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.”
I was probably agnostic for about thirty years and during that time I came into contact with people of various faiths, but none of their messages seemed to have any affect on me. I suppose I was in my late forties when I tried to find out for myself if there is a God or not, and over a period of a couple of years I read a whole collection of books on different religions, evolution, and the creation of the universe.
At some point I just stopped to think that I had this huge amount of information in my head, I had written loads of notes and I still had to admit to myself I didn’t have a clue.
It wasn’t until I was speaking to my brother in law about why he believed in God and why he went to the Baptist Church, his reply was quite profound for me there were no lectures on scriptures, he simply said if you want to find God you have to do SOMETHING.
He did not tell me what to do, he just left it at that, the more I thought about his words the more I sensed I had to do something.
Faith in God is a strange concept for non-believers, but at some point in your life whether it is tomorrow or twenty years time you may just get this urge to search for God.
Faith constantly inspires me to do things, the more I do the more I seem to have a greater certainty that a loving God exists.
hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...
They've observed lots of things. Sure, no-one was around to witness the Big Bang - it's a hypothesis based on observations of its effects. Similarly, the transition from primitive apes to modern apes and humans has been suggested because of the similarity of our genetic sequences, combined with evidence from the fossil record.
Hi Callum,
Yes, let's continue with the teapot example. My questions for you:
Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot? Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something? Is it man-made? Do we know how it got into orbit? Do we know how long it has been in orbit?
After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.
The fresh water sea, and the Salty water sea, they will never meet or mix.
Somewhere in the pacific ocean.
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth
The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°)
Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.
The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress. God has said:
He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)
But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:
He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water.
Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water
This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).
for more where this came from check out the website this information was copied from: http://www.islam-guide.com/
Your questions are beside the point. This is a thought experiment, it's not something based on reality. However, the point is that it could be real, we just have no way of knowing for certain.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?
Because that's what it is.
Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something?
Not as far as anyone knows.
Is it man-made?
Probably.
Do we know how it got into orbit?
No.
Do we know how long it has been in orbit?
No.
After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.
I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.
An interesting article, although it's really a very straightforward matter to prove that a trinitarian god is logically incoherent. I would do it along the same lines as the article, although I disagree with one small point:
This is a definition of God that Jewish-Islamic theism can easily accept without any major difficulties, for this is the common understanding of God in Western theism.
The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.
That point aside, the article says nothing I would disagree with. However, it is somewhat orthogonal to the discussion we're having now. That article is based on the argument of logical incoherence, where as the line I'm following now comes down to the question of the burden of proof.
Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.
I don't think so. If we are introduced to a concept then we must first examine the concept itself as part of our discussion on its validity.
Because that's what it is.
Now we run into definition issues. Why do you call it a 'teapot' if it has never been used as such as far as anyone knows. Why not call it a "teapot-shaped object" ?
Probably.
Yes or no? If yes, then was it originally designed as a teapot and somehow got lost in space? If no, then why do you call it a teapot?
I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.
I think it does. If you are going to claim that there is an invisible, untedetectable entity that exists in an alternate dimension, I won't deny it, I'll just say it is inconseuqential and continue my life. But God is not inconsequential if He exists.
The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.
Yes, you are correct that is an error in the article.
Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.
A good summary of your argument. However, I pointed out above why I think your argument fails.
Peace.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 1
Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.2
I have read a good question which written by Czgibson:"Why most rationalist scientist say there is no God".
Ask your sana for a minute:When you're ill...Where do you go?Do you see a doctor or Computer engineer....or.. When you want to buy a beefsteak; do you want it from a tailor?Of course these are illogical.Than if you want to learn something about God, you should ask it people who are interested in God.If you do not have several perejudges. You should ask God people who found him.Scientist whor deny Him cannot give you anything about Him.For example, imagine that America has not been discovered yet.Neither you nor I know that there is a overseas continental.However one day you have heard that a man named Colomb says there is Continetal across seas.I heared it too, but I did not approve it.You're asking me is that true...I am a seaman and I say to you:"I have gone the other side of that sea and I didn't see any thing.I don't believe it.I deny that rumours." Imagine that I deny insistently.Do you maintain asking America to me?If you continue, can your belief be true?"Of course you investigate that rumour in Colomb's side.My refusal is derived from my ship's insufficiency or from going on wrong side.For these resons you should ask God from His experts if you want to learn whether He is existed or not...
teapot example is not the same as we do not see any manifestations of this teapot.
The manifastations of God is His Creation and how it is maintained in perfect harmony for life to continue to exist
Further to the big bang theory, say the universe was just one small speck....who created that speck and how was it compressed?.....if anything every single argument including that for evolution and the big bang argues that creation emerged from a certain item, not nothing, i.e. evolution = amino acids like nitrogen, carbon, oxygen etc. and the big bang from a compressed speck. The point is that there was something to being this reaction about as there were key ingredients involved in their manifestations.
Yes Muslimah.Conceding that first point have created itself has not any difference from saying all our writings is writen by it's own.All actions have to be possessed any author.We everyday experience that any letter cannot be writen by it's own.Then how can we say that these trees, Sun, moon have writen by it's own.Ofcourse God's letters and words do not resemble our writings.When He wants to write; He writes satrs, galaxies, planets, bacteries, flies...
IThis is easy to explain and in fact you have answered your own question. The Quran and the Bible do not contain amazing facts, or at least no one knew they did. Modern scientists, usually believers or in the pay of the Saudi government, have gone over the Bible and the Quran with a fine tooth comb and taken out anything they can semi-plausibly claim to be scientific and claimed it is a miracle. So the Quran did not, for about 1400 years, make any sort of statements about science or maths. It is only in the last 30 years or so that some people have claimed it does.
you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.
You have never read the Quran, FACT.
So how can someone like you decide what it does or not contain, and dont lie and say that you have read it.
If you want names of the scientists do a Google search, it's not my place here to spoon feed everything i say to people that dont want to believe it.
You have a very closed mind and it is obvious from your half heart attempts at rubbishing solid facts.
Salam
Do we not know of the verse that says - 025.063 And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";-
In this case HeiGou can be classified as ignorant, because HeiGou is talking about something HeiGou doesn't know.
So say peace as the Quran asks us to do.
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