/* */


View Full Version : Muslims vs Atheists [our foundations in debate]

- Qatada -
10-02-2008, 08:47 PM

Muslims vs Atheists

I'm just going to post some small posts below which will be some foundations for Muslims insha Allah, so they know where they stand in debate against atheists and some agnostics (who may believe in God but not a religion.)

if i stop posting all of a sudden, u can find them all here insha Allah:


The main issues discussed will be the Big Bang, Evolution [what's acceptable/valid in it and what isn't], and proofs that we didn't evolve off monkeys [using science.] And some extra arguments against atheism which we usually encounter (i.e. Miller's study etc.). Most of the posts will be short and to the point insha Allah.

I'll try to quick link to the main posts on this main post if i'm still able to add to [this post] insha Allah for quick navigation.

MODS: please delete any comments which cause debate, since this thread is for informational purposes [specifically for Muslims].

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
11-11-2008, 11:59 AM
is'nt there anything more to it
i really wanted to go ahead wid this topic

- Qatada -
11-11-2008, 02:43 PM
The main issues discussed will be the Big Bang, Evolution [what's acceptable/valid in it and what isn't], and proofs that we didn't evolve off monkeys [using science.] And some extra arguments against atheism which we usually encounter (i.e. Miller's study etc.). Most of the posts will be short and to the point insha Allah.

I'll try to quick link to the main posts on this main post if i'm still able to add to [this post] insha Allah for quick navigation.

Big Bang; Post 22 , 23 onwards.

Evolution - whats accepted and what isnt. Post 14, onwards. We're not monkeys - Post 16/17,18,

Flaws in Millers study: Post 17

Arguments in Support of God - post 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 26

NOTE: This thread isn't for debate between Muslims & Non Muslims, so i ask the moderators to delete any posts which go against this.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:28 PM

Domino Theory

Imagine a row of dominoes lined up in a row (they're the creation), the first 1 in that row needs to be pushed by a force in order for the rest to fall.

That first force will be a push of a human (or anything putting weight or pressure against the 1st domino), and after that first push - all the other dominoes will fall in order.

That's a good comparison as to how the beginning of the universe (or the creation) is dependant upon another force [i.e. God] to allow the universe to 'begin' (with events one after the other/dominoes falling one after each other) and continue to be sustained.

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:30 PM

Agnosticism is the beginning point in debate, not atheism

When you're in debate, especially with atheists about different topics - you need a starting point.

They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.

But this isn't true at all:
Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing that there can be a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.

The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.


[This is A Muslim site who is an ex-atheist - he has some really good articles mashaAllah.]

That's a really good point to make, since the person who believes in God knows and says that they know they require faith to believe that He [God] exists.

From there, all you need to do then is to explain why you feel Islam is the correct religion from all the rest (every person has their own reasons for accepting islam.) Since the default starting point in the debate is agnosticism, not atheism.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:30 PM

Who 'created' God?

If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. The whole reason why we are forbidden to worship other than God is because they themselves are created, yet He is not. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer as to who caused the beginning of all events.

Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

We cannot see emotions physically, but we see their product; tears, smile etc. The hormones in our body cause us to get these feelings, however the feelings cannot be physically seen except through their product i.e. tears, laugh etc.

Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.

Why doesn't God show Himself then?

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

We know it requires faith to believe in Allah without seeing Him. Yet there are many signs (aayaat) that He has given us which help us in accepting and strengthening in this faith.

He KNOWS that we can believe in Him without seeing Him

We don't need to see God to believe in Him, and that's why the majority of mankind believes in Him. So if someone was to question why we can't see Him, then we say that we are ABLE to believe in Him without seeing Him, and the majority of mankind believe in Him. We believe this is because He created mankind this way, upon a fitrah [natural disposition] in which we know that a Higher Power exists and controls.

So if this majority are able to, then similarly - you are able to aswell. So if someone questions why Allah doesn't show Himself if He wants us to believe in Him, we say that He KNOWS that we can believe in Him without seeing Him, and that's why He doesn't have to show Himself to us in this life.

He sends Messengers' with undeniable signs to show us that they are truly sent from God, informing us of the clear message.

Then He will reward the believers and good doers by letting them see His Majesty on the Day of Judgement, and He will punish those who rejected Him, by never letting them see Him, because they rejected His Promise in this life.

Now there would be 2 reasons why someone denies the Lord of the Worlds, it's either because he is closed minded, or he has not reflected upon the signs of Allah. For the former, there is nothing we can do to convince them, for the latter - Allah informs us;

We will show them Our Signs on the horizon and within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth"
(Quran 41:53)


Some signs which come to mind is how Allah caused the earth to be in the EXACT correct location, so its not too hot, nor too cold for life to survive. So the water on this planet is not total ice, nor boiling hot, but just right for living beings to drink from.

Another sign is how Allah brings the dead earth back to life, by sending down rain. So all sorts of different fruits, plants, colours, come out of the earth. Some which we eat from, some which the animals eat from. Then we eat from them animals, i.e. cows eat grass, we drink the milk from the cattle. Birds eat from trees, and we eat their meat. Salt comes from mountains, while sugar comes from sugar canes. Spices grow from the earth. All of different flavours and tastes, a mercy from the Lord of the Worlds. Silkworms eat from the leaves, and they give us silk. Sheep eat from the grass, and we keep their wool for our clothing. Cotton also comes from plants.

All these provisions [rizq] are not in our control, we do not produce them. We hardly have any control over them, many grow naturally. Yet the majority of mankind is ungrateful. But if these mercies were removed from us, then who would we have to save us? to provide for us? None, but the one who caused them to grow in the first place. So believe in Him, or He will punish you for your ungratefulness, but believe in Him, and He will give you more good, in this life and the next...

Aayaat (Signs)

The word 'aayaat [plural]/aayah [singular]' (in arabic) which is commonly translated as 'verse' by many people isn't as accurate as you may think.

The word aayah/aayaat actually mean's 'sign/s.'

Now some people try to attack the Qur'an and Sunnah and claim that it's not 'proof' that it is from God, or other concepts which require faith.

Muslims might respond that the Qur'an and Sunnah prove that God exists, but then people who deny the Divine sources of Qur'an and Sunnah may attack back and ask whether the person can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell God. And if we are not able to - then that is not 'proof.'

Other words mentioned in the Qur'an as signs are 'bayinaat' - which comes from the root word Bayna - which means 'between.' So the bayinaat which God gave to His Messengers' would be a sign between both parties - the disbelieving and believing - to show a miracle which no-one could surpass at any time in history, except a Messenger of God.

Even magicians could not surpass this level. And there are many miracles such as the miracles of Moses allowing his people to pass through the Nile, the cures which Jesus son of Mary was able to perform, i.e. wiping the eyes of a blind man with his hand (and no extra tools) and the blind man seeing again. Or even the miracle of the Qur'an revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) - none has ever been able to come up with anything similar to it in any time of history, and the challenge remains open till today - to produce a minimum of just 3 verses to match it. If it wasnt from the Lord of the Worlds, then why isn't anyone to compete with it in any way?*

Indeed all these are signs from the Most High, the Wise.

So looking back at the concept of aayah/aayaat or bayinaat - we see that Allah has given us many signs which help us come closer to a conclusion.
Imagine going on a journey, there will be lots of signs/aayaat as you pass by - you can choose to follow the signs and reach your destination, or you can deny them and prefer your own way. Even though the signs are for your benefit, no-one should force you to follow the correct path. But they should be sincere and kind hearted enough to warn you that you are heading the wrong way.

Going down the wrong path will take you to the wrong destination - simply because there is only one way to get to the correct destination - & this is by following the signs which are given to you.
Is then one who walks headlong, with his face grovelling, better guided,- or one who walks evenly on a Straight Way?

[Qur'an 67:22]

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:31 PM
The reason why God is God is because He is perfect.

In arabic, an illaah is anything which is worshipped. Worship consists of being a slave (abd), and doing anything which your master commands you (ibaadah.)

The only true illaah who can be obeyed is the One who is Perfect, this is why Islam does not permit the worship of the creation.

That's why, God is known as Al-Illaah (Allah) - the One and only true God.

Since God is not like His creation in any way, and He is Perfect. There is none similar or like Him in any way - this is a sign of His Uniqueness. So none shares His Power, Knowledge, Wisdom, or any of His Attributes.

For One to be Perfect, they can not have an equal in any way. So those who claim that God is similar to His creation - they are contradicting this concept.

There are 2 extremes throughout the many different religions in the world;
1) This is the extreme in which 'god is similar to the creation.'

This is the claims of some christians who say Jesus son of Mary is God or the ancient Greeks who claimed that god had a family, or others who say that we can serve idols because these idols are 'god'. They use the claim that 'everything is God' because the creation is within God himself!

However, this is false because if humans, idols or the creation was God - then doesn't the Big Bang explain that the universe had a beginning?

Also, some claim (i.e. in some aspects of hindusim) - God came to life by the energy of 'Om' - so if God had a beginning, then can that really be an attribute of One who is perfect? Doesn't Perfection imply that One is not dependant upon another? (i.e. in this context, 'god' is dependant upon that energy source.)

So how can God be God if He has human attributes? This is falsehood, because the only reason why God is God is because He is NOT similar to His creation.

2) The other extreme is that there is none like God, therefore God cannot have any attributes. This includes many religions like Sikhism, and even some Islamic sects which strayed such as the Mu'tazilah [the philosophers.]

These people attempt to defend God but because of this extreme caution, they argue that He has no attributes. So they deny that God has Knowledge, Wisdom, Control etc. because all these attributes - the creation has them also.

The above is another extreme.

Islam is the answer to all the confusion that has occured throughout history;

The answer is in the Qur'an;
There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

[Qur'an Ash-Shura 42:11]

He has many Attributes, but there is none Like Him in sharing these attributes.

So when He is the Seer, Hearer, Knower, Powerful etc. - He is in reality all of these, however - there is none like Him in these attributes in any way. We do not know the 'howness' of these Attributes, but we accept them as they are. We cannot comprehend God, so we accept them without knowing the details.

So His eyes are not like human eyes, and whatever He has said about Himself - we accept without distorting its meaning. (because some sects say that these attributes are different to what they're apparent [dhahir] meaning is - which made them reject what Allah said about Himself.

This is God's Perfection, a perfection which people throughout history have differed about. And this Qur'an was sent down to unite mankind on what they differed.

And Allah knows best.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:31 PM
Some points which might be useful to consider and reflect on against Atheism

Allah has caused the universe to form and sustains it so that life can survive within it. And that humans can easily recognise, and even accept this concept, thats why the majority of mankind has accepted the concept of God [even though there were other more 'convincing' arguments in the past (than the modern argument of chaos causing control) like the universe being eternal (which has now been refuted by science.) etc].

Since the majority of mankind has accepted this fact throughout history (of God), its a sign which further strengthens our belief in the fitrah - hence encouraging our belief of islam being truthful.

Then since we recognise and understand God, even without seeing Him, it is human nature [the fitrah] to believe God is Perfect in every way. And that's why humans by nature usually reject explanations of God which aren't perfect. i.e. that God is 'born' or 'dies' or that He has equals or family etc. Since He has no equals in any way and is free from imperfection. People might say that perfection is subjective, but for each claim put forward against Him - one can explain using logic how His Attributes are Perfect.

So by atheists saying that if they saw God they would believe, then if His aayaat are enough for others to believe in Him - then there will also be sufficient aayaat for this person to believe in Him.

If this person rejects Allah because He cannot see Him, then they should know that humans can believe in things without seeing them, based on pure logic and understanding. And if they don't have such an open mind to even accept such a concept to be a possibility, then they are way more closed minded than any theist.

Some people might say that the idea of 'perfection' is subjective, we reply that we can prove using logic that God is perfect.

Others might say that God is imperfect because of attributes such as anger, here is a reply to an example like that;

Some people might argue that anger is a sign of weakness because being angry is due to a lack of control.

The response to this is that indeed anger is a sign of weakness when it is due to a LACK of control. Lack of control means that the one projecting the anger is not being just when showing this anger, which usually leads to injustice on their part.

But Allah is Al 'Adl [the Just] - so when He is angry - He is still just. His anger is His displeasure at His servants disobedience to His commands, because He knows what is better for His servant, more than the servant knows for himself.

Then some might say that Allah knows the future too, so why should He get angry - if He knows that they would do the sin anyway?

The response is that if you knew there was evil or hardship, and that there would be good through it in the future - you may still be sad in the present, although you know that there will be some good through it. (i.e. when you face a hard trial, you know that the believers sins will be forgiven due to the hardship - but at the moment of hardship - they may find sadness or grief.) So Allah knows what will happen in the future - but at the moment of sin, Allah is displeased with the action of that slave. That's why He is the All Knowing ('Aleem) - yet displeased when people sin.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:31 PM
If God is so kind and loving, why does He allow evil to occur on the earth?


God is the Kind, Loving, yet He is also the Most Wise. He says in the Qur’an (translation of the meaning):

..It is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

[Qur'an 2: 216]

We see from this verse that since we are only humans, we are limited to the present. We might face some trouble and think that we can never come out of it, imagine this scenario;

A man works for a service where his job is to torture people without a just cause (probably thinks it easy money), now imagine he gets caught by another party and they start to torture him to get some information from him. – At this moment in time, he is facing a real hard time and like any human, he’s thinking why he never went home early today so he wouldn’t be caught and face this torture? – Anyway, after a few hours of torture they release him (maybe he just doesn’t have any secret info.) He goes back home and remembers all that he faced and reflects on how the people he tortured must have felt. Because he realises the severity of what he went through, he feels that he’s not doing the right thing by torturing others either – so he quits his job and doesn’t ever torture people again, rather he starts to help the police so that they can prevent this kind of evil from occurring in the future by other people.

Now looking at his scenario, if he never had faced this evil – he wouldn’t have stopped doing his evil either, rather he’d continue and there would be more harm through that. But since we’ve read the future and outcome of that evil, we see that there was a greater good which occurred through this evil that he had faced. Similarly, it is God who is the All-Knowing, and therefore He places people under similar situations so that they do submit to Him and do good – while doing so out of their own free will.

Another good scenario is this; You wake up in the morning and realise that you got up 10mins late for work, you're really frustrated that it was in your destiny that you woke up late. So you get up and leave the house, as you drive down the main road - you see that there's been an accident just a few cars ahead of you. Ask yourself - if you had woken up 10mins earlier, maybe you would be that person who had just died?

In regard to people being rewarded or punished eternally in the afterlife, then the response is that the person has a choice of being obedient or disobedient in this temporary life, and since the afterlife is eternal - then by choosing the correct choice in this life - they'll be given an eternal life of whatever path of consequence they chose for their ownselves [i.e. of pure good or pure punishment in the hereafter.]

So none will be dealt with unjustly. Since they will have been warned of the consequences of their actions in this life. If they were not truly warned [i.e. no Messenger was sent to them] - then they will be tested on the Day of Judgement.

Because Allah says (translation of the meaning):

And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning). [Qur'an Isra 17:15]

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:32 PM
If God is so perfect, why does He need us to worship Him?


First of all, what is worship? Worship is to do an act which Allah/God loves, whether its praying to Him, helping the needy, helping society become a better place, even small factors such as feeding your family and providing for them - with the intent of pleasing Allah.

Allah/God isn’t in need of our worship, but we as His creation are in need of His worship. We see as humans today that there is a great amount of evil that is widespread on the earth, people kill each other unjustly, loot each others wealth, taking the rights of people without any just cause. Now if the people were aware, and 100% certain without doubt that God is watching over them and that He would either punish them a severe punishment or reward them a great reward according to what they did do in this world, there would be a lot less evil, and much more harmony and peace on the earth.

So God isn’t in need of us or our worship, but we clearly see that there is a great deal of corruption when people do not worship God. Having a healthy fear of Gods punishment, hoping for His reward and Mercy, and loving Him for everything He has given us (sight, hearing, health, sustenance etc.) are all acts of worship – if these were instilled into the people, it would give everyone a balanced life in all aspects.
It would humble those who have been given authority and great wealth, aswell as give respect and kindness to those who may be given less in worldly riches. The rich would give a share of their wealth to the poor, hoping for reward from God, and the poor would be thankful for that. The family ties would be upheld, people would be pleased with that because they would be sure that this is what God wants, and they would hope that God would be pleased with them for that – and this would strengthen their love for God, aswell as God’s love for them, which would mean that God would give them an easier life in this world, and the one to come. If anyone ever thought of harming someone who had no right of being harmed, they could remind them of the punishment of God against injustice, which would make that person think twice before doing that evil.

From the above we see that all the aspects of worship which God orders us to perform are for the betterment of humanity aswell as ourselves, God never orders us to do something harmful for us unless the benefit is much greater than the harm.

Okay, that makes sense, but what about praying and fasting then? Why does God need you to pray to Him 5 times a day if He isn’t in need of your worship?

We fast – specifically in the month of Ramadan – in order to learn self-restraint, even when no-one is around we learn that God is watching over us, which will prevent us from committing evil and shameful deeds whether done in public or private. This is something praiseworthy no matter what way you look at it.
About the prayers, when we pray to God 5 times a day, the main central theme of the prayer is for our own benefit. If we look at what we recite, we praise God at the beginning, and then this is when the important part comes;
All Praise is to God, Lord of the Worlds.

The Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.
Lord of the Day of Judgement.
You Alone we worship, you Alone we ask for Help.
Guide us to the straight path.
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

[Qur’an - Al Fatihah Chapter 1]

Since praising Allah/God is a means of gaining His pleasure, then we praise Him and then invoke (pray to) Him after that, yet He is not in need of us praising Him since He is the self sufficient, free of all wants.

Back to the prayer, we see that the main central theme of our prayer is to actually invoke God and ask Him for our guidance, and as we finish the prayer – we continue praying for the believers. Again, this doesn’t harm or benefit God in the least, however – He loves His servants and wants us to surrender and submit to Him [literal meaning: Islam, one who submits – Muslim] out of our own freedom of choice. Then He is willing to reward us for being grateful, or punish those who were ungrateful and belied Him and His signs.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:33 PM
Destiny, a quick explanation on where Muslims stand

Allah knows His creation, He knows the past, present and future. That's His perfection. We believe in this.

So we sometimes get the question - what's the point of our creation if God already knows what's going to happen to us?

We simply say that God knows, but He also sent us the Criterion between wrong and right, truth and falsehood, and He ordered us to believe and do good - He informed us of the consequences of doing bad. We don't know whether we are successful in the next life (even though Allah does know) - that's why we have to strive to do the good in order to recieve the good (i.e. reward and pleasure of Allah.) If we don't believe and do good, then we have been warned of its consequences (i.e. the punishments etc.)

We believe in all the guidance sent by Allah, so since He informs us that He knows the future, and that we need to believe in this to be successful - we accept that. Since He informs us that we have to be obedient to be successful - we accept that. If we believe and obey, That's what makes us successful, in this life and the next.

Our pious predecessors (the salaf) would say that there is neither compulsion (i.e. you have the choice to do good or sin), nor total free will (i.e. you can't choose where you'll be born etc.) - but there is something between the two.

this might also be useful;

also read surah layl [92] for a simple explanation and understanding - of how your intentions, deeds and sincerety in wanting to follow a path lead you to your chosen destination.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:34 PM
By chance?!

Alot of Muslims get confused because alot of atheists act all confident when you ask them how the first cell 'came to life by chance', or how the planets came into the position for living things to survive 'by chance'.

You would probably say 'it couldnt have been controlled by chance, just look how everythings working perfectly' right? And that it could only happen except if God willed it.

Now alot of atheists act all confident, but they're really fooling alot of people. Alot of people actually think that the atheist knows more than me so i wont even attempt to question them.

But the weakness of the atheist argument is this, they say "If the earth had been in the position to sustain life, then life could have only come into existence, and thats the reason why we're surviving today"

So in other words they're saying that if everything had happened by chance, thats the only way life could have become existent. [They will talk about the different forces (i.e. gravity etc) in the universe which caused the different planets to form, but this still isn't controlled by anyone [according to them] - so its still 'chance']

We say God created the earth for us, placed it in the right place, and made it in a way so humans and living things could survive within it.

The only difference between both arguments is that we require belief that God who has control and power was able to do it, whereas they have to believe in something which they don't have proof for either, but something which they have to put blind faith in, that it happened 'by chance.'

So if they attack you for having faith in God without seeing Him in this life, tell them that they have blind faith in 'chance' - and guess what? They can't see 'chance' either.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:34 PM
One really important thing for Muslims to know is that we know that we require faith to believe in Allah, and Allah says (translation of the meaning):

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

[Qur'an Al-baqarah 2: 2-3]
And you believe in Allah because you believe Allah caused the creation to occur - even though you know you can't see him (in this life, but the believers will see him clearly in the next life.) The atheist doesn't have to believe you, but it is your defense [your duty is just to convey the message - not convince], and there is nothing wrong with your arguments - you just need that confidence! So put your trust in Allah.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:34 PM
asalaam alaikum

Micro Evolution (the small evolution) doesn't contradict Islamic teachings. For example, if there are 2 giraffes - 1 with a small neck and 1 with a long neck - its more likely the long necked one will survive if there are taller trees. So this rule of survival does not contradict Islam, so long as you believe that it is a pattern in Allah's creation. Meaning - the taller giraffe's descendants are more likely to survive [since they will be taller] compared to the shorter necked species.

Macro Evolution (the big evolution [where species become from 'one to the other'] is discussed here:


He says:
To making comparisons, some try to enter the fossil record as proof for common descent, the argument goes, that fossils show up in certain layers of ground which in term are linked to certain eras in time. If you then make a timetable of which time the fossilized creatures lived in, it matches the timetable that common descent proposes. Well first of all, that's hardly any proof, all it does is proof which creatures lived at which time, it doesn't proof which evolved into which. Creationists might just as well claim that this proves when certain animals were created. The fossil record does not favor common descent over creation. In fact quite the opposite can be said, the fossil has many issues that reflect bad on common descent. Like the cambrian explosion. and era where there's a sudden high concentration of entirely new species, as opposed to the slower pace of other eras. Another problem are the large number of missing links. There are so many proposed intermediate species missing, that some scientists have started suggesting that rather then a slow step by step evolution, there must have been "jumps" to. But that's of course very unlikely. A mutation that carries benefit is in itself unlikely, many mutations at once that carry some benefit is close to impossible. Other than that it needs to be noted that there's a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of dating fossils. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's all a hoax, but it does need a lot of work.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:35 PM
"If it happened..."

The issue of life being formed through the means of abiogenesis (life coming from non life) doesn't have to be true. Scientists can't prove that this is how life originated on earth.

All they can argue is that if abiogenesis took place, then that can be an explanation for how life began on earth.

The big word in that sentence is 'if', because it's just a claim of there's. Even if they use studies to prove that abiogenesis can take place, it doesn't mean that this has to be the method for the origin of life on earth.

Creation indeed does require faith, but the concepts of life coming into existence by abiogenesis is only a concept, which 'if it were to occur' caused life to remain on earth. So basically, if the theory did happen - then that's how life survived on earth. However, the theory in of itself is questionable, so it can't be fact.

We can say its not true, they can say its true. But none of us can prove that a cell came to life during the early earth period. They can only say 'If it happened... thats how life started on earth.'

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:35 PM
why are humans so much like other animals if they didn't evolve off them?

humans are created from earth, according to the evolution theory - animals also came and were produced from this earth. we say God allowed it to occur, and it happened by His will & control. He created humans the way He wanted (this is explained in the Qur'an), and since alot of explanation isn't given about how animals were formed - the issue of them evolving over time doesn't contradict Islamic teachings.

why are they and we so similar physically? because they and we were created/produced from similar materials - the (chemicals of the) earth and water.

why are their and our behaviours so similar? animals were on the planet before humans, scientific research shows this. humans lived on the planet and they also interacted with the animals during their lifetimes, they learnt survival techniques off these animals, they learnt hunting and many other world techniques by watching what animals do and progressing on that.

Those are the similarities. ^

The difference between humans and animals is that Allah/God has given humans an intellect, He has given humans the ability to understand wrong and right, to think ahead into the future, and He has given them many blessings so they have control over a great deal of His creation.

But this doesn't come for free, He has made us responsible for all that He has given us. The more we have, the more we're held responsible for. So Allah sends us guidance to give us a Criterion between right and wrong, truth and falsehood etc. We as humans have the choice to accept the guidance or reject it.

Those who accept the guidance and follow it - then they will have a life of goodness, and high morality in this life, and a greater reward in the life to come. Whereas those who reject the guidance, then they will continue following their vain desires EXACTLY like the animals, without any aid or light to guide them in their ways. So they will be equal to the animals, made from the same materials, doing the same things.. but without a beneficial purpose.

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. [Qur'an 7:179]

Those who accepted the guidance, they learnt higher morals, rules and even worldly advances through the guidance which Allah sent to the Messengers' - messages to unite the people on where they differed. This guidance raised these people from being like lost animals, to the most honorable and helpful people to humanity and creation.

These Messengers' were sent to the people to warn them of the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for them in the sight of God, since they have the choice of doing right and wrong, and have the concept of understanding consequences for their actions. We will return to Him who will inform us of all that we used to do, and none will be dealt with unjustly on that Day.

Those who did believed and did good, will be given good, but those who turned away and did evil - then they won't be punished except for their own evil deeds.

also read;

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:36 PM
Monkey Skulls are primitive Humans?!

Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:

The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:
* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago

The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.
* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.

* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago.
Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assuùme they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago.
Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.


- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:36 PM
Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?

The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:

Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?

Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.

'Common Ancestor'

There is a point in debate where atheists try to say that we are born with a common ancestor to monkeys. i.e. that we didn't evolve off each other - but that humans and monkeys had a forefather who was the 'same' - that's why we're so 'similar'.

The response to this is quite simple; There is NO PROOF for this concept whatsoever. (any fossils they used to support this theory have been shown to be humans in history and not any 'common ancestor' or monkey.) Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same 'common ancestor'.

So its false, and atheists only resort to this idea out of desperation or ignorance.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:40 PM
Miller's Study
</b>(don't talk about this with atheists until you know the basics on evolution and until you know about the study itself.)

Bro steve discussed abiogenesis and the biases that Miller had in his study:

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances (carboxylic acids, and tar) harmful to life were mixed with it. (so they will cause harm to the living creature or the end product.) Next to that the experiment does not account for all required amino acids to make proteins, and the experiment also does not explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. (There's a whole range of different structured amino acids that are necesairy, only a small number of them were formed.)

Furthermore, there were both left handed as right handed isomers, whereas only one type is common in biology.


But that's just the beginning next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of criticism can also be formed as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. It's quite destructive. No oxygen however, means no atmosphere and also no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it.

And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

If there really was organic living cells on the planet at one time, there was no Ozone layer to protect them. So the cells would be bombarded with UV rays which would destroy the living cells. So the chance would be extremely low [it would be the fraction of 1 over 10, to the power 300 - 300 zeros after it)] whereas in mathematics, 1 over 10 to the power 50 (50 zeros after it) is an impossible probability.

So the probability of a cell coming to life by non life is more impossible than impossible itself! [Let alone the possibility of it surviving and forming into other more complex organisms for such a long time period without being destroyed on a chaotic planet (the earth had alot of volcanic eruptions and chemical reactions [causing destruction] at that time)!]

More can be read here;


Another argument in studies such as these are that the scientists can't produce the cells own DNA/RNA [the most important part of the cell i.e. its data] - so they use some which is already existant (probably from another cell), and they also use materials which Allah has already created - so they're not really creating a cell from nothing [like Allah did]. Therefore they're arguments are quite weak.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:41 PM
Can God create a stone He cannot lift?

Question: Muslims say that Allah is capable of anything (huwa 'ala kulli shay’in qadeer). Therefore, is Allah, for instance, capable of creating a heavy stone that He will not be able to lift? Knowing that if Allah is capable of creating such a stone, that would make Him incapable of doing one thing (lifting this stone). On the other hand, if He is incapable of creating that kind of stone, that will contradict the Koran where it says He is capable of anything. I don't know how to answer this argument. Your help is needed.

Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî

This argument is a classic example of sophistry. It is a nonsense argument that merely sounds like it make sense. This type of argument occurs when the sentences work grammatically but have no intelligible meaning, since the meaning conveyed by the sentences is self-contradictory. It is an old philosopher’s trick. The argument looks sensible on the surface, but contains a logical fallacy.

When we talk about lifting a stone, we are merely referring to moving it form one point in space to another. Of course, we cannot doubt that Allah has the power to cause a stone to be in any point in space that He wishes.

We need to understand what the argument is really saying. When someone proposes that “He cannot lift it”, he is essentially proposing that He is incapable of something – in this case of having the stone move to a different point in space. The argument is really only proposing His being capable of being incapable!

Therefore, by removing the words “stone” and “lift” from the argument, we get to the essence of the argument, which we can express as follows:
Muslims say that Allah is capable of all things.

Therefore, is Allah capable of being incapable?

If he is capable of being incapable, then he is incapable of something.

If he is incapable of being incapable, then he is incapable of something.

You see, once we remove the words “lifting a stone” form the argument and get down to its bare bones, it becomes clear to us just what a silly, nonsensical argument it really is.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:41 PM
Why doesn't the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah explain science in detail?

The answer's simple: The Qur'an and Sunnah are a source of guidance for mankind, they don't have to explain all that we see around us in detail since the main objective of the Qur'an and Sunnah is to explain to us our beliefs and what is required for us to be successful in this life and the next.

Science is what we see in the creation of Allah, we can see it - therefore we can use our 5 senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touch) to see the world and universe around us. We can use the Qur'an and Sunnah as a basis for what we find, and by reflecting on the creation of Allah - we will increase in faith (instead of believing that everything occurs merely by chance) because we see the products of the amazing design which Allah has originated and formed.

We have been given the 5 senses and a brain to understand the universe around us - which will help us draw closer to Allah, and we have been given revelation - from Allah through His Messenger - to understand and believe in the things which we have no answers for, so we can be successful in both lives.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:42 PM
Big Bang - An Islamic Perspective?

I read this in the book of http://islam-guide.com - which was approved by Jamal Zarabozo, Ali Al Tamimi [they were editors of the book when it was published], and Zakir Naik (he mentioned this theory in his talks.)

The Big Bang theory attempts to explain how the universe began. This theory was put forward by Edwin Hubble in 1929. He discovered that the galaxies close to the Milky Way are moving and distancing away from us. He also noticed that the further the galaxies were, the faster they were distancing. From this he argued that the universe had a starting point from which it was expanding and has been expanding from since.

"And the heavens* We** constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander." [Quran: 51:47] (the word vaasi’ in Arabic means vast, moowsi’oon [which comes from the root word vaasi’] is the word used in that verse which signifies that someone is an expander and expanding that certain thing, in the context of the verse – the heavens or space is gradually being expanded by God’s control.]

*heavens = the skies and space above us (in arabic = samaa' = heavens), Even linguistically in English and many other languages.

it isn't the Paradise promised for the believers. The gardens promised to the beiievers in the next life is Jannah (which means gardens.)

**We = Royal We, it is used by kings to refer to themselves in a respectful way. Allah - the One & Only God refers to Himself in this respectful Royal 'We' too.

What occurred before the Big Bang remains unknown by many people, how did all matter begin, what caused the Big Bang? Scientists who do not believe in the concept of God will say that they simply don't know and have no answer, while others will argue that this was caused by an all Powerful God who is outside His creation.

In the 1960s, Arno Panzias and Robert Wilson detected an afterglow from the Big Bang. This showed that during the universe’s early period, it was a hot and hostile place. They concluded from this that the universe began as a dense fireball. This is where it began to expand from.

This started to expand gradually, the different gases (of a smoke composition i.e. hydrogen, helium etc.) began to distance away.

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

This gradually expanded into the universe, the heavens, and space. After around 300,000 years these gradually cooled and slowly – over time - were formed into stars, and planets (including the planet earth we live in.)

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?
And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

(Quran, 21:30)

A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula)

The Lagoon nebula* is a cloud of gas and dust, it is about 60 light years in diameter. It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons, Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.)
The above picture shows how the nebula (shown in the earlier image) has formed into hot stars gradually as the gases have cooled.

*Nebula is a latin word which means 'mist' or something smokey, just as the Qur'an mentions [the word Dukh in arabic means smoke, or 'mist' - similar to the word nebula.]

We as Muslims simply believe that all this was caused by Allah who is perfect in every way, whereas those who disbelieve in Allah - the Lord of the Worlds will simply have no explanation for who caused this and will remain questioning for eternity. Since they cannot prove or give a suitable explanation to what occured before the Big Bang. The atheists will say all the planets and starts etc. formed by chance, we will say that it all happened by Allah's will and control

Also read;

The Existence of God


- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:42 PM
'Before' the Big Bang?

Some people have tried to argue that 'before' this universe, there was already another universe which had contracted (became smaller.) It had become so small that it was in the form of a dense fireball. People say 'before' (with speech marks around the word Before) because Time in this universe began after the Big Bang.

They argue that this was the cause of the Big Bang which formed our universe that we are living in today, and the way this dense fireball became this universe was by expanding itself (the Big Bang occuring.)

They try to use this to argue against those who believe that God caused the Big Bang, and they argue that instead - all matter has always been forever - without a starting. And that these expansions and contractions have been occuring forever to form universes.

We just respond to this that;

1) There isn't any proof for this, since the 'other' universe is not visible to us - due to the fact that this universe is 'caused' because that one 'contracted' in the first place. Therefore this is simply an opinion, but isn't really backed up with much proof. It's just a hypothesis without any proofs.

They can't prove the 'past' universe because this universe is a product of that one, so they can't measure that universe since this universe is a 'product' of that one. And the only thing they can measure is this universe.

2) Even if that is true, even if it is proven somehow. Then this still does not matter since Allah has been creating things forever, since He is Eternal without a beginning.

So He can create what He wills, through whatever way He wills. If this means creating one universe from another, then sure - why not? He creates humans from other humans, so why can't He create a universe from another universe? He has the power and He is the Wise, All Knowing.


This is a Christian site, but still, you can check this section out insha Allah:

Atheists cannot prove any other universes were before this universe since there is no proof for it;
Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before the Big Bang, I must make it clear that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature as indicated in an article from the http://www.us.net/life/rul_disc.htm :
"Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."

The Origin-of-Life Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.
So this quote is from a non biased source - not pro religious, nor pro atheist.

Metaphysical is something which is outside the realms of science, so science can't prove it or disprove it. Most of the time it's to do with things which aren't physical, which require belief.

Definition of Metaphysical:

Metaphysical: Literally, beyond the physical realm, beyond that which we can realize or discover with our five senses. Also, a branch of philosophy which studies the “beingness” or inherent nature of reality.

Something which we can't discover with out 5 senses is not science. And is therefore something metaphysical. Since what happened 'before' the Big Bang is metaphysical - it cannot be used as a proof by even atheists.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:43 PM
asalaam alaikum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh

Questions similar to; Why do men have nipples and the like. Or an appendix, or a little toe etc. Since we "don't need them for survival."

Argument from useless design:
This is a bit similar to the argument of unintelligent design, but more simplistic. It argues that species have body parts that have no use, which is a waste. Vestigial organs they call them. Of course adding a useless part in a design isn't the same as dumb design, but it wouldn't be considered as smart either. However I argue that there are no useless body parts, and that every part of our body has a function. Several parts have been suggested by proponents.

Although I grant that some of those suggested parts are not vital for survival, that doesn't mean they are completely useless. People can even live after limbs have been amputated, but that doesn't mean a limb is vestigial*. So just because one can survive without the organ doesn't make it vestigial.

The most common example is the coccyx (tail bone). The story goes this is a remnant of our tail-carrying brothers, which is now utterly useless. But that's far from the truth. No less than nine muscles are attached to that bone. Without the bone a lot of our current movements would no longer be possible. And we do use this bone on a regular basis. It is used for defecation and keeps organs in place.

*vestigial: non-functional structures in an organism that are remnants of structures that were once func tional in ancestral species of that organism.

So these organs which some scientists may argue are unnecessary, they are and can be useful to us, even if we don't need them for survival. The brother argues that people can survive with one arm only, so does that mean we should only have one arm? No, the other arm is also of use - although people with one arm can live perfectly normal lives.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:43 PM
People who believe in evolution of monkeys into humans may argue that if we are indeed created by Allah - in the way that we are - then why aren't we perfect?

The simple answer is; the definition of perfection is subjective (meaning different people can have different opinions) but even then, we believe that Allah created us in the way that we are in order for us to fulfill our purpose. That is to serve Him, and humanity. The way that we are created is sufficient for us to fulfill that role well, and that is why Allah has preferred us over animals, plants etc. for this task.

The detailed answer is as follows;


... We have to note that judgment of perfection and imperfection is very subjective. For example, would perfection include immortality? what if it is our purpose to stay here only temporarily in the first place (i.e. because we believe in the Day of Judgment for Allah's justice), wouldn't a mortal design then be more appropriate over an immortal one? Who's to say that we aren't perfect, in the sense that this is as good as it can be? The only way to make this argument work, is to hypothesize an alternative design, and then illustrate the advantage such an alternative design would have over the current design. A completely different design from scratch is of course way to hard for our limited minds, let alone that we could do a meaningful comparison of such a design and the current. Therefore most proponents of this argument have restricted themselves to slight variation on the current design (i.e. trying to find 'flaws' in the temporary body we already do have.)
An example I have encountered in the past is the blind spot of the eye. This infact supports the argument of design than not. The blind spot is very intrinsic to the mechanism of the eye, and is an effect created by a very vital part of the eye. Designing an eye without a blind spot is thus very challenging. Furthermore, the blind spot of each eye is compensated by the second eye. So the "flaw" in design isn't really problematic if you look at the totality: a set of eyes. To avoid confusion; also note that there is a difference between the optical blind spot -a gap in the vision of the eye created by a spot where there are no visual receptors due to the positioning of the nerves--a space around the vehicle that is from the driver's position despite the use of mirrors- and the blind spot of a vehicle in case you were wondering. (meaning that humans can't only have a blind spot because your nose is in the way between the 2 eyes, not because of the lack of ability from the eye itself.)

Main Points that we learn:

Meaning that humans will not be able to explain perfection unless they themselves provide a new alternative to the human body that we already do have. They might argue that we could have webbed feet to swim long distances etc. however, these alternatives are also questionable/subjective to perfection (i.e. a human might think its ugly therefore not see webbed feet as perfection etc.)

He also mentions that perfection in Islam is 'as good as it gets' for us to fulfill our role on earth. Then he gives examples of how some attributes which evolutionists might say are flaws, are infact not flawed in of themselves, but are supported by other attributes to aid them. i.e. 2 eyes to support our vision, so we dont have a blind spot etc.

And Allah knows best.

- Qatada -
11-23-2008, 06:45 PM

Who is the real God?

When you debate with agnostics (one who isn't sure whether God exists), or with any person who attempts to use logic - we usually see them coming to the conclusion that there is no 'set truth' and that people find their way in life through trial and error, and logical deduction to find the more 'greater truth' for themselves. This is the same principle which they use to support their own sets of morals, so they should also use these principles [to an extent] to see which path [of guidance] is more correct.

Now when you're giving them dawah, you give them 2 options in regard to God;

1) That He exists.

2) That He doesn't exist.

Keep this principle in mind because you can go into ALOT of discussions related to the existence or 'non existence' of God without really getting anywhere in the debate. Stick to the foundations or 'outer layers' of the debate by sticking to the main points. You will tell them that you believe in God, you may even give your reasons (and since the person is agnostic, they may be more willing to hear your points about why you believe in God.)

Now the agnostic might not be sure of God due to a variety of reasons, one of the biggest reasons is because there are so much different explanations given to who God really is. So who are they supposed to believe?

Keep in mind this powerful point - that God is Perfect, whether people claim this perfection is subjective (questionable) or not, it is part of human nature [fitrah] and even logic to accept that God = Perfect. This is why many feel embarrassed or humiliated when their 'gods' are abused or dispraised.

Many people believe that perfection [for God] implies that this being is not dependent upon no other, Hindus believe God is created by an energy [om] - therefore dependent upon it - therefore imperfect, Christians believe a part of God was born (no matter what their explanation of the trinity, that's what it implies - Jesus being born from a human mother - so they also believe God is human - similar to His creation - therefore he is flawed and therefore not God, other religions believe that God has partners or equals - yet for one to be perfect, they cannot have someone who is competing with them in this perfection, because uniqueness is perfection (competing Gods would mean that God is unable to do certain things due to overpowerment by other gods.) This would make many gods imperfect and therefore not the Perfect God.

Other religions believe that God does not have any attributes, so He is not aware of His creation - nor can He see or hear them etc. they say this because they believe He is 'similar to His creation' - what they don't know is that humans are limited in certain attributes [i.e. seeing, hearing, but God has Perfect attributes - so He is not similar to His creation in these attributes but He is Perfect in His ability to hear, see etc.] By saying there god cannot hear or see or know His creation, they are saying he is imperfect and therefore not the Perfect God.

Others go to the other extreme of saying that God is in fact the same as humans, or even incarnate. Others believe that everything is God [pantheism], this is rejected because humans do evil - God is not a part of evil.

The above points summarize a great deal of the different religions in the world, and Islam provides a clear and fine distinction for us to understand the truth about who God really is - free from any flaws and imperfection (which are seen in His Names & Attributes). Which allows me to accept the Islamic God over other 'gods', which are imperfect.

The person is likely to incline towards this understanding more than the 'gods' mentioned in the above description. They may still be slightly doubtful as to whether this truly is the correct description of the true God. All you have to tell them is that this convinced you and that it may even convince them due to its simplicity and clarity.

And like mentioned at the beginning of the article, they should use their logical understanding to reach a similar conclusion to you. Remember, this approach is different because instead of saying that this is a proof (which may make you seem overconfident that it will convince everyone) - you're telling them that you've reached this conclusion based on logical reasoning/understanding, and maybe their logical reasoning leads them to this same conclusion. [So it makes you look humble (atheists/agnostics like that, everyone does.), yet convincing at the same time!]

Allah does not send us a message about Him which would cause doubt. He would send a Criterion so that we could distinguish between the false gods, and the Perfect One, who is free from all imperfection. He is Allah, the One, the Powerful.

- Qatada -
12-03-2008, 10:40 AM

ABIOGENESIS[life coming from non life] – its ‘Impossible’.

Evolutionists say that the concept of abiogenesis [life coming from non life] is a different topic and not directly related to evolution. But since many we debate with are atheists, they probably accept the concept of abiogenesis and link it to evolution.

Some brief history of abiogenesis claims in the modern era;

Just for some background info. at Darwins time, there were no electric microscopes (which can view extremely small objects in detail), so they never really knew the complexity of a living cell. All they thought back then was that a cell was a small 'blob' which had the potential of life. They imagined forming life was a simple process,

Some examples are below;
For example, the Belgian chemist Jan Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644), spread some wheat on a soiled shirt and, after a while, observed mice scurrying around the shirt. He concluded that the mice were produced from the combination of the wheat and the shirt. The German scientist Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) did a similar experiment. He poured some honey over some dead flies and later saw other flies were zooming around the honey; he assumed that combining honey with dead flies produced living ones.

More careful scientists were able to see that all these ideas were wrong. The Italian scientist Francisco Redi (1626-1697) was the first to do controlled experiments in this regard. Using the isolation method, he discovered that maggots on meat did not come into being spontaneously, but developed from eggs deposited by flies.


The debates and experiments continued between the different groups (some arguing that life can only come from life [biogenesis] and the other arguing that life can come from non life [abiogenesis.] Most of the experiments by the abiogenesis supporters were based on superstition and not really scientific fact i.e. the following;
The scientific argument between supporters of biogenesis and abiogenesis was continued into the 18th century by John Needham (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799). Each of them boiled a piece of meat, then isolated it. Needham observed that maggots appeared on the meat and took this as proof for abiogenesis.

Spallanzani repeated the same experiment, but boiled the meat for a longer time. In this way, all organic life forms on the meat were destroyed and as a result, no maggots appeared on it. So even though Spallanzani had invalidated the theory of abiogenesis, many people did not believe him; saying that Spallanzani had boiled the meat so long that he killed the "vital power" within it. *

Darwin and his crew step in

Okay now that these guys realised that life couldn't come from non life - Charles Darwin [1809-1882CE] came after them and said that the first living cell probably formed in a warm pond because there were the right ingredients there, and the force of lightning struck that place 'by chance' and these materials came to form a living cell. Keep in mind that he purely speculates this without any proof. But lets move forward.

Remember above that we've mentioned that these people weren't aware of the complexity of a cell, they thought it was merely a blob (thats how it looks like under a normal light microscope [a simple microscope used at that time]) which had the potential for causing life. He and his future supporters then argued that if the right materials are in that little warm pond, then these can form into proteins [the building blocks of cells], which would then multiply to form a living cell.

Amino acids ---[build up to make up]--> Proteins --> Cells --> Life

This is how normal cheek cells look like
under a light microscope (a small blob).
This is how simple it looked at Darwin’s time.

With the use of the electric microscope, we’ve been able to find out that there’s way more in the cell than what Darwin saw.

There’s way more in the diagram that we still aren’t seeing, such as the complexity of the DNA within the Nucleus (that holds all our body’s’ makeup information). etc. all this, Darwin and his crew were unaware of when they put forward their claims.

The Complexity of Cells

In Germany 1932, the electric microscope was invented. And it was developed for more accuracy throughout the late 20th century. This would be a breakthrough in figuring out how complex living cells really are, their not just 'blobs' that have the potential of life, but much more about the complexity of life and its makeup.

I'll just pick one example to show you the complexity of the cell, the rest you can read here insha Allah;


One cell holds more info. then 1 million pages of Data
The information stored in DNA must by no means be underestimated. Though hard to believe, in a single DNA molecule of a human being, there is enough information to fill exactly one million encyclopedia pages. Do consider it; exactly 1,000,000 encyclopedia pages… This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains so much information as to fill a one-million-page-encyclopedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body. To draw an analogy, we can state that even the 23-volume-Encyclopedia Britannica, one of the greatest encyclopedias of the world, has 25,000 pages. Therefore, before us lies an incredible picture. In a molecule found in a nucleus, which is far smaller than the microscopic cell wherein it is located, there exists a data warehouse 40 times bigger than the biggest encyclopedia of the world that includes millions of items of information (in only one of our cells!). This means a 920-volume huge encyclopedia which is unique and has no equal in the world. Research puts it that this huge encyclopedia would be estimated to contain 5 billion different pieces of information. Were one piece of information present in human genes to be read every second, non-stop, around the clock, it would take 100 years before the process was completed. If we imagine that the information in DNA were put in the form of a book, then, these books put on top of each other would reach 70 meters high.

If people object to this - you merely reply back with the fact that there is so much that is written on the complexity of cells by scientists, their make up [including the details stored in the DNA] and how they function - that this is sufficient to show that they aren't so simple as they were portrayed to be during the explanation of Darwin and his early followers. And that it would be impossible for these to have been formed by themselves and 'chance' (as will be discussed really soon).

*Millers Study Flawed

We've slightly touched upon Miller's study in another post alhamdulillah, but here's some quotes from scientists to actually show that Miller's study (which is the most often quoted study to 'prove' abiogenesis was infact not true in its claim at all, and that the environment in which he produced amino acids was not the same setting as the 'early earth' in which they claim abiogenesis occurred;

National Geographic, another well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998

In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism3.php [*]
Proteins can’t be made by ‘chance’ – its Impossible.

Milled tried to make Proteins, and proteins are made up of amino acids, and we know that Miller attempted to produce amino acids in his experiment [but it turned out that the environment he made was not the earthly environment in which he claimed that abiogenesis occurred.]*

But lets say that it was to occur, what’s the probability of it occurring?

An average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10 to the power 300" [300 zeros after it!] . The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability"). So imagine 300 zeros after it, its more impossible than impossible itself.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes"107 . However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."108

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."109

107 Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 64.
108 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304
109 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305.

Harold Urey (an evolutionist scientist who performed the Miller Experiment together with his student Stanley Miller):

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co. , 1991, p. 325.

Confessions of the evolutionists:

12-03-2008, 06:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

So Allah knows what will happen in the future - but at the moment of sin, Allah is displeased with the action of that slave.[/B] That's why He is the All Knowing ('Aleem) - yet displeased when people sin.
firstly, you make good points, and writing all that is no small thing, so thanks fr that.

on the other hand, are you suggesting that the creator experiences time, so he gets angry when sins are committed? also, I'm sure you're aware how numerous the human population has become, so now he will be angry all the time since people sin 'round the clock ..I don't wish to start a debate per se, but certain views do not necessarily reflect what Islam indeed teaches. I can understand why you hold them though, but you do realize that you are representing Islam here, whatever mistakes you make some might be understood to be the religion's.
good effort though,:)

- Qatada -
12-03-2008, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
firstly, you make good points, and writing all that is no small thing, so thanks fr that.

on the other hand, are you suggesting that the creator experiences time, so he gets angry when sins are committed? also, I'm sure you're aware how numerous the human population has become, so now he will be angry all the time since people sin 'round the clock ..I don't wish to start a debate per se, but certain views do not necessarily reflect what Islam indeed teaches. I can understand why you hold them though, but you do realize that you are representing Islam here, whatever mistakes you make some might understand to be Islam's.
good effort though,


Jazak Allah khayr for the positive feedback :)

About your point, i understand what you mean. But the 'howness' of Allah's anger is not known to us as humans, so we won't be able to comprehend matters such as whether Allah experiences time like us, because we know He has knowledge of everything (based on Qur'an), yet we know that He gets angry when His Messengers' are disobeyed and pleased when His slaves do good (again, this is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.)

So to question whether Allah is 'happy' and 'angry' at the same time is a concept we as humans are limited to. All we are informed of is that He is pleased with good and displeased with bad. We can't understand any further than this, whereas Allah is eternal and not limited to these restricted concepts.

To go any further than that is something looked down upon in Islam because what is stated in the Islamic texts is sufficient for us to understand Allah and get close to Him and be successful in this life and the one to come.

- Qatada -
12-17-2008, 09:46 PM
Asalaam alaikum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh

Even if "open and close" [expansion/contraction big bangs] universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing".

Eternal Big Bangs couldn't occur eternally because they would soon run out of useful energy
(because after 'each' big bang there is less useful energy remaining) - finally having no useful energy to cause big bangs - meaning that there has to be a 'first cause' for it all over again.

So atheists cant say the universe has had eternal big bangs and contractions without a first cause. We say the causer of all things is Allah who depends on no-one and is the Powerful. [al Qawiy]

In Detail:

Slide 13: Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every \"opening\" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

- Qatada -
01-01-2009, 05:45 PM

Refutation to the Evolutionary Model of Religion


- Qatada -
01-13-2009, 05:32 AM

W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."

[W.R.Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp.298-99.]

funny how they say the first cell came to life by 'chance' when science tells us that humans with an intellect can't even come up with something better than it intellectually [let alone really make it out of non life]!


- Qatada -
02-15-2009, 09:21 PM

Isn't Science really Proving God today?

Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.

In Islam, we know that God/Allah tells us to reflect on the creation and to understand how it functions in harmony with each other - as a sign that it is controlled and designed by God. Wasn't it the Muslims who revived science into Europe, finally causing the Rennaissance?

Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;

What occurred before the Big Bang.

Theists do really and sincerely want to know who caused the beginning of all matter, but atheists will tell us to accept that 'they dont know' - so why should we prefer their belief over ours? why should we believe that something which does not have an intellect controls the different forces to form things which could have only been formed by control and one with an intellect? Chaos by itself cannot cause control or a greater harmony - a harmony which is prevalent in the universe we live in today.

they might argue that there are eternal crunches and big bangs to allow this universe to come into existence, and the planet earth allows life to survive within it due to this 'chance' - but we say that you have no proof for this claim that there have been eternal crunches and big bangs, so why should we believe this claim without any evidence on your part? [something u claim to depend upon].

Furthermore, the idea of the big bangs' has to have an ending point due to laws of Entropy,

Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19

Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare
Which means that the universes' big bangs will again, need a starting source of energy to begin the cycles once all over again. So this refutes the claims of eternal Big Bangs'.

The First Cause

We know that anything which begins to exist, has a cause. Allah says (translation of meaning):

Were they created by nothing? Or were they“ themselves the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create the heaven and earth? Nay, but they are not sure.”
(Quran 52: 35-36)

The thing which caused the universe has to be a being with freewill and knowledge, or no freewill and no knowledge [to do what he wished.] If he was to have no freewill and no knowledge, there would be no universe or matter created because he wouldn't have the will to do so. So it could only have been an agent with freewill and knowledge who caused matter to come into existence, and controlled it in a way to produce and sustain life. The evidence for this is well known and apparent.

Some examples of this include the earth being in the EXACT location to sustain life, for millions of years. There are mentions in the Qur'an of the earth being dead, and Allah/God sends rain from the skies and suddenly fruits of all colours and tastes grow from this earth for our benefit and use, this is further emphasised to show that the same way God gives life to the dead earth - He will bring humans back to life for the ressurection on Judgment Day in a similar way.

People may disagree with such a point by stating that it was just by chance that this planet sustains life, and that there are millions of others which do not. To argue against this, one can simply say that scientists are still unsure of whether life exists on Mars (the closest planet to us), so how can we be so confident in claiming that other planets do not also support life by God's control? If the person replies that this should be mentioned by God in your book sent by God, you can explain that the book is sent for guidance to be successful in this life and the next, and God/Allah has given us our senses to use them to advance in science to make more discoveries. It does not increase or decrease us in faith to believe that there are also other life forms existent on other planets and solar systems.

Some people may argue that we cannot see God, however - theists can say that they believe this based on logical reasoning. Scientists have never seen the atom, electrons, and gravity, however - based on their reasoning and theories - they have come to the conclusion that they exist. So why should you be criticised for believing in God based on reasoning?

(life from non life)

How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie. Otherwise it can easily be said that an encyclopedia was written correctly by chance, which is false.

*Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30

W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."

[W.R.Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp.298-99.]

Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.

National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998
In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21
Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes to try to prove that abiogenesis (life from non life) can occur. However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell! (as explained above, the DNA of the cell contains ALL the information of the body i.e. what colour eyes the person will have, the hair colour, the persons height etc. - all the characteristics of the being) Like mentioned before, even the most basic of cells (i.e. bacteria) cannot have come into existence by chance, simply because they contain so much information within them and are "more complex than any machine thought up by man." So if man himself can't imagine a greater machine than the cell, how can he think it came into existence by chance?

This is why theists believe in Intelligent Design.


- Qatada -
05-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

Intelligent Design - The Logic& Truth Behind our Faith

There's a book by William Dembski which is called - the Design Interface. He studies human logic to try to find conclusions as to why people believe in intelligent design, ranging from belief of designs of humans, to designs of God. Why do we believe something is designed by someone and not by chance or nature?

He explains this sequence of Logic thought, and then compares this to natural objects to see whether living beings can really be a work of nature or Intelligent Design.

The logical sequences goes like this;
1] Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.

So an improbable object, with the addition of a recognized pattern = the design of someone with an intelligence.

He gives the example of the hieroglyphics in Egyptian writing. We did not see the egyptians write them on the walls, however - due to the writing on the walls - with recognized patterns, such as the repetition of certain letters in different words - we can conclude that someone did actually write this - based on intelligence - because it makes sense and its improbable that all these letters came together to make up meaningful words.

So his other logical sequence is;

2] Small Probability + Specification = Design.

Since the possibility of these letters and words being written in the correct sequences, and their specificness in the way they are written [to be meaningful] - we come to the conclusion that is based on someone with intelligence, who designed it this specific way for a purpose.

Then he gives examples of the Carved faces of the American presidents on a Mountain (Mountain Rushmore) in the USA, these faces are specific, recognizable by everyone who sees them [not just specific people who may imagine them as faces], and its highly improbable that it can happen by chance [since there are no other mountains similar to this design in its detail and specific carvings etc.] Therefore we come to the conclusion that it is carved by someone with an Intelligence.

Then he gives more examples such as writing written by people on a beach which means something meaningful to a passer by reader, who would recognise that it was written by another person before etc.

The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;

3] See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.

This is a summary of the logical sequences we discussed above.

We recognise that there is intelligence which caused this final product to be made due to our objectivity [i.e. we can compare this mountain (Mountain Rushmore) of the USA presidents in comparison to other mountains which have no faces on and just eroded through natural means].

Another example given is how forensic experts can study different scenarios and come to conclusions as to whether an incident was caused by a criminal with intelligence, or if it was an accident - even though they didn't see the crime take place when it occurred, they recognised whether it was due to Intelligent criminal activity, or natural means.

Let's put DNA through the Intelligence test

Now by using the 3 Logical sequences above, let's look at DNA and see how it fulfills the above conditions to fit into the category of Intelligent Design.

Logic #1]
Improbable Object + Recognizable Pattern = Intelligent Design.
So an improbable object (DNA), with the addition of a recognized pattern [the makeup of DNA*] = the design of someone with an intelligence.

There is a recognizable pattern in the formation of DNA, and its structure: *

**Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G-C] (millions of these matching pairs*)] ---> Genes (thousands of these*) --> DNA.

--> = come together to make up... [i.e. Base Pairs --> (combine to make Genes etc.)]

  • 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
  • A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
  • A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
  • DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
  • Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.

*(The haploidhuman genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.[1])

[1]International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.[1]

The above flow diagram shows what DNA is made up of.

The most basic foundation of DNA are base Pairs;

But let's look at the basic foundations of DNA, and that is base pairs. In regard to genetic material (i.e. base pairs) being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed in chains naturally. However there is a whole bunch of objections to this idea. First of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides/base pairs don't form spontaneously from the earth. Secondly they don't pair up to form base pairs correctly just like that either. And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn't be a linear (straight line) strand, but more probably a chaotic and branched strand, or lots of base pairs clogged up together [whereas a linear strand is required for it to be useful RNA/DNA for life so that two RNA strands can bind together to form into useful DNA]. Finally, another problem is that they wouldn't form much long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information (even the most basic of bacteria require thousands of base pairs/nucleotides in a linear strand for their RNA/DNA makeup to be useful for living beings).

Since the above is a repetition of a pattern which is recognizable (like programming i.e. like binary coding for a software) Our logic tells us that it was organized by someone with an Intelligence who controlled it to fulfill its role.

So we continue to his other logical sequence;

Logic #2]
Small Probability + Specification = Design.

Small Probability
; We know that science has been unable to produce DNA through experiments, and scientists are aware of how improbable it would be for it to come into existence through natural means (no experiments to prove DNA can come into existence by natural means no evidence to prove its reality). For example; the probability of billions of base pairs connecting with each other in the correct sequencing, and them forming on to become DNA, The probability of this is actually 4^1million (four to the power of one million). Whereas in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability" Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the mathematical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)

Specification; We know that if these base pairs do not match up together correctly, then there will not be any useful genes for life. So millions of base pairs have to connect properly in the right sequencing to become useful genes. These genes will have to be many in number (hundreds or thousands) [so the nucleotide sequences will have to be in the billions connecting with each other properly], and these genes will have to form onto become strands of RNA.

Two strands of RNA will have to be equal lengths (with equal amounts of base pairs) so they can connect with each other (in a helix/coiled up way) to become DNA. The probability of this (like mentioned) above is 4^1million, because all the base pairs will have to connect with each other in the correct sequencing [i.e. A (from one RNA strand) will have to connect with T (from the other strand of RNA), G will have to with C etc.] This will have to be done billions of times - so that all the base pairs can connect with each other, and the probability of this happening without someone purposelly controlling it is impossible.

Its like tossing a coin one billion times and it always landing on heads, people won't say its chance - but they will say that it was controlled by someone with Intelligence.

Since that - happening by natural causes - is impossible (according to the rules of statistics probability) - there is a plausible explanation, and that is Intelligent Design.
The 3rd logical sequencing he gives is;

Logic #3]
See Objective Pattern = Recognise some Intelligence.

Definition ofObjective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"


Today, scientists are aware of how complex DNA really is.

Here's a few statements from objective scientists, some who were atheists before but left atheism and started to believe in Intelligent Design - [because that was the only plausible explanation to understand how amazing DNA really is];

“Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”

Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004; (http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3212-2782r.htm.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.[4]

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs [of genetic information].[5]

Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

“What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed… There’s a huge intelligence there.”[6]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.[7]


So this final statement by Dr. Werner Gitt is saying that there's no process in science which indicates or explains that something without a mind can form itself in a way to actually produce information in such detail [like the DNA].

[4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
[5] John Whitfield, “Physicists plunder life’s tool chest”, 24 April 2003; (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)
[6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001
[7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79

And the owner of Microsoft said; DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created. - Bill Gates

So we see that many intelligent scientists who are objective, who were infact atheists before realise how complex DNA really is and explain that Intelligent design can be the only plausible explanation as to how it came into existence. They even compare DNA to software and hardware which humans [who have intelligence] themselves make. So what then, about DNA which is even more detailed, and contains more genetic information (i.e. it contains all your bodies attributes like hair colour, eye colour, your testosterone/oestrogen levels, thousands of pages of information of who you are and how your body works etc.) than them softwares and hardwares which they program?

A Final Word

Finally, Even if scientists were able to produce the likes of the DNA (although this seems extremely far off), this would again be Intelligent Design and would not prove that it can come into existence by natural means. Since the production of DNA by scientists would be through controlled experiments by them, whereas nature in of itself is not controlled by Intelligence [according to atheists.]

If someone said that you are relying on 'the god of the gaps', i would say that this isn't 'god of the gaps' - since nothing is preventing us from studying this further. However, due to the detailed specifications and co-ordination of such works and processes, I believe there is no other alternative except Intelligent Design.

It all started because Darwin (died in 1882CE) thought a cell was just a blob which could come into existence by nature, he never knew how complicated cells really were until we were able to use the Electronic Microscope (for the first time in the 1950s) to see the details within the cell. This breakthrough is what amazed many atheist scientists, and made them realise that there was no other logical explanation except Intelligent Design.

We simply know that the the attributes atheists give to nature are usually some form of attribute of Allah. I.e. Allah is al Faatir [the Originator], Al Khaaliq [the Creator], He is Al Mussawir [the Shaper], Al Razzaaq [the Provider] etc.

The only exception is that they have to depend on not knowing why nature does its job well in a controlled manner and why the universe actually formed into this control and order from the start of time (through gradual processes through Allah's wisdom), whereas we rest our faith based on logic and understanding - which is more logical and plausible in understanding the amazing universe around us. We might not have been present when the creation took place, but we understand that all this is based on Intelligent work, and the attributes of control, design (like forensic experts understand), this Intelligence is the Knowledge, Wisdom and Power of Allah.


- Qatada -
05-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

DNA - it HAD to be IntelligentDesign


For a 'living' cell to pass its evolution on to future generations - it needs genetic material either in the form of DNA or RNA. Without genetic material, no progress can be passed on to the future generations. Your DNA contains all information necesairy for your body, it contains the blueprints of how things should be build such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be, and some say - even how old your body can possibly age). Without these blueprints it's impossible for a body to be formed, a child to grow up. If any life form would suddenly and randomly appear without such a blueprint, it would not be able to copy itself, or to have offspring without any such guidelines. Therefore in order to preserve life, and pass down biological information, lifeforms must contain this genetic material.

DNA and RNA are both strands made of nucleotides. The difference is, that RNA is a single strand whereas DNA are two strands of nucleotides coiled together. Now for these strands to "fit" into one another, the right nucleotides need to be paired up. We call these paired up nucleotides from the two strands of DNA "base-pairs". Some other small differences, RNA does not use Thymine as one of the 4 nucleotides but uses Uracil instead. DNA uses deoxyribose instead of ribose.

DNA is the most common genetic material found inside the cells of plants & animals. RNA can be found in different places, it can be the genetic material of a virus. RNA is also used in our body to carry information (a transcript of a part of our DNA) to other places in the cell.

Being Made

DNA is made up of thousands of different genes, and genes are made up of base pairs. These "base pairs" are made of two paired up nucleotides. In other to form a base pair, we need to pair up specific nucleotides. Each type of nucleotide has a specific shape, so only certain combinations fit. There are 4 nucleotides. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine represented respectivly by the letters A,T,G and C. Due to their shapes only A and T or G and C fit into one another.

In regard to genetic material being formed out of natural processes; some might claim that genetic material was formed in chains naturally. However there is a whole bunch of objections to that idea. Fist of all the basic building blocks, neucleotides don't form spontaniously. Secondly they don't pair up to form base pairs correctly just like that either. And finally even if you could explain the previous two steps, it still wouldn't be a linear strand, but more probably a chaotic and branched strand. Finally, another problem is that they wouldn't for msuch long strands, and a short chain can only hold a very limited amount of information.
**Nucleotides (i.e. billions of A,T,C,G, match with their suited nucleoclide to become: Base Pairs [A-T, G-C] (millions of these matching pairs*)] ---> Genes (thousands of these*) --> DNA.

--> = come together to make up... [i.e. Base Pairs --> (combine to make Genes etc.)]

  • 2 Nucleotides form a Base Pair
  • A specific number of Base pairs form a Gene
  • A whole strand of base pairs with different genes on it form DNA
  • DNA is folded, wrapped up with histones to form Chromosomes
  • Chromosomes are stored inside the Nucleus.

*(The haploidhuman genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000-25,000 distinct genes.[1])

[1]International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. doi:10.1038/nature03001. PMID 15496913.[1]


Now since these nucleotides need to connect with each other to form base pairs, they have to do this thousands and millions of times - in the correct sequencing - in order for them to become useful genes. So millions of different A nucleotides will have to connect with millions of T nucleotides, and millions of G nucleotides have to connect with millions of C nucleotides. These combined will make our genes. One gene might contain any number from a small dozen up to thousands of nucleotides connected together into base-pairs, so there will be millions of nucleotides connected together in the matching sequences in the DNA.

Connecting two strands to make DNA

Since DNA is made up of two strands, proponents of the RNA world suggest that somewhere along evolution DNA was formed by merging two RNA strands toghether.

Now for two strands to connect - not only would they have to have approximately the same size, the nucleotides should also have to match up correctly. I.e. the A from one strand would have to connect with a T nucleotide from the other strand, and a G nucleotide to connect with a C nucleotide from the other strand. If we take two RNA strands with a million nucleotides, the probability of all nucleotides pairing up correctly would be 4^1million (four to the power of one million). Whereas in mathematics probability, In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability" Even if they were to argue that the chains were much smaller in the earlier days, the probability of this happening are still high (reaching to the mathematical probability of impossibility of such a thing happening.)

Right handed and left handed isomers - right handed only being useful for nucleotides

Theres something else which is interesting aswell;

There are two types of nucleotides, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. Someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in nucleotides coming together to form into the correct genes. The problem is though that even if they could show how nucleotides could form natuarally (which they can't) then both left handed as well as right handed nucleotide isomers would have produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) [Pasteur concluded that organic molecules can exist in one of two forms, called isomers (that is, having the same structure and differing only in mirror images of each other), which he referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" forms. When chemists synthesize an organic compound, both of these forms are produced in equal proportions, canceling each other's optical effects.] - Term Paper on Biology. Essays, Research Papers on Bacteria -research material v. II,I

The nucleotides which make up our DNA are exclusively made up of right handed isomers [of nucleotides], and no left handed isomers. The same problem exists for our proteins. The proteins are made up of amino acids which are all made out of left handed isomers.

Its like tossing a coin 1000 times and it always landing on heads only. Would you say this is because of chance, or purposely controlled by someone with an Intelligence?

DNA needs to pass its genes on to future generations, but how?

Finally, even if for arguments sake DNA was to form, it would need to reproduce itself or it'd eventually end up being destroyed by the chaotic atmosphere. Replication is a vital part of evolution, without replication no advancement can be saved. For this it would need protein organelles, preferably kept together with our DNA by a cell membrane. The problem is though, DNA by itself can't do anything - it's just a Blueprint, or a set of instructions. So even if amino acids were present (based on Millers study some were produced), how did the amino acids know what to do? (Millers experiment does not explain how amino acids come together to form proteins and there is no successful study to show that this has actually ever occurred.)

To make a comparison, Imagine a factory with car parts (amino acids) laying around scattered, and some blueprints (dna/rna) laying inbetween them, and whole whole bunch of other random and even harmfull stuff. Would such an enviroment naturally produce a car? Everyone would agree you need factory workers [protein organelles and enzymes] who can sit within a factory (a cell membrane) and get their instructions from the DNA. The problem is though, that a simple cell membrane is made up of lipids (fat) only, so it can't open and close (like floodgates) at its own will unless it has a system within it [telling the different components what to do, and when to open up or close]. Fat/lipids by themselves aren't able to do this. So how did the DNA enter into this cell membrane in the first place, and how did any organelles enter into this cell membrane - so that they could work together to be productive in reproducing themselves on to future generations?

- Qatada -
05-01-2009, 09:17 PM


That's mountain rushmore, carved by Intelligence (of humans).

Now compare that mountain to any other mountain which has eroded over time, do you come to the conclusion that the erosion was able to produce undisputeable human face images like mount rushmore?

I don't think so.

- Qatada -
06-11-2009, 07:10 PM

Advanced Atheism FAQ's - the Real Deal (you've never seen these before). Really good for Dawah!

The Anthropic Principle's definition:
Is merely the acknowledgement that indeed the universe is as if build for the purpose of sustaining us. Philosophically speaking, The anthrophic principle does not disprove or prove God. All it does is explain that this universe is in a way that it can sustain life. However, many theists argue that since this is the only universe which does sustain life - more specifically our planet, and any other universes are just hypotheses (i.e. we aren't sure whether any exist or not) - then this universe was created in a way by God for life.

If atheists argue that life was formed by many coincidences, then this is not really a scientific argument until it is tested and proven.

Atheist; Forget perfection - the universe doesn't even work well since it has certain flaws.

answer: whether or not our universe is "perfect" is a philosophical and subjective question which depends on your view of perfection, and the purpose of the universe. If it's purpose is to sustain and contain us, then it does it's job perfectly doesn't it?

Atheist; How much of this planet is habitable? How many billions of years did it take before even basic life was possible?

answer: How do these uninhabitable parts of earth, defeat the purpose of creation? Do not even the uninhabitable parts have a function? Indeed the sea is uninhabitable, but without the seas, we wouldn't have climates. Indeed some mountains are uninhabitable, but they to have a purpose on earth, to buffer [and keep the earth firm during] earthquakes. The point is, our planet is uninhabitable, and the characteristics fit surprisingly well with our needs.

Atheist; This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"


Yes most definitly, some examples:
1) rate of expansion after big bang
“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).
2) gravity :
“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).
3) Or how about the physical constants (like speed of light, planck constant). In physics we see these seemingly arbitrary numbers appear, that cannot be accounted for, but are adhered to strictly. Many scientists have expressed their awe for the way these constants caused a form of "fine-tuning". We do not understand where these values come from, yet we do see that if they would have been any different, life in this universe would have become very challenging. (Constants of Physics and Mathematics) 4) But even in our day to day life, if we look at our own bodies and surrounding, there's a sense of awe in all of them. Take for example the fine-tuning by which proteins in the cytoplasma self-regulate: Protein and Protein Interactions

Islam does require faith to an extent, but not 'blind faith';

in general yes, there is always a portion of faith. In the end of the day it is still a religion. However there is clearly a difference between Islam and the other religions. Islam doesn't require "blind" faith. Islam doesn't go in against logic and science. And there are many miracles which show Islam is genuine. So even though I acknowledge there's a portion fo faith required, I wouldn't say that it's "merely" faith-based.

the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;

Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believeing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite Deity. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces.

Atheist: you believe in God due to science of the gaps argument;

answer: Again a straw men argument as reply. I did not say:

"Science uses science of the gaps."

Instead I said:

"You use science of the gaps. "

Since you choose to believe, that things which we haven't got a scientific explenation of, do have a natural explenation. In other words, the point I'm making is not that "science" is guilty of anything. I see science as completely neutral between us in this discussing. But rather my point was that you (ab)use science, or at least your faith in future-possible-scientific-discoveries to fill these gaps. So if I were indeed guilty of this proces of filling gaps, you would be equally guilty of filling these gaps with something else that is also faith-based.

You're using your science of the gaps again, where you assume that the gaps will eventually be filled with a naturalistic explenation based on your blind faith in (future) science.

So the all-possible-alternatives-exist-multiverse theory is not ridiculously complex? Is not untestable? Surely you are mistaken. The reason that we are uncertain regarding this is because all current theories are untestable. So far, none of the suggested explenations from any corner has been testable. As for complexity, again, I consider your explenation more complex [since your claim of God being complex is also subjective, then this is subjective too in complexity and is untestable].

Besides, you cannot explain 'why' the universe does what it does. you will only say it happens by chance or coincidence today, due to our lack of knowledge of science today, so you have faith in scientific theories which may come in the future which may or may not explain why the universe did what it did to achieve what it has achieved uptill today. But, due to the knowledge of probability, and alot of these factors occurring to allow life to survive, reproduce etc. then Ockhams razor theory goes for the most simplest of the two explanations (this only applies if both theories are equally plausible), and in this case - it supports my belief in an Intelligent Designer.

Atheist; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-anthropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.

Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).


I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

I realize that if I claim "God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.

[Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic.]

Atheist: This does not explain why God cannot reveal himself.

answer; It doesn't explain it directly. God created the universe and our lives in it in order to test us. For God to show himself, would be like a teacher writing the answers on the blackboard during an exam. What the verse does explain, is how even if more testable evidence were submitted, (like the suggested example of an angel who functioned as messenger to the people) then there would still be people who disbelief. People do not believe or disbelieve because of their rational evidences. People belief or disbelief due to their emotional inclinations. Islam is perfectly rational, if people would judge on evidence and logic alone, all people would become muslims. But there's obviously more to it then that (i.e. due to someone not wanting to follow the guidance willingly due to channeling desires in a way which may be displeasing to God etc).

Undisputable Miracles in Qur'an;
1. The mountains are shaped like pegs:
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs? (78:6-7)
Early tefsir made prior to scientific discoveries:
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Scientific article that confirms the shape of mountains:
Beneath the mountains
Article explaining how research confirms the function of mountains as insulators for earthquakes:
Effects of Large-Scale Surface Topography on Ground Motions, as Demonstrated by a Study of the San Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles, California -- Ma et al. 97 (6): 2066 -- Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

"The mountains are shaped like pegs" is not vague, it gives a clear view of their shape, and this has been confirmed by science, and there was no way to discover these things without our current scientific advancement.
A similar argument can be said about the other verses. If you read them at face value, their have an obvious direct meaning. They are clearly not meant in a metaphorical way, and give a direct message. Of course people can interpret that differently, but that's not my point. My point is:
1. The direct literal meaning of these verses is confirmed by science
2. The early scholars, who lived before we had these scientific knowledge, believed that these meant the same as we now believe.
3. This knowledge could not have been discovered without our current technological equipment.
4. The only logical explanations are that it is truly a divine revelation or that it was a lucky guess. However to claim that all of these different miracles were all lucky guesses defy the logic of chance-calculation and luck, and is therefore no longer a logical explanation

2. The deepness of the sea:
Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light. (24:40)
Claims that:
1. Deep inside the sea there is darkness, this has now been tested with diving equipment and validated.
2. There are different waves above each other. This has now been tested with hightech equipment, measuring density and temperature, you can find "layers" of sea.
3. The darkness is caused by the layers. Again this is correct. These different layers of sea, since they each have a different density and temperature cause a phenomena which in science we call: "light refraction". Upon each refraction, a percentage of light is reflected back up. So the light is really stoped in part layer by layer.

(Do note this only acounts for part of the darkness, allot of the light is also reflected on the surface (+-30%) and also some part of it is "absorbed", nevertheless, that this verse does not contradict science is amazing)
(for this verse I didn't look for scientific sources, as I take it the behaviour of light is something widely known and thought in high-school level physics)

Atheist; (he says that you are abusing science to support your religion)

answer: No, clearly this is not the accurate description of things. I'm not having a go at you for having faith in people who do good work, I'm having a go at you because you link your personal faith to those people's work, in an attempt to inappropriately give your faith the same prestige of their work. That's a form of abuse of their good name even. See, you're trying to make it seem as if it's you (=science) vs. me (=religion). And as if my views are contrary to science. But that is not at all the case. My views are perfectly compatible with science.

Perhaps yours might be to, but that doesn't change that science is neutral in this, and that your constant cry of "god of the gaps" is a hypocrite argument, since you fill the gaps with your faith-based assumptions as well.

Atheist; God is not falsifiable, simply because you require faith in Him.

wouldn't that be neat if everything was falsifiable? Well sadly some things aren't. When a scientist believes in string theory due to it's mathematical harmony; despite that it's not falsifiable, people seem to look the other way. But if a theist believes in God based on a harmony in his world-view, it's like everybody goes: "look at that blind fool..." [Both are faith based, so why the double standards?]

Atheist; you're trying to use science to explain God because of advancement in science today only;

answer: It's not some new-age way of trying to fit Religion within the parameters of science. In fact it's the same explenation that exists since the beginning of Islam (since the Qur'an continuously encourages people to study science, reflect on the universe to believe in God through His signs), that despite scientific advancement still works.



When debating, they might say that science may disprove the need for God in the future.

First of all, we don't need to argue about the future. Science is what we understand of the universe today, so we have to accept the reality as it is today and not how it will be in the future.

2nd, we're realising that Science is showing the need for Intelligent Design today.

3rd, If they argue that science will disprove the need for God in the future, whose to say that science won't prove the need for God in the future?

Who created God?

God is uncreated by definition.


- Qatada -
06-29-2009, 08:09 PM
Asalam alaikum warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

Believing in God is the nature [fitrah] of the human being.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) also informs us: "Every child is born upon the natural way. It is then his parents who turn him into a Jew, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian." [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1296)]

Everything has a logical purpose
Everything in this universe follows certain sets of rules, which we can comprehend and understand. If these laws run according to logical rules, then it is most likely that something has been co-ordinated this set way in order for these laws to have been established in the first place. If these set laws are not established in the beginning, then how can co-ordination form from chaos? This is extremely unlikely. Logically speaking, order is put into motion by one who controls and directs. This is how the human nature understands the universe we live in. Someone might argue that it is due to our perception - that we logically try to percieve things in order, so they are in order only due to our minds placing them within that sequencing - however, it is because they are within this order that we are able to percieve the control that we see.

If one was to argue against this - then they are saying that the logical came out of the illogical, something which the human mind cannot really comprehend, prove, or even agree to naturally. Anyone can say we evolved to only accept control as a perception, but the reality is still otherwise - in the universe we live - where the Planet Earth was in the exact location to allow life to survive and remain protected within it for millions of years. People cannot explain why the planet earth came in this location to allow life to remain within it, however due to the extremely low probability of the earth being in the exact place to achieve this purpose without control - the human nature is more likely to agree that there was some form of intervention, to allow it to to be in the exact location to support life, and to provide for the different species for a long time period. That is what the human nature agrees to, to understand that every living and non living thing has achieved something for a purpose. Survival in of itself is not a purpose, although it may be a means for achieving something.

The probabilities of 'Coincidences' is - in most cases - lower than Impossibility

A good example of this is given when certain chemical reactions take place, we know that they can take place to produce certain products. However, some form of control is required to react these substances together to produce the outcome. Someone may argue that it is possible for certain events to occur through natural means, and that is true - however - these are extremely limited. So the person may reply that over millions of years, natural occurences, and trial and error - useful products are produced. However, the weakness in these arguments is that the probability of such events - especially of trial and error - occuring are extremely low, and in many cases - statistically impossible (a probability smaller than 1 in 10 (to the power) 50 [50 zeros after it] is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring, and most of these cases require a higher probability than this number.) This then, logically speaking, makes certain events impossible, except through control and some form of intervention from someone with Knowledge, and Ability to do so.

2 Equally Competitive but Conflicting theories are Present - the Simplest is most likely true

According to the Ockham's Razor Principle, if there are two conflicting theories of equal value, then the simplest of the 2 theories is most likely to be true. In this case - the universe - being controlled to produce and sustain life is the simpler of the 2 theories, therefore more likely. For example, we see;
Pro creation by anthropic theory: When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life impossible:

“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

So we see that the complex rules of the physics of the universe - even if they were altered slightly, would make life impossible to exist within this universe. It all started with a design of life; then the universe was custom made in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.

Moving on...

Claim that: Children - without being taught - have a Predisposition to believe in Supreme Being who created with a Purpose.

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."


We see from the above study that the human nature accepts and believes that everything has a purpose, i.e. "to make nice music", "it makes the world look nice".


So we see that it is in agreement with human nature to accept that everything is done with a purpose, along with control and order of one with knowledge and power. This is what the mind accepts and is at ease with, this is the simplest and most plausible of the two competitors (chance vs control), this is the human nature.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 02:53 PM
  2. Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 10:54 AM
  3. Replies: 242
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 04:18 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-16-2006, 11:49 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives


Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!