Rational Arguments in Favour of the Existence of God: PRECAUTIONARY ARGUMENT

Pascal’s wager or betting for the one true God was not a well-stated argument. Reason for itself is blind and needs a partner or tool to lead one to certainty.

I give here a better argument from Mirza Bashir Ahmad, an able son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi or Divine Guided One:


“In our day to  day affairs, we often undertake chores, not because of their absolute necessity, but merely because it is safer to do them. For instance, when camping in a forest, we arrange for a guard—not because of any imminent danger of thieves or wild animals—but as a precaution. We argue that although there is no imminent danger, there is no harm in having a guard. We all understand that such precautions are indeed necessary and useful.  When we look at it in the light of this principle, we find that it is more prudent to believe in God than to deny Him. Even if there is no God and the universe is a result of chance, it can do us no harm to believe in God. If, on the other hand, God does exist, then our belief would be most useful and beneficial for us. These are the only propositions.

There is no third option. If we deny the existence of God altogether, then the possibility that He might exist lands us into a more problematic situation. But if we believe in God, the possibility of His non-existence does not pose any problems for us.

‘Think about it, who is closer to peace, the believer or the non-believer?’ (al-An‘am 6:82)

It is reported that someone asked Hadrat Ali (ra) as to what was the proof of the existence of God? Observing that the inquirer was a simple man, he replied, ‘It should suffice for you to know that if there is no God then believers and non-believers are all equal and none would be at a loss. However, if there is a God, then the disbelievers will be in deep trouble indeed!’ The man was satisfied with this reasoning and did not question any further.

Where is the harm in believing in God even if He does not exist? Just reflect: The things we have to give up in accepting God are illicit sex, rape, murder, theft, robbery, lying, deceit, and everything which our nature, our intellect, and our governments already condemn and want to eliminate! So where is the disadvantage of belief in God, which does not stop us from fulfilling any of our legitimate needs? We can eat, drink, sleep, sit, stand, play, read, perform our daily chores, earn money, make friends, keep wives and have children. The only things it forbids us are those which are harmful to ourselves and to other people.

If you say, ‘Why should we believe in God without any evidence?’, my answer would be that just as we take so many precautionary measures in our worldly affairs, why must we not adopt this as a precautionary measure as well? By admitting this, there is some benefit but there is no advantage in denial and only a possibility of loss. Think and decide for yourself, as to which option is more safe and prudent. Usually the disbelievers reject not because they have any proof of the non-existence of God, but because they do not have any proof of His existence. Hence, in view of the precautionary argument, every sensible person will decide that believing in God is the wiser and safer thing to do.

If someone doubts the validity of a belief that is not based on facts but dependent only on a precautionary argument, we would say that even though such faith cannot be termed a true faith, yet it is better than nothing. Moreover, a person having such faith will at least be attracted towards God.

This could be a stepping stone for the achievement of true faith. Such faith can act as an incentive towards virtue because imperfect faith is better than no faith at all.”



image-5Holy War -the peaceful version- with reasons, arguments and peaceful dialogue

The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”! 1

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (wordpress.com)

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, it has already started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

The Holy War — A DEBATE BETWEEN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY — Jang-e-Muqaddas (alislam.org)


From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim


These are the days of Armageddon – the final battle between good and evil –The peaceful Version! 3 

Has Armageddon already started with the advent of Second Coming 1835-1908 ?– The peaceful Version! 2

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: