Question

Over the course of the previous weeks, we have looked at lots of different approaches to the topic of God’s existence. In Week 3 we looked at arguments for God’s existence. In Week 4, we look at some objections to God’s existence. In Week 5 we looked at Pascal who offered up a pragmatic argument for believing in God even if you are not sure of the evidence. And, in Week 6, we looked at how mystics approach God’s existence. Which of these approaches do you think is the most plausible? Explain your view. Which of these approaches do you think is the least plausible? Explain your view.

Answer 1

The existence of God is a subject of beliefs rather than experiment and science. If we talk about western philosophical schools or Eastern schools, we can find different aspect which proves the existence of God. Some ideas follow inductive reasoning while other follow deductive methods.

Idealism believes in thought rather than physical conditions so it connects us with the abstract world while naturalism denies all supernatural stuff, both ideologies cannot be proved nor be denied so that it varies person to person and culture to culture.

When we experience some specific questions like. Who are we? Where we come from? Why we live and die? We started to believe in God. On the other hand, when we saw that people are dying, starving we get confused about the existence of God.

In my opinion, the existence of God neither can be proved nor can be denied, we need a trust and support so that we start to believe in God.

The Pragmatism describe my opinion in an appropriate way, I think we created the idea of God and we have firm beliefs in God because we need a supernatural support to live in this dynamic world. We can have as many God as we are because our ultimate is The God knows if he exists or Not.      

?