How Do We Prove the Existence of Allah in "Three Steps"?
“Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can
make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.” (Richard
Dawkins). The quote represents the public policy of today's
atheists. It is a call to encourage their followers to abandon any
shame about their atheism and stand united to combat their common
enemy, which is God. They strive to present believers' arguments in
a superficial manner, as described by philosopher Jeremy Waldron
regarding the positions expressed by atheists towards religious
arguments: "Atheists often claim to know the nature of religious
arguments, presenting them as a simple recipe from God, backed by
the threat of hellfire, and derived from general or special
revelation. They compare it with the intricate complexity of
philosophical arguments such as those by Rawls or Dawkins. With
this image in mind, they believe that it is evident that religious
arguments should be excluded from public life... However, scholars
recognize that this is a distorted portrayal of the matter."
(Edward
Feser,2010, p. 53)
In this article, we attempt to present one of these arguments known
as the Inductive Proof, based on the calculation of probability
value, which is considered a valid proof in all scientific
institutes and universities. In every phenomenon or scientific
discovery, scientists follow a method and approach to prove their
scientific theories, consisting of three main steps, namely:
1. Observing a certain correlation among various phenomena and
occurrences.
2. After observing and gathering the previous data, a valid
hypothesis to explain and interpret the reason for the existence
and occurrence of these matters is formulated.
3. Verifying the validity of the hypothesis established in the
second step by investigating the possibility of these phenomena
whether they appear or not. If the hypothesis states that the cause
for the appearance of these phenomena and occurrences is a specific
factor, its validity can be confirmed by researching the
possibility of these phenomena happening without the cause
specified in the hypothesis. If it is found that it is difficult to
be achieved without it, the validity of the theory becomes evident.
The weaker the probability of these phenomena occurring without the
cause identified by our theory, such as when the probability does
not exceed one percent, the more our knowledge confirms that the
cause specified by the theory is the true cause until we reach
complete certainty in that regard.
This is the method scientists use to prove any scientific fact, but
it is also the method each one of us uses in our daily lives. For
example, if you receive a handwritten letter and you know it's from
your brother and not someone else, you have discovered that using
the advanced method with its three steps. In reality, you have
applied the same approach followed by scientists in discovering the
truths of things. In the first step, you encounter several
phenomena, such as the letter bearing your brother's name, being
written in his handwriting, and following his usual style.
Moreover, it even contains the same spelling and grammatical
mistakes he typically makes and mentions secrets and issues known
only to him. After gathering these phenomena, in the second step,
you establish a valid hypothesis to explain them, which is that the
letter is from your brother. If it is indeed from him, it is
natural for it to contain all the data and phenomena that observed
in the first step.
In the third step, you ask yourself the following question: If this
letter is not from my brother, what are the chances that all those
observed data from the first step would be present in it? This
probability requires a large set of assumptions because, in order
for us to obtain all that data, we must assume the existence of
another person who shares the same name as the brother, writes in
an identical style to him, including the same habitual errors, and
possesses the same knowledge about me that only he would know. The
possibility of another person writing the letter relies on a
significant number of coincidences, making the likelihood of
someone else being the author of the letter extremely low.
The natural stance is to disregard this weak possibility and rely
on the first hypothesis that states ‘the brother is the author’. As
the number of coincidences increases in the alternative
possibility, the probability weakens and its scientific value
diminishes to a point where it cannot be upheld due to its inherent
weakness compared to the other probability. Thus, the general
scientific method of inductive reasoning has been understood based
on probability calculation, and it can be applied to the argument
of proving the existence of a Creator by following the three
previous steps.
The first step: Observing a large set of regular and recurring
phenomena, all of which contribute to meeting the needs of humans
on this Earth and facilitating their lives. If any of these
phenomena were to disappear, life on this Earth would be
impossible. Here are some of these phenomena: The Earth receives an
amount of heat from the sun that is sufficient to provide warmth
for the creation of life and to satisfy the heat needs of living
organisms, neither more nor less. It has been scientifically
observed that the distance between the Earth and the sun is
perfectly aligned with the amount of heat required for life on this
Earth. If it were twice the current distance, the heat necessary
for life would not exist, and if it were half the current distance,
the heat would be doubled to a level that living organisms cannot
tolerate. Furthermore, we also observe that the proportion of
oxygen in the air is perfectly aligned with the needs of living
organisms. Approximately 80% of the oxygen is trapped in the
Earth's crust and oceans due to its chemical affinity with the
Earth's components and water. However, despite this, approximately
21% of oxygen remains freely available in the air, which is the
amount required by living organisms for respiration, neither more
nor less. If the proportion of oxygen were higher, it would lead to
massive and rapid wildfires. If it were lower, life would be
unsustainable, and fire would not be easily accessible. However,
its presence in this proportion, mixed with other gases,
specifically nitrogen in the air, allows it to be utilized without
harm. Nitrogen, being a heavier gas, when combined with oxygen in
the air, moderates its level to a suitable extent for the
respiration of living organisms and prevents the rapid spread of
fires. Scientists have observed that the absolute proportion of
oxygen in the air, at 21%, perfectly corresponds to the amount of
nitrogen present, which is 78%. If the proportion of oxygen
increased or the proportion of nitrogen decreased, the appropriate
mixture and the suitable moderation of oxygen would not be
achieved. The process of mutual benefit between plants and animals
where the plants produce sufficient oxygen to sustain other living
organisms by absorbing the carbon dioxide released by humans and
other animal species. The plants absorb carbon dioxide and separate
oxygen from it, releasing it back into the air for the benefit of
humans and other animals. Without this process, human life would be
impossible.
Furthermore, the same quantity of air present on planet Earth is
perfectly aligned with the existence and sustenance of human life.
If the proportion of air on the planet were to increase, it would
cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, which would make life
impossible. Conversely, if the proportion of air on the planet were
to decrease, it would weaken the atmosphere and allow the entry of
meteors, posing a threat to life. However, the Earth's crust, which
absorbs carbon dioxide and oxygen, is made to a specific thickness
that does not allow for the absorption of all the oxygen and carbon
dioxide. Scientists state that if the Earth's crust were slightly
thicker, it would absorb these gases and prevent life on Earth.
Similarly, millions of other cosmic phenomena are interconnected in
their purpose of supporting the existence of a specific organism,
which is humans. Allah says in the Quran: "Do you not see
that Allah has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and
whatever is on the earth and amply bestowed upon you His favors,
[both] apparent and unapparent?" (Surah Luqman, 31:20)
The second step: The harmony among millions of phenomena, all of
which serve humanity, can be explained by a single hypothesis: that
there is a wise Creator for this universe who intended to provide
everything on this Earth that human beings need in their lives.
The third step: If the hypothesis of existing a wise Creator is not
true, what is the likelihood that all these natural phenomena exist
without a purpose? It is evident that the possibility of all these
phenomena existing without a purpose implies assuming a vast amount
of coincidence. The existence of the appropriate amount of heat,
air, oxygen, and others, all being a result of coincidences. It
happened by chance that the right amount of oxygen remained in the
air for human life, and it happened by chance that the Earth's
crust is at a certain thickness to prevent the complete absorption
of oxygen in the atmosphere and leave a specific proportion for
breathing. It happened by chance again that the proportion of
nitrogen is sufficient to moderate the oxygen, and so on for
billions of coincidences. It is clear that the possibility of all
these phenomena being coincidences is an extremely weak possibility
and cannot be relied upon by a rational mind.
So, if you consider the possibility that the message is from
someone other than your brother as trivial and insignificant, based
on just a coincidence of four or five occurrences, then what about
the probability of the existence of these phenomena with such
harmony and consistency relying on billions of
coincidences?
Thus, we arrive at the decisive conclusion that the universe has a
wise and creative God, based on the discovery of the coordination
and harmony among cosmic phenomena, all of which contribute to the
existence of humans and facilitate their lives.
Many scientists have acknowledged this reality some of them.
Michael Denton, in his book ‘The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of
Nature for Human Existence’ on page (222) says: "The evidence
increasingly points to a natural system that is uniquely suited and
rigged for life on Earth, and especially for us, upright, human
beings. This is a perspective that does not prove the traditional
religious and biblical framework, but it is entirely compatible
with it."
Some atheist scientists have also acknowledged that, including
Stephen Hawking, the theoretical and cosmological physicist and
Director of Research at the Center for Theoretical Cosmology at the
University of Cambridge. He says, ‘The remarkable fact is that the
values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to
make possible the development of life.' (As cited in Luke. A.
Barnes:2015)