Does God Exist? The Atheist Doesn’t Care!

Every time I have a conversation with a science-worshipping atheist, I get my suspicions reinforced more and more. It turns out that the argument on whether God exists or not is really irrelevant. A superficial hearing of the conversation may not portray that to the listener. But I’m becoming more assured of it. My personal feeling is that there is something deeper behind the disbelief, and I think the argument is only part of the picture.

There is a principle that I consistently uphold before talking about God with anyone, and it’s that they approach it not from a Christian understanding, but from a Muslim one. The precondition put forth is quite simple; before you ask me any question about God, I need that question to be filtered through “there is nothing like a likeness of Him”. You can read “Talking About God” to know what I mean by that. This precondition is so restrictive to the extent that it ends the conversation if it will not move onto something else other than the essence of God.

A very typical objection that I hear regarding my precondition is that it’s a “copout”. It’s an evasion and an open backdoor to get out of answering the so-called “important” questions about God. It’s really fascinating to me that the vastness of the universe is yet to be comprehensible, but somehow God who created it all will be quite easily understood. Hence, since science-worshipping atheists refuse to acknowledge things they don’t understand, and my precondition means they’ll never comprehend God; God does not exist. This make me wonder, if I don’t understand quantum mechanics, and no one has ever seen these ever so tiny things, should I refuse to recognize the existence of quantum particles?

Why such unjustified leaps in logic are made audaciously is beyond me. It’s the same issue with having explained the mechanism of how something works. Apparently it somehow implies that God does not exist. This is a kin to me observing a bunch of laptops, taking them all apart, putting them together bit by bit in different ways so as to figure out the function of each component, and once I’ve figured it all out, voila: the laptop manufacturer does not exist!

Many of these types of atheists that I’ve come across have a habit of hopscotching from answers to certain questions towards conclusions that have nothing to do with these questions, and seem to have no shame about it. The really puzzling bit about most atheists I’ve spoken with is their striking lack of recognition of their limited scope of knowledge and understanding. They’re either physicists, or chemists, or biologists, or whatever else they happen to specialize in, yet for the most part are not all that well versed in anything else.

Let’s take biology for example. The classic item on the science-worshipping atheist menu is the theory of evolution. It’s quite a delicious treat that leaves them very well satiated. It has all this so-called “evidence” that supports it and they claim that nothing else in science has the backing that the theory of evolution has. It’s a mindless process that with the time scale of the age of the earth being taken into consideration, makes sense how everything living on this planet has come about.  It’s all random and undirected and whatever worked was able to be sustained, and through the approximately 4.5 billion years the earth has been around, it all worked out so I can finally write this article in Western Canada and you can read it wherever you happen to be across the globe.

Here is a slight problem that has to do with a bit of math. Let’s take collagen, the most common type of protein. It’s made out of 1,055 amino acids (building blocks) that are arranged in a specific sequence. If that sequence is off, you don’t get collagen. If you studied biochemistry you would’ve learned that collagen makes itself spontaneously and without direction. Bill Bryson in his “A Short History of Nearly Everything” gives a nice illustration on how unlikely the existence of collagen is:

…visualize a standard Las Vegas slot machine but broadened greatly – to about 27 meters, to be precise – to accommodate 1,055 spinning wheels instead of the usual three or four, and with twenty symbols on each wheel (one for each common amino acid). How long would you have to pull the handle before all 1,055 symbols came up in the right order? Effectively, forever. Even if you reduced the number of spinning wheels to 200, which is actually a more typical number of amino acids for a protein, the odds against all 200 coming up in a prescribed sequence are 1 in 10260 (that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros). That in itself is a larger number than all the atoms in the universe… (And) to be of use, a protein must not only assemble amino acids in the right sequence, it must then engage in a kind of chemical origami and fold itself into a very specific shape… (Furthermore) a protein is no good to you if it can’t reproduce itself, and proteins can’t. For this you need DNA. DNA is a whiz at replicating – it can make a copy of itself in seconds – but can do virtually nothing else. So we have a paradoxical situation. Proteins can’t exist without DNA and DNA has no purpose without proteins. Are we to assume, then, that they arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other? If so: wow.

Bryson goes on with the rest of the cell and ends up with showing how everything in the cell needs everything and exclaims how could the first community of molecules ever arise in the first place. This is applicable on the larger scale as one goes into tissues, organs, and the body as a whole. Of course, after amazing the reader with all this wondrous information, Bryson tells us that it’s not all that wondrous and goes on to give the evolutionary tale. It’s the so-called “elegant” explanation of how everything randomly came about. However, if anyone who has studied statistics and probabilities tried to work out the numbers of how life came about through chance, the result would be a numerical figure that is so astounding we don’t even have a name to call it.

But hey, it just happened, and it is what it is, so just deal with it. “We live in the great improbability” is the atheist response. Despite that everything in biological studies is screaming “I have a non-random purpose and function that I’m fulfilling and it’s in synchrony with everything else”, I have to assume the contrary in order to be “rational”. By God, there is nothing more irrational than atheistic propositions.

Order, harmony, and synchrony are not only in biology. Take the night sky for example. Most atheists I’ve talked to have never actually gone out and examined the night sky. Sadly, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t really see it with all the light pollution from the city. The ancients from long ago have utilized the stars to serve them to navigate and tell time. Although it might seem all randomly scattered stars at first sight, a reflective gaze will allow one to see the patterns forming the constellations. These constellations are not just about horoscopes. Depending on the time of the year, the path the sun moves in will go through one of the 12 constellations. Knowing which constellation the sun goes through allows you to deduce which month of the year you’re in. Furthermore, if you know how to track the movement of constellations in the sky during the evening, you can tell what time it is without needing a watch. To top it all off, if you happen to get lost somewhere and don’t have your technology crutch, all you need to do is look up and you can use the stars to go in the appropriate direction to get to wherever you need to.

All that is random! Apparently I’m imposing upon the night sky what I want to see.

Take a look at the moon, which has a regular cycle of phases that has been important for keeping monthly calendars in many cultures. How about the gravitational field of the earth that is dependent on its size, which keeps the moon at a particular distance from it. The moon’s gravitational influence gives rise to the ocean tides, which have implications for ocean ecology. Any change in size of the earth, or size of the moon would’ve resulted in a different distance between the two, which would’ve produced a very different ecology on earth. But hey, it just happened.

Ever reflected about the distance of the earth from the sun? If we were any closer or any further we would’ve either burned up or frozen up. How about the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere? Lower means suffocation and higher means burning. What about the change in seasons and length of day and night produced by a particular angle and speed of rotation and revolution of the earth? Small-scale manipulations of conditions in botany labs change how plants grow, so how different would things have been if the speed or angle of the earth were other than they are? What about the atmospheric properties? What about….? Questions such as these can go on and on. But it seems that it’s all random and unrelated chance events that somehow all came to work together accidentally to allow for not only our existence and survival, but also our use and benefit.

If I were to gather a group of astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, ecologists, and any other kind of natural scientists, and had them relate what they know about the precise interplay of everything in the universe, and how everything is interconnected and how life just wouldn’t happen without it all working together, it will boggle the mind. But according to the atheist, it’s all a fluke. An accident. Random chance of events that just happened!

Interestingly enough, many of those so-called rational atheists who worship at the alter of science will reply by throwing the classic logical fallacy accusations. By saying that I’m arguing from incredulity in my previous examples, it automatically weakens them and they can even be discounted due to them having a logical fallacy. However, that doesn’t really address my assertions, which are backed by material evidence shown by science. Claiming that my argument is using logical fallacies does not necessarily mean that I’m wrong. In fact, rejecting my argument solely on the basis of it having a logical fallacy is a fallacious move in itself, which is called the argument from fallacy. It doesn’t actually show it be wrong merely by virtue of pointing that it’s employing some fallacy. What you should do instead is examine the simple scientific facts that I’ve stated and the proposition that is inferred. If you want to reject it you’ll need a counter argument that has something else other than a use of fallacy accusation.

At the end of the day, the bottom line with many of these atheists has nothing to do with philosophical arguments or science. These are just fronts being put up. Atheists who worship science like to accuse religious people of “evasions” and “copouts”, and claim that saying “God made all of this” makes life not interesting. Apparently the belief in God makes the main function of science, namely to workout the mechanism of how things work, not interesting anymore. The hypocrisy of these atheists is bewildering. While they accuse theists of copouts, they will seek at any cost to explain everything without God. It’s a goal in mind before attempting to answer any question. Science-worshipping atheists speak of objectivity and integrity, yet when it comes to this issue they’re subjective and dishonest. Give them any example of something that goes against all established experiments and theories and natural events, and they will come up with the most ridiculous far-fetched explanation to avoid attributing anything to God. I guess Ockham’s razor is only applicable when it’s convenient.

If we’re honest with each other about it, and we examine the full picture of how everything in the universe works, and combine that with all the theistic philosophical arguments that quite frankly trump their opposing ones, the scientism following atheist proposition that God does not exist cannot be described as anything other than laughable. Moreover, their consistent ludicrous proposals to explain the unbelievable synchrony and order, which was delineated using science, in order to avoid acknowledging the One responsible for all of it, can only lead to one conclusion. It is that these types of atheists are on a massive ego trip, and their staggering level of arrogance does not allow them to recognize something greater than themselves. Believing in God entails certain consequences to how they would live their lives, which means they can’t just follow their whims and desires anymore. The delusional prospect of not having to answer to a greater being at the end of the day is quite attractive. Their understanding of God is based on material presuppositions and cultural upbringings, which allows them to anthropomorphize and restrict His essence into a scientific hypothesis, as if they can measure and detect His existence through some lab equipment and manmade technology. Hence, they’re able to give preposterous explanations of how the world came about the way it is so as to take God out of the equation.

The sad reality is that after going through all of this, I’m reminded of the following verses from the Quran, Surah Al Kahf 18:54-57:

And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention

And nothing prevents people from believing when the guidance comes to them, and from asking forgiveness of their Lord, except that what happened to the ancients should overtake them, or that they should face chastisement

And We do not send apostles but as givers of good news and warning, and those who disbelieve make a false contention that they may render null thereby the truth, and they take My communications and that with which they are warned for a mockery

And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case

Mohamed Ghilan

16 thoughts on “Does God Exist? The Atheist Doesn’t Care!

  1. I find this argument to be no different than the argument of those atheists that you criticize. You can’t fathom why an atheist would jump to conclusions about God, and yet atheists can’t fathom why religious/spiritual people would jump to conclusions as well. When it comes down to it, it all has to do with faith. If you believe in god, you see the universe through that lens and it would only make sense that everything around us is a result of intelligent design. If you don’t believe in god, your lens tells you that it would only make sense that we evolved from nothing. It’s that simple.

    • If you mention to an atheist anything about them having faith you’ll get quite a resistance. They do not accept being told they’re basing their rejection of God on faith. Rather, time and time again they insist that their position is the rational one that is based on evidence. My contention is that while both sides do in fact base their belief in God or lack thereof ultimately on faith, the atheists base it on a much greater leap of faith if everything is taken into account.

      I do agree with you though that ultimately we see what we want to see, which from an Islamic perspective is based on the Hadith where God says: “I’m under the assumption of My servant of Me” – regardless of what position we take, the universe around us will only reconfirm what we believe and assume.

    • If you were to ask me , when it comes down to it, it all has to do with ego not faith. Faith is the ends and ego is the means . If your ego is so big that you are incapable of believing in something greater than you, or believing in something your intellect is not able to understand or “make sense of” , you will never achieve faith. The way an atheist approaches the existence of God in a discussion, is like someone who goes to a restaurant with the conviction that the food is horrible and doesn’t even bother trying it or even smelling it because he or she is so convinced of their previous exposures. You might say, well religious people do the same thing, and perhaps you’re right, it’s a two way street when it comes to having a discussion about the existence of God.
      Talking about two way streets,if you’re an atheist, you don’t believe in God, because you can’t prove God, you can’t see God, and you can’t understand God, so it makes me wonder, when an atheist is driving his car, at 3 am, and the light turns red, does he stop? I mean if you can’t prove that there’s someone watching you, you can’t see a cop or understand why you would stop at a red light in the middle of the night when the streets are empty, then why are you doing it? It’s ok to follow man-made rules, because it keeps life in order but when it comes to keeping egos in order there’s a problem with that.

  2. Salma, you didn’t read the article did you? The author is making the point that there are OBSERVABLE patterns in natural phenomena. This is precisely why the argument of “jumping to conclusions” doesn’t wash.

    Indeed the assertion by atheists is that EVERY ONE of these patterns comes about as a result of a completely random event. Not only that, the sheer number of interdependent random events that would have to happen for this state of randomness to exist reduces the probability of them happening together to a number so small that it couldn’t be described.

    Yes our belief in God is based on faith – but this is NEVER blind faith. One of The Quran’s guiding themes is to use your reason and intelligence to infer from what you see and know. That’s what our faith is – it’s not believing something just because someone tells you to, or because you were born into it – it’s making a reasoned judgement based on what you have found out.

    So based on that, who do you think is jumping to conclusions?

  3. Hi Mohamed. I am going to respectfully disagree with the majority of your post. You start off by saying that individuals who do not believe in a god are the way they are because the belief in God throws a wrench into their program. From your earlier posts, you more explicitly state that this program is their way of life. You seem confident in this suspicion because of your personal experiences with disbelievers. This is quite a blanket statement Mohamed. With it you are disregarding centuries of philosophical ideas and debates against theism from David Hume to Bertrand Russell. I am sure these great thinker’s arguments had more substance and drive against theism then a deep insecurity. I don’t mean to make an appeal to authority here, I just wish to put your statement into perspective.

    Atheists and all those who doubt in a personal god, generally (not all of course) do not feel they are being divinely labelled as immoral beings when performing “sinful” acts. The idea of sin and evil goes out the window the moment you discard god. In its place comes a much more natural and consistent explanation for human behaviour. It is the theory that people are the way they are because of the collection of harmful and healthy stimuli entering their nervous systems starting from the moment the embryo implants itself onto the uterine wall. Once this idea is fully grasped, there is no reason to fear eternal damnation after committing unhealthy actions. Of course, not EVERY atheist knows this and admittedly some fear Allah and His teachings even though they are in a state of disbelief. But to degrade atheism as a product of an insecure fear because of the dozen or so atheist you’ve come across in your life is quite a premature act. There is more substance for disbelieving in god. It is more reasonable to claim that the belief in a divine being is driven by the fear of the unknown and death. Reverting to the neutral stance of doubt is unnerving for most. These statements against belief can be supported with similar claims to the one you made and I can even give personal anecdotes to support it.

    The precondition you put on the table before engaging with atheists is quite interesting. I remember first coming across it when studying Sufism. I agree that with it there can be no further discussion from the atheists perspective since you placed an immovable wall between the two of you, but what I find curious is how you cannot see the restrictions this precondition places upon you. If there is nothing like a likeness of Him and if “[a]nything that comes to your mind, anything that you can comprehend, anything that you can picture – God is other than that” then how can you or any Muslim boldly claim anything about Him? With this precondition, you cannot say that God is Just and All Knowing and then devote a lifestyle based upon these and the other 97 traits. You cannot read a verse in the Quran and conclude with confidence that Allah is against the consumption of alcohol. He might be referring to some other sort of hydroxyl carrying carbon skeleton that we cannot comprehend. How can you develop a whole system of beliefs with such restrictive boundaries? All you can do is guess and hope for the best. This would lead to a culmination of inconsistencies, at which end you get the religions we see today.

    The problem with theists is that their approach to the god debate starts from a belief platform which all their claims and conclusions are built upon. The atheist, on the other hand, claims that the starting point should be doubt and after examining the evidence, remains in a state of doubt (at lease I can speak for myself and a few other individuals I know). From day one, everyone has been wondering how everything began, where everything came from, and what’s next. To answer these questions, just like any other, one must put forward a hypothesis (God, evolution, Zeus, big bang etc..) and proceed to show that the null hypothesis (no God, no evolution etc.) can be rejected. However, this doesn’t mean your hypothesis is 100%, it just means you can reject your null hypothesis and implicitly accept your hypothesis until new evidence proves otherwise. The atheist assumes an initial stance of doubt then after examining the evidence concludes that the null hypothesis for the theory of God cannot be rejected. The theist, on the other hand, assumes a starting point where the theory of God is 100% plausible and from this bias perspective examines the evidence.

    There’s so much more to say, but I will leave it for another time 😉

    • Hi Waleed. Having disagreements is how ideas are refined or discarded for new and better ones, so I welcome it from you.

      While my statement regarding why atheists reject God is a conclusion from comments that I’ve heard, which I didn’t include here as they were not relevant to this particular post, I’m not the first to make it. But to understand why I made it, it requires one to sit down and reflect upon it.

      Here is a question: if you became assured that God does exist, and those great minds got it wrong, and that for example in this case Islam is actually the intended religion for man, will you make the necessary alterations to live according to Islamic teachings? I ask this question because it was the question I asked myself when I went through a period of doubts a few years ago. Before investigating anything I made a deal with myself that no matter what the answer is, I will subdue my ego and put it out of the equation. May be I’m a little strange with that aspect of my personality, but I really felt that as long as my ego is in the way I may not see things for what they are. Furthermore, I didn’t just examine the theistic and atheistic propositions. I also put different religions in the exam room as well. My decision to be a Muslim had a lot of thought and reflection put into it.

      It’s possibly true that that Russell and Hume may have had more than a deep insecurity driving their atheism. But as you’ve already indicated, their authority doesn’t equate truth. I recall Imam Al Ghazali’s statement “It’s foolishness to know truth by the men that speak it when in reality it’s men that are known by the truth they speak”. Having said that, even if they didn’t have those insecurities, they definitely had an ego problem, and I’m not saying they were arrogant when I say that.

      Unfortunately, the majority of laymen science/philosophy-worshipping atheists are not speaking at the level of Russell or Hume. This is just the same as the majority of laymen Muslims, who don’t know the first thing about their theology and tradition. So when I made my statement regarding the “wrench into their program”, it could be more applicable to those types of atheists, which are not only a dozen or so that I’ve met by the way – I don’t live in a bubble.

      It’s interesting that you equate believing in God with believing in sin. I’d have to disagree with this conflation of terms. As Chris Hedges mentions in “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”, believing and disbelieving in God have similar worldly outcomes. It’s when one disbelieves in sin that problems begin. Whether you’re a theist or an atheist, if you don’t believe the possibility of sinning when you commit any act, this could prove disastrous. For the theist they could believe they’re carrying out the will of God when they murder innocents in their supposed “holy” wars. For the atheist they could believe they’re purifying the human race using scientific knowledge of genetics when they chemically castrate “less fit” individuals. Sin is an important force that doesn’t necessarily have to be attached to God for it to be valid.

      As I understand it from you, you’re a biological/social determinist. Freewill doesn’t play a part in the equation of life as you see it. If that’s the case, I’ll keep my reply on this matter to another time. But it’s an interesting consequential worldview to this belief. By the way, since I’m researching in the field of neuroscience at the PhD level, I think I can safely say that the way you’re putting it here is not exactly accurate as it ignores many other facts and realities. Also, it awfully sounds a lot like something Sam Harris would say, who I don’t believe managed to get a PhD in neuroscience on merit other than his name. But that’s another topic altogether.

      With respect to your points about my precondition regarding talking about God, it’s not a “Sufi” position within Islam. By the way, Sufism is not something one studies; it’s something one does. Even the Wahhabis/Salafis who vehemently assert blasphemous anthropomorphic claims about God, they will still follow their assertions with “there is nothing like a likeness of Him”, which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, but that’s a different topic. The thing about this restriction is that it’s not one that I’ve come up with through my intellect. I’m simply quoting the Quran, which as you know for Muslims is God’s revelation. He says that about Himself. In other words, God is restricting us, not the other way around. In the same Quran He says “don’t say about God that which you do not know”. At the same time, any attributes that are given to God, they’re not given by us. When we say He’s All Knowing, and All Just, etc., we’re saying that because He said that about Himself. This is not limited to the 99 names by the way – there are many more.

      How do we know that we’re not misunderstanding what He’s saying? Because He said “We have revealed an Arabic Quran so that you may use your intellects”. Meaning, the Arabic language is your guide to understanding what He’s saying. Sometimes the verses are quite straight forward and clear, while other times they might carry different meanings due to the nature of rhetoric in Arabic. Your example about alcohol is not exactly accurate, because it doesn’t say alcohol in the verse. It uses the word that is normally translated as wine or intoxicants. However, the Arabic word used means “anything that can cover/cloud the intellect”. Furthermore, it’s not that Allah (God) is against it arbitrarily. The scholars of Islam have unanimously agreed on one thing about religion’s purpose for mankind’s behaviour: bringing benefit and warding off harm. Using the example of alcohol, a study came out last year showing that if the biological, psychological, social, and economical damages are all combined, alcohol by far is number one on the list of harmful substances, beating cocaine and heroin. You can look up all the studies and statistics in all kinds of fields of study that corroborate this fact. Consuming these things doesn’t harm Allah (God); it harms us!

      I do find it curious that you consider it a problem that theists start from a platform of belief, which all their claims and conclusions are built upon, while at the same time you don’t seem to acknowledge that it can be equally considered a problem that atheists start with a “no God” null hypothesis, or a platform of disbelief if you will. The atheist claims and conclusions can just as equally be built upon their initial position. In either case, since both sides will generate their own theory-laden data, they will both confirm for themselves their inherent biased positions. I guess I’m just trying to say that I disagree with you calling it a position of doubt since it will drive you to a particular conclusion. For this I find the Hadith where Allah (God) says “I’m under the assumption of My servant of Me” appropriate.

      The problem I have is, which I’ve already stated in my writing, that the science-worshipping atheist seems to have to give counter-intuitive complicated explanations, sometimes far-fetched, and often mathematically improbable, while at the same time calling it all elegant and simple, all in an effort to support their null hypothesis. This of course while not having the full picture that includes other systems of knowledge they don’t fully understand and other specialities of science deal with.

      There is definitely a lot more to say for me as well, but I will also delay it for future posts 😉

      • Salam Mr. Ghilam, can you elaborate on this:

        “Even the Wahhabis/Salafis who vehemently assert blasphemous anthropomorphic claims”

        Much appreciated. 🙂

      • Salam Hussam,

        I was referring to Muslims who say that Allah has a hand and a foot and a let and sits on a throne with his essence. This is a result of a misunderstanding of ambiguous verses in the Quran that might give that idea to the reader. Where these Muslims find it difficult is in the clear-cut verse where Allah says that “there is no thing like a likeness of Him”. To get out of this dilemma they follow their statement “Allah has a hand” with a qualifying “as it befits his majesty”. The problem with this is that these two statements together don’t add up to “there is no thing like a likeness of him”. The reason for that is that the first statement automatically attributes a quality to Allah that is equivalent to the creation, and the latter statement only says that one cannot imagine that quality because it’s not similar to His creation. The combination of the two statements end up going against what Allah says about Himself in the Quran.

        I wrote about this in a past article at’ari-–-it’s-a-matter-of-creed-among-other-things/ if you would like to delve into this a bit more. I didn’t get into the complete details in that article. But it’s a start.

      • Salam again and thanks for the quick response!

        I understand that many Muslims tend to interpret verses literally, and your response has satisfied me but I don’t quite get how you are only pointing such an error to Salafis; I think most conventional-thinking Muslims regardless of sect/school-of-thought are guilty of this too.

        Also, since you seem to have an expertise in the field of biology, can you tell me your views about evolution?

        Thanks again!

      • Wa’alykoum As’salam Hussam,

        You’re right about many conventional-thinking Muslims being guilty as well. But I don’t think it’s on purpose for them. It’s more due to the petrodollar Islam that promotes Salafi/Wahhabi thought, which confused many people and drove many out of Islam. But that’s another topic.

        Regarding evolution, I’d have to seek your permission to delay the answer on that. I’m actually going to write an article on this issue to clarify something. For now, I’ll just say that it’s one of the strangest conflation of science and philosophical thought I’ve come across, where people no longer distinguish between the two. Stay tuned 😉


      • @hussam: i know it’s heretical to utter this under this post, but dawkins does give an interesting (and obviously, utterly secular) account of evolution by natural selection in “the blind watchmaker”.

        @mo: looking forward to your take on evolution!

  4. I find this entire discussion quite disheartening really. Atheist against the religious and vice versa, and arguing about things like evolution when there are so many pragmatic issues to be solved in the world. It’s as if everybody really enjoys being divided. Also, I think an evolutionary biologist would contest the assertion that there is no proof for evolution, whether or not the models of scientific proof are different.

    re: rude atheists – there are dismissive, insulting atheists, and others who find their (basically) angry zealotry embarrassing. Contributing to division really isn’t my biz.

  5. Salam,

    Great post but I am confused about one part. You made it clear that life wouldn’t exist if things didn’t happen exactly as it is, making it a stastical impossiblity to have occurred randomly. However, arn’t we talking about life as we know it? I mean isn’t there a vast number of situations in which life in another form could have existed if things didn’t align as they did? It’s assuming life as we know it is the only way, how do we know there couldn’t have been other ways?

    Jazaak Allah khair 3a your posts and I look forwad to your response.


    • Salam Abe,

      There might in fact be not just a possibility of a vast number of situations, but an actual reality of multiple universes in existence, which we know nothing about, and that have life in other forms. The point is not that it’s only our life as we know that needs the preconditions for it to be aligned exactly for it to be possible. The point is that even if there are an infinite number of universes with different preconditions than ours, which have life forms that are different than ours, these preconditions are not independent of each other. In fact, I wouldn’t put it past Allah to have done that given that He says in the Qur’an right at the beginning “Praise to Allah the Lord of the Worlds”.

      When physicists speak of the fine-tuning, they’re speaking of the interdependency of all the physical values that were present at the very beginning of the formation of the universe, all of which having had to be extremely precise to the point that if they were off by less than a ludicrously small value, our existence would not be possible. The interesting thing here is that if there are other universes that have different life forms that depend on different initial physical values, which would’ve been interdependent to a point of making randomness a statistical impossibility, that would mean that despite the statistical impossibility of one universe with life, there are multiple universes with life in each one different from the others. The thought of the possibility of this impossibility makes me want to say “Subhan Allah”!

      I hope that answers your question.

  6. Pingback: Does God Exist? The Atheist Doesn’t Care | Mohamed Ghilan | The Bonds of Brotherhood (Ribaat ul-Ukhuwa)

Comments are closed.