FINAL PAPER

Philosophy
Name: Umna Iftikhar
Roll Number: 1443-BH-PSY-20
Course Code: Phil-1101
Major: Psychology
Submitted to: Hafiz Saifullah Gill
Lecturer Department of Philosophy
Government College University
Lahore
Question 1
Arguments for the existence of God

Traditional religious philosophy has furnished three different

arguments on the existence of God. Each of them are denied in
one way or the other.
These arguments are
 Cosmological argument
 On to logical argument
 Teleological argument
1. Cosmological argument is based on the phenomena of
causation in the universe. God as a necessary self-
subsistent being must exist. It is argued that everything
that moves in this universe needs a mover and the mover
is God, the unmoved mover. Cosmological argument was
denied due to a logical defect. Both cause and effect are
dependent on each other. On this premise, God does not
remain absolute and independent and becomes relative
because even being the cause of all causes it depends on
the universe so this argument was denied.
2. Ontological argument prove the existence of God on the
basis of very idea of perfection. God is a perfect being. The
concept of a perfect being necessitates that a being must
be an existent being. In this paper for being that is God
must necessarily exist. this argument was refused because
 Kant said that the concept of $300 in my pocket does not
mean that $300 actually exist in my pocket.
3. Teleological argument sees that everything in this
universe is created for some purpose. There is nothing
aimless here. This proves that there exists a God who
created this universe according to a certain plan. This
argument was also denied due to the fact that there is God
present outside the universe and planning its operation
does not all prove good as a creator.
After speaking to the above three arguments, I am going to
speak up about the existence of God.
When someone is asked about the existence of God, he tends
to find scientific proof for it. We cannot prove existence of God
in a scientific way, we can do it logically. God subjects. I believe
it would be knowledge and truth. All of the three subjects have
as their basic objective the search for knowledge and truth.
Science is search for the general laws which relate to the nature
of the universe and to the nature of men. philosophy search for
the facts and principles of the reality of human nature, logic,
ethic, aesthetics, metaphysics and the theory of knowledge
itself. Religion searches for the knowledge and truth of man’s
relationship to God and of man’s Spiritual and moral well-being.
It is possible that there may exist a God even if there is no
proper evidence for His existence. I
As a Muslim, it is my prime belief that there exists a God, who
created this universe. There are so many instances happened in
my life that is caused by supernatural Supreme. Is that God?
Well, maybe yes or maybe not. This question is a lot harder
than it looks. We can say it is lack of knowledge that maybe
someday filled out. It may be noted that we also believe on
many things without their proof. We can take an example here.
We believe that life originated after Big Bang Theory even
though we don’t have clear cut evidence for it so why can’t we
believe on existence of God?

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. God has

nothing to do to prove about His existence. It is we, the human
beings, who attempt to prove His existence. The only one who
can answer about God’s existence is God Himself and He has
done nothing to prove himself. God is an inner experience that
no words can explain. We can prove it. We believe on life but
no one has ever seen the life or the cause of life. Anyone can
take photograph of anything that express life but can he take
the photograph of life. No? Well, does that mean that life does
not exist. But life do exist. Similarly if you fail to prove the cause
of universe, the God, that really does not mean that God
doesn’t exist.
God is a spirit not a physical object so how can we prove the
existence of God? God means spirit that means he is not
something that you can prove. God is internally experienced .
Atheists say that God is not proved by producing a physical
object so God does not exist. That doesn’t make sense.
Suppose that an atheist poses a question to you to prove the
existence of God. The atheist say that there is no God and if
there is then prove His existence. First of all, congratulate that
atheist because he already had accepted first part of Kalima
that is LĀĀĀ-ILĀHĀ,now your job is to prove to him the second
part of the Kalima that is IL-LAL-LAHU . You can prove it in this
way.
Ask that atheist suppose there is an object, an unidentified
object, may be a flying object, a bird may be which no one in
the world have ever seen. No human being in the world know
about this object.
If this object is brought in front of you and if you are asked that
who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the
mechanism of this unidentified object. You will ponder for
some time and then you’ll say that only the creator of this
unidentified object can tell you the mechanism of this object.
Then, ask the next question. How did the universe came into
existence. How it was formed? He will tell you about the Big
Bang Theory, which was discovered may be a century ago. Tell
him that the Quran has mentioned it in Surah
Anbiya,Ch.21:V:30 about the Big Bang Theory. Who could have
mentioned it there many centuries back?
We can also take so many examples to prove the existence of
God. Humans didn’t know that the light of the moon is
reflected. They came to know it recently. Humans didn’t know
that sum is not stationary. They came to know it almost 50
years ago or may be 100 years back. But Quran has already
mentioned about it 1400 years back. Who could have
mentioned it? Obviously the Creator of this universe ,the God,
who exist.
But, still if he’s not considering it, leave him. He is never going
to believe you no matter how much you struggle hard to give
him proofs.

Having God show up would be a good start but you are trying
to see a God that can’t be seen or touched and most
importantly that can’t be tested scientifically. God is just reality
itself so, the proof is trivial. Why are we trying to do so? Proof is
not possible within the realm of perception. We can take an
example from the verse of our Holy Quran.

“Indeed, in the heavens and earth, are signs for those who
believe”

These words show that we have to believe in God in order to

see Him but if we believe that there exists a God then, why are
we striving to prove about His existence? The most difficult
question it is.

There is so much evidence about the existence of God but you

can’t prove anything to anybody. But if we can prove the
existence of God maybe, the proof to me does not mean
anything to other.
The search for God is life itself. Our existence is the result of
God’s existence since the notion of existence can only be
possible by the existence of existent. We have a faith about
God’s existence. Faith is something you really believe for which
there is no proof. Can somebody prove to me the existence of
love or hate or is that only an opinion? We have proof all
around ourselves if we are willing to accept them. Perhaps, the
presence of God totally lacks evidence supporting His existence.
Belief in God is irrational as there is no sufficient evidence for
the existence of God. Concluding this, if we fail to spot the
proof for God’s existence, we also can’t deny His existence.
Question 2

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Philosophy, Science and Religion mark three of the most
fundamental modes of thinking about the world and our place
in it. If there is a common denominator of the three subjects. I
believe it would be knowledge and truth. All of the three
subjects have as their basic objective the search for knowledge
and truth. Science is search for the general laws which relate to
the nature of the universe and to the nature of men.
philosophy search for the facts and principles of the reality of
human nature, logic, ethic, aesthetics, metaphysics and the
theory of knowledge itself. Religion searches for the knowledge
and truth of man’s relationship to God and of man’s Spiritual
and moral well-being.

Clash between religion and science

“Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in
the same spirit as does science.”
ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD _AUGUST 1925
Arrival of science caused departure of religion from public
spheres.
Science and religion can sometimes be compatible and
sometimes it may be not.
When we consider what religion is for mankind, and what
science is, it is no exaggeration to say that the future course of
history depends upon the decision of this generation as to the
relations between them. We have here the two strongest
general forces which influence men, and they seem to be set
one against the other. When we do this, we immediately
discover two great facts. In the first place, there has always
been a conflict between religion and science; and in the second
place, both religion and science have always been in a state of
continual development. Some claims that science and religion
are both compatible as both can help each other. This claim is
known as Accommodationism.
But they can also incompatible.
The conflict between science and religion rests on the methods
they used to decide what is true and what is not.
In contrast to the methods of science, religion use dogma
scripture and authority to scratch the truth. while science
require clear cut evidence is in order to know the truth behind
everything. it includes experiments, reasoning and observation.
In science fit without any evidence is considered as a wise while
in religion it is a virtue.
But their rise a conflict between different religions also.
different religions claim different truth so there left no way to
judge which claim is right.
The late German born physicist Albert Einstein believed that
“Science without religion was lame and religion without science
was blind”. He also stated that “Church has struggled against
the Galileo and Darwin doctrines and this arise conflict between
science and religion”.
Science and religion are like two windows for looking at the
world. Like, we are looking at the same world but through
different perspectives. Science and religion have confronted
each other’s view about the nature human life creation of
universe and many other debates. Both sides and religion are
complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures
and change overtime.
Prior to scientific revolution most scientific innovations were
achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. science
has open belief system that means the data that is collected by
scientists are open to testing by others while on the other hand
religion 10 to have close live system. religious knowledge is
accepted as the way it is and it cannot be challenged anyway
while scientific knowledge can be challenged and you can add
further in it on the basis of reasoning and observations. Science
investigates the natural world but religion deals with the
supernatural and spiritual. Science is taken on face value based
on experimentation while religion is taken on faith value.
Science believes in precision and measurements while religion
has nothing to do with it. So, the two both are incompatible.

Role of philosophy in reducing the clash

Philosophy and religion
Philosophy and religion both have a common element and that
is the search for the meaning of life. Philosophy enquires the
ultimate nature of reality. Religion also does the same but in its
own way. So, their destination is same. Both religion and
philosophy consider life significant and meaningful. Many of
the problems that are present in the religion are exactly those
that are present in the philosophy. For example, the struggle to
know about the nature and existence of God, nature of human
soul and relationship of men with God. Philosophy tends to give
rational proofs for the existence of God which are the basis of
religion.
However there lie certain differences between them. Religion
aims at the contentment of the heart while philosophy aims at
intellectual satisfaction.
Science and Philosophy
Philosophy and science both of them are the outcome of
human thought. And when it comes up to investigations both of
them use ideas and concepts for it. Both discover laws and
reduced multiplicity to unity.
Both of them have evolved out of mythology. Philosophical
thought is not free from doubt so as that of science. But there
are also differences between philosophy and science. Sciences
deals with facts while philosophy is concerned with value,
meaning and significance of the facts.
Science answers the question of the nature of how and what
while philosophy answers the questions of the nature of why.
Philosophy reducing the conflict between science and religion.

Since science and religion have different points of view on same

questions philosophy, on the other hand, works together with
both religion and science. Some philosophers are not agreeing
with the conflict between the two. One of the philosopher
Swami Vivekananda claims that there is no difference between
religion and science. He said that both have same claim for
growing the humanity in order to spend their lives in a better
way while Finoghentov Valery said that the relationship
between religion and science is complex because they both are
defined as the most important sectors of human culture. Both
science and religion play important roles in our lives. Science is
a part of our culture.