Ashu wrote:If anyone tries to prove/disprove God exists I will laugh in their face.A god that can be measured,quantified,touched,seen and heard is not a god...
tell that to a billion budhists.
or a billion hindies.
or, for that matter, to a (don't know how many and not going to lookup) christians, believing Jesus was the flesh incarnation of god.
or ancient greeks, or Egyptians.
can any one tell me why is monotheism considered enlightened and polytheism/paganism is considered primitive?
the ancient greek lay the foundation to our entire structure of reasoning/scientifical process. it was said that "all of western philosophy is but sidenotes to Plato". and Plato and his contemporaries were pagans.
never mind. i can tell you:
because history (and morals) is written by the victors. the strongest and most influencial religion today is christianity, and the education to believe in an unfathomable, omnypresent, omnypotent, omniscient god, is a way to preserve itself.
anyway, i want to put my 2 cents on the original post of this thread.
there can not be a philosophical argument neither proving nor disproving God. philosophy (in western tradition, at-least), is reasoning. it is a long chain of reasons and effects, steming from basic, defined axioms.
the "quality" of a philosophical argument can be measured by:
A) how clear cut and precise (note: precise is NOT synonimus with accurate!) the axioms are.
B) how rigidly the conclusions are derived.
an outstanding example of this will be descartes' "cogito ergu sum" (i think, therfore i am) argument, in which he rejects all of sensual input and finally arives at the conclusion that there is at-least one thing he can be certain of, and that is his own existence (well, descartes was a mathematician, and those guys are worse than lawyers when it comes to blocking any loophole).
any way, God as we understand it, is beyond reason. it transcends reason (yes, i too am a product of the judeo-christian religios education system). and just as you cannot explain the actions of a person by sheer physics (for people's actions have a purpose, and pysics only deals with reasons), you can not explain God by sheer philosophy.
you can try and prove god by certain pseudo-scientific arguments, but than again, who really wants a god who is subject to science?
and i thing douglas adams said it best:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
one believes god, or he doesn't. i don't.