In these series of posts, I want to illustrate some of the common arguments put forth by atheists and to demonstrate its absurdity.
It is good to note that however convincing an argument may be, consequently, it comes down to how sincere the receiver is. When it comes to accepting the reality of the truth, 95% of atheists that I have met or seen had an underlying prejudice with religion or either were too arrogant to move away from their position. In many circumstances, they weren’t interested in establishing the truth, rather they wanted to prove their concepts, even if it was the most illogical position to have.
One of the first things an atheist may ask is to prove the existence of God, whilst in their heads, they may be laughing sinisterly, thinking that they know that you haven’t got an answer to this. Well we can answer this from two different perspectives: The scientific perspective (empirical evidence,although, we reject this and I will explain why) and the logical perspective.
The scientific method is a tool to understand the world around us and it is the best one we have currently. However, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t limited in what it can achieve. Unfortunately, science is made out to the benchmark of salvation, which is ridiculous (well this is how it was for me anyway). Science relies on empirical data or induction (to find information). Induction is taking a set of data and then to make an inference from it whereas empirical data is the processing of information through observation (this could also be through the use of instruments e.g. using a telescope to see how far the planets are from the earth), which requires the use of our senses. We won’t focus on induction because empirical data has a better leg to stand on in terms of accepting the data.
Our senses are only confined to the physics of this universe meaning that the entirety of science is as well. Therefore, to try to prove God using this tool is illogical because we believe that God is transcendent of time and space meaning he is external to our universe. In Islam, we say that God is above his throne, so as Muslims, we should reject the notion of trying to prove God through science because it isn’t possible given the faculties we have.
Atheists like Dawkins however, may then take it further and then attack your belief of heaven and hell or anything supernatural, by saying for instance, ‘how can you believe in such absurd things’, this is called an ad hominem. They can criticize all they like but if they cannot challenge the idea academically then what they say holds no merit. These people have based their beliefs around what they can see and hear so it may be unnatural for them but just because they haven’t seen it, does not necessitate its non-existence. This isn’t an academic way of thinking, rather it is an emotional one.
The next way of proving God is through logical reasoning, which I will post another time.