Can we prove existence of God logically or empirically?,If yes then, prove !

Discuss » Faith and Religion

Can we prove existence of God logically or empirically?,If yes then, prove !

(119 posts)

12 3 Next »

LalBichoo
Blocked

Can we prove existence of God logically or empirically?,If yes then, prove !

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 9:21 #
ajhons
Member

Well I never though about it before.Keeping in view my ignorance let's start from proving God does not exist.

Whaever I thought is not what I want to think.Sometime Im compelled to think.In some cases we just think without any bounding force.How we think? Why we think? Science talks about some nurons and threads to define how we think.But its unable to describe why we think.

The reproduction cycle is believe tobe due to certain pre defined steps.But life itself is not yet measured by any theory.Life, the 21 gram of matter inevery cell of live organisim yet tobe discover.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 10:17 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

"""Keeping in view my ignorance let's start from proving God does not exist."""

>>>

So, you can not prove existence of your God ????

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 10:49 #
hkbajwa
Member

I think it very much depends on whether we are trying to prove the existence of a wise old man in the sky or whether we are trying to prove the existence of a universal intelligence that influences all things within the universe.

The former is impossible to prove because God is not an old man in the sky. The latter however is considered all but fact even by the greatest of scientists.

I believe that the greater one's knowledge is, the more one begins to believe in a universal power. Einstein himself admitted that he could not envision a universe without a singular all-powerful force (i.e God) behind it.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 10:56 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

hkbajwa,

The point is how can that 'universal intelligence's exitence be proven ???
Why there can not be godless universe ?
Why we need a God at all ?

============

""The latter however is considered all but fact even by the greatest of scientists. """

>>>

With all due respect I don't think all the 'greatest of scientists' were theist !

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:06 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Lalbichoo

Well i do believe humans need one basic thing. They need to believe that the entire universe is part of one big pattern.

When muslims say La illaha il allah, they are not exhalting his omnipotence or speaking of his attributes. They are speaking of his singularity. The singularity aspect is extremely important for the human psyche

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:11 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Lalbichoo

One does not need to be a theist or to adhere to a particular religion in order to believe in a universal power.

I consider scientists to be doing the same thing as sufis or spiritualists. They search for truth. But they can only do so under the assumption that there is only one final basic truth. If there are several, all sicentific research loses its meaning.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:13 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

hkbajwa,

"""Well i do believe humans need one basic thing. They need to believe that the entire universe is part of one big pattern. """

>>>

WHY ????
Why we need to believe that universe is part of one big pattern ??

===================

"""They are speaking of his singularity. The singularity aspect is extremely important for the human psyche """

>>>

I don't think I was trying to prove that there were more than one god ? :))
Then why are you trying to prove that there's infact only one god ? :))

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:17 #
pappu
Member

Einstein on god

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:44 #
zia m
Member

It is not possible to prove the existence of God.The concept of God has been evolving from the very dawn of civilization.Most of the scientists who believe in God, their concept of God is Nature itself.It is not a personal God who answers prayers or will punish human in hell fire.

Science can't explain everything, they have been looking for a theory of everything but haven't found it untill then even some of the scientist will keep on believing in God.You may call it God of the Gaps.It is purely based on human intuition.
String theory is getting popular among some cosmologists.It is like parallel universes.Big bang could simply be the birth of baby universe and such universes could exist simultaneously.
Eienstein was influenced by Spinoza who cobsidered nature as God.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 11:45 #
hkbajwa
Member

Well i personally consider the entire Universe as God.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:00 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

hkbajwa,

So, you are a Deist :))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:03 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ lalbichoo

Nope.. i'm a muslim if i am anything :) I don't think muslims believe in an old man in the sky either

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:12 #
zia m
Member

Well i personally consider the entire Universe as God"

If there are more than one universe would you believe in multiple gods.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:14 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

"""I don't think muslims believe in an old man in the sky either """

>>>

But Muslims don't consider Universe as God either, do they ? :))

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:29 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Zia

Very interesting question. I'll have to think about that some more. Good one

@ Lalbichoo

Well to be honest i don't really think "muslims" have a unified perception of God at all.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:34 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

"""Well to be honest i don't really think "muslims" have a unified perception of God at all. """

>>>

True, as Sunni God is quite different from Shia God :)
As Mutazaliite's conception of God was different from Ashariite's :))

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:40 #
jaypk
Member

@LB...kia yaar..!! tu har baar yahee sawal lay kar aa jata hay..!

aik insect ki taang to hum insaan wapis jor naee saktay..9 maheenay kis tarah aik individual payt main zinda rehta hay and how all the planets are rotating only in their axis and never go beyond tht..meteorological depts of the world have got sattellites but they cant predict the earthquakes and sunamis..why we question tht does God exist or not whn as a human being we never came into this world with our will and we never leave with our will......i mean...kitnay sign hain meray bhai...this world and our life are ful of signs..but only for those who are sincere in thr cause and are sincere in the will to accept tht there is someone who is running all this..!!

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:44 #
zia m
Member

jaypak
It is the most important and interesting question.It makes you think.
All the scientific research is based on quest for search of God.If you study Newton, you will find that he was obsessed to find answers for his religious beliefs.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 12:59 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

jaypk,

Plzzzz elaborate your argument !

Are you claiming that as so far humans are unable to cure some 'insects', we should believe in a God ???

"""9 maheenay kis tarah aik individual payt main zinda rehta hay ""

>>>

I think medical science has already explained in detail how a foetus survives :)

================

"""all the planets are rotating only in their axis and never go beyond tht.."""

>>>

So, we should believe in a God who created planets and their axis and also shown path to the planets :))
Do we really have to believe that this universe has a starting point ?
What if this Universe has been in existence ad infinitum ?
If god has always existed then why can't universe ?

==================

"""meteorological depts of the world have got sattellites but they cant predict the earthquakes and sunamis.."""

>>>

Was it possible to predict rain/storms 4/5 hundred years ago ? No !
So, may be after 4/5 hundred years man will be able to predict earthquakes and Tsunamis !

==============================

"""why we question tht does God exist or not whn as a human being we never came into this world with our will and we never leave with our will......"""

>>>

We need to believe in God just becoz we have some shortcomings ? :)))

===============

"""kitnay sign hain meray bhai...this world and our life are ful of signs..but only for those who are sincere in thr cause and are sincere in the will to accept tht there is someone who is running all this..!! """

>>>

I don't see any sign, will you plzzz show me some :))
BTW it seems it's all matter of faith not reason :)))

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 13:06 #
jaypk
Member

@lb...as i said..if the will to accept is thr...and if we search with a mind and heart which really is in need fr the answers thn its fine..and only then can we find the answer...agar niyyat main he khot hay to kia yaar...Allah taala aap ki shah rag say bhee qareeb hay...kia yeh kaafi nahee meray or tumharay liye...!!

its a long debate..and i ll try to answer all yer questions...infact i m pretty sure tht frm thm you ll create more questions..as it feels like you are just after it fr the sake of it..otherwise if you are sane enough..you wouldnt have ask this question..!!

by the way...coming and leaving this world is nt our shortcoming....its what we want to do but we cant do...no matter how big n rich and whdeva we are...it happens with hukum of Allah SWT...whn you die..is tht yer shortcoming...whn you born is tht yer shortcomin??.....kia ho gya hay meray bhai....i reallly need to ask yer age...:P

if its a matter of faith nad nt reason...thn why are you asking all these reasonings?? :)

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 14:16 #
LetsDoIt
Member

There are many philosphical debates on this subject. There are many arguments which you could find on existance of God. I could write just few of them.

1- Existance of Universe is the biggest prove that there is some creator who have created universe. There are many articles which you could find on this subject. Lot of detail could be found from the discussion and the result of this discussion in two lines is:

Either SOMETHING could be created from NOTHING and if NOTHING could not create SOMETHING then there exists a Creator who have created all this. This is also known as First Cause Argument.

2- Another prove of God's existance is that if He has created our world and created us then it is compulsory that he would have maintained some means to keep a contact with us and sending lot of messengers and his commands through Holy Books is another big prove that God exists. Quran it self is a biggest prove that it is not written by some human but it is written by the Creator Himself.

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 18:22 #
SufiSoul
Member

I would like to request Mr Thread initiator to come up with his reseach that NO CREATOR EXISTS....

After that i will just explain from ILMUL KALAM that thier is a creator.......

Thanx

Posted 1 year ago on 09 Mar 2010 22:35 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

jaypk,

"""as i said..if the will to accept is thr...and if we search with a mind and heart which really is in need fr the answers thn its fine..and only then can we find the answer...agar niyyat main he khot hay to kia yaar."""

>>>

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'will' ??
Aren't you asking me to assume that there's in fact a god and then try to justify its existence ?
I'm an atheist and why are you expecting me to search god (why should I search something which is not there at all ?) ?

==================

"""Allah taala aap ki shah rag say bhee qareeb hay...kia yeh kaafi nahee meray or tumharay liye...!!"""

>>>

How can you prove it logically or scientifically /empirically?

===================

"""otherwise if you are sane enough..you wouldnt have ask this question..!!"""

>>>

Are you implying all theist are sane and others are insane ? :))

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 7:41 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

LetsDoIt,

Plzzz read below what Bertrand Russell says about your favorite First Cause Argument !

The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 7:49 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

LetsDoIt,

"""2- Another prove of God's existance is that if He has created our world and created us then it is compulsory that he would have maintained some means to keep a contact with us and sending lot of messengers and his commands through Holy Books is another big prove that God exists. Quran it self is a biggest prove that it is not written by some human but it is written by the Creator Himself. """

>>>

Sir you are presuming that there's infact a god who created the Universe, this is a logical fallacy my friend !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

"""his commands through Holy Books is another big prove that God exists. """

>>

This argument is flawed for a person who doesn't believe in 'Holy Books' at all !

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 7:57 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

SufiSoul,

"""I would like to request Mr Thread initiator to come up with his reseach that NO CREATOR EXISTS....

After that i will just explain from ILMUL KALAM that thier is a creator......."""

>>>

Just read my first/original post again, and then comment if you want !

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/can-we-prove-existence-of-god-through-logical-argumentsif-yes-then-prove#post-127701

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 8:03 #
ajhons
Member

Dear Lalbichoo, Sorry couldn't respone you in due time as I left for home is hussry.Just saw your message in other tread and follwed.I'll be writing soon as a bit busy at the moment.
Bhai Rozi bhi halal karni hay.

Thanks

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 8:13 #
ajhons
Member

The number of spelling mistakes show how much busy I'm right now :)lol

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 8:20 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

ajhons,

No problem my friend, will wait for your feedback :)

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 8:22 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

"""
The God Delusion.

Richard Dawkins argues that there is no rational or moral reason to believe in God or any other supernatural higher power."""

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Science/Biology/Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion/26738

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 8:29 #
hamara pakistan
Member

@LalBichoo
You asked this question being a Muslim or on behalf of a non-Muslim?
If you asked this question being a Muslim then I beleive there is no need to give you any hint about God because Quran and Rasool (SAWW) explained to us very wll about God.
However if you asked this question on behalf of a non-muslim who does not beleive in God then I don't think you'll be agreed on any proof given here.
You are mentioning "Bertrand Russell" and "Richard Dawkins". Why can't you quote here Quran and our prophet (SAWW)?
Human's knowledge seemd to be so limited that we even can't count the numbers. We call it infinity where we reach our limit. Infinity is beyond our imagination.
If we are so helpless then how can we imagine about God unless someone has to tell us about it?
For us, Muslims, Quran and prophet(SAWW) told us very clearly about God and we have no dount about it. For a person who does not beleive in God, I can say his limited imagination power hinders him in finding God.

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 12:57 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

hamara pakistan,

My friend I'm an Atheist, plzzz go through the whole thread then you'd come to know what we are discussing here !
Why do you expect an atheist to have belief in Quran and Prophet of Islam ?

"""For us, Muslims, Quran and prophet(SAWW) told us very clearly about God and we have no dount about it. """

>>>

You most probably a born-muslim, and that's what you've been told to believe !

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 13:14 #
zia m
Member

Depends how you define God, if you mean an anthromorphic personal sky-fairy, of course it does not exist, but if you mean an embodiment of universal laws or universal constants, then yes, you can justify the possibility of existence of such an entity.

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 14:07 #
NNL
member

Yall sound like the Sufis going Allah who ? Allah Who ? Allah who ?

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 15:55 #
zia m
Member

Allah Who? is much safer than shouting Anal-Haq Anal-Haq.

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 19:03 #
netengr
blocked

this is a Aqeda a belief ,Allah's may or may not be proven by science ,Allah is known though his creature ,How the whole world is created and controlled clearly shows that there is some one created it and controlling this whole universe .

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 19:48 #
SufiSoul
Member

Lal Bichoo Sahib,

OK lets start.

Do you know the science of Logic.How much you know about this science..????cuz we will discuss the presence of GOD and it is must that you u know this science...

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 20:28 #
lota6177
Members

Cause and effect is part of human evoloution. Anytime you hear a sudden sound outside in the yard we assume there is someone out there.

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 22:02 #
zia m
Member

There is a book just published 36 Arguments for existence of God A work of fiction.
We can discuss all 36 one at a time.
The first one deals with cause and effect.

You decide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

1. The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"

Posted 1 year ago on 10 Mar 2010 22:28 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

@NNL

""Yall sound like the Sufis going Allah who ? Allah Who ? Allah who ? """

>>>

That's all you can say for the existence of your God/Allah ! :))

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 4:02 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

SufiSoul,

"""Lal Bichoo Sahib,

OK lets start."""

>>>

Ready steady and get set go :)))

================

"""Do you know the science of Logic.How much you know about this science..????cuz we will discuss the presence of GOD and it is must that you u know this science... """

>>>

lolzzzz

Bhai jan I'm just middle-pass as I got failed in matric :(

Dude, forget about me and just try your best to prove existence of your god logically and/or empirically ! :))

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 4:05 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

hkbajwa,

"""Cause and effect is part of human evoloution. Anytime you hear a sudden sound outside in the yard we assume there is someone out there. """

>>>

First Cause Argument is no more a valid argument for the existence of god, please go check out what B. Russell says about it !

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 4:07 #
LetsDoIt
Member

LalBichoo

For the first cause argument you presented Bertrand Russel's point of view which is not necessarily correct. Secondly he is only criticizing on the argument which is the easiest thing in this world, he is not presenting any alternative for that which is the difficult thing to do.

For the 2nd point, i think you have not understand my point of view. Please read it again. I never invited anyone to believe in Quran, as a word of God. Quran itself is present and you could not deny its existance. Now its you to prove that its a word of human not a word of God according to what you believe.

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 10:40 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

LetsDoIt,

Let's analyse your First Cause Argument !

It says for every effect there must be a cause,
There is a cause n effect chain which stops at First Cause and that very First Cause is God !

Now if we say there is a cause n effect chain they why should we stop it ??
If everything (effect) has a cause then what's the cause of First Cause ???

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 11:03 #
ajhons
Member

Yar bachpan main aik shair sunna tha.App bhi sunye

Jesi karni wesi bharni na manay to kar k daikh
Jannat bhi hay dozaq bhi hay na manay to Mar k daikh

)):::

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 12:10 #
ajhons
Member

Yar when you question the existance of God you try to negate the whole course of history.The time of different prophets.It means that either all of the propets were just legend stories and there is no such era of any prophet.
There was no arabia where prophit muhammad came.Or if there was a prophet then whatever written in the history is wrongly stated.

I mean existance of God is directly proportional to what ever written is the books about HIS prophets.Even an iota of all is not correct.

Secondly what do u say about Quran.Is it a man made book?

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 12:17 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

ajhons,

Have you ever heard about Pascal's Wager ? If not then go through following excerpt plzzz !

"""In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts):

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.[1]

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man [2], and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.

Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil. [3]

Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:

Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable......"""

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 12:24 #
SufiSoul
Member

Lal Bichoo,

To avoid ur irrelevent questions about the topic you should assure me that you are happy with the logic Science...

Logic is a separate science u must know and while proving GOD's existance you should know this science otherwise you will never be able to understand Logically....

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 12:39 #
LalBichoo
Blocked

SufiSoul,

I think I've already replied you !

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/can-we-prove-existence-of-god-through-logical-argumentsif-yes-then-prove#post-128445

Stop posting off-topic posts now !

What's stoping you to start presenting your case ?

Posted 1 year ago on 11 Mar 2010 12:42 #