẖai naḏar nihāl.
In the realm of Truth, the Formless Lord abides. Having created the creation, He watches over it.


ਤਿਥੈ ਖੰਡ ਮੰਡਲ ਵਰਭੰਡ ॥ ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਥੈ ਤ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਅੰਤ ॥
Ŧithai kẖand mandal varbẖand. Jė ko kathai ṯa anṯ na anṯ.
There are planets, solar systems and galaxies. If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end.


ਤਿਥੈ ਲੋਅ ਲੋਅ ਆਕਾਰ ॥ ਜਿਵ ਜਿਵ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਤਿਵੈ ਤਿਵ ਕਾਰ ॥
Ŧithai lo­a lo­a ākār. Jiv jiv hukam ṯivai ṯiv kār.
There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation. As He commands, so they exist.


ਵੇਖੈ ਵਿਗਸੈ ਕਰਿ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਥਨਾ ਕਰੜਾ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੩੭॥
vėkẖai vigsai kar vīcẖār. Nānak kathnā karṛā sār. ॥37॥
He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices. O Nanak, to describe this is as hard as steel! ॥37॥

 

[vegangoth]

.

Vegangoth, I appreciate your answer that it is a personal experience, and I must admit my own ignorance as I have never heard of your religion (I have heard of theism and Satanism, but I had not heard of theistic Satanism). From the name, I am guessing that followers of your religion believe Satan = God. Is that correct? I would be interested in hearing more about it (my goal is to have a better understanding of as many religions as possible).

.

That's a great goal to have
Yes my religion does belive that Satan=God although how we view Satan can vary from person to person. I can PM you links to some informative websites if you like? purely as educational info, pleased don't think I'm trying to get converts

There is a small discussion on theistic satanism and Sikhsm in the inter-faith section, you will find it via the search button.