Ramakrishna Paramhansa said "You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say that there are no stars in the heavens during the day? Because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God."
Read more, and discover their failings. This is just one sided. Hearing one sided stories will make you comment "Islam is beautiful and all Muslims beautiful" too
@@jessicastrat9376 Sikhism is the other religion, next to Islam, which when taken seriously, causes serious regression and violence and religion calls for it. When I say next to Islam, the distance is far off, but it is there. In India, over the last 5 years, if there have been violent lynching purely related to religion, then it is was done by Sikhs. A man was chopped off in Delhi and another mentally unstable person was killed in Amritsar. There have been lynching by Hindus of Muslims, but those are mostly political using religion as cover. It is its synchronism with Hinduism which keeps it calm, its dharmic nature. And I don't think it will ever be a problem like Islam, but when separated from Hinduism, Sikhism has many tools available to be misused purely as a religion (just like Islam) and it has manifested multiple times. All it needs is a leader ready to abuse the worst it has to offer. In 1980s it was misused by Bhindarwale. Now-a-days it is being misused by ISI and some agents in Canada. Now, such tools are available in all religions, but only Islam has them bare for misuse. Sikhism is far next. Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity has mostly lost them to modernism. Jainism and Buddhism don't have them within the religion. That doesn't mean that religious communalism can't be employed. Violence against Gaza, Rohingyas and Muslim Lynching in India are examples. Just that those are mostly political with little to do with religion per se.
I appreciate the Sihk and Hindu speakers roasting Abrahamic faith. Although the admission of not knowing the answers to the creation of the universe and God, brings the question how do you make claims about how one should live when you don't know a dot about God?
So in Sikhism, there is a Guru. A teacher. He teaches you morals , justice, injustice and duty. (they want to leave and live in a good to better place. ) In Hinduism. Or Sanatan. They teach or preach about how God(a loose term for Vishnu cause he is a preserver or manager of this universe (many exist) ) , when the balance of good and bad shifted toward bad(yes good and bad must exist to function the society, otherwise if humans don't have 'bad' emotions than the society would only experience happiness, which God does not want because he only did not create humans but devil's too , so they are his children as well), then God will take a Avatar(decent) as a human to make us humans understand that this is how one should lead himself. He guides us. And that avatar will destroy evil, balance restored, do some more of his divine play , leave this earth. And blah blah blah. For example, Krishna (an avatar) used to steal butter as a kid and pulled pranks with his friends. Showing that yes he wants to be loved. When he was threatened by the Bad guy(We call him Kans) he becomes a serious kid and still with a f sly fox like smirk proceeds to kill him(as I said politicians aren't the only ones who can run a nation, you need an army. So you can't exterminate bad without tacking up your arms. ) . Then goes on to become king ,fight in a war, marries many many sex slaves captured by a BIG bad guy , cause who marries slaves . And dies by a ducking normal hunter. You know why, because in his previous avatar , named Ram , ram did not abide by his Dharma of a warrior and killed Another anti hero named BALI , so in this life Bali became hunter , misunderstood the beautiful feet(sounds cringe? Ik dude ik) in the bushes as an animal, shoots at it and Krishna after talking to Hunter dies. So , having said that. In Hinduism even God will face karma if they go out of their beauty duty. 😂
Hinduism books can give you ideas about the creation of the Universe, not the creator, yk why? Cause GOD. He is everything you can imagine, every thing you can't imagine, and mf is beyond both of Them. He is a gigachad who won't care if a child of 3 months has a brain tumor, he just makes sure that there is nature. And rules. How it evolves, don't care. If someone somewhere wants to truly find him , he will come and say "yo" with a hands up when he /she/it dies.
@studyanshul2051 Again I appreciate the embedded agnosticism. But you are still making truth calms. How does one know there is a creator, preserver or destroyer deities and how does one know that there kharma or dharma or reincarnation. Or is that all an agnostic claim to?
@@jhunt5578BECAUSE the text passed down by the (rishis, gurus, yogis) . They know the path to Divine . But the problem with hinduism is that , devils have that same power to pursue the divine. So the Godman , they do upasana , tapasya and many many more unseen shits , in approximately every life of theirs. Than god takes some test of him even devils takes some test. Then when he reaches nirvan after many many lifetime, God gives him ADESH(COMMAND) . Ever read those fantasy novel called journey to the west , the concept of Qi , same is here. Having said that . ok, I get where you are coming from , but have you ever experienced something that is not possible at all? I did. My name is Anshul Patidar , i am 19 years old. I am from Madhya Pradesh state of India . I am from a village . So think of it like this . All Kul(bloodline) has 5demi god's , the top most is Bherav(mf will make your life hell if you make him angry. And he is quick to anger)he will only come when your family has done something very bad(any single member) or it have a curse by ancestors. So when we had the second case. One night one of my , grandfather's Uncle's second wife's grandchild. The bherav entered in him . 2am. At the same time. 500 km away , jagad bherav (a bigger bherav, in his temple there are many stones ) , that deaty entered the priest,so they both pick something (my family member picked sword(we have may,just flexing) ) and there he to a scissor , and cared a path. They both did. Now the intresting fact is that. Here he did some prophecy, one of them was , when we will go to pick the stone or murti 500 km away we will be the 3rd one to reach , before us two more families will already be there. Another interesting thing is. Then Big bhairav, made a map of my farm where my father has a big tree , banian tree. And here my family member made the map of the stone , in that temple. Here is another one. One of my family member, on Tuesday, keeps a fast and donate that food to the wild life. (Ants, insect, cattle) , for a year but started forgetting to do that , even though he promised HANUMAN (RAMAYAN - RAM , BADASS SIDEKICK). So on 9th day of holy Navaratri, when bhairav came again. He yelled at that family members, calling him fool and unruly. And warned not to forget. I have been to muslim masjid, my mother's grandmother, used to send first invitation to that masjid. And we have following that trend for years now. Church, i was there for a whole week during Christmas, heck , i am proud to say I made it possible for them to have that celebration in colony. (I made that tree from different different tree, it's a farming method). And I have witnessed atleast in Islam , that force or something spiritual or unseen ! That is why I believe in god. When you come to India(hopefully, come after 10 years or so, my generation is making it more safe , it's not that safe for females in some part ) go to places like , Amritsar, vrindavan, and many many more. Heck go to village. And read upanishad, many many debate are there. Like many . You might find more than what you are looking for.
@@jhunt5578 @jhunt5578 Karma is just actions have consequences, the main purpose of Hinduism (or at least that I am aware to) is to train yourself to make the best possible decision despite the forces of karma, you cannot escape your karma, your whole life can be summarised into a set of possibilities, but you should try to figure out the best possibilities within that set, that is the reasoning of Hinduism, there are many ways people have tried to achieve this, gods, martial arts, meditation etc... That is all.
It should be understood that while there is universe of knowledge yet to be discovered in the realms of physics and biology, the concept of "God" aims to answer the question: "Why is it that the universe continues to follow physical and biological laws in the first place?", and, "Who was it that put the laws there to begin with?". These are the questions that the concept of "God" seeks to answer.
@@TestTest-me8zt Ok, I take your point. But the trouble is it doesn’t in any meaningful sense answer those questions. If we label the source of those laws as “god”, then who or what created god? This is Dawkins’ infinite regress. And besides that, I don’t claim any knowledge of Sikhism, but at least as far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned I think we can all agree that what most people understand by the term god is something very different. (Though to be fair that was acknowledged by the speaker)
@@mpr106that was a good point. It's a point of who then created God. I think personally that God is an untestable hypothesis. But it's not the only hypothesis on the table. And as a scientist, you don't simply take an hypothesis at face value because you like it. You have to prove it first. Hence why I remain agnostic.
I wish the low level discussion you bring up was funny, but it is not, since most people's thinking about the subject is so shallow. Since I've been in your position before, as an act of kindness, I'll make a point to give you the oportunity to understand what I am taling about. I'll simply point out that one of the first philosophy lessons is in fact on the Dawkins’ infinite regress. A simple solution for it actually. In order not to have a infinite number of creators, there must be one ultimate creator. I am just saying this as an argument of the shallowness of discussion nowadays. Not even the first lessons are mentioned, such a shame. Hope it touches you in some way...
At this juncture, the members of the opposition, have already raised at least 3 contradictory definitions of God. First, the Abrahamic God, that punishes humans in the afterlife, The Hindu God which according to the second opposition speaker, said that we can become God ourselves and that there is no hell, thereby differing from the Abrahamic God. The third speaker of the opposition, in this video, mentioned that God is defined as " what is not yet known". I have not finished all 8 parts of the debate. But as of now, the speakers of the opposition have already shown that they all have different definitions of what a God is, and I do not see how can a team debate on something that they are unable to define. For the proposition team, it is clear that they define God, as any form of supernatural being, regardless if its a Hindu God, the Abrahamic God, a Nordic God, or Greek God.
Oh god this is the problem with couch atheist. You completely misinterpreted the hindu god explanation.Dharmic religions differ from Abrahamic faith and the atheist doesn't have to prove it,we already know that. I recommend you to read the philosophy of Hinduism, Buddhism Jainism and Sikhism. Just watching debate videos and deciding winner will not help you gain knowledge . Atleast read the text before coming to an conclusion based on ignorance and lack if understanding
God is a delusion is a definitive statement. Being unable to define God is the basis for saying that it is not a delusion. By saying that God is a delusion is claiming that you clearly have an understanding of what's real and what's not and that by that understanding, God is a delusion.
The problem I have with this speech is he didn't explain WHY Sikhs have their valuess and believe what they do and how that is actually different to what other religions believe. I also don't think he directly addressed the motion on God's existence
I think what he was pointing out was that by claiming that God is a delusion we make the claim that we understand what it is and therefore are in a position to make that claim between what's real or not whereas Sikhism posits that God can't be defined in the first place and being unfathomable cannot be regarded as a delusion either.
It wouldn't be arrogant to claim that the universe definitely had a beginning. And any being that brought the universe into existence must be equivalent to what most refer to as "God".
@@TestTest-me8zt then whats the beginning for a God? Since everything must come from something. If youre willing to accept that God was always there, then the universe could have always been there. In fact, it is much easier to accept the latter, because it is much less complex than a being who can be omnipotent and a being who created the entire universe. That is much more complex and would require a greater explanation for its existence, since everything must come from something
@keaneong123 Except, the nature of existence is creation, and God is a being that exists outside of space-time. Things must be created, even trees, plants, and clouds, animals, viruses have a basis for their existence via a mechanism of creation. If the things that exist in our universe have this mechanism of creation and are far smaller than our universe, then the fairytale position is that the universe just started to exist randomly or existed eternally.
Being admittedly quite ignorant of Sikhism, I'm pleasantly surprised to see so much similarity between Lord Singh CBE's words and for example, Dawkins' Outgrowing God and O'Connor's philosophy.
God is an undeniable force in the universe and connects all universes. For Sikhs, God is the ultimate power, the ultimate force. Lord Indarjit Singh talked about this excellently. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
The Sikh concept of god explained here, at first glance seems benign. It makes all the right prostrations of fairness, acceptance, peace, etc, etc, but dodges the unavoidable fact that when the inevitable intersecion between wellbeing and doctrine is reached, it is the one that is mandated by a deity that will be deemed good. The speaker says as much in his very opening. The arrogance to think we can understand the will of god, we misinerpret the ultimate good directed from god as evil. Its the "If you cant know all, how can you know anything" fallacy.
If I picked a religion and called them arrogant just because of their beliefs, that would, rightly, be labeled hate speech. So is this, it’s hate speech to call atheists and agnostics arrogant.
But Sardar ji still you define your self as Sikh, different than others, while quoting Guru Nanak's Teachings as "All humans are one". He never said that his followers would be known differently from others.
Guru Nanak was called the Guru (teacher) during his lifetime and his followers were his students. And word Sikh means nothing but students. Guru Nanak denied idole worship so being a student of Guru Nanak we cannot call us Hindu as it is an important part of the Hindu faith. Guru Nanak also denied the god being one as an individual entity as on Abrahamic faiths so we cannot call us Muslims. But the real trouble comes when Sikhs are denied their existence, because that is the beginning of the end of ideology and rights for the people who follow that ideology.
@@vjagpal You have not studied Hindu scriptures, and just contained yourself within an ideology. No need to read ved puran, you can find every thing in Bhagwad Geeta., with the references from Ved Puran. Gurus were not against any Hindu ways of life, but taught about not to be bigots. Avoid "aadamber" and show off. And why should you be worried about your identity, when Gurus have not given you any separate identity.
Brother idols worship isn't compulsory in Hinduism except the Shiva Linga that's isn't a idol. Idol worship comes way later . It's a human feeling to get his god beside him @@vjagpal
It would be interesting to know what impact it would have on the speaker's belief if, hypothetically, the cosmological argument was disproved (to their own satisfaction). In other words, if they could not use that reason, what would happen to their belief?
You mean if it was ever disproven that "everything that begins to exist has a cause?". That would be throwing out of the window the bedrock we call cause and effect.
@@thinkitthrough3 Possibly! What I'm hinting at is the question of whether this is actually the main reason for his belief, or whether it's only used instead of a faith-based argument to be more convincing to the audience. I'm not familiar with the speaker though.
@@TomAndGingeCoLtd1996, if I had to venture a guess, I’d say it’s probably for the audience. The main reason I think this is because Sikhs have traditionally not focused on arguments for God’s existence but more on mystical practices and ethics instead. The Closer to Truth channel here on UA-cam has a great intro on Sikhism by a philosopher in the analytic tradition that covers to topic of God’s existence. This has also been my anecdotal experience, having grown up in a predominantly Sikh family. But it might be different for him.
@@PhungsukWangdu-oq9pv , that’s a great point. Newton was criticized for not understanding gravity, due to not providing a mechanism for it. Einstein helped fill in some of the blanks later.
All gods are man-made concepts but have never been proven to exist in reality. All religions are man-made too and often with rules and doctrines in favour of men. The imaginary god is supposed to "exist" "out of space and out of time" ( that in itself is already a contradiction) and is not detectable in any way. That are exactly the same characteristics of something that does not exist! Isn't that suspicious!
There was neither non-existence nor existence then; Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond; What stirred? Where? In whose protection? There was neither death nor immortality then; No distinguishing sign of night nor of day; That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse; Other than that there was nothing beyond. Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden; Without distinctive marks, this all was water; That which, becoming, by the void was covered; That One by force of heat came into being; Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute; Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not; The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing He indeed knows, if not, no one knows
@@NamelyGiseamo it is not because science doesn't know yet how everything came into existence that people have to stick an imaginary god in it. Because that's the god of the gaps fallacy. People should believe something to exist or to be true on the basis of EVIDENCE. Not because it feels good to live with the illusion that there is an imaginary skydaddy that takes care of them, or because they like the idea that there is an afterlife, or because they have been brainwashed with the god concept and the religion of their parents and their community! But there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! So, it's about time to grow up and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with REALITY.
His is a typical response from someone who does not have a good logical response; a very emotional response directed at the opposition instead of the topic.
The speaker is correct when he points out that the Abrahamic religions that depend on a revelation are contradictory and obviously created by man [men with beards]. Nevertheless, his point that there exists somithing that can never be comprehended by humans seems obviously presumptive.
The Sikh concept of god explained here, at first glance seems benign. It makes all the right prostrations of fairness, acceptance, peace, etc, etc, but dodges the unavoidable fact that when the inevitable intersecion between wellbeing and doctrine is reached, it is the one that is mandated by a deity that will be deemed good. The speaker says as much in his very opening. The arrogance to think we can understand the will of god, we misinerpret the ultimate good directed from god as evil. Its the "If you cant know all, how can you know anything" fallacy.
The notion of something being mandated by God, with respect to Sikhi, is more complicated than that. Sikhi is open to the question of whether or not God is an agent/person. Whatever side of that debate one thinks is the most plausible will underpin how you understand the nature of a mandate. This comparison might not be helpful, but it’s similar to how the nature of the Logos in Stoicism vs Christianity.
@@thinkitthrough3 It still claims the same ground as other religions, that being that its followers have acess to spiritual truths even when there is differing views within.
@@civilizedsavage360, that’s not necessarily a problem, though, is it, unless one is special pleading against Sikhi in this case. People have access to physical truths, for instance, but still disagree.
The Sikh God is almost totally orthogonal to the Abrahamic one. The Sikh philosophy is pretty much identical to secular humanism. But other than an arrogant statement that there must be a mind behind the universe the speaker does nothing to demonstrate that said mind exists, he presents us nothing but an argument from incredulity. Nice guy, nice culture, bad argument.
@@colinlavery625 How could anyone possibly know that there is a mind behind the universe much less that such a mind be a requirement without an established theory of universe formation? Since it is not possible for him to know what he claims it is arrogant to proclaim that it must be so. An argument from incredulity entails a claim that the person who is incredulous is so damn smart that all of us should just trust what they say. That is arrogant. The fact that he puts forth such a clearly fallacious argument is sufficient evidence that he is not skilled enough at thinking for his incredulity to be persuasive.
It is so amusing to see arrogant people say that others are arrogant. Instead to providing evidence of why he should be taken seriously, he is saying that atheists are arrogant for not subscribing to dogma of his religion. So delusional!
@@thesingh588 I did listen to him and he had no argument against Atheism. All he ranted was if you don't blindly agree with me then you are arrogant. Listen again... and try searching for valid arguments. Repeatedly he says that we you don't agree that there is a creator then you are stupid, not-modest, arrogant etc etc. Never comes to the point as to what evidence there is for such a creator.
This gentleman seems to be living in a bubble: 1. He appears to think that believing god is a delusion must imply that "at first there was nothing". That is not at all clear. Even atheist Big Bang theorists do not posit that there must be nothing before the big bang... in fact many believe the contrary. 2. "Some things are beyond human comprehension". Duh. Does any atheist think otherwise? Some may be foolish enough to claim that everything is knowable at some point in the future but that is an extreme minority speculation. 3. "unknowable" means just that. The creator is "unknowable", yet he seems to know quite a bit about this entity. 4. "There are more things of heaven an earth..." Yes. There is a lot we do not know. Is this really an issue of debate? 5. "The absurdity that first there was nothing, and then it all suddenly exploded." I'm not sure there ever was nothing, (I suspect there wasn't) but we do not know. If there once was nothing, it would seem absurd. But that apparent absurdity could be true and no more ridiculous, certainly, than assuming an eternal and all powerful god. Why can't we just assume that god is absurd? Seems quite intuitive, no? Aren't all of these arguments based on intuitions? Or, should I say... delusions? This guy seems to be a good example of most people of faith... so steeped in his faith-based orientation, he can't comprehend or empathize with the thinking of those that do not share this view.
Your first, second, fourth, and fifth points together allow for a role which a God could occupy. As to your remaining point, despite what you've alleged, the gentleman is being very clear in his contribution that we cannot in fact form a true image of God, and to attempt to do so has been a disservice in the past. The only 'bubble' at this point are atheists who categorically deny the possible existence of a God, despite coming from a premise of incomplete knowledge as you've already acknowledged. You cannot very well accept there are many things beyond the knowledge and comprehension of man, and in the same breath profess categorical denial of an element of that Unknown realm (a God).
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c I think I completely agree. You can’t categorically deny the unknowable. But you can’t affirm it either. My points do not disprove Santa, the Easter bunny or some other god.
One group of Hindus ( followers of Shanker of 9th century) thought the multiverses along with all creations are just illusions (Maya) , kind of flare that evaporates ultimately.
1.Richard dawkins and many atheists say the universe came from nothing he clearly says the creator is unknowable and not able to fully defined. How is logically assuming a god in any way comparable to the delusion that the universe came from nothing? you may wanna take a bite at your own analysis you seem to be quite close-minded
If there is no God every wrong is just a matter of opinion. Just your opinion against the child molesters opinion. Just your opinion against the murderers opinion. If there is no God and what that man did wasn't really wrong. Its just a matter of opinion. If there is no objective standard beyond humanity, which we are all instructed to obey and there's nothing really right or wrong. If there is no God, the man who did this will never get justice. Atheism doesn't take away the problem It doesn't take away the pain. All it does is take away the hope. Does evil disprove God what's the purpose of evil? What about purposeless evil? What is Gods solution to evil? There can only be a purpose to life if God exist. Suffering develops character. No courage without danger No perseverance without obstacles No compassion without suffering No patients without tribulation No character without adversity No faith without need
That's arrogant, yk why . Krishna, that mf told us to love him. But he doesn't tell us to love only HIM. I am a Hindu and practicing one of Gayatri. I don't remember the exact upanishad but it was written down in 2 bc to 0 ad read it if you find it. It will help
Well, who are you to ask why the patient still believes in the creator? It's like saying a patient take this medicine even though you will not be cured....
God did not give him Parkinson, its usually Karma is the cause. There have been some discoveries as to the cause of Parkinson. I even heard that just going to a dry cleaner as a child could later cause Parkinson. If my memory serves me right, its the gut bacteria or viruses is the cause, you can search for recent scientific discoveries.
As he said, God is the collective of whole existence. So Parkinson's is part of the plan/process. Why such a plan? Well, same as there is a process for cells in your body to die and new ones to take its place.
Ramakrishna Paramhansa said "You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say that there are no stars in the heavens during the day? Because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God."
False equivalence.
To compare god with earthly world is blashpemy when god is uncreated u cant compare that means u dont know anything about god
@@maryamibrahim7845 All Gods are imaginary.
God is not imagination god is the only truth but god is not part of his creation because god is uncreate no one like him
Whatever you can't find outside ,it's inside .
sikhism is a beautiful religion and sikhs are beautiful!
Read more, and discover their failings. This is just one sided. Hearing one sided stories will make you comment "Islam is beautiful and all Muslims beautiful" too
@@brahm-ahamasmi you think all people are like you? You think I have made my judgment based on this video? You have to be really stupid to think that.
@@brahm-ahamasmiwhat are their failings?
@@jessicastrat9376 Sikhism is the other religion, next to Islam, which when taken seriously, causes serious regression and violence and religion calls for it. When I say next to Islam, the distance is far off, but it is there. In India, over the last 5 years, if there have been violent lynching purely related to religion, then it is was done by Sikhs. A man was chopped off in Delhi and another mentally unstable person was killed in Amritsar. There have been lynching by Hindus of Muslims, but those are mostly political using religion as cover.
It is its synchronism with Hinduism which keeps it calm, its dharmic nature. And I don't think it will ever be a problem like Islam, but when separated from Hinduism, Sikhism has many tools available to be misused purely as a religion (just like Islam) and it has manifested multiple times. All it needs is a leader ready to abuse the worst it has to offer. In 1980s it was misused by Bhindarwale. Now-a-days it is being misused by ISI and some agents in Canada.
Now, such tools are available in all religions, but only Islam has them bare for misuse. Sikhism is far next. Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity has mostly lost them to modernism. Jainism and Buddhism don't have them within the religion. That doesn't mean that religious communalism can't be employed. Violence against Gaza, Rohingyas and Muslim Lynching in India are examples. Just that those are mostly political with little to do with religion per se.
@@brahm-ahamasmiSikh r part of Hinduism and yes everybody has default but their is always space for correction
If u r not arrogant that is
sir is roasting whole Abrahamic cult🔥👀
cult?
Cult!
@@Savitrooosays the literal krishnaist
@@tufail1823 *idol-worshipping cult
It's good to hear a non-western perspective on this matter.
A non-western perspective from somebody with a plummy british accent. Sure.
@@nathan87blud isnt educated
I appreciate the Sihk and Hindu speakers roasting Abrahamic faith.
Although the admission of not knowing the answers to the creation of the universe and God, brings the question how do you make claims about how one should live when you don't know a dot about God?
So in Sikhism, there is a Guru. A teacher.
He teaches you morals , justice, injustice and duty. (they want to leave and live in a good to better place. )
In Hinduism. Or Sanatan. They teach or preach about how God(a loose term for Vishnu cause he is a preserver or manager of this universe (many exist) ) , when the balance of good and bad shifted toward bad(yes good and bad must exist to function the society, otherwise if humans don't have 'bad' emotions than the society would only experience happiness, which God does not want because he only did not create humans but devil's too , so they are his children as well), then God will take a Avatar(decent) as a human to make us humans understand that this is how one should lead himself. He guides us. And that avatar will destroy evil, balance restored, do some more of his divine play , leave this earth. And blah blah blah.
For example, Krishna (an avatar) used to steal butter as a kid and pulled pranks with his friends. Showing that yes he wants to be loved. When he was threatened by the Bad guy(We call him Kans) he becomes a serious kid and still with a f sly fox like smirk proceeds to kill him(as I said politicians aren't the only ones who can run a nation, you need an army. So you can't exterminate bad without tacking up your arms. ) . Then goes on to become king ,fight in a war, marries many many sex slaves captured by a BIG bad guy , cause who marries slaves . And dies by a ducking normal hunter. You know why, because in his previous avatar , named Ram , ram did not abide by his Dharma of a warrior and killed Another anti hero named BALI , so in this life Bali became hunter , misunderstood the beautiful feet(sounds cringe? Ik dude ik) in the bushes as an animal, shoots at it and Krishna after talking to Hunter dies.
So , having said that. In Hinduism even God will face karma if they go out of their beauty duty.
😂
Hinduism books can give you ideas about the creation of the Universe, not the creator, yk why? Cause GOD.
He is everything you can imagine, every thing you can't imagine, and mf is beyond both of Them. He is a gigachad who won't care if a child of 3 months has a brain tumor, he just makes sure that there is nature. And rules. How it evolves, don't care. If someone somewhere wants to truly find him , he will come and say "yo" with a hands up when he /she/it dies.
@studyanshul2051 Again I appreciate the embedded agnosticism. But you are still making truth calms. How does one know there is a creator, preserver or destroyer deities and how does one know that there kharma or dharma or reincarnation. Or is that all an agnostic claim to?
@@jhunt5578BECAUSE the text passed down by the (rishis, gurus, yogis) . They know the path to Divine . But the problem with hinduism is that , devils have that same power to pursue the divine. So the Godman , they do upasana , tapasya and many many more unseen shits , in approximately every life of theirs. Than god takes some test of him even devils takes some test. Then when he reaches nirvan after many many lifetime, God gives him ADESH(COMMAND) . Ever read those fantasy novel called journey to the west , the concept of Qi , same is here.
Having said that . ok, I get where you are coming from , but have you ever experienced something that is not possible at all? I did.
My name is Anshul Patidar , i am 19 years old. I am from Madhya Pradesh state of India . I am from a village .
So think of it like this .
All Kul(bloodline) has 5demi god's , the top most is Bherav(mf will make your life hell if you make him angry. And he is quick to anger)he will only come when your family has done something very bad(any single member) or it have a curse by ancestors.
So when we had the second case.
One night one of my , grandfather's Uncle's second wife's grandchild. The bherav entered in him . 2am. At the same time. 500 km away , jagad bherav (a bigger bherav, in his temple there are many stones ) , that deaty entered the priest,so they both pick something (my family member picked sword(we have may,just flexing) ) and there he to a scissor , and cared a path. They both did. Now the intresting fact is that.
Here he did some prophecy, one of them was , when we will go to pick the stone or murti 500 km away we will be the 3rd one to reach , before us two more families will already be there.
Another interesting thing is.
Then Big bhairav, made a map of my farm where my father has a big tree , banian tree.
And here my family member made the map of the stone , in that temple.
Here is another one.
One of my family member, on Tuesday, keeps a fast and donate that food to the wild life. (Ants, insect, cattle) , for a year but started forgetting to do that , even though he promised HANUMAN (RAMAYAN - RAM , BADASS SIDEKICK). So on 9th day of holy Navaratri, when bhairav came again. He yelled at that family members, calling him fool and unruly. And warned not to forget.
I have been to muslim masjid, my mother's grandmother, used to send first invitation to that masjid. And we have following that trend for years now.
Church, i was there for a whole week during Christmas, heck , i am proud to say I made it possible for them to have that celebration in colony. (I made that tree from different different tree, it's a farming method).
And I have witnessed atleast in Islam , that force or something spiritual or unseen ! That is why I believe in god. When you come to India(hopefully, come after 10 years or so, my generation is making it more safe , it's not that safe for females in some part ) go to places like , Amritsar, vrindavan, and many many more. Heck go to village. And read upanishad, many many debate are there. Like many . You might find more than what you are looking for.
@@jhunt5578 @jhunt5578
Karma is just actions have consequences, the main purpose of Hinduism (or at least that I am aware to) is to train yourself to make the best possible decision despite the forces of karma, you cannot escape your karma, your whole life can be summarised into a set of possibilities, but you should try to figure out the best possibilities within that set, that is the reasoning of Hinduism, there are many ways people have tried to achieve this, gods, martial arts, meditation etc...
That is all.
If you’re saying that “god” is the collective noun for all the yet to be understood concepts of physics and biology, then sure, “god” exists.
It should be understood that while there is universe of knowledge yet to be discovered in the realms of physics and biology, the concept of "God" aims to answer the question: "Why is it that the universe continues to follow physical and biological laws in the first place?", and, "Who was it that put the laws there to begin with?".
These are the questions that the concept of "God" seeks to answer.
@@TestTest-me8zt Ok, I take your point. But the trouble is it doesn’t in any meaningful sense answer those questions. If we label the source of those laws as “god”, then who or what created god? This is Dawkins’ infinite regress. And besides that, I don’t claim any knowledge of Sikhism, but at least as far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned I think we can all agree that what most people understand by the term god is something very different. (Though to be fair that was acknowledged by the speaker)
@@mpr106that was a good point. It's a point of who then created God. I think personally that God is an untestable hypothesis. But it's not the only hypothesis on the table. And as a scientist, you don't simply take an hypothesis at face value because you like it. You have to prove it first. Hence why I remain agnostic.
🤣
*Love it!*
I wish the low level discussion you bring up was funny, but it is not, since most people's thinking about the subject is so shallow. Since I've been in your position before, as an act of kindness, I'll make a point to give you the oportunity to understand what I am taling about. I'll simply point out that one of the first philosophy lessons is in fact on the Dawkins’ infinite regress. A simple solution for it actually. In order not to have a infinite number of creators, there must be one ultimate creator. I am just saying this as an argument of the shallowness of discussion nowadays. Not even the first lessons are mentioned, such a shame. Hope it touches you in some way...
I loved his speech....❤❤❤❤
Now that is how you convince people to vote for your side 💯 well done sir
At this juncture, the members of the opposition, have already raised at least 3 contradictory definitions of God. First, the Abrahamic God, that punishes humans in the afterlife, The Hindu God which according to the second opposition speaker, said that we can become God ourselves and that there is no hell, thereby differing from the Abrahamic God. The third speaker of the opposition, in this video, mentioned that God is defined as " what is not yet known".
I have not finished all 8 parts of the debate. But as of now, the speakers of the opposition have already shown that they all have different definitions of what a God is, and I do not see how can a team debate on something that they are unable to define.
For the proposition team, it is clear that they define God, as any form of supernatural being, regardless if its a Hindu God, the Abrahamic God, a Nordic God, or Greek God.
One God of all the worlds, beings, from the smallest particle to galaxies and beyond.
Oh god this is the problem with couch atheist. You completely misinterpreted the hindu god explanation.Dharmic religions differ from Abrahamic faith and the atheist doesn't have to prove it,we already know that. I recommend you to read the philosophy of Hinduism, Buddhism Jainism and Sikhism. Just watching debate videos and deciding winner will not help you gain knowledge . Atleast read the text before coming to an conclusion based on ignorance and lack if understanding
God is a delusion is a definitive statement. Being unable to define God is the basis for saying that it is not a delusion. By saying that God is a delusion is claiming that you clearly have an understanding of what's real and what's not and that by that understanding, God is a delusion.
The problem I have with this speech is he didn't explain WHY Sikhs have their valuess and believe what they do and how that is actually different to what other religions believe. I also don't think he directly addressed the motion on God's existence
He explained how sikhism was different from other religions and we do these things for god
I think what he was pointing out was that by claiming that God is a delusion we make the claim that we understand what it is and therefore are in a position to make that claim between what's real or not whereas Sikhism posits that God can't be defined in the first place and being unfathomable cannot be regarded as a delusion either.
Well I wouldn't want to be accused of arrogance so I guess I'll have to believe in God, damn the logic is flawless!
Sarcasm is a low form of wit.
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c Lol. And if wit were shit you'd be constipated.
where did he say that?
Why is noal harari has not been invited ,his description of how God and religion came into place could've been a very good insight to this debate
he literally just believes AI is god
The debate was athiesm vs religion instead this person is arguing dharmic vs abrahamic
It's even more arrogant to claim that you know any god exists.
Christians have faith. You can have without knowing with an 100% certainty.
It wouldn't be arrogant to claim that the universe definitely had a beginning. And any being that brought the universe into existence must be equivalent to what most refer to as "God".
@@TestTest-me8zt then whats the beginning for a God? Since everything must come from something. If youre willing to accept that God was always there, then the universe could have always been there. In fact, it is much easier to accept the latter, because it is much less complex than a being who can be omnipotent and a being who created the entire universe. That is much more complex and would require a greater explanation for its existence, since everything must come from something
@keaneong123 Except, the nature of existence is creation, and God is a being that exists outside of space-time. Things must be created, even trees, plants, and clouds, animals, viruses have a basis for their existence via a mechanism of creation. If the things that exist in our universe have this mechanism of creation and are far smaller than our universe, then the fairytale position is that the universe just started to exist randomly or existed eternally.
god is within us stop looking for them anywhere else. they don't live outside of this universe they are within us . they are us.
Being admittedly quite ignorant of Sikhism, I'm pleasantly surprised to see so much similarity between Lord Singh CBE's words and for example, Dawkins' Outgrowing God and O'Connor's philosophy.
God is delusional till one 'finds' God and becomes God. Then one may realise that God was seeking God.
Great Great
God is an undeniable force in the universe and connects all universes. For Sikhs, God is the ultimate power, the ultimate force. Lord Indarjit Singh talked about this excellently. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
God doesn't even exist..
@@bengeurden1272 you don't even know that
Lol. Denied.
The Sikh concept of god explained here, at first glance seems benign. It makes all the right prostrations of fairness, acceptance, peace, etc, etc, but dodges the unavoidable fact that when the inevitable intersecion between wellbeing and doctrine is reached, it is the one that is mandated by a deity that will be deemed good. The speaker says as much in his very opening. The arrogance to think we can understand the will of god, we misinerpret the ultimate good directed from god as evil. Its the "If you cant know all, how can you know anything" fallacy.
lol, you are just trolling surely you are not that stupid?
If I picked a religion and called them arrogant just because of their beliefs, that would, rightly, be labeled hate speech. So is this, it’s hate speech to call atheists and agnostics arrogant.
Why would that categorization of hate speech be correct? Could you elaborate on the definition of hate speech?
Arrogance is ignorance mixed with innocence and belief...
Truth is an injection.... no one likes to have an injection, but it's the true life savoury
But Sardar ji still you define your self as Sikh, different than others, while quoting Guru Nanak's Teachings as "All humans are one". He never said that his followers would be known differently from others.
Guru Nanak was called the Guru (teacher) during his lifetime and his followers were his students. And word Sikh means nothing but students.
Guru Nanak denied idole worship so being a student of Guru Nanak we cannot call us Hindu as it is an important part of the Hindu faith. Guru Nanak also denied the god being one as an individual entity as on Abrahamic faiths so we cannot call us Muslims.
But the real trouble comes when Sikhs are denied their existence, because that is the beginning of the end of ideology and rights for the people who follow that ideology.
@@vjagpal You have not studied Hindu scriptures, and just contained yourself within an ideology. No need to read ved puran, you can find every thing in Bhagwad Geeta., with the references from Ved Puran. Gurus were not against any Hindu ways of life, but taught about not to be bigots. Avoid "aadamber" and show off.
And why should you be worried about your identity, when Gurus have not given you any separate identity.
Brother idols worship isn't compulsory in Hinduism except the Shiva Linga that's isn't a idol. Idol worship comes way later . It's a human feeling to get his god beside him @@vjagpal
Sikh means learner or student. So technical the one who is not full yet.
It would be interesting to know what impact it would have on the speaker's belief if, hypothetically, the cosmological argument was disproved (to their own satisfaction). In other words, if they could not use that reason, what would happen to their belief?
You mean if it was ever disproven that "everything that begins to exist has a cause?". That would be throwing out of the window the bedrock we call cause and effect.
Wouldn’t he update his beliefs?
@@thinkitthrough3 Possibly! What I'm hinting at is the question of whether this is actually the main reason for his belief, or whether it's only used instead of a faith-based argument to be more convincing to the audience. I'm not familiar with the speaker though.
@@TomAndGingeCoLtd1996, if I had to venture a guess, I’d say it’s probably for the audience.
The main reason I think this is because Sikhs have traditionally not focused on arguments for God’s existence but more on mystical practices and ethics instead. The Closer to Truth channel here on UA-cam has a great intro on Sikhism by a philosopher in the analytic tradition that covers to topic of God’s existence. This has also been my anecdotal experience, having grown up in a predominantly Sikh family.
But it might be different for him.
"We have to accept the existence of a power or force beyond our comprehension . . . [god]".
No we don't.
Yes, you do.
That's why God justifies morality, logic or design.
Perhaps then as a hypothesis?
If one wants to be rational, then yes, you do.
If newton would think like that then physics would be much easier
@@PhungsukWangdu-oq9pv , that’s a great point. Newton was criticized for not understanding gravity, due to not providing a mechanism for it. Einstein helped fill in some of the blanks later.
All gods are man-made concepts but have never been proven to exist in reality. All religions are man-made too and often with rules and doctrines in favour of men.
The imaginary god is supposed to "exist" "out of space and out of time" ( that in itself is already a contradiction) and is not detectable in any way. That are exactly the same characteristics of something that does not exist! Isn't that suspicious!
There was neither non-existence nor existence then;
Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond;
What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
There was neither death nor immortality then;
No distinguishing sign of night nor of day;
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse;
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;
Without distinctive marks, this all was water;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered;
That One by force of heat came into being;
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing
He indeed knows, if not, no one knows
@@NamelyGiseamo it is not because science doesn't know yet how everything came into existence that people have to stick an imaginary god in it. Because that's the god of the gaps fallacy. People should believe something to exist or to be true on the basis of EVIDENCE. Not because it feels good to live with the illusion that there is an imaginary skydaddy that takes care of them, or because they like the idea that there is an afterlife, or because they have been brainwashed with the god concept and the religion of their parents and their community! But there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! So, it's about time to grow up and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with REALITY.
Arrogant is fine. I doubt I'm wrong.
His is a typical response from someone who does not have a good logical response; a very emotional response directed at the opposition instead of the topic.
Ya I doubt I am wrong as well
I believe sikhs to be blatantly honest and to speak their mind fearlessly. Bless you uncle ji.
That’s not correct. They are fallible as other humans.
The speaker is correct when he points out that the Abrahamic religions that depend on a revelation are contradictory and obviously created by man [men with beards]. Nevertheless, his point that there exists somithing that can never be comprehended by humans seems obviously presumptive.
The Sikh concept of god explained here, at first glance seems benign. It makes all the right prostrations of fairness, acceptance, peace, etc, etc, but dodges the unavoidable fact that when the inevitable intersecion between wellbeing and doctrine is reached, it is the one that is mandated by a deity that will be deemed good. The speaker says as much in his very opening. The arrogance to think we can understand the will of god, we misinerpret the ultimate good directed from god as evil. Its the "If you cant know all, how can you know anything" fallacy.
The notion of something being mandated by God, with respect to Sikhi, is more complicated than that. Sikhi is open to the question of whether or not God is an agent/person. Whatever side of that debate one thinks is the most plausible will underpin how you understand the nature of a mandate.
This comparison might not be helpful, but it’s similar to how the nature of the Logos in Stoicism vs Christianity.
Its not really a fallacy we dont know whats good or bad god is beyond those things
@@thesingh588 first prove god, then tell me Im wrong.
@@thinkitthrough3 It still claims the same ground as other religions, that being that its followers have acess to spiritual truths even when there is differing views within.
@@civilizedsavage360, that’s not necessarily a problem, though, is it, unless one is special pleading against Sikhi in this case. People have access to physical truths, for instance, but still disagree.
He is only quoting hindu scriptures
truth
I Own Life personal
Indarjit appropriated God. His ancestor's god(s) is a world different from the Abrahamic God
Maybe also arrogant to say God doesn't exist.
The Sikh God is almost totally orthogonal to the Abrahamic one. The Sikh philosophy is pretty much identical to secular humanism.
But other than an arrogant statement that there must be a mind behind the universe the speaker does nothing to demonstrate that said mind exists, he presents us nothing but an argument from incredulity.
Nice guy, nice culture, bad argument.
Why is it an arrogant statement ???
@@colinlavery625 How could anyone possibly know that there is a mind behind the universe much less that such a mind be a requirement without an established theory of universe formation? Since it is not possible for him to know what he claims it is arrogant to proclaim that it must be so. An argument from incredulity entails a claim that the person who is incredulous is so damn smart that all of us should just trust what they say. That is arrogant. The fact that he puts forth such a clearly fallacious argument is sufficient evidence that he is not skilled enough at thinking for his incredulity to be persuasive.
It is so amusing to see arrogant people say that others are arrogant. Instead to providing evidence of why he should be taken seriously, he is saying that atheists are arrogant for not subscribing to dogma of his religion. So delusional!
you literaaly did not listen to him
The one delusion exists is the delusion of Atheist
@@thesingh588 I did listen to him and he had no argument against Atheism. All he ranted was if you don't blindly agree with me then you are arrogant. Listen again... and try searching for valid arguments. Repeatedly he says that we you don't agree that there is a creator then you are stupid, not-modest, arrogant etc etc. Never comes to the point as to what evidence there is for such a creator.
... and literally has a spelling, and your usage of the word is misplaced
This gentleman seems to be living in a bubble:
1. He appears to think that believing god is a delusion must imply that "at first there was nothing". That is not at all clear. Even atheist Big Bang theorists do not posit that there must be nothing before the big bang... in fact many believe the contrary.
2. "Some things are beyond human comprehension". Duh. Does any atheist think otherwise? Some may be foolish enough to claim that everything is knowable at some point in the future but that is an extreme minority speculation.
3. "unknowable" means just that. The creator is "unknowable", yet he seems to know quite a bit about this entity.
4. "There are more things of heaven an earth..." Yes. There is a lot we do not know. Is this really an issue of debate?
5. "The absurdity that first there was nothing, and then it all suddenly exploded." I'm not sure there ever was nothing, (I suspect there wasn't) but we do not know. If there once was nothing, it would seem absurd. But that apparent absurdity could be true and no more ridiculous, certainly, than assuming an eternal and all powerful god. Why can't we just assume that god is absurd? Seems quite intuitive, no? Aren't all of these arguments based on intuitions? Or, should I say... delusions?
This guy seems to be a good example of most people of faith... so steeped in his faith-based orientation, he can't comprehend or empathize with the thinking of those that do not share this view.
Your first, second, fourth, and fifth points together allow for a role which a God could occupy. As to your remaining point, despite what you've alleged, the gentleman is being very clear in his contribution that we cannot in fact form a true image of God, and to attempt to do so has been a disservice in the past. The only 'bubble' at this point are atheists who categorically deny the possible existence of a God, despite coming from a premise of incomplete knowledge as you've already acknowledged. You cannot very well accept there are many things beyond the knowledge and comprehension of man, and in the same breath profess categorical denial of an element of that Unknown realm (a God).
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c I think I completely agree. You can’t categorically deny the unknowable. But you can’t affirm it either. My points do not disprove Santa, the Easter bunny or some other god.
@@gfxpimp I appreciate you can't affirm it either- I would say that is the ethos of Faith as found in most religions
One group of Hindus ( followers of Shanker of 9th century) thought the multiverses along with all creations are just illusions (Maya) , kind of flare that evaporates ultimately.
1.Richard dawkins and many atheists say the universe came from nothing
he clearly says the creator is unknowable and not able to fully defined. How is logically assuming a god in any way comparable to the delusion that the universe came from nothing? you may wanna take a bite at your own analysis you seem to be quite close-minded
If there is no God every wrong is just a matter of opinion. Just your opinion against the child molesters opinion. Just your opinion against the murderers opinion. If there is no God and what that man did wasn't really wrong. Its just a matter of opinion. If there is no objective standard beyond humanity, which we are all instructed to obey and there's nothing really right or wrong. If there is no God, the man who did this will never get justice. Atheism doesn't take away the problem It doesn't take away the pain. All it does is take away the hope. Does evil disprove God what's the purpose of evil? What about purposeless evil? What is Gods solution to evil? There can only be a purpose to life if God exist.
Suffering develops character.
No courage without danger
No perseverance without obstacles
No compassion without suffering
No patients without tribulation
No character without adversity
No faith without need
Textbook Freudian transfer, no?
Elaborate.
Those legs distracted me. Have to watch it again but zoomed in to the right.
wisky brandy,Agricultural Green Leaf weed Dry Leaf smoking seeds
All Gods are imaginary.
*CASE CLOSED!*
Shrikrishna is the GOD. No one else🕉️
The exact problem that he describes as a abrahamic problem
That's arrogant, yk why . Krishna, that mf told us to love him. But he doesn't tell us to love only HIM. I am a Hindu and practicing one of Gayatri. I don't remember the exact upanishad but it was written down in 2 bc to 0 ad read it if you find it. It will help
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. - Neil de G Tyson
this is the same guy who said gender is a spectrum?
Why did a good god give him Parkinson's
So he could battle his sufferings and live to be stronger on the other side
@@TestTest-me8zt so that he would have reason (through his suffering) to believe in a god, thereby reaching the good after-life.
Well, who are you to ask why the patient still believes in the creator? It's like saying a patient take this medicine even though you will not be cured....
God did not give him Parkinson, its usually Karma is the cause. There have been some discoveries as to the cause of Parkinson. I even heard that just going to a dry cleaner as a child could later cause Parkinson. If my memory serves me right, its the gut bacteria or viruses is the cause, you can search for recent scientific discoveries.
As he said, God is the collective of whole existence. So Parkinson's is part of the plan/process. Why such a plan? Well, same as there is a process for cells in your body to die and new ones to take its place.
Lord Indarjit Singh CBE?? Hahaha what kind of a name is that? Shall we now all bow to the lord Indarjit?? "We accept every word you say my holiness!"
Another crazy comment. 😔🙏 Respect.
Not that kind of Lord I would imagine
A stupid and ignorant comment. I have always had a great deal of respect for Sikhs. I am, on paper, a Christian.
Does he have a headache or is that a Pampers on his head?.
Hello racist
Just say you hate Sikhs
I don't think he would like your comment. Right? 😢 Bless you 😢
That is just pointlessly rude.
not a very clever joke
Grow up pal. Why do you wear trousers you bloody fanatic.
I am Arrogant,very very Arrogant.