Arguments for the Existence of God?

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

walekum peace psyah. Just to play devils advocate in this thread, i dont necessarily vehemently disagree with you, though im not convinced of this particular line of argument.

[quote]

I didn't say it is reasonable to accept a fallible argument as evidence. I said it is reasonable to accept arguments that are comprehensive yet not logical.

[/quote]

my sense of fallible was an argument that proves nothing either way. if it can be both true or false we are no better than what we were before it.

[quote]

At best the ontological arguments and cosmological arguments are self fulfilling so logically they are not 'untrue' rather they are 'indeterminate' which means as you know that 'they present the possibility' of truth. This is a reasonable argument and not a fallible argument. To accept something which is 'untrue' is fallible such as the concept of Trinity.

[/quote]

If they are indeterminate, it means they are value-neutral. which means that when settling the indeterminate question of God, we merely add this as another indeterminate argument.

Also some of the ontological proofs (St. Anselms one for example) has been shown to be logically flawed, I cant remember the proof now though.

[quote]

Now to explain by what I meant by objectively understood.

I didn't intend to say that everyone understands the matter like everyone else. Rather I intended to say that although something may not flow according to strict logical rules ... the concept of reflecting on things brings humans to the same reasonable conclusions. That to understand that something of complicated nature has to be made by something else is something that everyone can grasp albeit not necessarily in the same way. That to ask a sample set of people if they understand this to be reasonable most people will say yes. The few that will say no are the people who have misunderstood the question and may probably reply with a reason that the argument is not conclusive, but that was not the answer to the question asked...
[/QUOTE]

you have a very different notion of objectivity. objectivity is not about the majority, if every human got together and said we dont believe in the Sun, the Sun would still exist. furthermore, what the majority finds reasonable is based on what their values are, what their perspectives are. a majority of finnish people finds it reasonable to believe that there is no God.

I could address the specific arguments you make (there should be a Creator leading to the infinite regress problem) but I think you were citing them as examples, to which i somewhat agree.

i personally lie more along Kierkegaards way of thinking. I dont believe it is possible to make logical/rational headway on this. Believing in God is like falling in love.. you make some calculations about suitability and you're motivated by what you need in life, but it is also a matter of passion and subjectivity... you can never objectively show that one should fall in love with person X.

22

Peace ravage

The indeterminates are where faith lies and my arguments stem from faith and then to the philosophical constructs. So you are right in that if fallible means not conclusive, but I guess I would be right if fallible only meant 'taking the logically impossible to be true'.

Also some arguments are circular but others are not it is wrong to say that the following is a circular argument:

I believe there is One God because it says so in the Qur'an.

The reason I say this is because trust in the Qur'an can come from other areas other than ones bias of One God. We can base a belief on other established beliefs until we reach something which is testable. I believe in miracles but they are not testable but other things are and although this may not be logically sound argumentation it is 'understood' as circumstantial or at least subjective evidence and people do not call me insane for accepting on this basis. Because to accept on this basis is statistically testable at least to be a firm bet.

So I agree with your 'like love' analogy just as you have developed the conclusion from that analogy and applied it on to the concept of God's existence in the same way this is an indeterminate argument that you have taken as feasible. To argue by analogy is not a logical process of argumentation yet I see you have used it and I agree with its validity.

23

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

Reminds me of the thread I think titled as: Religion: Logic or Faith?

(Can't find/search the link)

I had said: Its a circular argumnet to say Quran is word of God since Quran says so!

(Point A is used to confirm point A)

Believing on existence of God based on Quranic statement (or any other scripture) is not necessarily a direct circular argument but indirectly IT IS; (Point A is used to confirm point B-but both point A and B are hanging in air and reside in the heart and minds of people)...since just like believing on existence of God, believing on Quran (and other scriptures) is also a matter of faith.

24

Great!

In religious thinking, reward is for those who believe without argument!

And those who liked to argue, miracles were given to the prophets (AS).

Despite that ultimate result was that neither arguments nor miracles ( having absolutely no logic at all) could change people's heart and mind. (remember even the closest relatives and companions of the prophet (SAW)

We must not fall in to the trap of arguments for existence of God and religious matters.

Afterall:

Lut (AS) could not stop his nation from wrong deeds.

Noah (AS) could not convince his son.

Ibrahim (AS) could not convince his father.

Musa (AS) was given hard time from his nation again and again.

Issa (As) had only handful of people following him till the end.

Muhammad (SAW) could not convince even people from his family.

So its just a matter of faith/belief/Imaan/Hidayat in the end.

25

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

Often it is necessary to break things down into smaller cubes of acceptability to present a case for belief.

To simply accept God can be a big undertaking especially when you have to consider which version of 'God' is being accepted.

Pantheon of gods - no special reason exists in favour of this however, the reason that they will all fight one another and that there will be no harmony is good reasoning for it to be unlikely for more than One God to exist.

Likewise if no 'god' existed then this would raise a lot of questions about the origins of everything else, therefore it is reasonable to assume that One God exists.

Having established (to a degree of confidence) that One God means that we have harmony this should also be reflected in the Qur'an should it be suggested that it is the Word of God.

To test the Qur'an for discrepancy is a task anyone can do, provided they accept the sound argument that

a) One God exists
b) The falsification test of a harmonious scripture is reasonable evidence for a Divine scripture then we can continue.

So on and so forth ...

It is therefore acceptable to base a belief on the premise of other sound beliefs. Not proven but sound.

A sound belief is something that is either 100% proven or something that cannot be disproven i.e. presents a possibility.

26

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

Hidayat (Guidance) is indeed the key to belief without it we will find ways to disbelieve. Guidance only comes to those who want to accept.

It boils down to two areas alone:

Possibility and Conclusiveness

Those people who seek conclusiveness in all matters have made the assumption that only the things known are worthy of acceptance, yet they will use many principles which are not proven in their normal lives.

The people who reside in possibility are cautious and conscious of their own limitations that the possibility presents some means to a higher understanding so they allow themselves to be Guided.

The people of blind belief may get lucky sometimes and land in truth, but when they are led to falsehood - i.e. something that is determined to be 100% false they still accept it. They betray their sense of reason.

Those who dwell in proof alone are often arrogant yet the people who dwell in both proof and possibility are often of pious natured.

The domain of possibility is subdivided into that what is probable and that what is improbable. The probable should be tended towards more readily than the improbable. What seems improbable may need more evidence and support to deem it proabable. That is why the improbable act for example of Isa (AS) being taken to heaven alive is accepted by Muslims because it is matter documented in the Qur'an, which is unchanged and so on.

As long as the Ascension cannot be disproven it remains something worthy of belief.

Tum Kahin Our Jo Mehko To Bura Lagta Hai..!!
27

Why would it not be noble? Don't the people want to see God? God himself proved himself that he exists through the scribes and now you come here and tell me + all the others that if we were to prove God, it would not be noble to believe in God?

you are so contradiciting in yourself! Don't you need logic and proof to give reason and evidence? I don't man if it's worth to waste my time here. The muslims also believed that trains and cars are the work of the devil! The muslims! lol!

Can the ascension be proven btw? Allah is everywhere! Where did he lift him up? The verses can be explained like this and that! Give me a proof. All your proofs failed till yet!

See you!

28

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

^ Peace Numb

Really ... Like always you have misunderstood and answered in a manner that is based on that deception. Please read my post again and try to understand what I am saying.

29

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

^

then make me understand or do you think Numb is Dumb? I'm here to see and learn from different opinions!
What I can use I will take, what I can't, I will reconsider it and then when my mind still doesn't want to take it, I let it stay and these will be your opinion. You ask others to think, then think about what I'm barking since 3-4 months!

30

Peace Numb

Just like you have misunderstood me, your bazurgh have misunderstood Maulana Qasim Nanotwi. By quoting his words in a meaning outside his intent you get something other than what he was describing ... the same has happened to me when you said

"Why would it not be noble?"

When I said

"Were it possible to prove the existence of God, then it would not be noble to believe in Him"

I was actually referring to the Qur'an ... when it says "On that Day there will be CERTAINTY OF SIGHT" a time when no tauba will be accepted and no amount of prayer will be relevant. Because when a person has PROOF which is the same as CERTAINTY OF SIGHT there is no "kamal ki cheez" in believing in God, if there is proof then even the secular scientists will say that they believe in God ... that is true right? But the real time to be a believer is when there is only suggestions of evidence to support the existence of God not to have full objective PROOF. This time is now while we are alive in this life. So it is only possible to be doing something noble when it is done out of a sense of obligation not out of a sense of fear. We fear what we can SEE and we do not fear what is hidden. Therefore to obey Allah (SWT) when He is Ghaib that is noble but to obey Him when we are certain there is no nobility in that.

Do you understand now?

31

not really :D

What kind of argument is that? Certainty of Sight and Proof etc? I have understood it correct and this makes no sense to me. I believe to have read something similar. We will talk on that!

32

Fascinating - thanks for posting. However, I did not find a single argument convincing. I don't think we can rationalize God or logically deduce the existence of God. I suspect one has to experience God.

33

Why you think someone deserves a reward as big as Heaven, for believing in something when there is not clear that what he/she is believing is right?

Does it suggest some general rule that believers should follow? because generally in day/today life people accept things when they can accept them i.e. they have evidence/arguments, and when they don't have enough evidence/arguments and still they accept something as true, it is labeled as doubt, i.e. shak in Urdu.

And this statement also goes against the general rule of believing the truth and saying the truth.

34

Have you experienced God?

35

here is a proof of existence of Allah;

life is the absence of death and death is the absence of life, but we cannot touch or see both of them.

similarly, light is the absence of darkness and darkness is the absence of light and we cannot touch them

but we do beleive in all of these things.

similarly, when Allah told the mankind in Quran about his existence then why r we so confused on that?

:)

36

This. But, of course, this makes it completely pointless to preach god to others because they won’t believe deep down until they truly experience it for themselves.

I honestly hope you don’t really consider that proof, otherwise your circuitous and logically fallacious understanding of ‘proof’ is shocking. We can measure light and its absence, the same way we can determine if something lives or not. What similar experiment can we enact to prove god’s existence? Nothing. We can’t.

I have a link to a great video. The guy doing it presents himself as a Christian, but he doesn’t believe in god — we call his method of biting wit and observation ‘satire’. Although he presents arguments against the Christian god, the same points apply to ANY divinity, including allah. In a universe where we can’t demonstrate god’s existence, how can we differentiate between a universe in which god exists and one in which god doesn’t exist?

god only SEEMS non–existent!

Timepass-Jan 2013
37

Re: Arguments for the Existence of God?

dude im studying at IBA and have a course called philosophy of islam ... dude can anyone forward me any material they may have its gonna be of help to me when i submit my synopsis at the end....