Arguments Atheists use and their rebuttal needed

[asharee_salafi]

If any one is weak in imaan, then don;t read the following

AA Abuz zubair

It is said the design argument can lead to polytheism, for instance if a design requires A DESIGNER, wouldn't this be an incorrect premise?

Because whenever thinsg are adesigned, like a watch for instance, it doesn't require one designer, but many designers desinging each part, and a whole history of designers researching how to do things.

Also,

We know that Allah ta'ala is the ultimate being.......but the atheists say that the universe itself is an ultimate being, after all, the universe obeys laws and they say that if we know these laws exist, and teh universe is regulated by them, then why invoke a designer....what proof do you have that the universe is nots elf sufficuent,

Science deals with how, and they say religion deals with why, but they say, asking why the universe is here is like askingw hats north of north pole?

whats the reply plss?

[Abuz Zubair]

Man, a person's iman must be really weak (or lack of intellect, perhaps) if he finds this challenging, no offence to anyone!

Because whenever thinsg are adesigned, like a watch for instance, it doesn't require one designer, but many designers desinging each part, and a whole history of designers researching how to do things.

Depends on several things... what is being designed and the ability of the designer.

In terms of ability, Allah is all able, and in terms of what is being designed, which is the creation, then it is more insignificant than the wing of a fly. Hardly a case where Allah will need other designers.

[Umm Ahmed]

The design argument is a favourite amoungst atheists , they will lead you next on to "evolution is randomness with selection"

[aboosafar]

Also,

We know that Allah ta'ala is the ultimate being.......but the atheists say that the universe itself is an ultimate being, after all, the universe obeys laws and they say that if we know these laws exist, and teh universe is regulated by them, then why invoke a designer....what proof do you have that the universe is nots elf sufficuent,

Science deals with how, and they say religion deals with why, but they say, asking why the universe is here is like askingw hats north of north pole?

whats the reply plss?

Ya Ustadh, I would like to know how to respond to the above part of the argument.

I didn't really study physics in depth (or at all, actually) and this part seems like it requires knowledge of physics/science to reply to.

Also, on a side note, for a muslim who wants to give da'wah in a place like the US, is it necassary to have dunyah knowledge and know the beliefs of the non muslims here and their arguments in support of them in order to give them da'wah or is knowledge of the Qur'an and sunnah sufficient to give da'wah here.

Please explain and if knowledge of the kitab and sunnah is considered sufficient then please give me an example of how you would use the Qur'an and sunnah only to give an answer to the like of this argument without referring to physics and science.

I also heard someone going into that time has a starting point and going into all this stuff about black holes which he somehow used to justify his belilef that the universe has no creator.

Could I respond to the like of this with the Qur'an alone or does it require having dunyah knowledge of physics and false arguments and responses to them as well?

Also, how does this apply to giving da'wah to Christians as well. Do we need the Bible in any way, shape, form or fashion to give them da'wah? Please explain.

[Abuz Zubair]

I am sorry, but I find arguments by atheists to be extremely weak if not silly.

but the atheists say that the universe itself is an ultimate being, after all, the universe obeys laws and they say that if we know these laws exist, and teh universe is regulated by them, then why invoke a designer

So the universe is there
The laws are there
The universe obeys the laws

Doesn't this clearly show that the laws are put in place but something other than the universe?

This design, did it design itself? Or was it designed by something else?

This is the most simplest of all questions Allah puts in the Quran: Where they created from nothing, or they created themselves?

[ibnislam]

It is said the design argument can lead to polytheism, for instance if a design requires A DESIGNER, wouldn't this be an incorrect premise?

Because whenever thinsg are adesigned, like a watch for instance, it doesn't require one designer, but many designers desinging each part, and a whole history of designers researching how to do things.


As-salaamu alaykum,


Perhaps this can benefit:

Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allah, then verily both would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above what they attribute to Him! [21:22]

or

No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him. Then each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! [23:91].

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

If any one is weak in imaan, then don;t read the following

AA Abuz zubair

It is said the design argument can lead to polytheism, for instance if a design requires A DESIGNER, wouldn't this be an incorrect premise?

Because whenever thinsg are adesigned, like a watch for instance, it doesn't require one designer, but many designers desinging each part, and a whole history of designers researching how to do things.

Also,

We know that Allah ta'ala is the ultimate being.......but the atheists say that the universe itself is an ultimate being, after all, the universe obeys laws and they say that if we know these laws exist, and teh universe is regulated by them, then why invoke a designer....what proof do you have that the universe is nots elf sufficuent,

Science deals with how, and they say religion deals with why, but they say, asking why the universe is here is like askingw hats north of north pole?

whats the reply plss?



This is not arguments for atheists, but against them. Since they agree that a design needs a designer and similarly anything created needs the Creator, this is a clear proof of the existence of God.

Especially when the God explains with upmost accuracy how He created the universe:

021.030 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Subhan Allah, after this ayat I dont understand how can there be any atheists, etc., in the light of their own scientific discoveries.

The proof that the universe is not self-sufficient is that it was non-existent at one point. If it was self-sufficient what stopped it from being forever without a beginning?

These arguments are nothing new, they were always putting forth some ideas, and the Word of Allah will come true, and Hell will be filled up.

[asharee_salafi]

Salaams bro

But abuz zubair, the point that is being made is that

All we know about designed things, through logic is that, generally speaking there are a multiple array of designers.......
So how do we know that there is one when we have no, as the HT's say 'previous knowledge'

Secondly, yes the universe obeys laws, but the universe, according to the atheists regulates itself.......so if the universe regulates itself, what room for a creator they argue.....because they say that God doesn't explain anything.
At the end of the day , our 'utimate' is God, and their 'ultimate' is the Universe.

[Abuz Zubair]

All we know about designed things, through logic is that, generally speaking there are a multiple array of designers.......

This premiss as absurd, for you can easily have just one designer for one thing. For instance, I can make my own chair depending on my very own design without anyone helping me to either design it or assemble it. This is just common sense.

So how do we know that there is one when we have no, as the HT's say 'previous knowledge'

Instinct. Is there such thing called instinct? Who teaches the babe to suckle for the first time? Who teaches the baby fly to fly, etc, etc, etc.

It is because of this instinctive knowledge that mankind has always believed in a supreme God. Whether some of them believed in one, or other demi-gods is irrelevant. Human nature has historically be inclined to that.

Atheist mode of thinking is to desperately look for the flimsiest argument to hold on to, in their endeavour to disprove God.

Secondly, yes the universe obeys laws, but the universe, according to the atheists regulates itself.......so if the universe regulates itself, what room for a creator they argue.....because they say that God doesn't explain anything.

Well, the premise we all should agree on is that which is temporal or possible cannot be tipped into existence or inexistence without a determinant. In other words, for the universe to regulate its affairs in a uniform pattern, so perfectly, cannot come about by chance. Logically, it must depend on something else that a) brought it about, b) the way it was brought about, c) the way it was ordered to function with other forms of existence, etc etc...

Where there are two possibilities, one of them cannot occur except after being triggered by a determinant. How about when there are millions of possibility? What is the probability of only one of them occurring without a determinant or a cause?

[NAveed]

The scientists tell us that the unchanging laws have always been there.

And yet the universe has not!
Even they now say it came into existence at a certain point.

So the laws are not sufficient to explain this.

As there was a change in state from nothing to something.
And a change requires that which creates a change.

E.g. A door has existed for thousands of years quietly.
One day you hear a knock on it. Something caused the knock on the door- a hand/the wind - a cause.

Had nothing happened - no cause would have been required.

Allah(swt) is unchanging..therefore he doesnt require a cause.


The argument can be made more complex for the more intellectual kuffar to take account of Hume/Kant and Kurt Godel etc

But then most ppl will not understand.

[NAveed]

The other very interesting thing about the kuffar, is that they believe evolution gave rise to genes that would further their self-propagation.
The only reason a bacteria eventually became a frog became an ape etc is so that they could pass their genes on more effectively and survive.

So the ultimate reason for existence is to survive- NOT discover TRUTH.
So the mind,which is the product of such a process- how do we know it is reliable- rather the evolutionists say that it comes up with ideas to deceive itself so that the species survives-e.g. religion...if people believe in God they feel better etc

So we say to them...In fact...evolution created the mind....and it is not there to find Truth...
So when evolution created the mind...and this mind believes in evolution as you now do...Then it is not reliable...as how do we know the idea of evolution is not just a trick by our selfish genes to deceive us...as all of this is the intent of creation as you understand it!!

They get lost in that paradox- and many of their writers on consciousness are stumped at that point and dont wnat to admit it

[NAveed]

Maa khalaqnasamawati wal ardha wa ma baynahuma Baatila
Dhaalika dhannulladhina kafaru..fa wayluliladhina kafaru minan-naar

[NAveed]

By the way..clarify your undestanding by any means.
but dont go too much down the root of debating with the stubborn atheists
becoZ
YOU CAN refute their argument and then they just try and come up with an alternative

wa kaanal insaanu akthara shayyin jadala

[NAveed]

And the other thing about mulitple designers...
why invoke more than 1 when 1 is sufficient

minimum causes should be invoked

And thats a principle they accept
and its called Ockham's razor...

So yeah

La'ilaaha illalllah

[asharee_salafi]

Salaams thanks for the replies,

True a chair can be made by one person, nut the argument states that if someone buiilds a chair from scratch, he doesn;t just do itin one go, otherwise even a caveman could do it, they argue that it requires trial and error from previous designers, and hence a multiple array of designers is needed.

Another argument they use, and something which HT play on but can;t answer themslves is this.

David hume talk of previous information, we know things are designed because of previous information, but how do we know the universe was created when we have no previous information of it.

Where do we see things being created? How do we know this universe is created from previous information.

My reply would probably be from science perhaps.

Whats the reply?

[Abuz Zubair]

True a chair can be made by one person, nut the argument states that if someone buiilds a chair from scratch, he doesn;t just do itin one go, otherwise even a caveman could do it, they argue that it requires trial and error from previous designers, and hence a multiple array of designers is needed.

Again... there are two fundamental problems with this:

a) faulty analogy because it is a rational possibility for one to design something, no matter how small it may be, completely on his own. No one can claim it to be impossible

b) It involves making analogy between the perfect Creator and an imperfect creation (because human beings usually need more than one designers, it follows that God must also need many other designers). Analogy between the perfect and imperfect, or finite and infinite is fundamentally rationally absurd.

David hume talk of previous information, we know things are designed because of previous information, but how do we know the universe was created when we have no previous information of it.

Where do we see things being created? How do we know this universe is created from previous information.

My reply would probably be from science perhaps.

Whats the reply?

Our sources of knowledge is rational as well as textual argument. We rationally know that even though one thing comes from the other and so on, except that as I said before, infinite regress of causes is a rational absurdity, and it dictates that nothing actually ever came about. But this is absurd because we can sense thing around us coming into being. And we also logically know that the chain of these causes must have a beginning when everything was triggered off.

For instance, the population of the human race, in normal circumstances, continues to grow and not decline, and if we follow this logic going back in history, the population continues to decrease, until we eventually end up with at least 1 or 2 human beings, which is where the chain stops.

Now what was actually before that chain, whether another animal form before evolution, or nothing at all becomes irrelevant. What is relevant is the argument that chain, indeed, has a beginning.

[asharee_salafi]

This is the second time I have wrote something and my work has disappeared because something in advertantly pressed the escape button!

Anyways.

Your right, great replies!

So we know creation happend because of rational deduction, Am I right? Because of the impossibility of an infinite regress>?

previously I had asked, for what proof do we say there are primary causes behind the secondary causes we see. I ask because atheists say that we have the universe working according to laws....therefore, they say, why do you stipulate further unseen causes?

Is this because the processes of the universe are contingent?

Also, do you agree brother with some thing the asharees say with space and time, we know Allah is not created because he doesn't get regulated by space and time, I define space and time as a vacuum and things which have abeginning and end.

if so, and I think I asked this before, then how will we see Alah above us on Qiyammah, surely we shouldn't stipulate a 'how'. Maybe the asharees ahve a point here.

How can you see an entity that is beyond created space and created time above you??

Hope yous ee my dilemma, according to dhahabi, quoted in spubs, he says that distance doesn;t count for Allah as he is seperate from our space......

Do you see my point?

[Abuz Zubair]

I ask because atheists say that we have the universe working according to laws....therefore, they say, why do you stipulate further unseen causes?

Why are the laws the way they were? Why weren't they any different? Was it possible for them to be slightly different from what they are now? If it was, then why did they choose to take certain form amongst a million of other forms?

Hence the question is: what determined these laws the way they are?

hence, the need to look beyond what we call 'the laws'.

To be honest, most of these questions are very basic and often involve denial of the most obvious rational premises that are too obvious to be proved. These premises themselves are proofs. This is why I find most of their arguments just a waste of time.

In the forth coming lessons of al-Tahawiyya we will learn the different types of proofs, what kind of rational proofs the Quran and presents in comparison to the long-winded rational proofs of the philosophers, and the partisans of kalam. It will be very deep, and I think you will like it.

[asharee_salafi]

Yeah sure inshAllah,

Can I continue to keep asking here though.....?

Your right, out of the whole universe, some scientists say that we are rather special....roger penrose, a mathemtical physicst from oxford realised there were literally countless universes that could of come about......

Anways, more questions later if you let me.

[asharee_salafi]

Also,

check this comment out . I got it from a world famous scientist who specialises in Maths, Cosmology etc.

In response to the question as to whether eternity itself can bring about the universe, i.e the old conundrun as to whether monkeys typing forever can produce a sonnet.

He says :

Events may not be randomly exhautive of all possibilities in which case
an infinite universe does not mean that everything that is possible
will occur somewhere -- there are an infinite number of odd numbers but
you will not fiind a single even number among them

[asharee_salafi]

maan, so many question today!

question pls, on the same stuff.

pls run this by me again.

when the atheists say that are ration is limited to find out if a God exists, they used the example of the earth, our minds decive us that it was square...they say the same is for God.

How can we be sure via ration that God exists when we see many things happend against our inutuition therefore how do intuition based proofs constiture proof, whats the reply?

[ibnabeeomar]

http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/western-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/

http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/responding-to-atheists-pain-and-suffering-in-life/

[gag order]

search in youtube for zakir naik and how he handles athiests, its an effective method.

[Skillganon]

maan, so many question today!

question pls, on the same stuff.

pls run this by me again.

when the atheists say that are ration is limited to find out if a God exists, they used the example of the earth, our minds decive us that it was square...they say the same is for God.

How can we be sure via ration that God exists when we see many things happend against our inutuition therefore how do intuition based proofs constiture proof, whats the reply?

I still don't get that argument, it must be the stupidest argument I heard.

When you hear stupid argument like that throw it back at them:

Just tell him that their mind decieve them that their is not God, when the creation itself points to one.

[gag order]

the idea is to get them to reflect on topics of relevance to islam such as the scientific data in the quran and not to entertain questions beyond the scope of our revelations.

you have to dictate the pace and direction of the debate. allah can be realized through his revelation not through our ration alone, present them with data that they will appreciate such the verses of scientific relevance

[asharee_salafi]

Hmmm

I SEE THE POINT, BUT I AM NOTS URE MY POINT HAS BEEN APPRECIATED.

( damn, I have just typed in caps lock lol)

The intelect afirms Allah's existence. If we meet an atheist, we wont say 'beieve in Allah' just like that, with no reason.

He has to reason with his mind, but these people say that reasoning is limited, such as the world being flat, as was first thought, but we couldn;ts ee the fullpicture.

Hence they say mental judgements are limited, sometimes being right and sometimes being wrong..

[Skillganon]

EDIT: Double post.

Their are plenty of argument out their for a creator.

[Skillganon]

I still don't understand their reasoning fully.

For example if by using reason and intellect people came to the judgement the world is flat. Thus lmited.
Than how could they use the same faculty to deny the creator.

Of course the intellect and reason is sometime dependent (not always) to knowledge and technology and vice versa.
As our knowledge increase and technology it allowes us aquire more knoweldge we see how complex the universe is.

These people(athiest) does not want to think.
Go to them and say standing here right at this moment and this vast universe you still deny their is not a creator?
They are foolish, and a minority. rather they know their is a creator, but they deny it in their mind and live like without thinking about it. That is why they have to deny everytime they come across those who say their is believer or indicate to such extent.

Actually the more we know about the world the more it points towards the creator.

[Abuz Zubair]

The intelect afirms Allah's existence. If we meet an atheist, we wont say 'beieve in Allah' just like that, with no reason.

Do you share a flat with atheists or something? I have never met as many atheists as you seem to have met! :D

[asharee_salafi]

lol, kind of!