facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 25, 2010, 06:20 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579
Default Does God exist?

I couldn't find any old topic by this name. Mods can merge it with suitable thread. Although the thread title is instigating debate my sole purpose for this thread was to compile and share all the philosophical proofs of God's existence. But since topic like this is bound to get pounced upon I decided for the current title. Proofs will range from Aquinas to Anselm ending in powerhouse of logic, Godel's ontological proof using modal logic to proponents of relevant logic.

Once again my stance here is neutral and not using these proofs to shove down your gullet rather it's just a curious survey or study for sharing and discussion. Enjoy!
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator

Last edited by Zeeshan; October 3, 2010 at 02:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 25, 2010, 06:27 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

First we will start off with Godel's ontological proof with modal logic.
Symbolically:

__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 25, 2010, 06:34 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

For explanation of the above argument check out website of Christopher Small of University of Waterloo.

Quote:
Kurt Gödel is best known to mathematicians and the general public for his celebrated incompleteness theorems. Physicists also know his famous cosmological model in which time-like lines close back on themselves so that the distance past and the distant future are one and the same. What is less well known is the fact that Gödel has sketched a revised version of Anselm's traditional ontological argument for the existence of God.

How does a mathematician get mixed up in the God-business? Gödel was a mystic, whose mathematical research exemplified a philosophical stance akin to the Neo-Platonics. In this respect, Gödel had as much in common with the medieval theologians and philosophers as the twentieth-century mathematicians who pioneered the theory of computation and modern computer science. However, a deeper reason for Gödel's contribution to the ontological argument is that the most sophisticated versions of the ontological argument are nowadays written in terms of modal logic, a branch of logic that was familiar to the medieval scholastics, and axiomatized by C. I. Lewis (not to be confused with C. S. Lewis, or C. Day Lewis for that matter). It turns out that modal logic is not only a useful language in which to discuss God, it is also a useful language for proof theory, the study of what can and cannot be proved in mathematical systems of deduction. Issues of completeness of mathematical systems, the independence of axioms from other axioms, and issue of the consistency of formal mathematical systems are all part of proof theory.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 25, 2010, 06:44 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

For the more mathematical minded here's a set-theoretical approach by Robert K. Meyer. I don't have access to the original article of God Exists! which appeared in Nous journal but here's the explanatory proof.

Link

Quote:
Let S be the set of all entities that exist (or have existed). Define the relation <= on S by saying that x<=y if and only y is a cause of x. By verbal fiat we will define x to be a cause of x for all x in S (if we do not accept this definition, our assumptions will be slightly different; however, it is clear that the existence of x is necessary and sufficient for the existence of x, and that the existence of x is never strictly temporally posterior to that of x, so calling x a cause of itself is not such a bad idea.) Then, <= is transitive, and moreover if x<=y and y<=x, then x=y (i.e., there are no circles of causation). Hence, <= defines a partial ordering on S.

Premiss 1: The set S is a set in a universe of sets satisfying the Axiom of Choice.

Premiss 2: The set S is inductively ordered.

(Definitions will be given below.) Define a God to be an element G of S with the property that if X is another element of S such that G<=X, it must be the case that X=G. Define a divine creator of an element X in S to be a God G such that X<=G. (By definition, each God is a divine creator of itself.)

Theorem: If Premisses 1 and 2 hold, then a God exists and, moreover, any existent entity then has a divine creator.

The Theorem is a deductive consequence of the premisses together with some appropriate axioms of set theory (just use Zorn's Lemma for the proof). No claim is made in the Theorem about uniqueness (or about the divine creator of X being the same for every X other than him).

To specify the premisses further, for Premiss 1 we need an appropriate set theory in which we can embed S. Note that each element of S is to be an ens realis. This is important since if we allowed either an ens mentalis or a potential being to be in S, then it would not be clear that we can embed S in a set theoretic universe (since then the set S might contain all other sets, etc.) And we need that the Axiom of Choice should hold, which means simply that for every set T whose elements are a pairwise disjoint collection of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose a set V which contains precisely one element from each of the sets in T. (If T is finite, this is obviously true. The reason the Axiom of Choice is not completely obvious is that while for each of the sets in T we can choose an element of that set, it is not clear what is meant by making an infinite number of such arbitrary choices. Perhaps after all it might not be possible to specify a rule for making the choice, so that if sets are to be defined by rules deciding if a given element is in the set or not, then it may not be so clear that the Axiom holds.)

Premiss 2, however, is the one which is metaphysically loaded. This premiss is a very strong statement of the principle that each entity has a cause. More precisely, the assumption of inductive ordering says that given a chain T in S, there exists an entity X in S such that X is the cause of every entity in the chain T. By a chain T in S is meant a set of elements of S with the property that if x and y are distinct elements of T, then either x<=y or y<=x, so that T is totally ordered by causation. One might think intuitively that given Premiss 2, it is obvious that there is a first cause for every entity, and so the Theorem is essentially of no significance. However, in point of fact, from Premiss 2 it does not seem to immediately follow that the Theorem holds: one appears to need (unless one can instead make some simplifying assumption like that S is finite, or maybe that S is countable, or some other nice assumption that would have to be metaphysically justified) Premiss 1, and the non-trivial Zorn's Lemma. Given Premiss 1 and Zorn's Lemma, the Theorem follows.

If one is willing to accept S as a set and to accept the Axiom of Choice, then the proof of the existence of a God (and of the claim that each entity has a divine creator) needs only that Premiss 2 should hold. Now, Premiss 2 is stronger than the usual claim of a causal nexus, namely that every element has a cause (in our current setting, this usual claim would be trivial, since each element is a cause of itself). Meyer tries to argue that Premiss 2 is the right way of formulating the intuitive claim "Everything has a cause", because it is the one way of taking into account that explaining the position of a ball at time t in terms of the positions at times t_1>t_2>t_3>... (where t_1
To justify Premiss 2 in full generality would appear to require some metaphysical argument like the one that Aquinas or Aristotle tried to use in their versions of the Cosmological Argument. While one might think that because of this nothing is gained by Meyer over and beyond the position that Aquinas and Aristotle were in, this is not quite so. If Premiss 1 be accepted (and it is not very unreasonable to accept it), then the argument shows beyond Premiss 2 everything in the Cosmological Argument is correct. To prove or disprove Premiss 2, however, is non-trivial. Obviously, until a justification of Premiss 2 is given, the "proof" remains inconclusive.

Final remark: It is interesting to note that Premiss 1, namely the Axiom of Choice, is not needed in the Theorem if we make the additional assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, namely if we assume that if A causes X and B causes X, then it follows that either A causes B or B causes A. For, fix X. Let S be the set of all entities that cause X. Then, by the assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, it follows that S is a chain. But by Premiss 2, it follows that there is an entity G which causes every entity in S. Suppose now that H causes G. Then, because G causes X, it follows that H causes X, and hence H is in S, so that G causes H since G causes every entity in S. Therefore we see that H causes G and G causes H, so that G and H coincide. This proves that G is a God, and indeed a divine creator of X.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator

Last edited by Zeeshan; September 25, 2010 at 06:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 25, 2010, 06:59 PM
Hrithik Hrithik is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 2, 2010
Location: In the gym, club & my room
Favorite Player: Ryan Ten Doeschate
Posts: 240

Jesus Christ is the proof that God exists i think ?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:01 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

From this website we have Anselm & Aquinas proofs.

Quote:
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.
Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.
The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.

Conclusion

Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:04 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

Some 'funny' ones from atheists' website. See blah we don't hate you here. You are accepted.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:08 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

And the famous Pascal's Wager from here.

Quote:
In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:40 PM
Neel Here's Avatar
Neel Here Neel Here is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Favorite Player: Aravinda DeSilva, Lara
Posts: 2,765

arey dada apnar ki mone hoy ? onyoder kotha to shunlam.
__________________
Anything can be sacrificed for truth,
nothing is too valuable to sacrifice truth instead.
-- Swami Vivekananda
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:43 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

Both.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:47 PM
Electrequiem's Avatar
Electrequiem Electrequiem is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 21, 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Favorite Player: The venerated one on BC.
Posts: 4,205

It's a matter of belief, and there cannot be an absolute answer. Can you prove either scenario (i.e. God exists or does not exist)?
__________________
"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." - Bill Hicks
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old September 25, 2010, 07:50 PM
Electrequiem's Avatar
Electrequiem Electrequiem is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 21, 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Favorite Player: The venerated one on BC.
Posts: 4,205

And while we are on this,

WHAT IS 'GOD'?
__________________
"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." - Bill Hicks
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old September 25, 2010, 08:00 PM
Neel Here's Avatar
Neel Here Neel Here is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Favorite Player: Aravinda DeSilva, Lara
Posts: 2,765

well, the idea of an omnipotent god can be challenged with simple logic.
__________________
Anything can be sacrificed for truth,
nothing is too valuable to sacrifice truth instead.
-- Swami Vivekananda
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old September 25, 2010, 08:02 PM
Electrequiem's Avatar
Electrequiem Electrequiem is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 21, 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Favorite Player: The venerated one on BC.
Posts: 4,205

^But will said logic be "logical" to a believer? All I'm saying is that the idea of a God is not falsifiable, therefore immune to being disproved.
__________________
"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." - Bill Hicks
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old September 25, 2010, 08:10 PM
Neel Here's Avatar
Neel Here Neel Here is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Favorite Player: Aravinda DeSilva, Lara
Posts: 2,765

believer in what ? believer in god or believer in logic ?

at the end of the day we all 'believe' something don't we ? even the rationalists ?
__________________
Anything can be sacrificed for truth,
nothing is too valuable to sacrifice truth instead.
-- Swami Vivekananda
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old September 25, 2010, 08:58 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrequiem
And while we are on this,

WHAT IS 'GOD'?
Your sig.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old September 25, 2010, 10:32 PM
Habib's Avatar
Habib Habib is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: August 30, 2007
Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Favorite Player: A few
Posts: 7,320

Dhoor mia Eto kisu bujha lagbe god bisshash na korle. Then I believe god
Nah, that's not the reason behind my belief. I don't see any absolute proof that indicates god doesn't exist.
__________________
Nevermind
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old September 26, 2010, 01:06 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

Just found this:

__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old September 26, 2010, 01:13 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

There is another "interactive proof" hyperlink about God's existence. Not a big fan of it myself, but you can try it out for novelty's sake.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old September 26, 2010, 01:22 AM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,579

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Here
arey dada apnar ki mone hoy ? onyoder kotha to shunlam.
@ NH

Reason I said "Both" is because I have been influenced a lot by David Bohm and Karl Pribram's holonomic model of the brain theory. I guess at the end of the day to use a metaphor....God is like that ambiguous old woman-young man image. From atheist's perspective, old woman don't exist, just the young one. From theist's perspective, young woman don't exist. Then comes the remaining choices maybe it's both or neither.

But that's just me. I am more interested in others 'cosmology' and interpretations.

@ Electrequiem

You have hit the nail in all your posts. I guess it's really meaningless.
__________________
Life got me meditating like I'm in the Himalayas
Keep it G with the L lit on me like the elevator
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old September 26, 2010, 01:27 AM
Blah Blah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Posts: 1,161

The way I see it.

There are two classifications of "God" (To be more specific, the God I am referring to as some entity who consciously and knowingly and purposefully created everything that we know. In other words: Creator).

The first classification belongs to the mainstream religions with fairy tale stories and made up social rules that identifies an individual (or a group) as someone who is responsible for creating everything.

The second classification is an honest, sincere, non-ideological question of the existence of an entity responsible fo creating everything that we know.

My personal view for the first classification is that: No, such a god doesn't exist.

My personal view on the second classification is that: We don't know and most likely we will never know.

Anyone who vehemently denies (I personally have done it in the past) the existence of the second classification of god doesn't know jack sh*t about what he is talking about.

However... we don't know what the default value is. We don't know for certainty whether there needs to be a god for us to exist, or the absence of god is sufficient for our existence. We just don't know. Trying to use our own human created reason, rationality, logic and try to argue the existence of god/creator is hopeless.

The universe (and whatever is beyond that) has its own sets of rules and it doesn't care about what you think. So, I think we should return the favor and not care about the existence or the absence of god.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old September 26, 2010, 01:44 AM
Naimul_Hd's Avatar
Naimul_Hd Naimul_Hd is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Location: Global City of Australia
Favorite Player: Shakib, Mashrafe
Posts: 13,364

Two types of people question the existence of GOD (or Allah)

1. Illiterate people and
2. Too much educated people.

Thank GOD, i fall under neither of them.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old September 26, 2010, 02:01 AM
Hrithik Hrithik is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 2, 2010
Location: In the gym, club & my room
Favorite Player: Ryan Ten Doeschate
Posts: 240

What do you say to the miracles worked by Jesus which people saw with their own eyes ?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old September 26, 2010, 06:29 AM
Habib's Avatar
Habib Habib is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: August 30, 2007
Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Favorite Player: A few
Posts: 7,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrithik
What do you say to the miracles worked by Jesus which people saw with their own eyes ?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition
Are you a christian?
__________________
Nevermind
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old September 26, 2010, 08:20 AM
Nafi's Avatar
Nafi Nafi is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Mahmudullah Riyad
Posts: 5,130

There is no God, but Allah
__________________
BD_Shardul: ''I myself will not go through the troubles of dating. I will offer a prayer that will let me know if my would be bride is compatible with me through a dream''
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket