God, Science, and Proofs

The entire world today is talking about a book by 20 philosophers and scientists that has caused a sensation in France.

This book is currently one of the best sellers in France despite its size and relatively high price. It was co-authored with twenty leading scholars and philosophers. Thus, it is a collective book, so to speak.

The newspaper “Figaro” wrote about this immediately after its publication, saying: This is a huge event. Finally, astrophysical science comes to prove God’s existence.

All these scientific discoveries come to conclude that the universe has a completely definite beginning, meaning that it was created at some point. Also, if it had a beginning, then this means that there is a reason or cause for this beginning.

Thus, the most logical conclusion leads us to believe that there is an intelligent spirit behind the phenomena, which is the existence of a higher mind that moves everything from behind the curtain، who gave the first click to the big bang and the world’s creation.

In a nutshell, all this proves the existence of a great Creator of the universe. All these discoveries and theories follow one another over the course of the twentieth century.

One day, an American atheist told me:

The faith in a Creator’s existence disrupts the mind and contradicts science and logic.

I replied:

The role of the mind is to judge matters and approve them. The inability of the mind to reach the purpose of man’s existence, for example, does not nullify his role, but rather gives religion the opportunity to tell him what he was unable to comprehend. So, religion tells him about his Creator, the source of his existence, and the purpose of his existence in order for him to establish understanding, judgment and belief. Based on this information, the recognition of the existence of the Creator did not disrupt the mind or logic.

I also told him:

It is the idea of ​​denying the existence of a universe creator that contradicts reason, logic and modern science, not the faith as you think.

British researcher Sabbour Ahmed says:

Science is based on mathematics and logic. Science cannot explain the mathematics on which it is based in the first place.

The source of human rationality was and still is a fundamental problem for atheists who admitted their failure to reach it; and we can obtain the scientific method through the source of human sanity.

Therefore, in the same way that science cannot explain the basics on which it is built, it cannot explain the origin of logic and reason.

Atheist then resort to taking an unrealistic position using an anti-science approach, and claims it to be the best workable model they came up with, but they have no right to claim that it is the correct model.

The existence of a universe creator is the only explanation for rationality which is the ability to think, contemplate the universe, practice science, calculate, conclude, weigh things, and discover the laws of the universe created by the Creator, etc.

The atheist- who follows Darwin’s theory that states the origin of man is a result of random mutations, meaning the simplest successive errors in the genetic material – again said:

Give me proof to the existence of the Creator.

I said:

This question is a great fallacy because the term evidence in itself indicates the rationality that the followers of Darwin’s theory failed to prove its meaning, not even its source through their theory, and the source of rationality is proven only by the presence of a Creator. Rationality has no meaning except with the existence of the Creator.

Asking for evidence of the Creator’s existence stems from logic and rationality. Atheists use rationality, which can only be proven by the existence of the Creator, to ask about evidence for this Creator’s existence. But the question itself is evidence of the Creator’s existence.

There are many irrefutable beliefs, such as our belief that the world is real. Thus, we cannot refute the belief in the existence of a universe creator because He is the explanation of reality itself, and is not based on a conclusion from reality which does not need an explanation.

The famous philosopher Aristotle said:

If you question every belief, you will not have knowledge. There are things that you must admit to being true, which are the foundation upon which everything later is built.

It is possible for a person to use his logic and reason to become an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc.

However, what makes man able to distinguish between right and wrong is the ability to comprehend the source of this reason and logic, and the ability to know the true attributes of this source (God is one, He is not embodied in the image of a human being, idol, or a stone, and has no child, He is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), and the ability to realize the explanation of this rationality that we possess, which distinguishes us from the rest of the creatures and whose value exceeds what man needs for survival and reproduction.

To avoid mentioning the Creator, interdependent systems are attributed to a random nature.

Although they never admit it, atheist scientists refer to the Creator by other names (Mother Nature, Laws of the Universe, Natural Selection “Darwin’s Theory,” etc…), in desperate attempts to escape the logic of religion and belief in the existence of a Creator.

These ˹idols˺ are mere names that you and your forefathers have made up a practice God has never authorized. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions and whatever ˹their˺ souls desire, although ˹true˺ guidance has already come to them from their Lord. (Sura Al-Najm: 23)

From what I previously read and liked was:

Neo-Darwinism depends on changes occuring in the characteristics of living organisms through mutations, and mutations are nothing but (sabotage) in the genetic material!

We have to believe that successive errors are what produced the creativity we see in beings!

This is like saying that a kid has been playing with a computer system for years, and these random keystrokes made a better system by chance.

The description of randomness given to the principle and theory of macroevolution means that we:

  • We don’t know what is behind the evolution.
  • We do not know the mechanisms of evolutionary phenomena.
  • We don’t know what pattern he’s following.
  • We cannot predict its phenomena.

Despite all these “non-cognitives”, some believe that the Great Development is a sound scientific theory! The great development for believers is a “black box” system.

The evolution is known, but its source and the way it happened is unknown. Yet it is said that believing in it is obligatory with no ability to debate and discuss it, as asking about it is like creating a scientific innovation.

From what I also previously heard and liked:

Atheist philosophers of biology, including the American biologist and philosopher Alex Luzmberg, say as they declare their failure:

Natural selection does not give an explanation for the truth; it only explains reproduction and survival.

They also say:

All we have to explain biochemistry, biology, anatomy, and linguistics is only reproduction and survival, and therefore we cannot trust our rationality because we have no explanation for it.

Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend William Graham in 1881 saying:

“I have a terrible doubt as to whether the convictions of the human mind, which in turn evolved from the minds of inferior beings such as the ape, are of any value or deserve the slightest confidence. Can a person trust the convictions of the mind of an ape? If there are convictions in such a mind.”

The problem with Darwinists also arises when they want to give an explanation about right and wrong beliefs (truth and falsehood).

They say:

For example, some types of mushrooms are poisonous and some are not. It is possible for a person to survive and live under the false belief that all types of mushrooms are poisonous. He cannot differentiate between poisonous and non-poisonous and can not differentiate true and false because it is not geared for truth, but rather geared for survival from the Darwinian point.

How can we trust our rationality when our rationality is not directed to the truth, but is directed to reproduction and survival only?

Thinking is a quality in itself that revolves around truth, and not about survival and reproduction.

The Darwinists, by their own admission, faced the problem of the human rationality sourcs as mentioned earlier and wondered, how does an inanimate, metaphysical matter appears in the tangible matter that leads to rationality?

How does rationality arise from a random, irrational source? And they acknowledged that their theory does not answer this question as we mentioned and could not give an explanation for it.

How can an atheist trust his mind and logic when his mind did not help him know the source of his sanity?

Here, the Darwinists ran into a problem, which is the source of human sanity.

The animal is also sensible in its search for its food, place of residence, and so on, but it does not possess the ability to think that would enable it to distinguish between right and wrong.

This is what distinguishes man, which is a gift from the Creator of the universe to him, and it is the secret of assignment.

The followers of this theory had only two options:

  • Either they consider themselves irrational and indistinguishable from any animal or inanimate based on their theory.
  • Or to admit a source outside the scope of nature, metaphysical, independent of itself, which has created their rationality for them.

Without the reality of the Creator’s existence, there is no mind for the man to reason with as the several attempts conducted to know the source of man’s rationality and logic through the theory of random selection, which is blind to anything right or wrong, have failed.

Therefore, the only explanation of our existence is the existence of a Creator, whose existence was proven according to the book was published recently.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You cannot copy content of this page