The nature of the evidence relied upon by the investigating detective in a murder case, for example, is of the kind that relies on selecting the best possible interpretations. For example, one may infer from the presence of a discarded cigarette butt on the ground or shoe impressions that the killer is a smoker or is six feet tall. However, in reality, this inference amounts to a plausible speculation at best, with the possibility of error remaining. It is possible that the killer is shorter but wearing shoes larger than their foot size, or that the cigarette did not belong to them. Therefore, doubt remains regarding the accuracy of the conclusion, as it hinges on the absence of other evidence or indications that would favor an alternative possibility. So, does the nature of the evidences that show the existence of Allah of such kind? For If that is the case, the saying ‘God of the Gaps’ would apply to the conclusion, for there are gaps that science has not filled them yet, and the powerful possibility is the existence of God. However, this conclusion remains dependent on the absence of scientific discoveries that fill those gaps and voids! We must first acknowledge that some of the arguments put forth by non-theologians are of this kind, such as William Paley's[1] arguments, which atheists have made a target of their criticism, as well as the argument of intelligent design advocated by scientists at the Discovery Institute[2].

       The American Philosopher Edward Feser say,' I cannot understand the reason that makes atheists cling to Paley's argument to such an extent, unless it is because it is a relatively easy target. In such a way that if it didn't exist in the first place, atheists would invent it or seek another straw man to overcome.’[3] And Regardless of the case, it is important to note that the nature of the evidence presented by believers is akin to mathematical or engineering evidence in general. It is not merely hypothetical assumptions devised to explain a specific phenomenon, nor is it merely a possibility. Rather, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily proven.

From here, we find that the fiercest atheist of the twentieth century, the British philosopher Antony Flew, changed his atheism as soon as he came across the first philosophical evidence that contradicted the type of evidence that atheists were accustomed to discussing and stopping at. No sooner had the year 2004 ended than Antony Flew announced that he had come to believe in the existence of a God, after being one of the most prominent and famous atheists in the world. When asked about the reason for his faith and his abandonment of atheism, he replied: ‘Philosophical evidence had already led him to the existence of God, particularly the primary cause of the universe as described by Aristotle's Teleological Argument.’[4]

        Flew's words were indeed quite surprising, not only in terms of his departure from atheism but also in his reliance on the same old philosophical evidence for his new belief. For over fifty years, Flew was one of the influential and widely renowned philosophers, and he only changed his stance on atheism at the age of eighty-one. Therefore, it was expected that the reason for his belief would be based on a different and previously unexplored argument. However, he ultimately returned to Aristotle's philosophical arguments as the basis for his newfound faith. He said that he was not well-versed in Aristotle’s philosophy and it was the first time for him to read some of it. Thus, we find that the Qur’an clearly points out this reality, which is that the basis of the disbelievers' argument does not go beyond mere speculation, and they do not rely on decisive evidence.

      El-Sayyid Abd Al-A'la Al-Sabziwari (May Allah be pleased with him) in interpreting of “They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie” (Surah Al-An‘am:116) has said:

Indeed, most people on Earth rely on speculation in their beliefs and judgments. It is not permissible to obey them in what they call for, command, or forbid because speculation accompanies ignorance of the reality. It is not reasonable to uncover the truth, which must be believed based on knowledge and certainty, through speculation. Allah guides us to this in the aforementioned verse that they are not decisive in the validity of their doctrines. Rather, they are liars in their claim of knowledge and certainty.[5]

    From this same point onward, the position of the Qur’an becomes clear in the necessity of exercising caution and seeking conclusive evidential proofs to attain certainty in matters of fundamental belief, such as Monotheism and Ma’ad (resurrection). It rejects the notion of relying solely on speculative evidence as a means of negation or affirmation in these matters. While it may be permissible to rely on speculation in worldly affairs, it is not sufficient when it comes to matters of faith.

     El-Sayyid Al-Sabziwari (may Allah be pleased with him) states:

 For this reason, reliance on speculation is divided into two categories: one category includes worldly matters in which speculation is permissible and does not contradict reason. The other category pertains to religious matters, such as the principles of belief like Tawheed (Oneness of God), Al-Ma'ad, Prophethood, and Imamate, and speculation in these matters is prohibited according to religious law.[6]