How To Prove God To An Atheist

[KT45]

It's hard for me to refute this because I lack knowledge about islam as a whole. If you can't watch the video here is the text

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST

by Dr. Zakir Naik

 

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]

 

How would you refute this?

[Jeydid]

I am afraid I am not supremely well versed in the Quran either. However I do notice that he fails to point out the verses that supposedly say these things. Also it contains a version of the watchmaker fallacy, assuming the world was created without bothering to prove it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Much of what this guy says rests on the watchmaker analogy, as jeydid pointed out. It's fallacious to say that there's a strict analogy between a manufactured human artifact and the whole universe. This isn't even an argument. It exploits areas of similarity and obscures all the differences.

 

He also brings out probability arguments and dresses them up in math. That strategy has been critiqued many times on here.

 

All the stuff against ID is valid against this guy.

 

He is also incorrect to speak as though the Koran/Quran is a unique, original source for ideas like round earth and water composition of things, as though these were new ideas. Thales who lived around 520 BC said all is made of water. Lots of Greek philosophers and scientists knew that the earth is round. It's not surprising that there will be some assertions about the world in the Quran that are true. Much in the Quran came from the surrounding culture, which had more scientific knowledge and theories than are often supposed.

[Jeydid]

So my curiousity sent me to look at the Skeptic's Annotated Quran and I found this:

 

86:5 So let man consider from what he is created.

86:6 He is created from a gushing fluid

86:7 That issued from between the loins and ribs.

 

That just doesn't sound all that scientific to me.

 

The link to the whole book is here:

 

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

 

A look at the list of Science and History flaws should assist in the debunking of this particular argument.

[Antlerman]

This is all the same rehash of the creationist arguments that have been shown to be fallacious time and again.

 

Science and the Koran

Point 1: The Watchmaker argument has been debunked countless times. We’re not talking about things that had a created purpose. We’re talking about nature is all about adaptive purpose. Things just became what they are, and we found use for them, then look back and say “it was made for this purpose.”

 

Imagine the watch being found in the jungle and some native who has never see a watch or anyone outside his tribe looks at it, then begins tapping on the back of it with a stone and notices it makes a high pitched “click” on the metal material. It becomes used as a new signally device to communicate to his tribesmen. They then in their very human imaginations consider that this was its designed purpose, therefore there MUST be a Creator who wanted them to be able to communicate better, he must really love them, and they start a religion of clicking rocks to talk to the unseen Creator. Same thing for our adaptive use of our biology and everything else on the planet.

 

Point 2: Statistical Probability on things turning out the way they did. This is an after the fact odds of something turning out one specific way. Only applicable if you were to try to duplicate it again. This is irrelevant. Throw 100,000,000 nuts and bolts onto the ground and look at the ensuing patterns. Next ask the question “What are the odds of that happening”. You see the point?

 

Quran: Knew things scientifically that were unknown then.

 

1. People thought the world was flat. No they did not. Show ONE historical record where they said it was. There is none. This is a modern myth created by Irvin Washington as a slam against anti-evolutionists.

 

2. Quran says moon reflected light. Does it? Is that maybe an interpretation, like those who read how God stood upon “the circle of the earth” as proving the Bible writers knew the earth was a globe?? Even so, if it does clearly state the moon was a reflective surface reflecting the light of the sun… do you think no human ever had that idea by themselves without some “angel” showing them something they could never, ever figure out themselves??

 

 

3. Everything made of water a guess? Again, what lines is he interpreting to say this? We have seen time and time again how many “believers” see what they want to see in a verse that really when scrutinized has nothing to do with that, and it’s interpretation is usually “yanked” out of context. Again, even so… did no human have thoughts along these lines pre-modern science?? If they did without the benefit of modern science, was that also a direct revelation from an angel of God??

 

The concluding odds of statistical probabilities crumble from “miraculous” to a relatively mundane example of humanity wanting to believe in something miraculous.

 

He then tries to show science as an inferior approach to human knowledge by the worn out argument that “science changes its mind”. This is the whole difference between absolutist thinking and the open ended power of scientific thought. They are hung up in binary thinking where they see anything that doesn’t establish absolutes as a point of terror for the soul. (See the topic in the Colleseum about Absolutism.)

 

 

Conclusion: Different religion, same old nonsense.

[Celsus]

I wish just once these religious apologetic morons would read some ancient Greco-Roman Philosophical Science treatises. As far back as Democritus, the Greco-Romans knew things such as (1) The earth is a sphere, (2) Basic atomic theory, (3) Complete demolition of the design argument, etc.

 

There is not one scientifically accurate fact in the Qu'ran or Bible that was not already known and published by the philosophical-seience academies of the Greco-Roman culture. And more telling, many of the inaccuracies in the Qu'ran and Bible also are found in the wrong beliefs from these same adademies. Perhaps, just maybe, the writers of the Qu'ran and Bible copied and attributed divine revelation to the factual and wrong beliefs of the Greco-Roman philosophers and scientists, who were actually trying to figure things out?

 

Bruce

[Guest drphilosopher]

It's hard for me to refute this because I lack knowledge about islam as a whole. If you can't watch the video here is the text

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST

by Dr. Zakir Naik

...

 

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.

 

This is a clever bit of sophistry. It is not the responsibility of the non-believer to define that in which he does not believe. It is the responsibility of the believer, and Dr. Naik never provides a definition (and, indeed, no religious person ever does).

 

Darrell

[roknrolr]

I like this doctor's way of presenting things. On the surface, it all seems very logical and well put together. He even appears to use science as a basis. He certainly knew his audience and tried to use what they believe as an arguement base. Unfortunately for him, it is the nature of all non-believers to be skeptical and to double check everything that is presented to them. Once you get past the surface of his arguement, there's nothing underneath. Kind of like an M&M. When you hold it in your hand, it appears to be solid. You can squeeze it between your fingers, and it won't break. You can cut it open, and it is completely solid inside. But as soon as you apply any kind of heat to it, it melts into a drippy little puddle.

[Kryten]

Actually, we can use his flawed reasoning to prove THERE IS NO INTELLIGENCE behind the "devine guesses", since everything is NOT made up of water.

So if you multiply that string of percentages by ZERO you'll end up with ZERO.

[smellincoffee]

The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water.

 

I stopped reading at that.

[KT45]

Same guy answers different questions

 

Who created Allah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQVb03swSrE...ted&search=

 

Is Islam spread by the sword?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMUoFPOk4Y...ted&search=

 

Why are Muslims not advanced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVaQgXJ04Ys...ted&search=

 

Why are Muslims fundamentalist and Terrorist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKl3_MrJ6o...ted&search=

[Poonis]

My refutation has always been this:

 

Show me your god and I will show you a particular formation of atoms. If you cannot show me your god, then that is your weakness, not mine, and I hold no obligation to believe what you cannot show me.

[narcissist]

Refuting this is easy:

 

Pens exist.

God does not.

[D Laurier]

IT ATE MY FUCKING POST!

 

 

I did type and post a good refutation ,, but it was eaten by the internet,

and unfortunately i didnt makea spare copy, so it is lost,,

[Mongo]

Yea, I herad this shit before.

 

It is all the vague crap about making the circumstances fit the prophecy.

 

With the plethora of verses in the Koran (and Bible) one should be shocked if some of them didn't accidentally appear to fortel the future - assuming you use loose and vague definitions.

 

Sceptics.com tackles this by discussing Naustrodamus.

 

There is no difference.

 

A valid prophecy is clear. Clear! Not vague and not the twisted shit that passes for prophecy.

 

These people have way too low standards of evidence.

[LostOrFound]

SSDD - Same Shit Different Deity

 

I don't think these "apologists" are writing to or for the atheist. Their followers/believers just love this kind of stuff and it makes them think that the 'leaders' are soooooo intelligent. The end result is stronger devotion, obedience, and subservience which translates into more dollars.

 

What's odd to me is that when a christian reads something like this from a muslim, he doesn't see the correlation to the christian arguments and vice-versa. You would think that they would see that each is making the same arguments but for a different book and god.

[Rafiki]

I don't think these "apologists" are writing to or for the atheist. Their followers/believers just love this kind of stuff and it makes them think that the 'leaders' are soooooo intelligent. The end result is stronger devotion, obedience, and subservience which translates into more dollars.

 

That's exactly what it is. When I was a Christian I would read arguments of the same type just to strengthen my faith because I thought they sounded so intellectual. I wouldn't even bother looking at opposing responses.

[Paul_S]

The evidence for God is our very existence. Else exitence is evidence for itself and there is no need for any kind of god.

 

Absurd arguments do not prove the existence of any kind of deity. If any needs to ask for evidence for the existence of a god, that evidence (if it is even there) is not in evidence to them.

 

Now if and only if it is true God is the creator of all existence. Then indeed existence is the evidence. But to ask to prove it, that is a denial of said evidence as being such. If such evidence is denied, how can there be any other proofs? Any and all so called proofs are depended on the reality of existence which was rejected as a proof.

[Dhampir]

The evidence for God is our very existence.

Which God?

Else exitence is evidence for itself and there is no need for any kind of god.

Our perception is evidence of existence. That is, our existence is evidence of existence. God is evidence of our existence, not the other way around. We exist, we know it, we make up logically backward arguments such as that said existence is evidence of a god which should present with more evidence than would require logically backward arguments.

[Antlerman]

The evidence for God is our very existence. Else exitence is evidence for itself and there is no need for any kind of god.

 

Absurd arguments do not prove the existence of any kind of deity. If any needs to ask for evidence for the existence of a god, that evidence (if it is even there) is not in evidence to them.

 

Now if and only if it is true God is the creator of all existence. Then indeed existence is the evidence. But to ask to prove it, that is a denial of said evidence as being such. If such evidence is denied, how can there be any other proofs? Any and all so called proofs are depended on the reality of existence which was rejected as a proof.

I thought drinking alcohol was a sin? Are you high on something tonight?

 

When you come down from whatever you're on, look up "circular reasoning", then review your post above. I won't even waste my time disecting this. But I do thank you for the amusement.

 

[crazy-tiger]

The evidence for God is our very existence. Else exitence is evidence for itself and there is no need for any kind of god.

Nice absurd argument there... since it simply argues the existence of a non-specific god. (and not very well, at that. Details will follow, so stick with me... )

Absurd arguments do not prove the existence of any kind of deity. If any needs to ask for evidence for the existence of a god, that evidence (if it is even there) is not in evidence to them.

Cool... Absurd arguments do not prove God, so you use an absurd argument to prove God...

 

At least I know The population of the planet has enough iron in it's blood now, thanks to the massive dose of irony you've just posted...

Now if and only if it is true God is the creator of all existence. Then indeed existence is the evidence. But to ask to prove it, that is a denial of said evidence as being such. If such evidence is denied, how can there be any other proofs? Any and all so called proofs are depended on the reality of existence which was rejected as a proof.

See... you're arguing a large circle here...

 

If God is the creator, then existence is evidence of God...and existence is evidence of God, because God is the creator, which we know because God created existence, and we know God created existence because existence was created by God, and we know existence was created by God because God created existence, and we know....

 

You get the idea.

 

 

 

The really ironic part? This argument, circular though it is, does indeed work to prove one kind of God... the God that IS existence. Since the Christian God is seperate from existence, (he was there before it, according to the bible, remember?) the argument you've just used to prove his existence proves that he DOESN'T exist.

 

Man... I'd forgotten just how easy some Christians make demolishing their "arguments"

 

I won't even waste my time disecting this.

No worries... I've got plenty of time.

[neverclear5]

You can refute this easily, they didn't think the world was flat, it was known as spherical by the damn greeks! Even so its not a free choice so even if they hadn't have known they would never have thought it was a pyramid of a tube or anything as they wern't retarded they we're just less knowledgable. The people made of water thing also doesn't prove anything, when you cut something what comes out??? plants........water, animals...........blood (practically water). Again not a free choice, they would also have seen what happens when we don't have enough water and so would know how important it was. The moon thing was good but they had astronomers back then and many cultures knew this sort of thing anyway. If you write down, what did they say?, 6000 predictions based on the best knowledge of the time (not as un-informed a time as they would have us think) then its not hard to find three that are sort of right. Have a look at the creation myth that muslims are so proud of and you'll find that there whole thing of its the same as science is that it says everything but the earth was smoke. First, they had the words to say superheated plasma or something better than "smoke", second this implies the world was there when everything was starting. DON'T BELEIVE THE HYPE. Their creation myth is just as stupid as everyone elses and is based on the same earth centered view as all the others.

[SpaceMonk]

To say that such knowledge could only come from Allah ignores the idea that those angels who dictated the Koran to Muhammed in his cave could have been advanced aliens...

[KenneyVTX]

The example that comes to mind, albeit a very simple one, of the source of knowledge requires an observant dog and a chainlink fence. This fence has a gate, to open the gate you must lift the latch then the gate will open. Over time, the dog observes the people coming and going through the gate and eventually learns that if it puts its muzzle under the latch and jerks it's head up the latch will open. This knowledge did not come from some unseen outside being, it came from observation. I watched it happen and hand to start putting a lock on the gate.

[Guest packmania]

Oh please, you make so many convenient assumptions in your "mathematics" that only your delusional faith could possibly make you ignorant enough to believe that you are actually stating facts in this post. Stating that guessing whether the moon is reflected or internal light is the same as flipping a coin is RIDICULOUS! You completely ignore the impact on the probability of observational evidence and common sense. Where are you pulling all those numbers from? 10000 options for what something is made of...? 30 options for the shape of the earth...? Are you KIDDING? A third grade mathematics student wouldn't buy this. I am sick of religious types throwing around numbers to try to sound as if they have scientific evidence for a god. Please leave mathematics to people who at least have a grasp of the concept of logical argument.

 

Oh yeah and the whole first section recognising that atheists having a brain... maybe you should have left your post at that. The fact that we have a brain means that we are not suckered into believing your ridiculous argument by flattery.

 

If you could just pretend for one second that there is no god you would see how much easier it is to formulate logical philosophical arguments.