Prove God!

[Awesome]

Everybody has their own ways to connect with God but if it wasn't just about faith. What are your good logical, scientific, hypothetical or philosophical evidences of God's existence?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

No one has seen God.

It is all a manner in which semblance of societal order was brought in to control the wild and bring a semblance to a societal order! After all, without an uniform approach, nothing can progress!

I say this with no offence to anyone who believes there is God.

Since I cannot understand Creation, I take it that there is some supernatural phenomenon that organised it so. But I do not believe in what any Man has to say to spread his own agenda or tales to that effect.

Again, no offence intended.

Each to his way!

 

[Awesome]

No one has seen God.

Moses did .

It is all a manner in which semblance of societal order was brought in to control the wild and bring a semblance to a societal order! After all, without an uniform approach, nothing can progress!

But GOD has been revered much before civilization was formed. Known civilization that is.

Since I cannot understand Creation, I take it that there is some supernatural phenomenon that organised it so.

Interesting you mentioned Creation. To me the theory of evolution and the belief of creation is where God's existence might be proven. I think it's already provable as you said that 'there is some supernatural phenomenon that organised it' (Life).

I think the theory of evolution is non-maintainable. It states that "Life began with a series of chance natural selections". This could've been argued in Darwins time but in todays world where we have the complex understanding of how cells work, we see them as full factories, motors, computers.

Natural selection says that anything that did not serve a purpose was removed and anything needed to serve a purpose was added/modified. Survival of the fittest.

Take the newly discovered rotary motor in cells which is attached to a small tail which facilitate the movement of cells. Can you image the build up of a tail, then the motor? Or how about if you consider all the small parts of the motor?

If the tail first existed, it should've been removed by natural selection as it served no purpose.

The evidence is in the pudding.

 

[alamgir]

Dr. Zakir Naik

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?


THEORY OF PROBABILITY


In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN


The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.


QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE


Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD


Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]

Reference: Comparative Religion

 

[MIG_ACE]

Moses did .

Correction. He "says" he did. Or other people say he did. And if God exists why only show himself to Moses and not to anyone else. Just show yourself to everyone and end the debate once and for all. LOL.

 

[Awesome]

Correction. He "says" he did. Or other people say he did. And if God exists why only show himself to Moses and not to anyone else. Just show yourself to everyone and end the debate once and for all. LOL.

God probably has an agenda and showing himself to you or me doesn't quite fit.

You must find God on your own through his signs.

 

[Awesome]

Alamgir, that was brilliantly debated by Dr. Zakir Naik.

 

[QADRI]

ya thats true no one can see God......but it is there.....just like we can't see air but it is there......we can feel it.
Khuda aisey ehsas ka naamm hai rehey samney aur dekhaee na de....

 

[roadrunner]

On the subject of specialized organs being produced by evolution, I'd agree. It sounds ridiculous. There are these Australians who believe they found an example of eye evolution.

Australian Life Scientist - Slime-oozing fish sheds light on eye evolution

However, it's still difficult to understand how an eye could evolve in such a random fashion, though they seem to think it's possible.

 

[Awesome]

Some simple questioning.

Was the retina first made or the optic nerve?

If the optic nerve first came then how did it survive a period without the retina? It should've been removed by natural selection.

The thing is evolution does not explain the complex procedures of organ by organ change. It at best shows breed changes...

Scientific deduction only leaves one answer. The entire organ was made at once and if that happened, then that is an intelligent design and not by 'chance'. Maybe you don't call it God, maybe Aliens made it but the FACT... Yes, a fact... Remains that life was created.

I'll put a simple challenge in front of you. For all living matter to be created, you need Proteins.

Try to create one protein out of nothing. You'll have to build Amino acids, (which CAN be built by other proteins), and then you'll have to assemble them in a particular sequence that forms a protein.

The thing is you can't assemble them without an already existing protein.

So in both cases the protein should have already existed. Natural selection can't make proteins. Thus if you can't make the scientific building factories of life, who will chance make life?

 

[roadrunner]

Some simple questioning.

Was the retina first made or the optic nerve?

If the optic nerve first came then how did it survive a period without the retina? It should've been removed by natural selection.

The thing is evolution does not explain the complex procedures of organ by organ change. It at best shows breed changes...

Scientific deduction only leaves one answer. The entire organ was made at once and if that happened, then that is an intelligent design and not by 'chance'. Maybe you don't call it God, maybe Aliens made it but the FACT... Yes, a fact... Remains that life was created.

I'll put a simple challenge in front of you. For all living matter to be created, you need Proteins.

Try to create one protein out of nothing. You'll have to build Amino acids, (which CAN be built by other proteins), and then you'll have to assemble them in a particular sequence that forms a protein.

The thing is you can't assemble them without an already existing protein.

So in both cases the protein should have already existed. Natural selection can't make proteins. Thus if you can't make the scientific building factories of life, who will chance make life?

Building amino acids is possible just with water, methane, hydrogen and ammonia plus a bit of conditioning. Proteins aren't required to build amino acids though. Assembling them in a particular sequence can occur after a number of attempts. Why do you need another protein, and what does it prove?

 

[zraver]

Dr. Zakir Naik

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

Ok we agree so far, holding God accountable to human mores or giving him human qualities is bad.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam.

we stil agree, you should reject violence.

The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e.

Here we begin to diverge.

Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science;

Except of course for when its not, Jihadist enjoy widespread and broad based support among a large minority of Muslims. As both baptist and catholics and thier doctrine are perceived as Christian even though both would classify the other as heretical- these supporters of violence are Muslim and their religion is Islam.

if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Many Muslism have already proven that your perception of Islam is what is wrong with Islam to them.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

The major difference is the Athiest lets go of the my God is right and your God is wrong mentality. Most Muslims, liberal or conservative cannot do this and it is a sore point with other faiths.

THEORY OF PROBABILITY


In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

Ok lets discuss it.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat,

No they didn't, the Arabs had been exposed to the sea and traders for millenia. From the beach, a mountain, or on the open water you can see the curvature of the earth and watch ships or clouds rise over the horizon.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

We drink water daily, a desert culture knows that we have to keep hydrated (full of water) to stay alive. If I pinch my skin hard enough fluid comes out etc the empirical evidence says we are made up at least in part by water.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

But what of its mistakes? You cannot cite only part of a work, as justification for the whole. The whole must be judged by the same standard.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

Again what of the mistakes? You are left with three options

God was wrong in what he said (poof universe unravels)
the Prophet was wrong in what he thought he heard (religion not perfect)
The translators got it wrong (religion not perfect)

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

A dangerous way of thinking,if something can be proven by the scientific method to be wrong, but the Koran says its right and you choose the Koran... Your rejecting the very laws God (if he exists) laid down to govern the universe on the word of a man.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns,

Not U turns, more like left and right turns, it almost never heads back the direction it came.

therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

You try to lead him down the primrose path by selectively choosing to share only that information you think is helpful to your goal of converting him. that is intellectually dishonest and is a betrayal of the trust extended to you by the atheist. Actually a real atheist will not trust you anyway because your not any different from any other door-knocking traveling salesman.

God is found in the margins, behind the corners and just out of sight. If you want to see the hand of God go to an AA group for a year and witness the miracles, look for visions that save lives, or the joy of the tortured prisoner who is devout in thier faith. All of these things might be explainable individually......... but faith is found in the shadows of doubt.

 

[Samudra]

Ik.

God is one. Absolute.

The mind is capable of knowing only those things, phenomena, facts and concepts which are bipolar or relative. God being non-dual and absolute, is unknowable to the human mind. A simple example of this is in imagining distances: one could quite easily indicate that a meter in height is so high; even two or three metres.

However when it comes to large distances, one mile, or two miles it cannot be imagined by the mind, or fully comprehended and so a standard is used for comparison: this mountain is x miles high, this tree is so high etc.

Omkar.

The word 'O-ankaar' denotes that God manifests Himself ceaselessly throughout His creation in diverse forms, features and colours, and in this way becomes knowable to us.

But, in spite of manifesting in such diverse forms, God remains One; He is immanent in His creation, while being at the same time transcendent. This God is at once one and many, implying unity in diversity

Isvasyam Idam Sarvam.

That which was, is, will be, is all Onkar. And that which triple transcends is Onkar too.

God and creation ?

It is like the one between a dancer and his dance form. When man dances, can you separate him from his dance? Can he return home leaving the dance behind?

If the dancer dies, the dance dies with him. When the dance ends, he is no longer the dancer. They are united, one. This is why since ancient times, Hindus have looked upon God as the dancer, “Nataraj.” In this symbol the dancer and the dance are one.

Thats what the wiki says anyway.

Personally, I don't need no God.

 

[Awesome]

Zraver, focus man, focus.

 

[Awesome]

Ik.

No way, you a Punjabi?

A simple example of this is in imagining distances: one could quite easily indicate that a meter in height is so high; even two or three metres.

However when it comes to large distances, one mile, or two miles it cannot be imagined by the mind, or fully comprehended and so a standard is used for comparison: this mountain is x miles high, this tree is so high etc.

Good example.

Thats what the wiki says anyway.

Personally, I don't need no God.

You didn't argue God's existence.