The Islamic belief and subsequently the Islamic way of life are premised on an intellectual basis. Therefore, Islam is neither a religion nor a set of values and rituals that arise from blind faith. Rather, Islam is an intellectual belief from which emanates a comprehensive socio-political and economic system. To understand the unique system that Islam offers necessitates the explanation of the Islamic belief i.e. the belief in God, Allah (swt) and the word of God, and the Qur'aan.
God: The arguments
Today if you mention God then you'll probably get a negative reaction. It has become the trend to get on with life and not bother to ask the question whether there is a God or not. In fact this question was not even asked much in the days of old, when you simply had to believe in God or be persecuted. Therefore, it is not surprising that people find it easy to believe that the existence of God is a myth, simply because they have never thought deeply about the idea.
It is because people continued to believe in God blindly i.e. blind faith, rather than use ration, that science and its attempted explanations of universal phenomena was hailed as the 'new (false) God'.
But let us deal with both arguments - for and against the existence of a Creator - from a rational perspective. A common argument by many Christians and some other religions is that God is the God of many abstract attributes such as Love, Peace, Mercy which indeed are admirable qualities for human beings to aspire to. This characterisation of God is based upon an implicit assumption that God can be likened to human beings thus the attempt to understand God in a human framework. Accordingly, we find in some societies, such as early Greek, that individual gods were used to represent single human attributes, and in other cultures gods have the quality to reproduce.
The question this begs is whether the essence of an unlimited Creator is understandable through a limited, imperfect human mind when God lies beyond our perception? Rational thought would dictate that if God exists then knowledge of God's attributes can only come from itself. Therefore, famine in the world leading to the deaths of millions would not deny the Justice, Mercy or Love of a supposed God, but would only if one attributed the human essence to God. Similarly, if one understands God as the Governor and Controller of the universe then the notion of God dying is nonsensical. This is the failure of Christianity and indeed all religions, as their belief becomes a matter of blind faith. Consequently, they allow themselves to be plagued by rational contradictions, which inevitably lead to intellectual rise to disprove the existence of God. Are these arguments valid? To understand the validity of any proposed argument the premise should be examined. Science is concerned with the methodology of processes in the physical world, i.e. it deals with 'how' and not 'why'. Thus scientists are not concerned with why gravity exists but how gravity influences bodies to shape this universe.
The scientific method is limited in that it can only deduce rules by repeated observation of physical phenomena. Thus the question of the existence of God does not and cannot fall into the realm of scientific thought because science deals with the mechanisms of events and phenomena within the universe i.e. the tangible and not the intangible. To test the hypothesis to apply scientific proof for or against God, one would effectively have said that God is "testable'. Therefore, logically one would conclude God to be within the universe since God must be physically tangible in order to test. Since God is tangible and contained within the universe, God must be limited and therefore cannot be God.
Thus scientists are falling into the same trap as the blind followers of religion that is they are implicitly defining a role to God as the 'one who makes things work'. Since scientists have explained how things work the question of God does not arise. Those who argue from this angle have falsely assumed an attribute/essence of God in the same way Christians say God has a son or is Love.
To prove or disprove the existence of a Creator we need to go beyond the limitations of the scientific method and proceed rationally for it is only the rational thought which has the ability to deal with an issue like this.
The rational thought
Man progresses as a result of his thoughts concerning everything around him. Thoughts are what distinguish man from other animals and without them man would be lost. Thought occurs when man receives information about something through his five senses. He then distinguishes it by linking it to previous information and experiences he has encountered. For example, a person comes across a plant. He knows that it is a plant due to previous knowledge of what a plant looks like. But only when he links it with previous information on the various types of plants will he be able to tell if it is edible or poisonous.
Hence, just receiving information is not enough. It will remain only as information that we cannot appreciate or understand. However the process of linking it to previous information and distinguishing the information is the process of thought and is the key of understanding and progressing.
Consequently, when man becomes convinced of the correctness of a thought, it becomes a concept, which he carries, thus, affecting his behaviour. For example, if we carry a concept of dislike of someone, it will affect our behaviour towards that person. So we see that carrying false ideas has serious implications for a person and if such false ideas are carried widely it has serious implications for society.
Thus the idea and question of God has serious implications because the answer obtained becomes the very basis by which we understand the creation and purpose of man, life and the universe. Therefore, the method used should not merely be the rational thought but be comprehensive and agree with reality. Anything hypothetical or emotional should be rejected since their basis disagrees with ration and reality.
The rational proof
When we look around at everything we can sense one factor is shared by these things, they are all limited. By limited we mean that they have restrictions, a starting point and an ending point, and they all have definable attributes, i.e. they are finite.
Man is born and he dies. There is no one alive who will not die. During his life span, he will grow to a certain shape, height and volume. The universe is defined as all the celestial bodies and planets. All these objects have a certain mass, shape, volume and so on. The life span of a star may be very long, but a point in time will come when it will cease to exist.
The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. No scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. In fact when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! There is nothing in reality, which is unlimited. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything unlimited around him. All he can perceive is the finite and limited.
A further attribute of everything around us is that they are all needy and dependent in order to continue existing. They are not self-sustaining or independent. Man has needs. He has to satisfy in order to survive. He has organic needs. Man must eat and drink if he is to survive. If he does not he will die. We see need and dependency in plants and animals. They depend on other parts of the food chain for their existence. The water cycle is dependent on the sun, which is dependent on the laws of the galaxies and of burning mass, and so on... Nothing man can perceive is self-subsistent. So things exist, but do not have the power of existence. They cannot control when they die or when other bodies die.
There is one fact that emerges from all this. If something is limited and finite, and does not have the power to be self-subsistent then it must have been created. Applying this to everything we see will bring us to a conclusion. If everything in the universe is created because it has not the power of being in existence on its own, and is finite and limited, then there must be a Creator. This Creator by contrast has to be unlimited and not needy and dependent on anything to bring it into, or sustain its existence.
The universe; the sum of finite and dependent objects is finite and dependent - but dependent on what? It is dependent on something to start and sustain life; and something to plan and develop life.
The only rational and intellectual solution to the question of creation is that there is a Creator, which has accounted for all that we see and perceive. Ration tells us that nothing can be created without a creator. Ultimately there must be a Creator who is unlimited in every aspect.
Some scientists challenge this with a theory that everything depends on something for existence, which in turn depends upon something for existence, and so on ad infinitum. This theory is irrational, as it does not explain how anything came into existence in the first place. It uses an idea of ' Infinity’, which we know does not exist in reality. It does not, or even make an attempt, to explain-the very first step in the sequence. It is illogical and incomplete in its theory, and far from being scientific. If at its basis the theory is weak, how is it possible to trust the proceeding theoretical argument for the creation of the universe?
Conclusion
Hence, looking at any planet in the universe, contemplating on any phase of life, or comprehending any aspect of man provides a conclusive evidence for the existence of a Creator, what Muslims call Allah (swt).
This intellectual proof of the existence of Allah (swt) is an understanding open for everyone and obligatory for all Muslims to be convinced of. Each person must explore to the limit of his understanding. Blind belief has no place in Islam. Believing through instinctive emotions is unreliable and dangerous as emotions can change and add error to ones belief and actions. And if the basis of the belief is irrational and weak, how can a system of life be built upon it?
“Whoever puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is Allah for him.”
Every village must have its headman; every needle must have its manufacturer and craftsman. And, as you know, every letter must be written by someone. How, then, can it be that so extremely well-ordered a kingdom should have no ruler? And how can so much wealth have no owner, when every hour a train2 arrives filled with precious and artful gifts, as if coming from the realm of the unseen? And all the announcements and proclamations, all the seals and stamps, found on all those goods, all the coins and the flags waving in every corner of the kingdom - can they be without an owner?
Social evolution like biological evolution is a process of time.
Then why humans only? Logically it does not make sense that humans only would develop socially unless there was a distinction between humans and animals. Why would this distinction come about? Its obviously not through an evolutionary process beginning by chance and eventually reaching the point of humanness while animals, if anything, began to evolve at the same time, if not earlier depending on how you look at it, than human beings.
The evidence you are giving me is lacking is as much scientific evidence as creationism or intelligent design explanations except that the latter options make logical sense and are fully explainedin several scriptures.
Why do camels only have those humps on thier back, Why are 10% of europeans immune to aids yet the rest of the world are not!
Logically it does not make sense that humans only would develop socially
What gives you the idea that only humans develop socially, all primates form social groups and many other species too.
unless there was a distinction between humans and animals. Why would this distinction come about? Its obviously not through an evolutionary process
You obviously don't know much about evolution (as your evolved computer post) implied. Can you even explain why it could not come through an evolutionary process.
beginning by chance and eventually reaching the point of humanness while animals, if anything, began to evolve at the same time, if not earlier depending on how you look at it, than human beings.
That makes no sense at all and clearly only shows the level of ignorance you have towards evolution. (I don't mean to be offensive)
The evidence you are giving me is lacking is as much scientific evidence as creationism or intelligent design explanations except that the latter options make logical sense and are fully explainedin several scriptures.
The evidence is thier for you to access if you could be bothered, but then again I don't think you can be?
Why are 10% of europeans immune to aids yet the rest of the world are not!
I think thats a question for the people involved in the engineering of the virus, but here's an article that you may find interesting (its got nothing to do with proof of God in any way, its just about AIDS):
I would very much like to hear your explanation on how earth came to being not by-chance without the involvement of a God.
Big Bang + Evolution by Natural Selection. Neither of these things have been absolutely proven, but they are certainly the best guesses on offer. Also, although both contain random elements, they contain non-random elements too.
Why not? If you said
The (frankly bizarre) idea that dolphins are theists does not logically follow from what I said.
and further stated that we are no different than animals, why not? It is plausible according to your explanation.
I think you'll find it was root who stressed the similarities between us and other animal species. Although I agree with him, there is something that separates humans from other animals, but I'm not precisely sure what it is - more highly developed intelligence, self consciousness - something like that, but as I say, I'm not sure.
You'll find that nothing in my statements so far makes dolphins being theists seem a likely proposition - perhaps you can explain in more detail how you've arrived at this conclusion.
1. Do you yourself think dolphins are theists, and if so why?
2. How did you derive this statement from what I said?
I think thats a question for the people involved in the engineering of the virus, but here's an article that you may find interesting (its got nothing to do with proof of God in any way, its just about AIDS): http://hiddenrealities.8m.com/aids.html
I hope that cover's the AIDS issue sufficiently.
What a load of dribble if you don't mind me saying so. Firstt your right that aids has nothing to do with the proof of god, however just to quickly shoot your thread down as crap (it seems to me you want to just blame the US for anything irrespective of source)
The Conspiracy Theory
Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people. Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Some even believe that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence they are based on is tenuous at best, and often ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV, or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959. They also fail to take into consideration the lack of genetic-engineering technology available to 'create' the virus at the time that AIDS first appeared.
You could just simply educate yourself free of your apparent ignorance here:
think you'll find it was root who stressed the similarities between us and other animal species. Although I agree with him, there is something that separates humans from other animals, but I'm not precisely sure what it is - more highly developed intelligence, self consciousness - something like that, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Intelligence, self consciousness and even a soul. How strongly would you feel the probability of all this lies in mans ability to communicate verbally. How much of a seperation has language written and verbal advanced the human race as a species?
CZGIBSON -
Intelligence, self consciousness and even a soul. How strongly would you feel the probability of all this lies in mans ability to communicate verbally. How much of a seperation has language written and verbal advanced the human race as a species?
Excellent point - I fully agree. Although other species can communicate, none can do it to the extent we can, and I don't know of an animal besides humans that can use written communication.
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
Written communication is a sign from God, as is the diversity of species like camels, the diversity of the environment, weather, water, humans, monkeys, birds, insects, everything you see around you.
I don't get any benefit from conveying this message to you and only God Almighty can open your hearts. I hope you both reflect on this and sincerely think about life as a whole rather than presenting arguments that are simply theoretical and unlikely.
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
The mistake there is to think that evolution is by chance and without any direction. Globally there is a case, but locally there is not. At any one time, on average, it is the slowest gazelle that gets eaten (but only on average). So that over time gazelles become faster. That is not by chance. And it has a direction. Now over billions of years conditions change so that gazelles might suddenly wake up and all the cheetahs are extinct - lucky them. But then some other hither-to lesser pressure will work on them.
Written communication is a sign from God, as is the diversity of species like camels, the diversity of the environment, weather, water, humans, monkeys, birds, insects, everything you see around you.
If God sent me a letter I might believe. But He has sent a variety of missives through intermediaries with no clear and obvious Divine origin (at least to me)
As for the diversity of species, this looks like an argument for evolution to me. After all diversity seems to be increasing.
I don't get any benefit from conveying this message to you and only God Almighty can open your hearts. I hope you both reflect on this and sincerely think about life as a whole rather than presenting arguments that are simply theoretical and unlikely.
If you are right you surely will. And either way, surely you must get some psychic satisfaction?
Not that it matters.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
With the greatest of respect, all you are doing here is carrying the torch of ignorance, perhaps you should firmiliarise yourself to what evolution is and is not, at least then you would see the errors of your ways for yourself. This is not about your faith, this is your right. However, to base the theory of evolution as natural history is what creationists love to teach people such as you, since I would agree with what you have said in reference to the evolution out of nothingness, however, the point is evolution did not evolve out of nothingness which renders your point utterly useless.
With the greatest of respect, all you are doing here is carrying the torch of ignorance, perhaps you should firmiliarise yourself to what evolution is and is not, at least then you would see the errors of your ways for yourself. This is not about your faith, this is your right. However, to base the theory of evolution as natural history is what creationists love to teach people such as you, since I would agree with what you have said in reference to the evolution out of nothingness, however, the point is evolution did not evolve out of nothingness which renders your point utterly useless.
This point I understand. Thank you for putting it nicely, I appreciate that.
I took a university level course in evolution, speciation etc. etc. and did quite well, so I am somewhat familiar with the evolutionary theory.
Basically I was assuming that you were under the impression that you believe that evolution did evolve from nothing since it is the only way that you would have somewhat of an argument against the existance of God.
Please explain your belief concerning this so I can once and for all understand where you are coming from.
This point I understand. Thank you for putting it nicely, I appreciate that. I took a university level course in evolution, speciation etc. etc. and did quite well, so I am somewhat familiar with the evolutionary theory.
If that is true why are you even entertaining this following notion as described by yourself:
muslimahh - The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
You have taken "Evolution" out of context and by doing so included a lot of theory that is not even part of the evolution theory. Do you believe that man was created as man or evolved into man from the very first single celled living organisms? since evolution is simply the following:
The change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Basically I was assuming that you were under the impression that you believe that evolution did evolve from nothing since it is the only way that you would have somewhat of an argument against the existance of God.
I have thought long and hard over your comment here. As I already stated, evolution does not start from the premis of "nothingness", how life started is still a scientific mystery and is part of the abiogenesis theory which is defined as:
the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth
Also note the "other" theories that are not part of the evolutionary theory:
1. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics)
2. The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology)
3. The creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology)
Finally, to talk about all these issues in a unified manner is referred to as "Natural History" and as you can guess "Natural History" is defined as:
all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'.
So by saying evolution cannot explain how life evolved from nothingness, therefore evolution has "controversy" is nothing short of blatant misrepresentation of the truth. (which is often peddled by the creationists/ID hypothosis).
Please explain your belief concerning this so I can once and for all understand where you are coming from.
scientifically, something cannot come out of nothing. Give me an example. Solutions need sovents and solutes, A zygote needs an egg and a sperm, two parents etc. etc. etc.
If something is unknown, such as how life itself came to being from something what is that something? where did that something orignate from? and that from? and that from etc. etc. There is no scientific process that shows something originating from nothing.
You are telling me that the evolutionary theory does not state life came from nothing but rather from something, we just don't know what. How does this negate the existence of a God? You are saying that you just don't know what this is. Perhaps God is the link you are missing here.
MODERATOR'S COMMENT: PLEASE DO NOT SIMPLY PASTE ARTICLES FROM OTHER WEBSITES ONTO THE FORUM. THE FORUM IS A PLACE FOR DISCUSSION. YOU ARE FREE TO RAISE YOUR OWN POINTS, OR ARTICULATE THESE ARGUMENTS IN YOUR OWN WORDS. JAZAKUMALLAHU KHAYRAN.
Can I at this point remind you of a question I posed for you, it was quite an important question I felt to understand how we take this debate forward and I did bolden it for you:
Do you believe that man was created as man or evolved into man from the very first single celled living organisms?
I have noted your points for future reference since I want to be clear what you believe in reference to the question above.
I believe man has been created beginning from Adam and Eve, only God Almighty knows what they looked like and how similar they were to us. But yes, they were created through God's will in human form. I have an idea where you're going on this (i could be wrong) but to clarify my posts on evolution, much was for the sake of discussion, and furthermore, the explanation of speciation, adaptation to habitat etc., the way I see it may be possible is that it is the means to which God Almighty is maintaining, creating and controlling all of this earth if we as humans are correct.
What I strongly believe is that none of this is possible without a Creator, God.
Anymore clarifications I'll be willing to answer, hope this is what you were looking for.
I believe man has been created beginning from Adam and Eve, only God Almighty knows what they looked like and how similar they were to us. But yes, they were created through God's will in human form.
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
dude, what are saying? you dont make sense at all. what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science? and for your information Qur'an is not a book of science, its a book of signs...
there is no need for it to explain in detail about the date and time of Adam and eve...thats the most useless point ive heard in this forum.
Adam and Eve were created and the Qur'an talks about them so that we learn lessons from them. It doesnt matter if they lived a million years ago or thousand years ago.
the bottom line is athiest worship a god - which is their own desires and whispers from satan. thats their god. no matter what they have to say. they cant proove this point wrong.
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
That would be logical if we assumed that everything we know about science today is correct and perfect.
The Quran and all that is in it can be proven correct through the establishment in One God, and the truth of His last messenger (peace be upon him)
No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true. The date of Adam and Eve's existence is not given in the Quran and thus, any guess towards this can only be a human-based guess prone to mistakes.
As I have, myself, a strong and sincere strength of faith in God and His Messenger, and the creation and existance of Adam and Eve is mentionned in the Quran, I know it is true. That is my proof. It can't be imposed on you if firstly you don't believe in either.
The difference between today's Western society and Muslims is that the West does not believe unless they scientifically prove everything, which in itself assumes that we have the means to do, assuming we are perfect in our knowledge and science to determine absolutely everything. Things like one's thought,inner emotions, and souls (if you believe in them) are all unseen and yet established for the large number of people.
Logically, its easy to prove the existance of God and the miracles of the Quran. Of course it takes some openmindedness and sincere drive for the truth on one's part, as well as God Almighty's Will.
I have a question, out of sincere curiosity, what do you think would be a proof for you towards the existance of God?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Re: Proof of God
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks