Archive for the ‘God’ Category

“Your best argument that god exists”

May 13, 2015

Please view my posts and join the discussion < >.

Post #162

Paarsurrey wrote:

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2

He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.


Post #165

Paarsurrey wrote:

I don’t agree with you.
The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don’t have to.


Post #174

Paarsurrey wrote:

Yes , he was the end-time reformer as prophesied by all the religions. G-d spoke to him as He has always spoken to the righteous people in all regions of the world and at all times. Converse/communication by G-d is a strong argument for existing of G-d.

Thanks and regards

How to define G-d?

May 10, 2015

Please join an interesting discussion on my post in <> under the topic<Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone>

Paarsurrey wrote:

We know G-d from His attributes, the attributes define Him.
Some of the attributes of G-d that define Him are given below:

[112:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2]Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3]‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4]‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5]‘And there is none like unto Him.’


Why converse of G-d is needed by humans?

May 7, 2015
  1. Post #3
  2. Paarsurrey wrote: If converse between two human being could lead to cognition of one another; why converse between man and G-d cannot lead to perfect cognition of G-d by a human ? Please


One-True-God is not a human construct

May 7, 2015
One may like to comment on my post<> in the topic <Is there anything in the concepts of deity that is not arbitrary?>. Even different views are welcome.
Post #166

paarsurrey said:
One-True-God is not a human construct.

Paarsurrey wrote :

And your evidences that One-True-God is a human construct, please


Actually, There Is Evidence that God Exists

January 3, 2014

paarsurrey wrote:

January 3rd, 2014 at 4:57 pm
I agree with you if you mean by it the One-True-God Allah Yahweh. The Christian god or son of god sometimes Trinity or named Jesus is a myth invented by Paul posthumously; Jesus never claimed to be a literal god himself.

Fide Dubitandum

640x392_68652_210262Many atheists are fond of saying that there is no evidence that God exists. In fact, a great many seem to have no other argument for atheism than variations on that.

Of course, when one presents evidence, one is promptly told that whatever one presented isn’t evidence. This being the case, I’ve made a point of asking such people what standard of evidence is being used to make that judgment.

After more than fifty requests across dozens of conversations, no one yet has even attempted to answer that question.

I think this is key. Really, it is a decisive failure of the argument if it turns out that no standard other than “I don’t agree that this is evidence” is being used. As such, I think it is worthwhile to point out why the “there’s no evidence” meme is nothing more than a meme.

Let’s start with’s understanding…

View original post 970 more words

Understanding of Pascal’s Wager (or betting/gambling) made easy by Wikipedia

April 10, 2013

Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal. courtesy Wikipedia

I tried to read the Pensées of Pascal but since my mother tongue is not English; I could not understand it fully from the words of Pascal.

So I looked to Wikipedia- my virtual university. Now I feel that my understanding has been bettered after reading the .Please see “explanation” clicking the link:

Explanation: by Wikipedia

Below I give in the inverted commas the “Explanation: by Wikipedia”
Followed by comments/opinion on each point as “Paarsurrey” what I believe to be the truthful concept irrespective if Pascal believed them or he believed otherwise.

The wager is described in Pensées this way:

1. Explanation of Pensees: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”
Paarsurrey: Yes; merely by reason or by reason alone God is incomprehensible.

2. “since, having neither parts”
Paarsurrey: yes; He has no physical, material or spiritual parts as He is only an attributive being, reflecting himself by his attributes.

3. “nor limits”
Paarsurrey: Yes; he is Absolute in every good attribute, having no blemished attribute; nobody can set limits for Him while He sets limits for others.

4. “He has no affinity to us”
Paarsurrey: If the word affinity is taken as to have no resemblance or likeness; then yes, He is ONE singularity, uniqueness: If we take affinity to mean relationship or kinship or attraction or sympathy; since he has created us humans with a lot of sentiments; so He does take care of us and he helps us when we need Him; we implore him ,we make supplications to Him , we pray to Him with emotions; so he hears our prayers and solves our problems and attracted to us when we need him; saves us and forgives our sins.

5. “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….””God is, or He is not.”
Paarsurrey: As just we have seen if we use the right and appropriate resources, we are capable of knowing Him; if we refuse to use the resources and insist on using our preferred and biased resource of “reason only”, then of course we cannot know Him, not for any of His fault; but our own irrational fault.

6. “But to which side shall we incline?”
Paarsurrey: Naturally we must incline to the most beneficial line.

7. “Reason can decide nothing here”
Paarsurrey: Yes; reason without an appropriate tool is blind; cannot see anything.
8. “There is an infinite chaos”

Paarsurrey: I don’t understand as to what he means using the word “chaos”; universe is in a rhythm, it is orderly and symmetrical. If he means be it the obscurity that exits in the human minds on the issue; it will remain or even increase if we try to comprehend God by “reason alone”.

9. “which separated us”
Paarsurrey: He is always near us with his fine attributes.

“A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up”
10. Paarsurrey: God is definitely playing no games with us. He could play games, if he desires, without us. If he means the human choice; or free will choice; yes; he does not want to use force on us .Had he done it; then we would have not been given the choice or free will..

11. “What will you wager?”
Paarsurrey: We don’t have to wager or bet. We either accept him with certainty or we deny Him) “According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.”
Paarsurrey: (We have to use reason prudently, understanding its limitations; and not otherwise.

12. “Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it”
Paarsurrey: It is for this that we are not to judge anybody; and that should be left for Him to judge on the Day of Judgment.

13. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”
Paarsurrey: When we make a choice guided by the Word of Revelation using sincerely all our faculties; we are in fact not betting; but doing the right and the most beneficial thing.

14. “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see.”
Paarsurrey: When we follow the most successful and perfect human beings called prophets messengers; we can’t fail.

15. “Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will,
Paarsurrey: We lose nothing but we gain everything; right reason, right will, right knowledge and above all happiness

16. “your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery”
Paarsurrey: that will not touch us.

17. “Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? 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”
Paarsurrey: Yes; we gain all; as we choose the right path;

18. “ if you lose, you lose nothing”
Paarsurrey: with the mercy of Him; there is no question of losing.

19. “Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Paarsurrey: Yes; choose the right middle path.

20. “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much. Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss”
Paarsurrey: not so exactly,

21. “if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager.”
Paarsurrey: Yes we gain two lives
22. “But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play”
Paarsurrey: since you are under the necessity of playing,

23. “and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain.”
Paarsurrey: There are only two lives; there will not be any third life

24. “But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[5]”
Paarsurrey: Yes; but without any bet; with rational reasoning and positive decision.

25. “Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must “wager” by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already “embarked”, effectively living out the choice.”
Paarsurrey: When we throw a ball; either it ascends high or it falls; it won’t remain suspended there.

26. “We only have two things to stake, our “reason” and our “happiness”. Pascal considers that if there is “equal risk of loss and gain” (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists or not. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists”
Paarsurrey: Here clarity of concept of God becomes very essential. With concept of God that Jesus and Mary believed; the decision is fine; but with the concept of Paul and the scribes as described in NT; it is not reliable.

27. since “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing”, meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, “It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable…”
Paarsurrey: Yes belief in God brings eternal life or everlasting life indeed.

Revelation proves the existence of God

April 8, 2013

It is through the Word of Revelation on the perfect persons called messengers or prophets in all parts and in all ages of the world that the existence of one true God is proved.

Big-foot, Unicorns etc.; cannot be proved by the scientific method valid for tangible and measurable things; nor these could be proved by Word of Revelation from the one true creator God; hence these are mythical imagination only; these have no reality; neither tangible reality nor intangible reality.

Word of Revelation that descended on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad proves the existence of the one true Creator God.

Am I right?

Atheists believe GOD isn’t real because He is neither tangible nor measurable

April 8, 2013

It is an irrational concept of the Atheists. When did the theists say that the one true God is tangible or measurable so that the atheists could make any scientific experiments for His existence?

It is a misleading notion of the atheists or their ignorance of the concept of belief of God that they think in such terms.

There is no need of any scientific experiments to be made in this respect; it will be an unwise attempt to do such thing or even to think of such endeavour.

All tangible and measurable things are material and physical; and a creation of the one true Creator God. God is an attributive being; he has only attributes that could only be experienced; and do not fall under any scientific experiments.

Tell me; what is the measurement or weight of Reality or Truth or Beauty etc? These exist in abstractions and God is an absolute reality of such abstractions or attributes put together.

If one believes that such abstractions or attributes exist; then one should rationally believe in a being which singularly have all of these under ONE.

Am I right?

Americans love the phrase “God of our fathers”

March 27, 2013

The Americans could come together on the concept of God. I could say they are in search of God. There is no need to deny God, Jesus did not believe in Trinity, and there is no need to become skeptical about God and to deny Him.

One should believe in God very naturally as one believes in one’s parents- fathers and mothers. One is never in doubt about one’s parents. So; why should one be in doubt about God? It is not rational to deny Him.

I pray the Americans come together on the one true Creator God; everyone with one’s independent search. Is there any doubt about the one true creator God who has created this life through evolution in millions of years?

Which God of Our Fathers?

March 26, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I think your article shows that the Americans don’t come together on the concept of God. I could say they are in search of God. I pray they come together on the one true Creator God who has created this life through evolution in millions of years.

One should believe in God very naturally as one believes in one’s parents- fathers and mothers.


You Didn't Ask But.....

Americans seem to love the phrase “God of our fathers,” but how is that God defined?  If you listen to today’s religious conservatives you will most definitely get a version which they will swear by.  They will also quickly point out that the founders of our country were all God-fearing men.  That is an impossible position to defend because it mostly lacks for definition.

The founders of our country were, in the first place, English merchants who saw an opportunity in the New World at the Virginia plantation.  Their allegiance, such as it was, was to the Church of England.  But the colony the founded at Jamestown was far more interested in it commercial value than allying itself to any particular religion.  As was true in later settlements, these Englishmen did not first erect a church and then a community to surround it.

Next you have the “Pilgrims” who settled…

View original post 1,164 more words