Dhillon’s Impossible Waheguru – Part 2

Inderjit Singh Dhillon aka I.S. Dhillon conveniently ignored most of our first rebuttal. This is a response to what he did send.

We have omitted Dhillon’s conversation on a forum since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

i can tell you, god is with attributes and god is without attributes, this is a contradiction about the nature of divine essence

If all things were equal, your statement would be enough to close off proceedings and end this conversation since you have conceded defeat. Unfortunately, things are not equal!

if they had found something contradictory other than the nature of an incomprehensible god i would have debated and argued with them logically but after 15 pages they still dont seem to get it so for the 100th time:

There maybe a very good reason why they are all unwilling to “get it”.

a) god in sikhism is incomprehesible and transcends rationale,

This above sentence is symptomatic of Dhillon’s shoddy reasoning process perspicuously demonstrating his ignorance in logic.

Firstly, to claim that God is incomprehensible in the absolute sense of the word is self-refuting since the term ‘god’ carries a meaning which we completely understand. In this case, the definition of the terms nirgun and sargun are understand. Hence, we comprehend the meaning of the term.

Secondly, your statement: “[G]od in sikhism is incomprehesible and transcends rationale” was answered in our first refutation, which you conveniently ignored. We will reiterate it for your edification:

Why did you ignore this and the rest of the rebuttal?

When you said: “[G]od is with attributes and god is without attributes, this is a contradiction about the nature of divine essence”, did you make use of your rationale or did you make use of something other than this?

Rational: Using reason and logic in thinking out a problem.

Reason: the faculty of rational argument, deduction, etc. Philosophy: Use of the intellect as opposed to subjective experiences.

In light of the above, your conclusion that the God of Sikhism is contradictory could only have been made using your rationale; but, God is supposed to transcend the use of your rationale, so how did you come to the conclusion about that which is impossible to rationalise?

Your statement is self-refuting!

this does not means sikhism is illogical as a religion, nor does it mean that sri guru granth sahib ji is an illogical scripture it logically concludes without any hesitation that god has a nature which we as humans can never understand.

Thirdly, you simply asserting that “it [SGGS] logically concludes” anything, does not prove it, nor will we roll over and play dead. You have not proven anything.

Fourthly, you said: “[T]his does not means sikhism is illogical as a religion, nor does it mean that sri guru granth sahib ji is an illogical scripture”. Really?!

You affirm that your God has attributes (sargun) and is also without attributes (nirgun) at the same time, which constitutes a contradiction in terms. Hence, your denial of the law of non-contradiction in even one proposition entails that you accept the notion that opposite things can be true at the same time and in the same respect. Thus, any proposition can be true and false at the same time, or that an answer is both right and wrong at the same time; a violation of a universal law of bi-valued logic, which means by definition, you are illogical. Thus, by extension of logic:

Fifthly, you attempt to escape this problem by stating that not all of SGGS is illogical. However, the whole of SGGS is ascribed to God. If we find one illogical, irrational statement in SGGS, would you claim it is from other than God? If not, then by extension, God is irrational, illogical and errant.

Sixthly, your statement: “[G]od has a nature which we as humans can never understand” is tiresomely contradictory and we leave it to you to work out why!

b) when you are baptised in sikhism you surrender your head to the guru

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you do NOT surrender your head to the guru!

and you concentrate your mind on the gurshabad,

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you do NOT concentrate your mind on the gurshabad!

you do not formulate rules on how to govern society,

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you DO formulate rules!

you do not formulate punishments you do not use the scripture to judge others, you meditate on the word this is practicing sikhism. you do not refute the bani.

Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of all of the above; thus, you DO formulate punishments, you DO use scripture to judge others, you do NOT meditate on the word, you do NOT practice Sikhism, and you DO refute the bani!

c) if you are a sikh or non-sikh who wishes to carry out an interpretation of religious texts then you will come to the conclusion that the god of sikhism is beyond the laws of logic

Is the above statement true? Prove it on the basis of your rejection of the bi-valued laws of logic. Deny the law of bivalence, i.e. that a proposition is either true or false; deny the law of excluded middle, i.e. that a proposition is true or false, which is true; deny the law of non-contradiction, i.e. that a proposition is true and false, which is false.

the god of sikhism is beyond the laws of logic

Are you beyond the laws of logic? If not, then your understanding of God is bound by these laws. If you deny this, then your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, the god of Sikhism is NOT beyond the laws of logic!

We do not mean to be disrespectful to you, but we believe this question is crucial in completely annihilating your preposterous stance:

Is Waheguru evil?

If you forward an answer, you have limited God to your rationale which refutes your statement that God transcends rationality. If you answer no, however, then you have affirmed the inexorable laws of bi-valued logic, i.e. “Waheguru is not evil” is either true or false (bivalence); “Waheguru is evil or not evil” which is true (excluded middle); “Waheguru is evil and not evil” which is false (non-contradiction).

Now answer this question please!

but hopefully if you are a good intellectually proficient scholar you will not brand the whole religion as illogical and untrue because this has no reasonable basis and is therefore a fallacy in itself.

Not if one believes the entire SGGS is divinely revealed.

If you add one drop of poison into a pure class of water, can you say it is still pure water?

If you claim the entire SGGS is perfect in the absolute sense, i.e. devoid of errors, and yet it contains one error, can you still claim its absolute perfection?

d) if i was seeker of the truth i would learn that in sikhism the truth has no character the truth is a property of the divine, i would learn that in sikhism right and wrong are a part of mans bibek buddhi ie, living by your conscience, and the more spiritually enlightened you are the more awake you are to all that is wrong and right,

You attempt to seek the truth in that which has no truth?! All praise is due to Allah who orders the Muslims:

And knowledge here is the first pillar of Islam, the very purpose of life itself, which is to worship Him correctly – knowledge of Allah, and this knowledge is true.

this is why debate on contraversial issues is an oxymoron it does not make any difference whther someone eats meat or not, it does not matter if someone is immoral or not because unless you acheive salvation or fana you are gonna come back onto this world again and again.

Fanaa! We see that you have brushed up on the Hindu-inspired heretical Sufi terms of fanaa, kashf, bakaa, wahdatul wujood, etc. Congratulations, although all in vain. Just like this entire d) section – in vain and irrelevant.

i then would say hey sikhism is not like any other religion its doctrine is sovereign and this is a religion i would like to be apart of, i most definately would use logic for otherwise how would i make logical grammatical sequences when writing this post but now what does this have to do with my religion?.

Only that you use logical deduction to come to the above conclusion concerning your religion thereby refuting your own claim!

We have further omitted Dhillon’s conversation on a forum since it is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

We hope that this time round, rather than copying and pasting conversations, Dhillon directly answers the above questions posed, which he has thus far conveniently side-stepped.