Home > Feedback > Dhillon’s Impossible Waheguru – Part 3

Dhillon’s Impossible Waheguru – Part 3

Inderjit Singh Dhillon aka I.S. Dhillon attempts a come back. Our response

Comments from Part 1 of this series of rebuttals – bold italics

then it is not possible for him to say anything about God, otherwise it would contradict what he affirms by making recourse to the rationale to comment on that which allegedly transcends his rationale.

Not at all firstly I am not god if god tells me he transcends rationale then he is logically telling me he transends rationale, why is this hard to understand? only someone which is themselves illogical, would argue, that if god tells us he transcends rationale, then for us, to understand his comments, he must be logical only.

This was answered in Part 2:

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.

The word nirgun and sargun describes God.
God allegedly revealed this contradiction.
We used our intellect to understand the meaning of the two words.
Hence, we comprehend the terms nirgun and sargun.
We used our rationale to determine it is a contradiction.
Thus, God is not incomprehensible nor does he transcend rationality since he utilised our rationality and our ability to reason to inform us of knowledge concerning His self.

In light of the above, your conclusion that the Sikhi God 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.

We further add: Your denial of the law of non-contradiction also entails a negation of the above; thus, you ARE god; god does NOT transcend the rationale; and he does NOT logically tell you he transcends rationality!

We do not fall into this problem since we recognise the laws of bi-valued logic to be a priori. On the other hand, you cannot make any meaningful statement since you reject the laws of logic.

we are stating that it is impossible to comment on something that is claimed to transcend the rationale, and to do so is self-refuting.

Your statement is ill-founded and i believe you have misunderstood gurbani and me, because god has a self-contradictory nature he is telling me logically that he is illogical but the conclusion you draw is that sikhim is illogical but sikhism is not god so it is illogical of you to have founded that conclusion.

Unfortunately, this is the problem – the inability of constructing logically coherent arguments.

Firstly, in relation to your conclusion, we quote the logical argument as forwarded in Part 1:

The nirgun-sargun notion is illogical.
It originates from a source.
The source is SGGS.
Thus, SGGS is illogical.

Let us modify the above to:

The nirgun-sargun notion is illogical (a contradiction).
The nirgun-sargun notion is from SGGS.
SGGS is illogical.
Sikhism is established on SGGS.
Thus, Sikhism is illogical. 

Secondly, did God make recourse to your rationale when He informed you logically that He is illogical?

If you answer in the affirmative, then our statement “we are stating that it is impossible to comment on something that is claimed to transcend the rationale, and to do so is self-refuting” is true.

If you answer in the negative, then it would be impossible for you to reach the above conclusion, i.e. “he is telling me logically that he is illogical”.

Thirdly, you can only recognise God to be self-contradictory by the denial of the law non-contradiction. Hence, God is allegedly implying that you logically conclude something is illogical by negating logic.

How does this work?

We are not expecting any type of response from you; thus, we will answer this as follows:

  • Only through the denial of bi-valued logic can Dhillon conclude that God is self-contradictory.
  • Thus, Dhillon accepts that God is NOT self-contradictory at the same time.
  • The negation of something cannot be affirmed at the same time, which compounds the situation further for the one who denies the law of non-contradiction since this negates the proposition altogether.
  • Thus, it is impossible to “tell” someone to think logically by denying it first. This is self-refuting. One can only think logically by affirming the laws of logic.
  • Thus, Dhillon’s statement above holds no meaning whatsoever.

I have stated this from the beginning that god tells us in scriptire that he can transcend rationale

Answered in Parts 1, 2 and in this article.

but youre conclusion is that everything that god does must therefore transcend rationale but transcendence of rationale is one of his many attributes, all you have done is reaffirmed what we believe and youre private emails mean nothing to me we will see who is turned into the fool and make sure you don’t flutter of into cyberspace this time.

Where did we conclude that “everything that god does must therefore transcend rationale”? As per usual, you forward no proof for your assertions, which alas, renders this argument false.

I said:

“Gurshabad is a living testimony that he can transcend rationality we did not translate any portion of gushabad to discover that it just happens every time we read it ”

And youre response:

Unfortunately, this is the state of affairs of many Sikhs who lumber about aimlessly, devoid of any divine guidance, and in desperate need of correctly using their God-given ‘aql: “And will they then not use their ‘aql.” (Qur’an)

not really we don’t need youre kind of guidance if we did we probably would start a vociferous internet campaign against islam to salvage a sense of self worth. But guruji has given us everything. Youre simple response was an attack not a rebuttal why don’t you answer the comment ill tell you cos you cant the sikh doctrine is infallible, THE SCRITURES PURPOSE IN SIKHISM IS ONE THING SCHOLARARY DISCOURSE IS ONE THING AND THE FUNCTION OF YOUR KORAN IS NOT THE SAME AS THE FUNCTION OF SGGS

If you have some arguments then produce them my last email made you irate that’s why you have started this, and you would like me to leave this forum but unless I get banned I wont be going anywhere you can be assured of that.

Irrelevant!

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind, how have you come to the conclusion that He does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything concerning God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun, this can only be done with the use of your rationale. Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.

And you call this theology proper? God can tell me logically that he is illogical where is the catch 22,

Although this point is answered above, we will elaborate on the fallacy of answering a question that has not been asked. Dhillon fails to realise, once again, that we did not ask you whether God is illogical; we asked you how you reached any conclusion concerning God without making recourse to the rational mind. Instead, you have ignored the question completely, drawn up a strawman argument and thumb sucked it.

Hastiness!

I am not god, nirgun-sargun is the nature of god you then make a typical statement and ask me to define nature fine what if I say the likeness of god is sargun and nirgun, does it really make a difference you know you have been going down a blind alley and its just hit you now, cos of the email I sent you, have some humility and let go of the anger. You think cos god has the ability to transcend rationale he cant be rational also? are you not limiting god? to fit youre worldview?

Firstly, it is our prerogative to ask you to define vague terms; not defining terms is a fallacy known as freshman. Hence, in argumentation and dialogue, it is “typical” to ask the opponent to define terms. Such an approach would be unknown to someone who has very little idea of how to debate.

Secondly, we do not understand what you mean by this statement: “You think cos god has the ability to transcend rationale he cant be rational also”. When did we ever come close to suggesting that God transcends rationality?

Our suggestion to you: slow down because hastiness results in schoolboy blunders.

Either you remain silent about God to prove that God is beyond the rational mind, which in and of itself is impossible since the very notion of God would not exist, or you say something and end up contradicting that which you affirm. Either way, alhamdulillaah (all praise is due to Allaah) you shoot yourself in the foot.

why remain silent? What does this have to do with the self-contradictory nature of god?, let me post my email here again perhaps you did not read it well:

We believe the above statement is clear. In fact, your assertion that god is self-contradictory is proof that it is impossible for God to transcend rationality. We repeat again for your edification (we apologise to the readers for this monotonous reiteration):

If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind how have you come to the conclusion that he does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything about God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in the SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun; this can only be done with the use of the rationale. Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.

The rest of your response was covered in Part 2… what was relevant that is!

Check Also

Waheguru Wave-Particle Duality

Recognising their Nirgun-Sargun concept of God to be a contradiction, some Sikh apologists have turned to Quantum Mechanics, particularly the famous double-slit experiment, to defend this stance. But in doing so, they end up digging themselves deeper into trouble!

Bijla Singh is ‘Contradicting Allah’

Another confused, jumbled and desperate attempt at defending the indefensible theology of Nirgun-Sargun (when will they learn?).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *