Physical Evidence For The Existence Of God
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi mentions that on everything that exists in this universe there is a stamp, a sign, a mark that is particular to the creator of this universe. He states that these stamps, signs and marks are not imitable and exclusive to something that is infinite in power and knowledge, something that is artistic, and something that has created everything. To prove the existence of these stamps, signs and marks, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi points to one of them in his writing. The stamp, the sign, the mark that he points to is how in this universe from one thing many things are made and from many things one thing is made. For example, from water human flesh, wood, grass and electricity is made. And from all the different varieties of food and liquids we consume, the human flesh is made. Meaning from apples, bananas, bread, red meat, fish, potatoes, broccoli, milk, orange juice, etc., the human flesh is made. In this short piece from Mesnevi-i Nuriye not only does Bediuzzaman Said Nursi teach us what to strive for in this universe, but he provides (physical) evidence for the existence of God.
A Refutation Of Atheism
I don't expect that I will convert atheists- this is in Allah's hands only. But hopefully I can demonstrate to other readers the weakness of atheistic reasoning. I should acknowledge that my article relies heavily upon the work of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, author of the Treatise of Light (or Risale-i Nur). My Islamic and philosophical assertions are paraphrased from his words. I will try to remain brief, referring readers instead to the Risale-i Nur itself, particularly the '11th Word' and the '4th Ray', for a more comprehensive argument in favor of God's existence.
Implicitly, it would appear to me that atheists base their denial of God on the following chain of reasoning:
Premise 1. If God exists, He would surely offer incontrovertible proof of His existence within the physical universe (without having recourse to metaphysical phenomena such as miracles, Divine revelation or prophethood).
Premise 2. There is no incontrovertible proof of God's existence in the physical universe, in that we can not demonstrate His existence through testable, scientific means.
Premise 3. Furthermore, there appear to be 'natural' explanations for the existence of phenomena within the universe, if not for the universe itself.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
With respect, I submit that this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Atheists attempts to disprove the existence of God without a proper understanding of the nature or attributes of God, or of the universe for that matter. Such an understanding is essential. How can one disprove that which one does not understand? Understanding God through a properly informed knowledge of His attributes, and His wisdom in the creation the universe, will in turn provide the basis for our belief in His existence.
Returing to atheistic reasoning, Premise 1 is incorrect. God, being an infinitely beautiful and loving being, created the universe and everything in it for the purpose of displaying the beauty and perfection of His attributes. This in turn required the existence of conscious beings to appreciate the multifarious types, levels, degrees of that beauty. God created humans to be the most equipped of all conscious beings to appreciate His beauty, and to reflect His beauty and attributes through their own actions, character and behaviour. This requires free-will and indeed, humans have been given a limited free-will. If God were to fully manifest Himself in the universe, through incontrovertible physical proof that forced every human to believe, humans would be robbed of their free will. In other words, God will not create a situation where we are forced to believe, as this would operate contrary to His purpose in creating the universe and humans in the first place. Instead, God will provide strong indications of His existence in the universe, and will employ messengers to herald these indications. Attempting to establish faith in God's existence by relying on physics alone will, in most cases, lead to an impasse. One may use their free will to ignore God's messegers and books, but can not then complain that there lacks incontrovertible physical evidence to justify belief.
Premise 2, as is evident from the discussion above, is correct and is actually necessitated by Divine wisdom. Indeed, God is not 'testable' or 'falsifiable' in the scientific sense. Does this mean belief in God is invalid? Absolutely not! The fact that we can not 'falsify' something does not always diminish its value as an explanatory tool for phenomena in the universe (consider String Theory, for example). To reiterate, God's 'unfalsifiability' in the physical universe does not prove His non-existence. This is particularly so, given that God is the creator of space, time, matter and the physical laws, and is not bound, nor able to be described in terms of them.
Premise 3 is arguable, and even if true, does not disprove God's existence. Demonstrating how a thing works does not necessarily do away with its maker, if it has one. I don't wish to get into a lengthy refutation of each point. I only wish to point out the following:
1. Evolution is not a useful explanatory tool for abiogenesis.
Relying on the pre-existence of a living, self-replicating organism, the theory the invokes 'random' mutations and natural selction to explain biodiversity. It does not explain, or even seek to explain, how life actually came about in the first place. No doubt, attempts have been made to explain abiogenesis via other chance or 'necessity' based mechanisms, but to date, these have failed to prove how life first came about. Therefore, the theory can not be relied upon to show that God is not required to create life, and certainly can not be used to disprove Him altogether.
In fact, Islam provides us with significant assistance in relation to the matter of abiogenesis or Life. It informs us that there are certain matters which are 'not veiled'. That is, certain phenomena do not have any 'apparent causes' attached to them to veil the hand of His Power. (For example, the apparent 'cause' for light on the earth is the photons emitted by sun - the sun being merely a veil to God's power.) So what are the things that are unveiled? Well, sure enough, one is said to be Life. It is no surprise then, that nothing in science can adequetely explain how Life first came about. Of course, this does not force us to believe. We still have the choice to invoke what can be described as the 'Argument from Hope' - that one day science will, once and for all, show us how life first came about (hopefully!?!) Or perhaps the idea that life on Earth actually originated from Mars (see Paul Davies - The Fifth Miracle)!
2. Quantum Fluctuations and guesses about the origin of the universe such as the Multiverse idea, do not disprove God's existence.
The notion of quantum fluctuations of virtual particles, that appear to pop up in oppositely charged pairs without apparent cause, and briefly violate the first law of thermodynamics before annihilating one another, in no way contradicts what we know in Islam. And in no way disproves God. More on this shortly. But first, are the appearance of these virual particles actually an appearance out of nothing? Not at all. 'Something(s)' are still required to enable their appearance, namely a space/time field. These are not 'nothing'. (As an aside, I wonder whether further work on Dark Energy may shed some more light on this matter down the track?)
Secondly, the use of the concept of quantum fluctuations to explain the creation of the universe is an extrapolation that is hitherto unproven. Sure, some eminent physicists have proposed the idea in peer-reviewed journals. But conclusive proof of how the universe came about still evades us. I feel it is invalid to rely on this notion then, as evidence for the lack of God's existence.
Notwithstanding the above point, Islam (unlike some other faiths) has no issue with any scientific theory that may someday prove how the universe was created through so called 'natural processes'. Ours is not a God of the Gaps, but a God who is The Necessary Existent (Vacibul Vucud), who is the Causer of Causes (Yusebbibul Esbab). Personally I would find such a theory much more intellectually satisfying than the current best guesses like the Multiverse idea, that only push the problem of explaining the origin of the universe to another place. If I were an atheist, holding 'falsifiability' as the sole determinant of an idea's value, I would be loathe to rely on something like the 'Multiverse' idea to prove or disprove anything.
3. From Non-Existence to Existence.
Ultimately, regardless of how far science may progress, it is bound to reach an impasse. This is at the point where something goes from non-existence to existence. Again, Islam guides us on this and tells us about another matter which is 'unveiled' (recall the discussion above under Evolution). This is Existence. The coming of a thing into existence, from non-existence, after all the causes have been peeled away, is 'unveiled'. That is, God has not put in place an apparent 'cause' as a veil to His Power in relation to his bringing physical existence about. I apologise if I have not illustrated this point clearly, but let me put it like this. If science could uncover every possible working of the universe, it would eventually reach a point where it could not find a 'cause' for how the very first 'thing' in our physical universe came about. At this point, atheists might point and say, 'See, it created itself!' But of course, the reason does not accept this, as may be seen below.
4. God's Name of Samed (the Eternal Absolute by one translation).
Things can not create themselves. If something is in a state of pure non-existence, it can not bring about its own existence. It requires something else to cause its existence. If nothing exists at all, that thing that we define as a God, The One who is Samed and Necessarily Existent, is required to bring things into existence. I submit that this does represent an Argument from Incredulity. Consider this. There is pure and absolute 'nothing' in terms of a physical universe. Then, something, whether its a 'quantum fluctuation of a field' or a 'singularity of infinite density' suddenly comes into existence with no discernible cause (after all, there are not even causes in our story here). Then this initial thing, so packed is it with beauty, wisdom, power, functionality, co-ordination and meaningfulness, morphs into the universe we know and love today. We can not deny we exist, nor can we deny that we perceive myriad pleasures through the beauty of the universe and its constituent parts (and especially through our children, families and fellow humans). And we admit that we love to exist, that we would hate not to exist. And we see that while beautiful things come and go, beauty itself endures. Under all these circumstances, are we not justified in refusing to accept that all this could not have created itself? Consider also that we have been endowed with the faculty of reason. Do you think it is an accident that using this very sense of reason, the majority of all humans, past and present, refuse to accept the non-existence of a Creator?
5. How did God come into existence?
"If things can not create themselves, how did God come into existence?" asks the atheist. The second part of this sentence contains an oxymoron. By definition, God can not 'come into' existence, for He has the attributes of having always existed and not requiring anything for His eternal existence.
To claim that the existence of a such a God, who bears these attributes, is not possible given the known laws of physics, is to express what I feel to be the Argument from Incredulity - of which theists are so often accused. Or else it is to express an Argument from Ignorance. In Islam, we know God to have infinite power. The mind boggling majesty of the universe is just a single indication of this. We also know God to have brought time and the universe, including all its laws, matter and mechanisms into existence from non-existence. We know He is not bound by any of these. We also know a little about the nature of God, through the manifestations of his attributes visible in the universe. And that is where our knowledge ends for now. We can not see or in any way perceive, or conceive of, God's actual Essence. His Essence is absolutely Unique (Ferd) and outside of the human experience. We can not, therefore, properly understand, much less deny, God's infinitude and Eternal Pre-Existence with the limited human intelligence and imagination God has gifted us in this life. We are merely on the commencement of an infinite journey of discovery.
The Quran Is Not The Word Of Man
I'll address the issue of the 'scientific arguments' first, though I place greater importance on the issue of the Quran's miraculous eloquence.
Arguments from Scientific Accordance:
The Quran does not purport to be a book of science, but rather, a book of guidance. None the less, God mentions certain phenomena in the Quran which many commentators have felt represent a miraculous accordance with what we have recently learnt in science about those phenomena.
Like yourself, I am not an Arabic speaker and therefore rely on renditions of the meaning of the Quran. I say 'renditions of the meaning' because the Quran is such that a perfectly accurate translation is not possible. A certain word in Arabic may have various meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Notwithstanding this, it is possible for a skilled Arabic linguist to determine what particular translation of a word is most accurate in a given circumstance. So when we wish to assess the validity of any of the 'scientific accordance' arguments made by Muslims, we ought to be careful to refer to proper authorities in deciding what a given word in the Quran means.
But persons wishing to attack the Quran often maliciously apply inappropriate translations of words in an attempt to refute 'scientific accordance' arguments. I have seen a few blatantly anti-Islamic websites where they do just this. A person unfamiliar with Arabic could be easily misled here.
Given the above, I believe arguments of 'scientific accordance' deserve investigation. Notable scientists, including Bucaille, Persaud, Marshall Johnson, Goeringer, Kroner, Armstrong, Husam, Rao, and Tejasen to name but a few, have accepted that the Quran does contain verses which accord with science, in remarkable fashion. Some have gone further and said publicly that they can not see how the Quran could be the word of 14th Century man. But does this mean all scientists in the fields in question will accept the Quran? Not necessarily. A person could accept that a given verse accords with what we know in science, but may choose on other grounds to believe that the Quran might still be the concoction of man.
An example which is often referred to is the description of embryonic development in the Quran. The famous embryologist Keith Moore was convinced enough about the scientific validity of these verses to declare the fact publicly and to rewrite an edition of his popular textbook, 'The Developing Human' with what he called 'Islamic Additions'. This, notwithstanding the fact that he did not immediately become a Muslim. (I'm not sure whether or not he accepted Islam later.) Of particular note is the Quran's mention of an embryo's bones forming first, and being subsequently clothed with flesh. When science earlier believed that it was muscle that was formed before bones, commentators pounced on the Quran's 'inaccuracy'. But later, science found that bones actually do form before their surrounding flesh. So the Quran was vindicated on this point, but we didn't see mass conversions on the part of embryologists world wide. It is easy, if a person so desires, to put such things down to chance. Or to muse that perhaps such knowledge was not as new as originally thought. Where this seems implausible, detractors tend to resort to re-translating the offensive words. On what authority? Usually none.
So the dilemma for the Quran's detractors remains. How did the Quran's author come to describe these phenomena correctly. Even if we disregard the verses which prima facie seem too vague to be relied upon on for scientific accordance arguments, there are still many more which are not vague. Even one such accuracy ought to be cause for consternation for the Quran's detractors. It is not valid to arbitrarily claim, "I don't read it that way. This is being misinterpreted." Rather than embarrass themselves with this type of poor argumentation, its detractors would be better served looking to authorities who might offer some other, non-miraculous explanation. This would be more credible, if it could be done.
The Miraculousness of the Quran's Eloquence:
Even prior to his Prophethood, friend and foe alike knew Muhammad the Arabian, a.k.a Muhammad the Trustworthy (pbuh), to be an illiterate person. Renowned for his honesty in all dealings, he came to the people of Quraysh with a remarkable claim: That God, Creator of all the Worlds, had communicated to him via the angel Gabriel. He was able to recall the words communicated to him verbatim. These words formed what we call the Quran. But the words were not just any old words. The Quran's word order was so excellent in terms of eloquence that the people of Quraysh were dumbfounded by it.
Why is this so remarkable? It is because the people of the Arabian Peninsula were a people who valued eloquence above all. Their heroes were their most eloquent poets. This is evidenced by the fact that their most holy site (even in pre-Islamic times), the Kaaba, was decorated with inscriptions of the Qasidas of their seven most famous poets. Even though many Arabs could not read or write, they had a highly developed appreciation for the spoken word. It is fair to say that the Arabs were world leaders in the art of eloquence. Then came the Quran.
The Quran was viewed as being so superior to anything that they had ever heard or read, that it could not be the word of the illiterate Muhammad (pbuh). Nor could it even be the word of a group of skilled poets. The poets themselves were dumbfounded at its elevated literary style. It was inimitable, unmatchable - and the Arabs were most qualified to make this assessment. Therefore, the overwhelming majority accepted Islam.
So the Quran came to a people of eloquence, with matchless eloquence. This was necessary to win the hearts of the people who would become the first Muslims. If it were inferior, Islam would not be alive today. It would have been discarded years ago. The Quran challenged all people, foremost the eloquent people of Arabia, to beat its eloquence. Eloquence was such an artform in Arabia, that it was quite possible to objectively judge the relative quality of various writings. There was definite criteria within the science of rhetoric, upon which the experts could base their assessment. But of course, all challengers failed miserably. Knowing that they could not beat the Quran, its detractors chose the more costly option of war. This too they lost. And so, the Arabs became a Muslim nation and later a world power.
A salient point that I should mention here is that despite the Quran's marvellousness, not every listener accepted it as being the word of God. There were numerous reasons for this, beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice to say that humans do not always behave rationally. They have the ability to choose the wrong option despite it being obviously wrong. A person might steal or kill, knowing it to be wrong. A person may lie for personal gain, despite knowing the truth. Similarly, a person might see a miracle and for various reasons, call it sorcery, or whatever else. For this reason, not all the Quraysh became Muslims. But certainly the vast majority, including their most eloquent poets, did.
It is for the foregoing reason that there is a lack of non-Muslim authorities on the issue of the inimitable eloquence of the Quran. But if one is sceptical of the testimony of present day Muslim authorities, they need only look to the combined testimony of the very first Muslims. These first Muslims were prepared to give up centuries of belief in polytheism, to offend their forefathers and all their sensibilities and to give up the most heinous of cultural habits, on the evidence of the inimitable eloquence of the Quran.
Yes, as Said Nursi puts it, it takes massive human and financial resources to encourage a community to give up the simplest of bad habits. How long have governments struggled for their people to quit smoking? Yet the Quran, relying on its miraculous eloquence, caused a then savage people to give up customs as heinous as female infanticide, or as addictive as alcoholism, in a few short years.
For the foregoing reasons, I say that the Quran is not the word of man. Muhammad (pbuh) was not deluded and did not lie. Indeed, the Quran is the Word of God.
God making Himself Known and Loved
God being the possessor of Absolute Beauty and Perfection, wishes to see and display to conscious observers, His own Beauty and Perfection. This is so that He can make Himself Known and therefore Loved. God possesses Divine Love. In a manner befitting His Glory and Holiness, God loves His own art. And He wishes for His art to be loved. Therefore, He has created mankind, a conscious lover of beauty, who is a work of art and who He loves. God has shown His elevated Love for us in countless ways. Firstly, he has brought us into existence. He has bestowed upon us the ability to be the most comprehensive mirror to His Names. He has displayed His beautiful art to us. He has given us the senses, tools and faculties to appreciate and gain pleasure from this art. Among these tools and faculties, He has given us limited free-will. With this free-will, not only can we freely discern and weigh up the multifarious types and degrees of God's Beauty, we can choose right over wrong. By choosing right over wrong, and truth over falsehood, we truly reflect God's attributes and receive a fitting reward.
In response to all this bestowal, God wants and truly deserves thanks (Shukur). He also deserves to be exalted. He also deserves to be glorified and declared free of all fault. These are the marks of Knowing Him and Loving Him. Acts of worship, which are all forms of Thanks, display these marks. Therefore, we should firstly believe in and strive to know God by observing and reflecting upon the universe (and particularly living beings). Having begun to Know Him, we come to Love Him and come to acknowledge His Glory and His Exaltedness. We then express this through the Thanks, Glorification and Exaltation that is Worship. In other words, we say Alhamdulillah (All Praise be to Allah), Subhanallah (Glory to Allah) and Allahu Akbar (God is Most Great).
The Meaning and Purposes of Life and Existence in the view of Said Nursi.
Nursi, in the Eleventh Word of the Risale-i Nur, elucidates the nature and purposes of life and the universe via a comparison. He imagines a King who has unbounded wealth. He possesses elevated wisdom in all branches of science and learning, and furthermore, is skilled in countless forms of beautiful art. In fact, the King exemplifies beauty and perfection in all of his attributes.
Nursi then applies the truth that "every possessor of beauty and perfection wishes to see and display his own beauty and perfection". Therefore, the King builds a palace in which to display his riches and artistry, and the marvels of his knowledge. He does this so that he can behold his beauty and perfection in his own view, but also so that he can see it through the view of others. To draw an analogy, just as a musician wishes to hear and appreciate his own music, he also wishes for others to hear and appreciate it. Moreover, he wishes for those who can properly appreciate it.
Moving from the comparison to reality, Nursi points out that God possesses Absolute Beauty and Perfection (Jamal and Kamal) in all His attributes. God wishes to display and manifest His Absolute Beauty and Perfection so that He may behold it Himself. This is the purpose of the Universe and all the other realms of His creation. God further wishes to see His Beauty and Perfection through the view of others. This requires conscious observers, such as mankind.
So one of the purposes in the creation of mankind, and one of our duties, is to be conscious and appreciative observers of the universe. It is for this reason that God, in the very first words revealed to Muhammad (sas), commands us to, "Read: In the name of thy Lord, who createth" (Quran, 96:1). We are required to read what Nursi calls the Book of the Universe.
Not only is man a conscious observer of God's Beauty and Perfection, but he is also a comprehensive place of manifestation - and a mirror that reflects - God's attributes (and Names). For example, as God possesses the attribute of Love (Wadud) - so too man possesses, to an infinitely lesser degree, the ability to love. As Allah possesses limitless free-will - so too man has been endowed with a small measure of free-will.
Free-will therefore, is an integral part of being human. We have the free-will to make decisions, to do or not to do, to believe or not believe, to love or not to love, to utilize the capital of our lives wisely, or to waste it on the fulfillment of base desires. If humans did not possess this small sample of free-will, they could not be considered a 'comprehensive mirror' to God's attributes, and would not be freely discerning observers of God's art. It is partly for this reason that God does not fully manifest Himself in this world in a manner that would force us to believe.
