In the west, especially in the USA, there is a debate going on about Evolution or Intelligent Design. To summarise the nature of the arguments, scientists in favour of the theory of evolution claim that life came into existence by chance, while the scientists who disagree, say that there is a creator behind all the life on earth.
In this article, I do not want to go into the scientific arguments (the readers can study the books written for and against evolution and make up their own minds); I just want to discuss some basic common sense points concerning the validity of Darwinism.
I want to start with an incident which occurred approximately thirteen hundred years ago. An atheist came to Imam Abu Hanifa (a great scholar of Islam) and challenged him to a debate (to be held in front of the caliph of that time). The atheist said that he will prove that there is no God; Imam Abu Hanifa accepted his challenge.
A time was set, and they were to come and debate in the presence of the caliph. When the day came, the atheist reached at the rendezvous on time, while Imam Abu Hanifa was no where to be seen. After waiting for a long time, Abu Hanifa finally showed up. When enquired about his late appearance, he replied that a mysterious thing happened to him on the way. He elaborated that he was waiting for a boat to take him across the river and there was none in sight. Suddenly the branches of a tree (at the bank of the river) started to fall, and the wood from the branches formed into a boat; he sat into the boat and it automatically took him across the river without any outside help whatsoever.
The atheist had an incredulous expression on his face, and he said that are you out of your mind, how can such a thing happen? Abu Hanifa replied that well my friend the debate is over. The atheist enquired how? He answered that if you cannot believe that a boat can be formed and driven without any external help, how can you believe that the entire universe came into existence, and is functioning, on its own. By this argument, Abu Hanifa won the debate.
If we look around, all the millions of living species on this planet possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. If one just looks at the human body alone, one can only admire the complex mechanisms, structures and processes which take place inside ones body. Some of the scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of chance.
According to these scientists, a number of simple chemical processes came together and formed a protein, which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. In addition, the other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner, not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes etc (all of which are very intricate structures within the cell). As a result of billions of coincidences the first cell was formed. The ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells just happened to multiply. Afterwards, because of these coincidences these cells organised in such a way as to produce the first living thing.
So basically it required billions of coincidences for one life form to come into existence. Then afterwards trillions of other coincidences took place and other life forms were formed in the water. Later they evolved into other creatures. Then from water, according to the evolutionists, they evolved onto the land and further evolved into other creatures such as reptiles, birds, mammals and some of them later evolved into human beings.
Let us say that we place a computer in a room. We let the program Microsoft Word run on it. Then we let twenty monkeys into the room. The monkeys run wildly and jump on the keyboard, and bang on the keypads for days. Afterwards, when we study the computer, we find that a book has been written without any grammatical errors in flawless English. Moreover, the book is organised into chapters, there are page numbers, headings and an index at the end as well. If you can believe this story then you will not have any problem in believing the theory of evolution. Of course, any reasonable person will never believe this fantastic tale. So how can one believe that trillions upon trillions of coincidences took place and produced life on this earth.
In short, evolutionists, regard chance as an intelligent, conscious and powerful enough force to create living things and all the sensitive balances on this earth. The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can, as a group, believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in the recorded history is really a great miracle. If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and tell them “look this idol created this room and everything in it,” they would reply that it is utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet they declare that “the unconscious process known as chance gradually brought the world and the billion of living things into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.
The more I study the theory of evolution, the harder it gets for me to swallow this philosophy. Darwinism certainly does not go down my throat, does it go down yours?
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
I would also recommend that you watch the following videos:
BIOMIMETICS: TECHNOLOGY IMITATES NATURE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6869583920990256801
THE MIRACLE OF THE HONEYBEE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miracle_of_the_honeybee/index.html
THE MIRACLE OF LEAFCUTTER ANT http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/leafcutters/
THE CREATION OF CAMEL http://www.harunyahya.com/camel/index.html
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/creation_of_universe/index.html
Also please read the article "The Disasters Darwanism brought to Humanity" on this website to understand what is the problem with Atheism.
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Problems with the Theory of Evolution
The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book Evolution Deceit.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
The Disasters Darwinism Brought to the Humanity
The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book “The Evolution Deceit”.
One of the basic principles of Darwin behind the theory of evolution was a great deception: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”
According to Darwin, there is a cruel tussle for continued existence and an ongoing conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. Darwin did not stop there: he further proposed that the fight for survival also applied between human racial groups. What this means is that favoured races were victorious in the struggle.
In his book the “The Descent of Man” (which he published after the “The Origin of Species”) he boldly claims that blacks and Australian Aborigines are equal to gorillas and then concludes that they would be done away with by civilised races. He said in his book: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
These ludicrous ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the scientific grounds for racism. Supposing that the living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called “Social Darwinism”.
Social Darwinism argues that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that the European races were the most advanced of all, and that many other races still bear simian features.
The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:
His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.
As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.
A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:
“History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.”
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasising struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never been seen before. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's book The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science.”
Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."
In short, there is a clear link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.
If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.
It is clear that Darwinism clearly inculcated in the minds of many that man is a fighting animal, and in this world only the strong will survive and the weak will perish. In other words, this atheistic philosophy subconsciously teaches humans that they can use oppression to achieve their goals. The concept that there is no life after death is an extremely dangerous one, as anyone with power will commit limitless oppression onto the others for his survival. Also, this philosophy gives impetus to selfishness and gives ordinary humans the green light to break the law (lie, cheat, deceive etc.) if they think that they can get away with it.
Please watch the video "THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5938600797075743578
In addition, watch the video "Trouble with Atheism" where award winning journalist Rod Liddle argues against those who turn to atheism for a rational and moderate approach to today's problems. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913#
One of the basic principles of Darwin behind the theory of evolution was a great deception: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”
According to Darwin, there is a cruel tussle for continued existence and an ongoing conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. Darwin did not stop there: he further proposed that the fight for survival also applied between human racial groups. What this means is that favoured races were victorious in the struggle.
In his book the “The Descent of Man” (which he published after the “The Origin of Species”) he boldly claims that blacks and Australian Aborigines are equal to gorillas and then concludes that they would be done away with by civilised races. He said in his book: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
These ludicrous ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the scientific grounds for racism. Supposing that the living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called “Social Darwinism”.
Social Darwinism argues that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that the European races were the most advanced of all, and that many other races still bear simian features.
The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:
His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.
As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.
A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "selective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:
“History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.”
In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".
That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasising struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never been seen before. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.
This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's book The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man".
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science.”
Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."
In short, there is a clear link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.
If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.
It is clear that Darwinism clearly inculcated in the minds of many that man is a fighting animal, and in this world only the strong will survive and the weak will perish. In other words, this atheistic philosophy subconsciously teaches humans that they can use oppression to achieve their goals. The concept that there is no life after death is an extremely dangerous one, as anyone with power will commit limitless oppression onto the others for his survival. Also, this philosophy gives impetus to selfishness and gives ordinary humans the green light to break the law (lie, cheat, deceive etc.) if they think that they can get away with it.
Please watch the video "THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5938600797075743578
In addition, watch the video "Trouble with Atheism" where award winning journalist Rod Liddle argues against those who turn to atheism for a rational and moderate approach to today's problems. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913#
The Proof for God
I got this article from a friend, and I am grateful for his email.
Many of us at some point or another in our lives start to question: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens to us after we die? Is death the grim end, or is it but a gate that leads into a different kind of existence? We often wonder how did it all come to be? Is there some kind of power responsible for the creation of the vast universe and all that’s in it, or did everything around us just happen to be?
Is there a God? To some people, the affirmative answer is the only one there can be, while to others belief in it is no more than a calculated bet. The French Philosopher Pascal concluded that belief was the wisest bet because the believer will either have bliss if he is right or oblivion if he is wrong, whereas the atheist has the less attractive alternatives of oblivion or damnation. (The case against God, Gerald Priestland, Page: 14)
To some people the word “Nature” is some kind of force responsible for shaping life, but can there be justification in saying that “Nature” is a concrete intelligent force responsible for creating as well as shaping life? Or, is ‘Nature’ merely an abstract man-made label that acts as a convenient coat hanger to the more urgent questions in our attempt to explain the cause of things?
If we were to trace the age of the earth we would have to go back in time 4.5 billion years. The age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, would take us even further back 12 billion years, while as the estimated age of the entire universe is somewhere between 12 to 20 billion years.
If the ‘terrestrial nature’ represents the earth and everything on it, there would still remain a very long period of time prior to the formation of the earth when there would have been no meaning to the word ‘Nature’. Still, some force had to account for what occurred before.
Clearly, then the school of thought that claims that God is not an external being but is to be found inside each of us is both naïve and pretentious. It is naïve because if we were to claim that God exists only inside us then we would have to believe that before human walked on earth there was no God. Even if one employs Darwin’s theory of evolution to suggest some kind of link between man and ape, and as a result associate an older age for mankind, one would still have to say that God did not exist before 30 million years ago, that is when the first apes walked on earth. It is also pretentious because no matter how clever we think we are, we are only one species of creatures on one planet that revolves around one star. The star, being the sun, is merely one star among 100 million other similar stars that belong to our galaxy the ‘Milky Way’. In the universe there are billions of other galaxies!
The failure of science to provide adequate answers to these questions, and in the quest for the truth, many people seek the answers in religion.
Through their adopted faith, whether it is researched or most commonly inherited, they seek to find God. However, it may make better sense to reverse the procedure. It may be wiser to seek God first and then search for His true word. After all God has always existed while as the establishment of any faith or religion is a time related event.
Compare this logic to the case of the patient and the doctor, how can one believe in a medical treatment and as a result have faith in the doctor? It would naturally make better sense to have faith in a doctor and because of that faith to follow his medication. Finding God and accepting His existence is not necessarily a matter related to any particular religious belief. The subject of article is to argue the case why God exists in a purely intellectual and rational manner without referring to any religious beliefs.
In order to be able to present the argument it is essential to refer to various fields of scientific knowledge. A fact must be stressed here, whilst reference is made to some established scientific theories in as far as they serve the argument, it is not the intention of this article to question validity of these theories.
Generally speaking there are two types of scientific knowledge:
1) Scientific knowledge that is unlikely to change and is thus taken for granted (e.g. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that gravity exists between any two bodies…. etc.).
2) Scientific knowledge that is not yet confirmed and is open to change (e.g. what triggered off the ‘Big Bang’? What is gravity made of? How many universes are there? Or how did such gigantic energy come to be trapped within the minute space inside the atom?)
Throughout this article, all reference made will be made to the first type only.
There are those who will completely do without an intellectual approach to belief insisting that for them belief is in the heart and not the mind. Whilst one must understand and respect this point of view so far as the first part of the search goes, and that is the initial belief in God, it is of prime importance that the process of selecting a faith to believe in should not be left to the heart alone, but is a matter that should be researched thoroughly by taking time to consider and debate all points of view. This is necessary because of the unfortunate yet intentional misguidance and misrepresentation conducted by various religious organisations. Sadly, all major religions in the world today can be accused of corruption in one way or another.
Furthermore, one tends to be more inclined to the view that even though a spiritual or emotional belief may appear to be of great strength, yet if it is not supported intellectually; it may often be vulnerable to crack. One has often come across people who have suddenly acquired a very intense faith only to completely lose it after a period of time. For as the saying goes ‘easy come easy go’. On the other hand, a slow contemplated intellectual approach has a better chance of endurance because it is built on reason.
Today we live in an age of reason and not of blind faith. It is thus necessary for any intelligent person to debate all matters and not succumb to the influence of their native environment alone. One should not rely on the religious background passed on through parents or the society alone. One often hears the saying ‘this is the religion of my father and my fore-fathers, they cannot all be wrong!’
We have no choice as to which faith we were born into but we all have the free will to seek the Truth. One should adopt a faith only when one is totally convinced that it is the Truth. There are other people who follow a certain faith because they say it suits them! It is very ironic that they could adopt a faith that affects their entire life in the same way they would go shopping in a super-market! Look and see what is on display and then opt for the faith that would not place too many sacrifices on their normal way of life!
Instead, if one is convinced beyond any doubt that a certain faith is the true word of God, one should accept it in its entire form. One should follow its teachings even if it means altering one’s way of life, and not as is sadly happening today within some well-established religions, regarding the constant bending and reshaping of the faith in an attempt to conform to modern values.
There may be those who will complain that a certain faith or another is too rigid and does not conform to modern standards, but they must, if they are honest with themselves, stop and question how well do modern standards conform to virtue and morality.
WHY THERE IS ONE GOD
The purpose of this section is to argue how modern science testifies to the existence of a sole creator, a supreme force far superior to anything we know, a power responsible for the creation of the universe and of sustaining it.
Moreover, at that moment of creation, it can be demonstrated how all the various laws that govern the behaviour of everything in the universe were initiated. In order to arrive at these conclusions three sets of possibilities are debated:
First debate:
Did the universe has a beginning or was it always there?
Here we refer to the laws of ‘thermal dynamics’, which govern the movement of heat between different bodies.
The second law of ‘thermal dynamics’ states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.
If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder). When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.
To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things:
1- The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
2- The rate at which gas is consumed.
If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas is left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room equal (call this stage B).
Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, etc… This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following:
From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.
Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars…etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.
Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago.
The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.
What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning (that beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago). The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.
But ‘thermal dynamics’ is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers and then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory states that sometimes between 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.
Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.
Now if we accept that the universe had a definite beginning, the next step would be to debate whether that beginning was caused by an intelligent power or by mere chance.
Second debate:
A Creator or mere chance?
If bigbang is indeed the case then where did intelligence come from, how did life come out of inanimate substances (or in other words, out of death)? How does a rock suddenly sprout tree leaves?
What is the origin of the genetic code and the accumulation of the information it contains (a phenomenon that has been constant over the course of time)?
If you are happening to walk on the beach and you see some foot prints, you do not say that the ocean did that or they just happened to be there.
We have also shown that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.
Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics, as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only. In his ‘Theory of relativity’, Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist. It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable. Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!
A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.
People say that if we do not see, hear, smell or feel something we do not believe in it. In other words, there is no perception of God so why should I believe in a God. If someone sees a map in an atlas will he say that I do not believe in these maps, as I have not seen the artist do this work (e.g. drawing of the map).
The laws of probabilities
The laws of probability offer another interesting argument:
If we throw the dice, the chance of obtaining double 6 is (1 in 36). What this means is that on average if we throw the dice 1000 times, the chances are that we should get double 6 around 27 times. Now if we throw the dice 1000 times and we obtain double 6 every single throw then there is a design, a system or a controlling force behind the throws. We can hardly call it chance.
The science of Genetics offers vivid evidence that chance could not be a factor in the process of creation due to the very precise combinations necessary in the building of cells. These requisite combinations defy all laws of probabilities.
On a large scale, we only need to look at the universe to be able to marvel at the endless examples of precision and beautiful design. Every field of scientific knowledge seems to testify to the existence of a master creator. It does not seem difficult to dismiss the possibility of chance.
The mechanical argument
The mechanical argument is also in support of the concept of a creator.
‘For every action there is a reaction, equal to it and opposite in direction.’
Everything that has moved was moved by something else. If we go back in time, tracing everything to its original mover, we would ultimately arrive at that which was not moved by anything else. That analysis will also lead us to the unavoidable conclusion of an initial Creator.
The Development vs. Destruction argument
Everything left unattended gradually disintegrates. If one builds a house and leaves it unattended, in a few weeks it will become full of dust. In thirty years or so the paint will start falling off. After two hundred years or so some of the walls will start to weaken and fall, and maybe in a thousand years or so the whole house will be flat to the ground. In other words, and if left unattended, any organized structure or system will eventually become one of chaos.
Never will chaos suddenly spring into a system. A house will never spring into being of its own doing.
If we try to analyse what has actually happened on earth we realize that it was quite remarkable. When the earth was first formed it was very hostile hot planet with no form of life whatsoever. The trend has been reversed, instead of things crumbling they have in fact developed all the time to higher forms of being. Chaos has developed into a system.
It is amusing, to put it mildly, to observe man so full of vanity thinking he is the master of everything merely because he is given some intelligence to discover some of the laws of the universe. In reality, man has no authority in setting or altering such laws. With the aid of the physical senses, man is given a view over a divine masterpiece, but considering the human being is a mere spectator within the huge universe, he can indeed be very pompous!
There is so much symmetry in the universe to be able to go through all of it, but one particular design has special appeal. And that is Macro/Micro pattern.
The Macro/Micro pattern
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gasses, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, ‘The Milky Way’ has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the center of gravity of the galaxy.
Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the center of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe, as we know it today.
However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is compose of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the center of gravity of their galaxies. Are we but seeing the fingerprints of the creator?
If one searches one can surely find God. God’s marvels are all around us. It was very naïve when the first man in space, the Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, said when he was high in orbit around the earth:
“Where is God? I do not see him!”
It seems ironic though that he met his death in a helicopter accident, still in the air, where he could not find his maker! No doubt he found Him now!!!!!!
If we accept that the creation of the universe must have been the work of a supreme intelligent power, we are faced with another puzzle and that is: How many gods are there? Is God one, or could there be more than one god?
Third debate:
If God exists, how many gods are there?
Here the reference is made to some basic word definitions. The words absolute and relative are quite straightforward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.
If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ….etc.
If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!
We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.
The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to: which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.
If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.
Please also watch the videos "No Brainer!" and "Truth Seekers" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1
Many of us at some point or another in our lives start to question: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens to us after we die? Is death the grim end, or is it but a gate that leads into a different kind of existence? We often wonder how did it all come to be? Is there some kind of power responsible for the creation of the vast universe and all that’s in it, or did everything around us just happen to be?
Is there a God? To some people, the affirmative answer is the only one there can be, while to others belief in it is no more than a calculated bet. The French Philosopher Pascal concluded that belief was the wisest bet because the believer will either have bliss if he is right or oblivion if he is wrong, whereas the atheist has the less attractive alternatives of oblivion or damnation. (The case against God, Gerald Priestland, Page: 14)
To some people the word “Nature” is some kind of force responsible for shaping life, but can there be justification in saying that “Nature” is a concrete intelligent force responsible for creating as well as shaping life? Or, is ‘Nature’ merely an abstract man-made label that acts as a convenient coat hanger to the more urgent questions in our attempt to explain the cause of things?
If we were to trace the age of the earth we would have to go back in time 4.5 billion years. The age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, would take us even further back 12 billion years, while as the estimated age of the entire universe is somewhere between 12 to 20 billion years.
If the ‘terrestrial nature’ represents the earth and everything on it, there would still remain a very long period of time prior to the formation of the earth when there would have been no meaning to the word ‘Nature’. Still, some force had to account for what occurred before.
Clearly, then the school of thought that claims that God is not an external being but is to be found inside each of us is both naïve and pretentious. It is naïve because if we were to claim that God exists only inside us then we would have to believe that before human walked on earth there was no God. Even if one employs Darwin’s theory of evolution to suggest some kind of link between man and ape, and as a result associate an older age for mankind, one would still have to say that God did not exist before 30 million years ago, that is when the first apes walked on earth. It is also pretentious because no matter how clever we think we are, we are only one species of creatures on one planet that revolves around one star. The star, being the sun, is merely one star among 100 million other similar stars that belong to our galaxy the ‘Milky Way’. In the universe there are billions of other galaxies!
The failure of science to provide adequate answers to these questions, and in the quest for the truth, many people seek the answers in religion.
Through their adopted faith, whether it is researched or most commonly inherited, they seek to find God. However, it may make better sense to reverse the procedure. It may be wiser to seek God first and then search for His true word. After all God has always existed while as the establishment of any faith or religion is a time related event.
Compare this logic to the case of the patient and the doctor, how can one believe in a medical treatment and as a result have faith in the doctor? It would naturally make better sense to have faith in a doctor and because of that faith to follow his medication. Finding God and accepting His existence is not necessarily a matter related to any particular religious belief. The subject of article is to argue the case why God exists in a purely intellectual and rational manner without referring to any religious beliefs.
In order to be able to present the argument it is essential to refer to various fields of scientific knowledge. A fact must be stressed here, whilst reference is made to some established scientific theories in as far as they serve the argument, it is not the intention of this article to question validity of these theories.
Generally speaking there are two types of scientific knowledge:
1) Scientific knowledge that is unlikely to change and is thus taken for granted (e.g. Water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that gravity exists between any two bodies…. etc.).
2) Scientific knowledge that is not yet confirmed and is open to change (e.g. what triggered off the ‘Big Bang’? What is gravity made of? How many universes are there? Or how did such gigantic energy come to be trapped within the minute space inside the atom?)
Throughout this article, all reference made will be made to the first type only.
There are those who will completely do without an intellectual approach to belief insisting that for them belief is in the heart and not the mind. Whilst one must understand and respect this point of view so far as the first part of the search goes, and that is the initial belief in God, it is of prime importance that the process of selecting a faith to believe in should not be left to the heart alone, but is a matter that should be researched thoroughly by taking time to consider and debate all points of view. This is necessary because of the unfortunate yet intentional misguidance and misrepresentation conducted by various religious organisations. Sadly, all major religions in the world today can be accused of corruption in one way or another.
Furthermore, one tends to be more inclined to the view that even though a spiritual or emotional belief may appear to be of great strength, yet if it is not supported intellectually; it may often be vulnerable to crack. One has often come across people who have suddenly acquired a very intense faith only to completely lose it after a period of time. For as the saying goes ‘easy come easy go’. On the other hand, a slow contemplated intellectual approach has a better chance of endurance because it is built on reason.
Today we live in an age of reason and not of blind faith. It is thus necessary for any intelligent person to debate all matters and not succumb to the influence of their native environment alone. One should not rely on the religious background passed on through parents or the society alone. One often hears the saying ‘this is the religion of my father and my fore-fathers, they cannot all be wrong!’
We have no choice as to which faith we were born into but we all have the free will to seek the Truth. One should adopt a faith only when one is totally convinced that it is the Truth. There are other people who follow a certain faith because they say it suits them! It is very ironic that they could adopt a faith that affects their entire life in the same way they would go shopping in a super-market! Look and see what is on display and then opt for the faith that would not place too many sacrifices on their normal way of life!
Instead, if one is convinced beyond any doubt that a certain faith is the true word of God, one should accept it in its entire form. One should follow its teachings even if it means altering one’s way of life, and not as is sadly happening today within some well-established religions, regarding the constant bending and reshaping of the faith in an attempt to conform to modern values.
There may be those who will complain that a certain faith or another is too rigid and does not conform to modern standards, but they must, if they are honest with themselves, stop and question how well do modern standards conform to virtue and morality.
WHY THERE IS ONE GOD
The purpose of this section is to argue how modern science testifies to the existence of a sole creator, a supreme force far superior to anything we know, a power responsible for the creation of the universe and of sustaining it.
Moreover, at that moment of creation, it can be demonstrated how all the various laws that govern the behaviour of everything in the universe were initiated. In order to arrive at these conclusions three sets of possibilities are debated:
First debate:
Did the universe has a beginning or was it always there?
Here we refer to the laws of ‘thermal dynamics’, which govern the movement of heat between different bodies.
The second law of ‘thermal dynamics’ states that heat travels from hot bodies to cooler bodies and not the opposite.
If for example a hot oven is placed in a cold room the oven will warm the room, this is because heat will be transferred from the hot oven to the cold room. Never will the amount of heat originally in the room cause the oven to get hotter. This transfer of heat between the oven and the room will continue until the oven has used up all its fuel source (e.g. a gas cylinder). When that point is reached the oven will start to cool until such a point when the temperatures of both the oven and the room become equal.
To calculate the amount of time during which the oven will continue to warm the room we need to know two things:
1- The amount of gas left in the cylinder.
2- The rate at which gas is consumed.
If for example there is 500 c.c. (cubic centimeters) of gas is left in the cylinder and the oven uses up 10 c.c. every hour, with a simple division we find that the oven will continue to warm the room for 50 hours (call this stage A).
After 50 hours the oven will start to cool till the point is reached where the temperatures of the oven and the room equal (call this stage B).
Now let us apply this to the universe as a whole. We know that the total amount of energy in the universe is equal to the sum of energy in all the stars, galaxies, etc… This is a finite amount no matter how large it is. These stars will continue to radiate heat, light and other types of radiation into the vast space of the universe, in the same way in which the oven would warm the space inside the room. So if we think of all the stars and all other active bodies in the universe as the ovens and the vast empty space as the empty room we can deduce the following:
From what is known about the life and death of stars in modern theories of cosmology, it is known that they would continue to radiate energy until they consume all their resources. To be precise, when all the hydrogen, that constitutes the vast majority of the mass of stars, has been converted into helium and other heavier elements in a process of continuous nuclear reactions. After that stage the stars start to collapse and end up as cold dead bodies.
Since the amount of matter in the universe (in the form of stars, nebula, quasars…etc.) is finite, then these energy sources will radiate energy into the universe for a finite length of time. In our example of the oven and the room we calculated that time to be 50 hours. Theoretically, and if we can calculate the total amount of energy in the universe, and also the rate of consumption of energy, we can also calculate the length of time (although obviously not as accurately as in the case of the oven) in which the stars will continue to radiate energy. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the universe will continue to radiate energy for another 50 billion years. Since there is still plenty of energy available in the universe we are still in stage A.
Now if we go back to our original debate, and try to decide whether the universe had a beginning or has it always been there, we can quickly reach the conclusion that if it had always been there, or in mathematical terms if the age of the universe goes back to infinity, it should have been a cold and dead place by now simply because infinity, is older than 50 billion years. If the age of the universe is infinity, we should have been at stage B a long time ago.
The accuracy of the figure 50 billion is of no importance to the result, for whatever figure we chose to make it, it will always be less than infinity.
What that means is that the universe had a definite beginning (that beginning, for arguments sake, being less than 50 billion years ago). The birth of new stars in the universe does not affect our analysis, they are not born out of the void, they are merely a conversion of hot gases into hot new stars. Their birth is not an addition to the total amount of matter that already exists in the universe. The total amount of matter remains constant. After a time all the hot gases in the universe will be used up and no new stars will be born. As for the newly born stars, they too will eventually consume all their energy and die.
But ‘thermal dynamics’ is not the only branch of science to provide evidence in support of a beginning to the universe, for recent discoveries in space and cosmology also confirm that the universe had a definite beginning called the Big Bang, first by the discovery of the background radiation in 1965 by two American astronomers and then later by COBE (Cosmic background explorer satellite) that proved beyond any doubt the theory of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory states that sometimes between 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of matter and space that exploded outwards giving birth to all the galaxies and other heavenly bodies that comprise the universe as we know it today.
Another very important discovery that supported the theory of the Big Bang was the discovery that the universe is expanding, every day the universe gets bigger. This necessarily means that if we were to go back in time the universe would be contracting until it would reach a point from which it started, and that takes us back to the Big Bang.
Now if we accept that the universe had a definite beginning, the next step would be to debate whether that beginning was caused by an intelligent power or by mere chance.
Second debate:
A Creator or mere chance?
If bigbang is indeed the case then where did intelligence come from, how did life come out of inanimate substances (or in other words, out of death)? How does a rock suddenly sprout tree leaves?
What is the origin of the genetic code and the accumulation of the information it contains (a phenomenon that has been constant over the course of time)?
If you are happening to walk on the beach and you see some foot prints, you do not say that the ocean did that or they just happened to be there.
We have also shown that all matter had a definite beginning or a moment in time when it came to exist, the moment when the universe was created.
Since the universe had a definite beginning, we can say that it was created.
Therefore, it is only rational to say that the universe was created by a power that is above and independent of the laws of physics, as we know them. That power is clearly not restricted or confined to the basic laws of physics but far superior. Neither can this power be of a physical essence. It is also justifiable to expect this power not to have had a beginning because the concept of a beginning and for that matter time in general, has been shown to be a dimension of the physical universe only. In his ‘Theory of relativity’, Einstein stated that time, space and matter were all created when the universe was born, and that before that moment time did not exist. It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable. Further still, and since the universe had a definite beginning before which nothing existed, then such an awesome event (the creation of the universe) cannot be attributed to chance, since before that initial moment of creation nothing existed, not even chance!
A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument.
People say that if we do not see, hear, smell or feel something we do not believe in it. In other words, there is no perception of God so why should I believe in a God. If someone sees a map in an atlas will he say that I do not believe in these maps, as I have not seen the artist do this work (e.g. drawing of the map).
The laws of probabilities
The laws of probability offer another interesting argument:
If we throw the dice, the chance of obtaining double 6 is (1 in 36). What this means is that on average if we throw the dice 1000 times, the chances are that we should get double 6 around 27 times. Now if we throw the dice 1000 times and we obtain double 6 every single throw then there is a design, a system or a controlling force behind the throws. We can hardly call it chance.
The science of Genetics offers vivid evidence that chance could not be a factor in the process of creation due to the very precise combinations necessary in the building of cells. These requisite combinations defy all laws of probabilities.
On a large scale, we only need to look at the universe to be able to marvel at the endless examples of precision and beautiful design. Every field of scientific knowledge seems to testify to the existence of a master creator. It does not seem difficult to dismiss the possibility of chance.
The mechanical argument
The mechanical argument is also in support of the concept of a creator.
‘For every action there is a reaction, equal to it and opposite in direction.’
Everything that has moved was moved by something else. If we go back in time, tracing everything to its original mover, we would ultimately arrive at that which was not moved by anything else. That analysis will also lead us to the unavoidable conclusion of an initial Creator.
The Development vs. Destruction argument
Everything left unattended gradually disintegrates. If one builds a house and leaves it unattended, in a few weeks it will become full of dust. In thirty years or so the paint will start falling off. After two hundred years or so some of the walls will start to weaken and fall, and maybe in a thousand years or so the whole house will be flat to the ground. In other words, and if left unattended, any organized structure or system will eventually become one of chaos.
Never will chaos suddenly spring into a system. A house will never spring into being of its own doing.
If we try to analyse what has actually happened on earth we realize that it was quite remarkable. When the earth was first formed it was very hostile hot planet with no form of life whatsoever. The trend has been reversed, instead of things crumbling they have in fact developed all the time to higher forms of being. Chaos has developed into a system.
It is amusing, to put it mildly, to observe man so full of vanity thinking he is the master of everything merely because he is given some intelligence to discover some of the laws of the universe. In reality, man has no authority in setting or altering such laws. With the aid of the physical senses, man is given a view over a divine masterpiece, but considering the human being is a mere spectator within the huge universe, he can indeed be very pompous!
There is so much symmetry in the universe to be able to go through all of it, but one particular design has special appeal. And that is Macro/Micro pattern.
The Macro/Micro pattern
If we look at the universe at large we find that it is composed of vast areas of empty space and also other areas containing shapeless matter in the form of hot gasses, dark matter and formed stars. These stars group together to form galaxies. Our galaxy, ‘The Milky Way’ has within it no less than 100 billion individual stars. Our star, the sun, has nine planets in orbit around it. Most of these planets have a number of moons again in orbit. The basic force that governs the movement of all these bodies is gravity. The moons rotate around their planets, which all rotate around the mother star, which in our case is the sun. Similarly, all these stars revolve round the center of gravity of the galaxy.
Galaxies group together to form clusters of galaxies and once again individual galaxies revolve round the center of gravity of the cluster. Clusters group together to form super-clusters, and these obey the same laws. These are the largest units in the universe, as we know it today.
However, and if we proceed in the opposite direction, we notice that the similarity is truly remarkable. If we look at the other end of the scale and examine the atom which is the smallest form of substance able to exist in a chemical reaction, we find that it is compose of electrons revolving round a nucleus, in the same way as stars revolve round the center of gravity of their galaxies. Are we but seeing the fingerprints of the creator?
If one searches one can surely find God. God’s marvels are all around us. It was very naïve when the first man in space, the Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, said when he was high in orbit around the earth:
“Where is God? I do not see him!”
It seems ironic though that he met his death in a helicopter accident, still in the air, where he could not find his maker! No doubt he found Him now!!!!!!
If we accept that the creation of the universe must have been the work of a supreme intelligent power, we are faced with another puzzle and that is: How many gods are there? Is God one, or could there be more than one god?
Third debate:
If God exists, how many gods are there?
Here the reference is made to some basic word definitions. The words absolute and relative are quite straightforward in what they mean. Anything relative is that which can be compared to or related to other things. Whenever we describe that object we are always describing it in relation to other things. On the other hand an absolute is that which is self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things.
If we return to our example of the room and the oven we can say that the oven is hotter than the room but that does not mean that the oven is hot in an absolute sense, for if we were to place this oven inside an active volcano it would seem very cool in comparison. An athlete is a very fast runner compared to road pedestrians but is indeed very slow compared to a motor car, and so on until it becomes clear that anything we see in life is relative because there will always be something that is cooler, bigger, older ….etc.
If we go back to our Big Bang theory we realize that what brought it about must have been a power that is above all the laws of physics that govern the universe. When scientists study the evolution of the universe they trace it back to the moment of creation or the Big Bang, but when they reach that point they find that all the laws of physics cease to be. Had they considered the same situation in a forward direction they would have realized that the Big Bang was the moment when all the laws of physics have actually began to be!
We have also noted that the force that brought about the Big Bang, and in effect the creation of the universe, could not have been related to this universe in any physical sense, for it is clearly the cause and not the effect of the universe. Since this supreme power is the cause then it must have been existent prior to and independent of the universe. Thus we can say that nothing in this universe can be related to that and if nothing can be compared or related to that power, then by definition that power is absolute.
The absolute God then means that nothing is like or akin to Him, but if we were to consider the possibility of the existence of more than one god, immediately the question will arise as to: which god came first, which god is more powerful and so on, and that would ultimately reduce these gods to being relative because comparisons will arise.
If God is absolute, by definition, He must be One.
Please also watch the videos "No Brainer!" and "Truth Seekers" at http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)