Existence Of God : Myth Or Rational?

01:09 Posted by Fuzail Ahmad
[In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful]

'Existence of God', the fundamental creed of all major religions including Islam has been severely attacked by so-called "rational" and "scientific" persons. Most of them either try to justify their stance either by cooking up feeble cosmological theories such as multiverse, oscillating universe et. al or by resorting to self contradicting philosophy of 'scienticism'. Just a copule of days back I came across an interesting news that modern 'prophet' of atheism 'Richard Dawkins' admits that he is not an atheist, rather an agnostic after he was caught skating on a thin ice of atheism. (Daily mail news). Desperate atheist and their comic-relief tactics!

Besides these "rational" persons, there are 'n' no. of folks who are believer just because they have such a family background though possess some queries and doubts regardinig existence of a God. Therefore, this article is aimed to prove existence of God, debunk usual polemics of atheist and answer some usual contentions of skeptics and their likes.

Although, science has its own limitation and its a dynamic field, i’ll try my best to deduce the creed of Existence Of God‘. 

From a cosmological perspective, if we contemplate over the existence of universe, we would come across two possible notions either (a) universe is eternal – from always.  Or (b) Universe had a beginning. 

First of all let us scrutinize these two premises.

(a) Universe is Eternal – Some atheist philosophers Carl sagan and their likes tried their best to popularize this hoax of eternity of universe which i'm afraid is not a plausible notion in case we take modern science into contemplation.

For Instance, Big Bang a widely accepted theory or a more apt evidence, The Second Law of thermodynamics which introduced the law of entropy explains the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. 'Entropy' is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For instance, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy to one of a lower temperature or energy.

To explain it precisely, according to to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy(low temperature or energy), as their energy is being used.

Therefore, Applying  second law of thermodynamics to this universe we’ll conclude that it must have began to exist as the universe is a closed system, with enough time this universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium(When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy)

This is because entropy can only increase over time. Hence, as the universe continues to expand it will gradually become cold and dead. So, if the universe never began to exist as per premise (a) it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, so with enough time this universe would’ve already been in state of heat death or ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’. Since, universe is not suffering any heat death it unambiguously implicates that it must have had begin to exist.

However, Skeptics and some atheists may still argue(because of their superficial knowledge)  that :

(i) First law of thermodynamics states that “Energy can neither be created, nor be destroyed” and since universe we live in is mere sum of matter(energy) it cannot have a beginning and neither end.
But, this is a serious erroneous application of this law, what this law asserts as understood by majority of physicist is that no new energy/matter is formed in the universe after its onset. Else if we take this assumption(universe is eternal) into contemplation it would defy the consequences of second law of thermodynamics.

(ii) Oscillating universe modelThis model states that if the gravitational pull of the mass of the universe was able to overcome the force of its expansion, then it might result into contraction of universe resulting into big-crunch and then into new expansion resulting into – ‘big bang’.
In precise, it states that universe is following a cycle of Big bang and big crunch and that it will continue forever and therefore universe is eternal.

However, this contention has some serious flaws :

(1) There isn’t enough mass in the universe to create a gravitational force that can draw the galaxies back together.

This conclusion has come from clusters of galaxies observed by a team of astronomers at Princeton University Observatory based on images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Neta Bahcall, leader of the team said, “There’s simply not enough matter to close the universe and make it stop expanding.”

(2) The speed of the movement of the galaxies is too great for their gravity to reverse their movement.

(3) The amount of deceleration indicates that galaxies will not slow down enough before they are too far apart to be brought back.

(4) The decrease of mass because of the depletion of nuclear energy will greatly decrease gravitational pull making a reversal impossible.

(5) all nuclear energy will finally be used up which will imply an end of this universe.

(6) If our universe will “turn dark and cold as nuclear furnaces and even massive black holes run out of fuel” then at some time in the past the universe must have been given its nuclear fuel. It could not have been using its fuel forever in the past or it would already have used all its nuclear fuel.

(7)  According to the oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of the various oscillations of expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

(8) Universe couldn’t oscillate i.e create-destroy-create-destroy-ad infinitum as if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic).

In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the oscillation resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang. Such a small “bounce” would result in an immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Since, i gave this erroneous notion of universe eternity a ‘Death Blow‘, the only possibility we’ve is this universe must have had a beginning.

(b) Universe had a beginning :

Quran presents a rhetorical argument about the existence of universe :

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain.”

- Holy Quran 52:35-36

If we take this verse of Quran under scrutiny, consequently, we'll come across few possibilities that this universe is either (a) created out of nothing, Or (b) created itself, Or (c) created by something else that came into existence, Or (d) Created by an uncreated entity

So let us scrutinize each of them to discover which of the above is a rational premise.

(a)  Created out of nothing :

This one isn’t a rational explanation as out of nothing, nothing comes, for instance, a chair0 or say a building to come into existence it must have a cause or creator i.e carpenter or labours respectively. Likewise, for this highly complex and fine-tuned universe to come into existence it must have a creator or cause.

Unfortunately some physicist in order to deny the absolute and undeniable truth of  existence of God have put forward the claim that something can come out of nothing referring to the various sub atomic events that take place in quantum vacuum.

However, this is a serious erroneous understanding of ‘nothingness’, nothingness here cited means absence of anything physical and interestingly it didn't pre-exist the universe. 

Moreover, the quantum is ‘something’. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe.
“According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.”
Source : Vacuum state - Wikipedia

As evident, It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe and hence a part of universe itself.

(b) Universe created itself :

When there would be nothing like 'itself' how could it create itself?  This premise leads to the absurdity of circular reasoning as it implicates that something can exist and not exist at the same time, which won’t sound plausible to any rational person. Moreover, it would be tantamount of saying, you (the reader) gave birth to yourself.

(c)  Created by something that came into existence :

Firstly, whatever entity has a beginning is a physical and material entity and therefore is within the universe itself as a created things are limited in time dimension, so saying that universe is created by something physical would imply that a part of universe created the universe which again doesn’t makes sense.

Secondly, it would lead us to absurdity of infinite regress, let me a elaborate it by an example, If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on and on to infinity we wouldn’t have the universe U1 to talk about in the first place.

Think of it this way,

when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being.

When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being.

This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity.

Therefore, a created entity couldn't be the cause of this universe.

(d) Created by an UNCREATED(eternal) entity : 

Since, rest 3 premises(created out of nothing, created by itself and created by any entity that came into existence) have been proven fallacious, we can safely conclude that this universe must have an uncreated creator who is out of this universe i.e IMMATERIAL, NON-PHYSICAL and not limited in time dimension and physical laws, totally UNIQUE, as Quran says “There is nothing like Him.” – 112:4 

Therefore, from the cosmological perspective there exists a God or Creator.

Let us scrutinize this notion of existence of God from a different perspective. As you might have noticed, I’ve used a word ‘fine tuning‘ while explaining point     (a) created out of nothing.

First of all let me introduce all of you with this word ‘fine tuning’. Tuning is typically defined as adjustment, like how we adjust radio FM to a certain  frequency in order to get an optimal performance. Likewise our universe is extremely fine tuned to make its existence and existence of human beings possible, such kind of finest tuning couldn’t be mere a ‘Chance’ as it would be tantamount of saying “despite a hydrogen bomb falling on my chest i am here to write this article”  

Let us have a glimpse of some examples of fine tuning which are within the domain of human knowledge.

              Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
ParameterMax. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1:1059
Cosmological constant1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

• Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010 (123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123).”

• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University states “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes” Now, how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!
These were just a ‘few’ of them, there are 30 more as far as in my knowledge, now, as we can see these are truly very extremely high level of fine tuning implying that there must be an Intelligent designer. Mere an unplanned, unexplained accident just couldn’t produce the order, beauty, elegance, and seeming purpose that we experience in the natural world around us.

There have been made several random attempts to subside and ignore this argument of fine tuning. Usual ones are :

(1) Adaptation of human beings(darwin’s evolution theory) – This argument asserts that humans have adapted the current condition of universe and that is why human life is possible and even these physical constants which are said to be fine tuned had different values there would’ve been yet another type of universe and we would’ve been another kind of species. 

Unfortunately, this “argument” has a great loophole in it, evolution(product of adaptations) can only take place if given certain special natural laws. These are first, the chemical laws stating how under certain circumstances inorganic molecules combine to make organic ones, and organic ones combine to make organisms. However, if these fine tuned physical constants had even slightest different value it would’ve resulted in absence of this universe consequently absence of those certain ‘natural laws’ which are required for evolution to take place. Therefore, there wouldn’t be any evolution or adaption to talk about in the first place.

(2) Multiverse hypothesis – This hypothesis suggests that there are billions and trillions of universes out of which our universe is a lucky one to have these fine tuned physical constants at random.  

This theory(rather hypothesis) is mere a conjecture. Firstly, it goes against the principle of Ockham razor according to which “from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.
In light of this, Physicists Paul Davies said:
Invoking an infinite number of other universes just to explain the apparent contrivances of the one we see is pretty drastic, and in stark conflict with Occam’s razor. (Davies 1995, 121)
Let us consider the argument that William Craig presented against this hypothesis : 

Now a similar problem troubles the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain  fine-tuning. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an unimaginable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Or again, if our universe is one member of a multiverse, then we would’ve been observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, it cremates this hypothesis.

Since, I’ve punctured usual contentions and arguments of skeptics and atheists i would like to answer some other contentions and queries
FAQ(frequently asked questions) :

1.  Who Created God?

First of all this question itself conceptually incoherent it is tantamount of saying I've drawn a rectangular circle, because we cannot draw such a circle(rectangular) as it is contrary to the definition of circle itself. Likewise, God who must be Un-created(which I've already proved) can't be a created entity.

Let us analyze this claim from a scientific perspective, Since, we live in a universe of cause & effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of entity may exist. but this is an erroneous premise as without the dimension of time, there is no cause or causation, and all things that could exist in such a realm would’ve no need of being created, but would’ve always existed. In concise, i mean that God can’t be limited in time dimension as time didn’t pre exist the universe, yes, the time dimension itself came into existence with universe and this very fact has been acknowledged by almost every physicist therefore only universe and whatever is within it can be limited in time dimension and since, as already proved the creator must be a unique entity out of this universe and immaterial he cannot be limited in any sort of physical laws.

Further more, if we assume that God must be created it would lead us to absurdity if infinite regress(refer (c)  Created by something that came into existence section) and the example cited there,  If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on and on to infinity we wouldn’t have the universe U1 to talk about in the first place.

Think of it this way,

when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being.

When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being.

This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity.

If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist.

Therefore, we can safely conclude that God is uncreated.

2. Why cannot we see him?

The reason why we cannot see extra dimensions is because all matter and electromagnetic waves (photons) are confined in a three dimensional sub-universe called “brane“.

At present, we use mainly the electromagnetic waves (radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, and X-ray) to see or detect things. Since the electromagnetic waves are confined in our brane, this immediately explains why we cannot detect God if He lives outside of our brane. The relationship between our brane (3D) and the whole universe (10D) is like a flat TV screen (2D) in our house (3D). Suppose there are some kind of creatures confined on the TV screen and the “light” they use to see is also confined on the TV screen, then they cannot see us even if we are only a centimeter away from the TV screen. Similarly, if God lives outside of our brane, we cannot see Him even if He is only a centimeter away from our brane.

Moreover, this isn’t a plausible contention as there are a lot of things which we cannot see for instance, DNA, RNA, an isolated electron but that doesn’t negate existence of this things. Likewise, if there are various logical proofs(as presented in this article) there shouldn’t be any ambiguity left to negate the absolute truth of existence of Almighty.

3. Can God create a stone which he cannot lift.

This particular contention is probably the most popular attack done on theists rather Monotheists. It has been named as ‘omnipotence paradox’.

First of all, we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe.
To be honest, such a stone couldn’t exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven’t been given absolute properties, but instead we’ve been given properties of the stone relative to God’s properties.

The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn’t lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. hence, the concept of such a stone is nullified.

Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn’t implicates a lack of potential of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical and unreal. It is tantamount of asking if God can die. Well, death isn’t an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can’t complete because such a task is merely an illogical assumption and its mere contradiction of terms.

4. Since, God is Omnipotent Can’t he become Man?

Although, this contention isn’t aptly relevant here, i would like to throw some light on it.
The theory of anthropomorphism or manifestations of God is central theme of various schools of hinduism and this particular question is often posed to we Monotheists, rather say, ‘Muslims and Jews’ in particular.

Well, in light of Islam, I say ‘NO’ because God does only those things which suits his majesty.
God only does Godly things. He does only those things which suits His Majesty. Though God Almighty has power over all things, as mentioned in the Qur’an in many places like 2:109, 2:284, 3:29, 16:77, 24:45, 29:20, 33:27, 35:1, 48:21, 59:6, 65:12 etc.; but God Almighty will never do unGodly acts. Becoming human or taking a human form is not a Godly act, it does not suit His Majesty.

As a philosophical and logical approach i would like to again say a ‘NO’ because it is again conceptually incoherent, like how a circle couldn't be a rectangle, alike God couldn't be man as it would defy his attributes like Immaterial, uncreated, immortal, etc. It would be tantamount of saying 1=2. Since, when 1 becomes 2 it isn’t 1 anymore neither can this ’2′ be called combination of ’1′ and ’2′ and furthermore there won’t remain anything like ’1′. Likewise, if we say that ‘God’ becomes a man named ‘gagan patil’, ‘gagan patil’ won’t be God any more, moreover there won’t exist any ‘God’ after God becomes ‘Gagan patil’.

Additionally, I may ask a rhetorical question to them “Can’t your God lie as he is omnipotent?”

5. If God Really does exist why there is evil and suffering in the World?

Unfortunately, this argument has several loopholes in it :

1. First of all, this contention presupposes that an omnipotent ‘God’ won’t allow evil & suffering to exist in this world, which is questionable.

2. God may be letting evil run its course in order to prove that evil is malignant and that suffering, which is the unfortunate product of evil, is further proof that anything contrary to God’s will is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death.

3.  Having hardship and suffering enables us to realise and know God’s attributes such as ‘the Victorious’ and ‘the Healer’. For example without the pain and suffering of illness we would not appreciate the attribute of God being ‘the Healer’. Knowing God is a greater good, and worth the experience of suffering or pain as it will mean the fulfillment of our primary purpose.

4. Moreover, Islamic theology has to say something regarding this suffering and evil and that is :
1“The One Who created death and life, so that He may put you to test, to find out which of you is best in deeds: He is the all-Almighty, the all-Forgiving”
- Quran 67:2

2. “Do you think that you will enter paradise without any trials while you have known the examples of those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with suffering and adversity and were so violently shaken up that even the Prophet and the believers with him cried out: ‘When will God’s help come?’ Be aware, God’s help is close.”
- Quran 2:214
Islamic theology gives answer to this question that this life is a test therefore we’ve a free will either to do righteous deeds or evil alike how we appear in academic examination with a choice either to solve the question to attain good marks or leave the question to fail, as for suffering Islam says :
So verily, with the hardship, there is relief. 
- Quran 94:5
Additionally, Quran asserts that we might not be aware of  God’s wisdom, as there may be divine wisdom in permitting suffering. Even if we can’t evaluate what the wisdom is, it doesn’t mean it is not there. To argue such a thing would be a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance. For instance Quran mentions a  story of Khidr which can be found in the 18th chapter of Qur’an from verses 60 to 82 is an eloquent account of how God’s wisdom, whether understood or not, has positive results and benefits for humanity.

6. How Do We know this cause or creator is ‘God’ of Islam?

Since, I’ve written on this topic long time back, which can be read here : http://fuzailxx.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/embrace-monotheism/

I’ll just present a concise reply Inshaa’Allah.
Islam gives a concise and very apt definition of God in Quran’s 112th chapter which has been named as ‘Surah ikhlaas’ it reads as follows
1 - “(Say) He is God one and Only.”
2 - “God the Eternal and absolute”
3 - “He begets not, nor was He begotten
4 - “And there is None like him
1. If there were more than one God it would implicate that there is something which one God is unable to do and that is done by another God implying ‘weakness’ or ‘lack of potential’ in God which isn’t plausible for creator must be OMNIPOTENT to create this universe. Therefore, God must be one.

2. God must be eternal, because he is not limited by time dimension and whatsoever is not limited time dimension can’t have any cause(refer 1st question in FAQ section), moreover if we suppose that God is a created entity it would lead us to infinite regress and there won’t exist any universe.(refer the example given in 1st question of FAQ)

3. Whenever an entity begets, the begotten entity should be of same species as that of his parents, for example when a Donkey begets his child should also be a donkey, but suppose if God begets, the begotten one should be also a GOD, but the supposed begotten God won’t be eternal, but as already proved God(or cause) of this universe must be eternal. As far as ‘nor was He begotten’ is concerned it has the same explnation as that of the 2nd verse.

4. He is obviously Unique as he is eternal, uncreated, immaterial and out of this universe dimensions and laws.

NOTE :- This is mere a concise reply, to be honest ‘very’ concise answer to this question. Therefore, I highly recommend the readers to read this article of mine 

>>> http://fuzailxx.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/embrace-monotheism/ 

Although, I’m done with this topic of existence of God, i would like to answer some other contentions of atheist on Islamic beliefs.

(a) Are Miracles Impossible?

Some skeptics claim that miracles ain’t rational and scientific and therefore, Quran is in err when it says that Jesus(pbuh) was born from a virgin women who din’t had any male intervention, etc.
Unfortunately, they are digging their own grave by claiming so as they claim to be “Rational” person believing in Science because, science doesn’t disproves miracles.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
Source : Scientific method - Wikipedia

As evident from above citation, to prove or disprove any natural phenomenon, science depends on verifiable, repeatable experimentation. But, as we know miracles are by nature, unrepeatable. Therefore, one doesn’t have any ground to refute or disprove miracles.

Moreover, belief in miracles are tied to the belief in God, when we believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, we are affirming our limits in knowledge and power. What might be impossible for us might be possible for God. God can suspend any of his physical laws because He created them or what we might think is against physical laws may actually be possible by some other physical law unknown to us, which might overrule the law known to us. Therefore, belief in miracles isn’t irrational.

(b) Why God doesn’t want(as per islam) to worship any one other than him. Isn’t he Jealous?

For one to be jealous s/he must have a rivalry. For instance, If I’m sitting with my spouse and staring another beautiful girl passing near by, my spouse but natural will be jealous of her, now what we see is there is a ‘rivalry’ i.e another girl for jealousy to take place. However, in case of God, there is no other rivalry “La ilaha ill allah” meaning “There is NO god besides the GOD(some thing which I’ve already proved in the article).

Moreover, if there is is but Only one God, why should we bow down to other so-called gods? It would be tantamount of calling your sister as your wife, which is certainly unimaginable and irrational.

I would like to end this article, by inviting my atheists, polytheists friend to One True God. :)

Best Regards,

Fuzail Ahmad
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Response to "Existence Of God : Myth Or Rational?"

  1. rashid Said,

    mashallah...what a logical reply..
    may allah reward u for this..

    Posted on 10 February 2012 at 02:49

  2. Fuzail Ahmad Said,

    @ Rashid,

    JazakAllahu khayr brother, share it as much as u can.

    Posted on 10 February 2012 at 02:57

  3. Zee Net Said,

    very logical and enlightening.. Good work!!! May Allah increase your knowledge an writing ability. Ameen.

    Posted on 10 February 2012 at 03:29

  4. Fuzail Ahmad Said,

    @ Zee net,

    JazakAllah khayr.. Do not forget to share it. :)

    Posted on 10 February 2012 at 03:50

  5. KHAN Said,

    mashallah good work fuzail bhai,not read completely but read the logical aspects like why GOD CANT BECAME A MAN?
    why there';s suffering?,why cant we see him..

    may ALLAH reward you both in this world and in the hearafter,and keep us all away from evil...

    Posted on 10 February 2012 at 09:12

  6. Parvez Said,

    Fuzail, No doubt, its a BRILLIANT work, highly enlighting and highly researched. I request yuo to write on agnostism too ? By the way, can yuo plz elaborate that point of darwin's theory of evolution?

    Posted on 13 February 2012 at 08:56

  7. Fuzail Ahmad Said,

    @ Parvez bro,

    JazakAllah khayr..for reading it. Agnostism is a good topic & worth writing on.. I’ll write on it Inshaa’Allah.. :)

    Well, seems u din’t understand the refutation of evolution argument. You see, atheist argue that if these fine tuned physical constants had a different value, it would’ve resulted in formation of another type of universe and we would’ve been another type of creatures as per evolution i.e adaption theory.

    However, even for evolution to take place, there should be certain chemical & physical laws..which wouldnt’ve existed if this universe din’t exist(which is possible only because of this fine tuning).

    Hope it helps.

    Posted on 13 February 2012 at 21:06

  8. Saaib Ahmed Said,

    Nice Going Fuzail.... Already 510 views... :D :D :D :D

    Its the second highest for this blog...

    Time to publish another post...

    Publish another one and share it like you did for this one....

    Forget about this one... It is in top rated now and it will get views of its own now...

    :D :D

    - Saaib Ahmed

    Posted on 13 February 2012 at 23:30

  9. shahrukh Said,

    jazak allahu khaira... :)

    Posted on 14 February 2012 at 03:46

  10. Fuzail Ahmad Said,

    Wa iyyak. :)

    Posted on 14 February 2012 at 04:47

  11. Anonymous Said,

    masha'allah..brilliant work... this is going to help me in da'wah to atheists and agnostics... i hope u dont mind me sharing this on facebook

    jazakallah khair :)

    Posted on 20 April 2012 at 07:36

  12. Saif Sayed Monotheist Said,

    masha'allah..brilliant work... this is going to help me in da'wah to atheists and agnostics... i hope u dont mind me sharing this on facebook

    jazakallah khair :)

    Posted on 20 April 2012 at 07:37


Post a Comment