Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (as) and another Atheist

[Qa'im]

(salam)

Source: al-Kafi: Book 3, Chapter 1, Number 159

Abdullah al-Deesani, an atheist had a dialogue with Hisham Ibn Hakam (ra)

The Atheist: Do you believe in God?

Hisham replied in affirmative.

The Atheist: Is He Almighty?

Hisham: Yes, He is Almighty and All-Powerful.

The Atheist: Can He put the whole world inside an egg without enlarging the size of the egg or diminishing the volume of the world?

Hisham: Give me some time to think over it.

The Atheist: I give you one whole year, and left.

Hisham went to see Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (p) in a hurry and said: O Son of the Prophet Muhammad (p), Deesani has put a challenging question to me and as regards its answer I cannot rely on anyone except God or you.

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (p) asked: What was the question?

Hisham related the question of Deesani.

The Imam (p): O Hisham! How many sense-organs you have?

Hisham replied: Five.

The Imam (p): Which one is the smallest among them?

Hisham: The pupil of the eye.

The Imam (p): What is the size of the pupil of the eye?

Hisham: About the size of a grain of lentil or a part of it.

The Imam (p): Alright, now look around and tell me what you see.

Hisham: I see the sky, the earth, the houses, the spacious mansions, the mountains and the rivers, etc.

The Imam (p): The One Who can put all you see inside a grain of lentil or a part of the same can also insert the entire world inside an egg without enlarging the size of the egg or diminishing the size of the world.

On hearing this Hisham was overjoyed and fell down on his face performing a prostration and kissed the hands, feet and forehead of the Imam (p) and said: O Son of the Prophet Muhammad (p), this answer will be sufficient for me.

Hisham returned to his place. The very next day Deesani came to see Hisham and said: O Hisham, I have just come to greet you and have not come for an answer to my question.

Hisham: Even so, here is the answer to your question.

Hisham then told him what the Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (p) had said in answer to his question.

Deesani then went to see the Imam (p) and requested an audience with him. The Imam (p) granted his request.

Addressing the Imam (p) Deesani said: O Jafar son of Muhammad! Show me the way to my God.

The Imam (p) asked him his name.

Deesani left abruptly without answering.

His friends asked him: Why did you not tell your name?

Abdullah al-Deesani said: If I had told him my name – Abdullah – he would have said, ‘Who is this One whose servant are you.’ (Note: Abdullah means ‘Servant of Allah’).

His friends said: Go to see the Imam (p) again and request him to guide you to your God without asking your name.

Deesani went to see the Imam (p) again and said: O Jafar son of Muhammad, guide me to my God but do not ask my name.

The Imam (p) asked him to sit down and relax. Deesani did so. Perchance a young boy was playing nearby and had an egg in his hand.

Addressing the young boy the Imam (p) said: Let me have this egg for a while.

The boy handed over the egg to the Imam (p).

Addressing Deesani the Imam (p) said: This is a protected castle. It has a hard covering and beneath the hard covering there is a fine covering and beneath that fine covering there is liquid gold and molten silver. Neither the molten silver intermingles with the liquid gold nor do the liquid gold merges into the molten silver and both remain as they are. Nothing comes out of it to divulge the secret of its precision and nothing enters in it to control the internal balance. No one knows if the final product will be a male or a female. All of a sudden it splits and results in a peacock like multicolored offspring. Do you not see a Supreme power behind all this?

Deesani remained engrossed in deep thought and then exclaimed: I bear witness that there is no god but God and that He is One and has no partners and that Prophet Muhammad (p) is His bondman and His apostle and I also bear witness that you are a divinely ordained Imam and the proof of His existence and I hereby disown all my previous misconceptions.

[toocoool66]

(bismillah)

(salam)

may Allah bless u brother for quoting this

amin

[wayfarer.]

(bismillah)

Jazakallah for the post bro. May Allah bless you even more

wasalam

[YaHossain]

Thanks for posting. Great hadith.

(wasalam)

[naqviimran]

The universe is just there. It exists infinitely. There is no need of a Creator.

[toocoool66]

(bismillah)

(salam)

The universe is just there. It exists infinitely. There is no need of a Creator.

hmmm

tell me what is your proof for this?

i mean in my whole life , i have never seen anything which is well organized and well disciplined which has no one looking after it

i mean if i go to a park and i see it is clean, its cleanliness is in its self a proof that there is someone who has cleaned it

similarly if you see a car, you automatically think of some automobile company which would have made it

but you claimed that there is universe but it needs no creator,

what is the proof which supports your claim?

and you also claimed that it exists infinitely

how can you be sure that it would exist infinitely, have you seen the future? and how far in the future have you seen?

if you say that in the next 100 years it would stay as such , so this cannot be termed infinitely,

so what is the basis of your claim that

The universe is just there. It exists infinitely

thanks in advance for adding to my knowledge

[naqviimran]

There is no need for any creator, as such. The universe is an amalgamation of complex matter and energy and we dont know it fully, although we will one day. The universe is just infinitely old (and I am not predicting future; I am talking about the past) without the need of a creator. Give me any good solid reason with evidence to prove the existence of God; I m sure, you wont be able to. Do all your research and let me know if u have the answer.

[toocoool66]

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is no need for any creator, as such.

can you give me any example where something is there and is well disciplined but has no one looking after it

just look around brother for yourself , and give me your example

otherwise this is just a claim , and claim without a proof has no value .......

The universe is an amalgamation of complex matter and energy and we dont know it fully

this has actually surprised me

you do not know yet you claim of its past and future.........

The universe is just infinitely old (and I am not predicting future; I am talking about the past) without the need of a creator.

were you present from those very old times?

or

you have heard it from others?

and if you have heard it from others, were they present from old times and are sure that this universe is present infinitely?what is their proof?or is it again a claim without proof? what is your proof of this universe being from infinite times?

and if you do not have a proof , it is mere a claim , and means nothing

Give me any good solid reason with evidence to prove the existence of God;

the very presence of this universe in its self is a proof that there is someone who has made it and is looking after it,and this is a very common observation

i have already told you that you go to a park and you see the cleanliness over there , this automatically assures you that there is someone looking after it.......

[Asghar]

So youre saying that.. that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs

:!!!:

[Mystery-*]

Thank you for sharing this bro, it's a lovely hadith.

So youre saying that.. that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs

:!!!:

LOL, Great way to sum it up. :lol:

[jund_el_Mahdi]

So youre saying that.. that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs

:!!!:

What, this doesn't make sense to you!? :!!!:

[naqviimran]

can you give me any example where something is there and is well disciplined but has no one looking after it

just look around brother for yourself , and give me your example

Well, as I said universe is the best example I think can of with just no need of a creator. It just existed from the very beginning, as far as the reasoning goes. It just existed from eternity, which does not defy logic. Just to say that a thing exists does not serve the purpose of claims. If that is not so, then who created darkness? It just there; it's all pervading, until light comes in, since darkness is just the absence of light.

I said that we dont not know the complete universe completely does not mean that one day we wont, after man never believed to ever reach the moon earlier, but it did with the growth of its knowledge. One day man will be able to do everything which u claim u god does. And give me one example what God does and man cannot.

were you present from those very old times?

or

you have heard it from others?

and if you have heard it from others, were they present from old times and are sure that this universe is present infinitely?what is their proof?or is it again a claim without proof? what is your proof of this universe being from infinite times?

and if you do not have a proof , it is mere a claim , and means nothing

Claiming that the universe did not exist right from the eternity, and asking a prove for its eternal existence, is like saying that I am not a thief.

the very presence of this universe in its self is a proof that there is someone who has made it and is looking after it,and this is a very common observation

i have already told you that you go to a park and you see the cleanliness over there , this automatically assures you that there is someone looking after it.......

What sense does it make to say that what you talk is utter non-sense when I dont have enough evidence to prove that u are talking out of sense. Brother, what evidence do u have that God created this universe, since belief comes from knowledge, which in turn comes from evidences, direct or indirect. But if you insist that existence should be preceded by non-existence, then who created God?

[wakeup007]

im not really good at this stuff but ill give it a shot. :unsure:

you say the universe was always there (no creator) yet you say God who is the uncreated creater needs a creater. lets say he does. then who created him, and who created the god before and before and so on. it will be a infinite number.

athiests believe that the universe had a begining. but no one created that. right? yet you tell us that God needs one. but anyways the begining was the big bang. and with their calculations what was calculated was that life was created RIGHT after the big bang. less than a millisecond after. thats like blowing up a explosive and seeing some cells created from it. cmon life created right after...not a few years which gives some rocks or w/e was back then to mix then create life, but right after.

when you look at a car you think oh ford, chevy, honda, w/e made that car because your mind always thinks something that looks like that needs to be created by someone. yet when you look at the universe, something that has no flaw, and is organized(1000000x more perfect, more organized than a car) and you say "oh that, thats always been there". have you ever looked at a car and say, "has that always been there or did someone create that? did the big bang create that. cmon the big bang created life but not the car WTF!"

hey if the big bang created life, which a human can not even get close to make but a human can make a watch, car, house, pencil, etc, yet i havent seen the big bang create either of those VERY EASY things. but if it did create any of those very easy things. i too would be with you(maybe not idk lol)

well thanks for taking your time to read this as it may not be good idk im not that good at these

Edited April 14, 2009 by zeitoun22

[naqviimran]

you say the universe was always there (no creator) yet you say God who is the uncreated creater needs a creater. lets say he does. then who created him, and who created the god before and before and so on. it will be a infinite number.

First of all, I asked for a creator of GOD since you seem to attach a creator to everything u see around u. That's it, nothing more did I mean. Yes, of course, if every thing needs a creator then even GOD does, but then, as u said, it leads to infinite GODs, which is a fallacy, my friend; hence, there is no GOD.

athiests believe that the universe had a begining. but no one created that. right? yet you tell us that God needs one.

You are being redundant dude. I attached a cause to GOD in extension of your own argument.

but anyways the begining was the big bang. and with their calculations what was calculated was that life was created RIGHT after the big bang. less than a millisecond after.

That seems like a news to me! Are u a scientist who has a new theory propounding such an idea? No one knows when was life created, although Darwin says that life evolved over a period of billions years.

when you look at a car you think oh ford, chevy, honda, w/e made that car because your mind always thinks something that looks like that needs to be created by someone. yet when you look at the universe, something that has no flaw, and is organized(1000000x more perfect, more organized than a car) and you say "oh that, thats always been there". have you ever looked at a car and say, "has that always been there or did someone create that? did the big bang create that. cmon the big bang created life but not the car WTF!"

Certainly, the big bang did. No doubts about that. What ever u say fails at a point called universe, which is the biggest teacher, since that is eternal; neither it was created nor it will be destroyed. You said there is no flaw in the system..Wait a minute, haven't u seen asteriods trying to hit earth, as it has happened earlier; there are many examples to this.

hey if the big bang created life, which a human can not even get close to make but a human can make a watch, car, house, pencil, etc, yet i havent seen the big bang create either of those VERY EASY things. but if it did create any of those very easy things. i too would be with you(maybe not idk lol)

well thanks for taking your time to read this as it may not be good idk im not that good at these

[wakeup007]

I say this all as respectful as possible,

First of all, I asked for a creator of GOD since you seem to attach a creator to everything u see around u. That's it, nothing more did I mean. Yes, of course, if every thing needs a creator then even GOD does, but then, as u said, it leads to infinite GODs, which is a fallacy, my friend; hence, there is no GOD.

"if every thing needs a creator then even GOD does" No he doesnt, God does not need a creator, why would he be God if he did have a creator? If he did who would follow him? Why not follow the God before him, he must be stronger. I would not follow a God who has a creator. What kind of God is that. Also im still confused why you say everything needs a creater and the universe doesnt? Please explain.

That seems like a news to me! Are u a scientist who has a new theory propounding such an idea? No one knows when was life created, although Darwin says that life evolved over a period of billions years.

Please do some research, i have and gotten my information from scientists...just because you dont know doesnt mean its not true. Also go watch the athiest vs thiest debate with Hassanian Rajabali. When the theists say this the athiests do not deny it.

"Darwin says life evolved over a period of a billion years"..what does this prove? Evolution was after life was created, what does this have to do with when life was created? Sorry, maybe i just dont understand what your saying.

Certainly, the big bang did. No doubts about that. What ever u say fails at a point called universe, which is the biggest teacher, since that is eternal; neither it was created nor it will be destroyed. You said there is no flaw in the system..Wait a minute, haven't u seen asteriods trying to hit earth, as it has happened earlier; there are many examples to this.

Just because asteroids hit earth doesnt mean its a flaw. Iron hit earth and did it harm us? NO! Of course not! There was no iron on earth before that iron meteorite hit earth. Without Iron where would we be? It helped us a lot.

When is the last time you seen a asteroid hit? Thank God there is something stopping us from asteroids. Which the Quran says there is a atmosphere how long ago? There was no possible way they could find out about the atmosphere. Yet its in this wonderful book so long ago.

"What ever u say fails at a point called universe, which is the biggest teacher, since that is eternal; neither it was created nor it will be destroyed."

You speak as if this universe is God.

Also scientists say that the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). Every beginning needs a cause to have an effect. But if there was no one to cause it to happen then how did that explosion happen? Thats like telling someone im not gonna hit you unless you hit me first. The other kid says im not gonna hit you unless you hit me first. If both stand to their word then it will never happen. One must cause the other to hit him. One must cause that explosion to happen to create an affect. Or the effect will never happen.

Cause>>>Effect

?????>>> Explosion>>>Life

^What happened here?

Also i would like to thank you. I was also thinking what if there was no God. But after this im sure thats not possible. Only a few days ago in the car i asked Allah to lead me the right path. And you have helped me do so. Thank you.

[repenter-gone4awhile]

The universe is just there. It exists infinitely. There is no need of a Creator.

This story relates to people like you:

The son of Mary, Jesus, hurries up a slope

as though a wild animal were chasing him.

Someone following him asks, 'Where are you going?

No one is after you.’ Jesus keeps on,

saying nothing, across two more fields. 'Are you

the one who says words over a dead person,

so that he wakes up?’ I am. 'Did you not make

the clay birds fly?' Yes. 'Who then

could possibly cause you to run like this?'

Jesus slows his pace.

I say the Great Name over the deaf and the blind,

they are healed. Over a stony mountainside,

and it tears its mantle down to the navel.

Over non-existence, it comes into existence.

But when I speak lovingly for hours, for days,

with those who take human warmth

and mock it, when I say the Name to them, nothing

happens. They remain rock, or turn to sand,

where no plants can grow. Other diseases are ways

for mercy to enter, but this non-responding

breeds violence and coldness toward God.

I am fleeing from that.

As little by little air steals water, so praise

Is dried up and evaporates with foolish people

who refuse to change. Like cold stone you sit on,

a cynic steals body heat. He doesn't feel

the sun. Jesus wasn't running from actual people.

He was teaching in a new way.

[Seeking Knowledge]

you say the universe was always there (no creator) yet you say God who is the uncreated creater needs a creater. lets say he does. then who created him, and who created the god before and before and so on. it will be a infinite number.

First of all, I asked for a creator of GOD since you seem to attach a creator to everything u see around u. That's it, nothing more did I mean. Yes, of course, if every thing needs a creator then even GOD does, but then, as u said, it leads to infinite GODs, which is a fallacy, my friend; hence, there is no GOD.

athiests believe that the universe had a begining. but no one created that. right? yet you tell us that God needs one.

You are being redundant dude. I attached a cause to GOD in extension of your own argument.

but anyways the begining was the big bang. and with their calculations what was calculated was that life was created RIGHT after the big bang. less than a millisecond after.

That seems like a news to me! Are u a scientist who has a new theory propounding such an idea? No one knows when was life created, although Darwin says that life evolved over a period of billions years.

when you look at a car you think oh ford, chevy, honda, w/e made that car because your mind always thinks something that looks like that needs to be created by someone. yet when you look at the universe, something that has no flaw, and is organized(1000000x more perfect, more organized than a car) and you say "oh that, thats always been there". have you ever looked at a car and say, "has that always been there or did someone create that? did the big bang create that. cmon the big bang created life but not the car WTF!"

Certainly, the big bang did. No doubts about that. What ever u say fails at a point called universe, which is the biggest teacher, since that is eternal; neither it was created nor it will be destroyed. You said there is no flaw in the system..Wait a minute, haven't u seen asteriods trying to hit earth, as it has happened earlier; there are many examples to this.

hey if the big bang created life, which a human can not even get close to make but a human can make a watch, car, house, pencil, etc, yet i havent seen the big bang create either of those VERY EASY things. but if it did create any of those very easy things. i too would be with you(maybe not idk lol)

well thanks for taking your time to read this as it may not be good idk im not that good at these

Praise is due to Allah (swt) the first and the last.

You can not ask a when question about God since he is not subject to time. God is the creator of time itself. Therefore, there is nothing before him, and nothing after him. Therefore, God does not need a creator, since he is the creator of time. There was nothing before him and there will be nothing after him. So your when question can not apply.

Youre making a mistake by making the creator subject to the created. I hardly fault you, all youve ever known is the created and being subject to time and existence. You need to understand that God was there before time and existence. he did not come into existence and time, since he was always there and he is the maker of time and space.

To simplify it to you, since obviously you struggle with this if youre still asking silly childish questions about God:

God................................................ : Time & Existence

Now what came before God if there was nothing except God? This queston does not make any sense since before or after do not even apply, since God is not subjkect to time...since........wait for it...... HE CREATED IT.

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed.

He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

The Creation of the Universe

He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies.

let me know when you have a better question you need answered.

Good day

Edited April 17, 2009 by Seeking Knowledge

[Abu Nur]

There is no need for any creator, as such. The universe is an amalgamation of complex matter and energy and we dont know it fully, although we will one day. The universe is just infinitely old (and I am not predicting future; I am talking about the past) without the need of a creator. Give me any good solid reason with evidence to prove the existence of God; I m sure, you wont be able to. Do all your research and let me know if u have the answer.

(bismillah)

(salam)

By time the concept of the university will change. What you are saying is only a explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. Meaning that the current explanation of universe may be flawed.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Zufa

[SayYaAli]

(bismillah)

The universe had a beginning point. It is not "infinitely old." If it was then we'd already have run out of natural resources. All the evidence points to the universe being like a ticking time bomb which was set millions of years ago and will come to an end.

There was a stimulus causing it to begin.

Why not call that stimulus God?

[Shieflower]

(salam) (bismillah)

Jazak Allah khair for sharing. I will add one more with Your permission Inshallah :

The existence of God

An atheist asked Imam Jafar al Sadiq (as) how could he convince him about the existence of God.

Coming to know that the man had gone several times on sea voyages, the Imam asked him,

"Have you ever been caught in a fierce storm in the middle of nowhere, your rudder gone, your sails

torn away, trying desperately to keep your boat afloat."

The answer was ‘Yes’. Then the Imam asked, "And sometimes, perhaps, even that leaking boat went

down leaving you exhausted and helpless on the mercy of raging waves?" The answer was again ‘Yes’.

Then the Imam (as) asked: "Was not there, in all that black despair, a faint glimmer of hope in your

heart that some unnamed and unknown power could still save you." When he agreed, Imam said:

"That power is God."

That atheist was intelligent. He knew the truth when he saw it. Today's atheist give that place to ‘Nature’.

The only snag is that poor ‘Nature’ is senseless and lifeless. How a senseless and lifeless idea

(because nature is no more than an abstract idea) could create an universe of such magnitude with such a systematic

perfection, uniting millions and millions of galaxies in a well-knit system? How could nature give life and sense to creatures

when itself has none?

Ref : http://www.shiaportal.com/old/topics/artic...ISLAMzAllah.htm

[wakeup007]

i was hoping he would reply :( . it was fun

[Shahzwar]

Today, in many local and foreign press and media organs, an evolutionary propaganda is in play either

directly or covertly. Sometimes in the form of a flash news, this sometimes takes the form of a few

sentences referred to in between the lines of a totally irrelevant subject. The important thing is to keep the

subject always on the agenda and to impose on people as if the theory of evolution is an indisputable fact,

the truth of which has been proved over and again.

In truth, it is not difficult to understand the real purpose of this campaign. That ideological rather than

scientific concerns lie behind the theory of evolution became self-evident the first time the theory was

advanced by Darwin. Darwin’s evolutionary theses provided considerable support for materialism. The

founder of dialectic materialism, Karl Marx, dedicated his famous book Das Kapital to Darwin and he

noted in the copy he sent to him: From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin.

Thereafter, although it has been put forward many times over that the theory of evolution has no ground

whatsoever, many political and ideological trend crowned the idea of evolution. The theoreticians and

advocators of such ideologies as fascism, savage capitalism, communism, which rest on materialism and

anti-religionist grounds engaged in a race to keep the theory of evolution upstanding at all costs, and they

have based their philosophical arguments absolutely on evolutionist foundations.

For this reason, in this booklet where we reviewed the Qur’an, the main source of religion, and the divine

knowledge communicated in the Qur’an, we felt the need to dwell upon the propaganda of evolution and

the theory of evolution which has turned out to become an ideological campaign directed to religion. In

the following pages, we will very shortly explain why the theory of evolution is an ideological dogma

having no scientific validity.

The Development Of The Theory Of Evolution

The person, who originally put forward the theory of evolution, essentially in the form that it is defended

today, was an amateur English biologist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin first published his

ideas in a book entitled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. In this book, Darwin

explained the evolution of living beings with a thesis he called natural selection.

According to him, all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by

means of natural selection. Those that best adapted to the habitat transferred their traits to subsequent

generations, and by accumulating over great epochs, these advantageous qualities transformed individuals

into totally different species from their ancestors. The human being was thus the most developed product

of the mechanism of natural selection. Darwin thought that he discovered the origin of species: The origin

of one species was another species.

The Level Of Science And Technology In Darwin’s Time

Darwin’s fanciful ideas seemed reasonable and attractive to many at the first look. His book was highly

promoted by certain ideological and political circles. The theory became very popular. The main reason

was that the level of knowledge of those days was not yet sufficient to reveal that Darwin’s imaginary

scenarios were false. When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology,

and biochemistry did not yet exist. If the laws of inheritance and the structure of chromosomes had been

discovered, Darwin might never have attempted his claim of the transition of acquired physical traits to

succeeding generations which he inherited from Lamarck.

Similarly, the world of science in those days had a very shallow and crude understanding of the structure

and functions of the cell. If Darwin had the chance to view the cell with an electron microscope, he would

have witnessed the great complexity and extraordinary structure in the organelles of the cell. He would

have beheld with his own eyes that it would not be possible for such an intricate and complex system to

occur through minor variations. If he had known about bio-mathematics, then he would have realised that

not even a single protein molecule, let alone a whole cell, could not have come into existence by chance.

If the above mentioned sciences had been discovered before Darwin put forward his theory, Darwin might

easily have recognised that his theory was totally unscientific and thus would not have attempted to

advance such meaningless claims: the information determining species already exists in the genes and it is

impossible for natural selection to produce new species by altering genes.

While the echoes of Darwin’s book reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel

discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Although little known before the end of the century, Mendel’s

discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s with the birth of the science of genetics. Some time

later, the structures of genes and chromosomes were discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA

molecule, which incorporates genetic information, threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis.

Besides all these scientific developments, no transitional forms, which were supposed to show the gradual

evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species, have ever been found despite years of

search. Even this alone proved that the event called evolution could never have taken place.

These developments ought to have resulted in Darwin’s theory being banished to the dustbin of history.

However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a

scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lie ideological

intentions rather than scientific concerns.

No Mark Of Intermediate Forms

The theory of evolution argues that the evolution of a species into another species takes place gradually,

step-by-step over millions of years. According to this view, transition from the primitive living being to

the complex one covers a long time span and progresses in stages. The natural logical inference drawn

from such a claim is that monstrous living organisms called transitional forms should have lived during

these periods of transformation.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian

traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Of there should have existed some reptile-birds, which

acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since evolutionists allege that

all living things evolved from each other step-by-step, the number and variety of these transitional forms

should have been in the millions.

If such creatures had really lived, then we should see their remains everywhere. In fact, if this thesis is

correct, the number of intermediate transitional forms should be even greater than the number of animal

species alive today and their fossilised remains should be abundant all over the world. Evolutionists have

been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the

world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered for almost 150 years.

Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his greatest hope that

they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his

theory was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere

see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species

being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms

must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of

the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we

not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite

confounded me.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species,

London: Senate Press, 1995, p. 134

Since Darwin, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and the result has been for them a crushing

disappointment. Nowhere in the world neither on land nor in the depths of the sea has any intermediate

transitional form between any two species ever been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations

showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fullyformed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead uncovered the evidence of the fact of

Creation by their own hands.

The problem bothered other evolutionists as well. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits

this embarrassing fact:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders

or of species, we find over and over again not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of

one group at the expense of another.

(Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Fossil Record,

Proceedings of the British Geological Association,

Vol 87, 1976, p. 133)

The gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained away by the wishful thinking that not enough fossils

have yet been unearthed and that these missing fossils will one day be found. Another evolutionist

paleontologist, T. Neville George, explains the reason:

There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it

has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil

record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.

(T. Neville George, Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,

Science Progress, Vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3)

Life Emerged On Earth Suddenly

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is seen that living organisms appeared

simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that

of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 530-520 million years.

Living creatures that are found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged in the fossil record

all of a sudden without any pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to

snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. The vast

mosaic of living organisms, made up of such great numbers of complex creatures, emerged so suddenly

that this miraculous event is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion in scientific literature.

Most of the organisms found in this stratum have highly advanced organs like eyes, or systems seen in

organisms with a highly advanced organisation such as gills, circulatory systems, and so on. There is no

sign in the fossil record to indicate that these organisms had any ancestors. Richard Monestarsky, the

editor of Earth Sciences magazine, states about the sudden emergence of living species:

A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly

appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years

ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex

creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and

they were as distinct from each other then as they are today.

(Richard Monastersky, Mysteries of the Orient,

Discover, April 1993, p. 40)

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced

forms as evolution asserts, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. Put shortly, living

beings did not come into existence through evolution, they were created.

Life Is Too Complex To Have Been Formed By Chance

In fact, the theory of evolution collapses way before the stage of the fossil record. This is because fossils

are marks left behind by multi-celled complex living beings. Evolution, on the other hand, is desperate in

the face of the question how the first cell, and more, how the first protein has come into existence, let

alone explaining the origin of multi-celled complex living beings.

The theory of evolution holds that life started with a cell that formed by chance under primitive earth

conditions. It is actually sufficient to have just some basic knowledge about the composition of the cell to

understand how irrational it is to ascribe the existence of the cell ñ a structure which still maintains its

mystery in many respects, even at a time when we have just set foot in the 21

st

century ñ to natural

phenomena and coincidences.

Far from being formed under primitive earth conditions, the cell, which with its organelles and

mechanisms is extremely complex, cannot be synthesised in even the most sophisticated laboratories of

our day. Even with the use of amino acids, the building blocks of the cell, it is not possible to produce so

much as a single organelle of the cell, such as mitochondria or ribosome, much less a whole cell. The first

cell claimed to have been produced by evolutionary coincidence is as much a figment of the imagination

and a product of fantasy as the unicorn.

Proteins Challenge Coincidence

And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under natural conditions, of even a single

protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up a cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain

quantities and structures. These molecules constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is

composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids.

The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein in living cells,

each of which has a particular function, causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Incapable

of demonstrating the accidental formation of amino acids, the theory of evolution founders on the point of

the formation of proteins.

We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the

functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.

The amino acids of an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, which are made up

of 12 different types, can be arranged in 10

300

(1 followed by 300 zeros) different ways. Of all of these

possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either

completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is 1

in 10

300

The probability of this 1 occurring out of an astronomical number consisting of 1 followed by .

300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino

acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of

amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that

even the word impossible becomes inadequate.

When we proceed one step further in the development scheme of life, we observe that one protein alone

means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma Hominis H 39,

contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have

made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the

concept of impossibility.

To Accept The Impossible

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more

impossible for approximately one million of those proteins to come together by chance in an organised

fashion and make up a complete human cell. Moreover, a cell is not merely a collection of proteins. In

addition to proteins, cells also include nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other

chemicals such as electrolytes, all of which are arranged harmoniously and with design in specific

proportions, both in terms of structure and function. Each functions as a building block or component in

various organelles.

As we have seen, with its sole explanation of coincidence theory, evolution is unable to explain the

formation of even a single protein out of the millions in the cell, let alone explain the cell.

Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry from the U.S.A., states:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple

random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to

believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder

with a master plan would be required for such a task.

(J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith.

Abilene, TX, ACU Press, 1988. P. 81-82)

Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book

Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of

Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:

The probability of providing the particular amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as

unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter ñ

taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.

(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim, Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61)

Well, is it not against reason to accept this nonsensical probability? Yes, it indeed is, but evolutionist

scientists still accept this impossible. Ali Demirsoy explains why:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if

life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised

once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition

should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of

science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.

(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim, Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61)

The above lines may also be read as follows: The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C

sequence is zero. However, if we say that it did not form by coincidence, then we have to accept that we

have been created which means our confirmation of Allah’s being. This is not appropriate to our goals.

As seen, the theory of evolution collapses even at its first step, but some scientists who know that this

theory is the only alternative to creation, who have adopted the refusal of creation as a purpose for

themselves dogmatically embrace the theory.

The Complexity Of The Cell

As what we have examined so far reveals, the problem of the sequence of amino acids and the formation

of proteins are enough to invalidate the scenario of evolution. However, the problem does not end with

amino acids and proteins. These are only a beginning. Essentially, the perfect structure of cell presents a

giant impasse for evolutionists. This is because the cell is not a heap made up of amino-acid structured

proteins. It is a living entity with hundreds of developed systems, the secrets of which have still not been

entirely disclosed to man. However, as we have just stated, let alone this systems, evolutionists are even

unable to explain how the building blocks of the cell are formed.

The renowned British mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle confesses this fact in one of his

statements published in Nature magazine dated November 12, 1981.

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the

chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the

materials therein.

(Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, Vol 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105)

DNA: The Book Of Life

The examination of not the whole cell, but even the DNA, which is a part in its nucleus; we easily

understand why evolution is a falsehood.

DNA was not known in Darwin’s time. The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent

explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in

the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new

problems for the theory of evolution.

In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in

biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research,

scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.

Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure and function of DNA:

The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body,

contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics

of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by

means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special

bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial

letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence

of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA

molecule.

The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called genes.

For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the

heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of

these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential

arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.

At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a

gene renders the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the

human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these

genes to form by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on

this impossibility by saying:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this

would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a

DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4

1000

forms. Using a little algebra

(logarithms), we can see that 4

1000

=10

600

Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the .

figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.

(Frank B. Salisbury, Doubts about the modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,

American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336)

The number 4

1000

is equivalent to 10

600

We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 .

zeros indicate a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.

Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:

In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA)

is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein

chain are astronomic.

(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution),

Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39)

The Theory Of Evolution Has Basically Collapsed

As clearly seen from what has been told so far, the theory of evolution is a theory that fails at its very core.

The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the origin of a single protein that is necessary

for life, or how a living cell is protected under primitive atmosphere conditions without being damaged.

Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous

formation of a protein molecule.

It is very interesting that wile not being unable to explain the formation of only one of the millions of

proteins essential for a living cell, evolutionists were able to fabricate many false scenarios such as

transition from water to land, from land to air, and from ape to man. By covering the question of the

formation of life, to which they actually have to find an answer, they have built a giant wreckage with

such baseless fabrications. They wanted to erect a baseless building on this wreckage, yet despite their

best efforts, they could not help suffering under the wreckage of this building.

Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions

of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells

managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated

fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of

different species on earth were formed?

Even if it does not seem logical to you, evolutionists do believe this fable.

However, it is merely a belief nor rather a faith because they do not have even a single piece of evidence

to verify their story.

Today, it is not possible to form a living cell from inanimate matters in the high-tech laboratories, with the

supervision of the most distinguished scientists, with the most expensive equipment. Let aside the cell, it

is not possible to obtain even the proteins in the cell under a controlled laboratory environment with the

same productiveness and success as the living cell has. To put forward that these structures form by

coincidence is surely an unreasonable claim. The fact that life is created is very plain.

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra

Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life

had emerged as a result of chance coincidences:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that

science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be

painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view

which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the

only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling.

(Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express,

August 14, 1981)

Darwinian Formula

The truth so being, let us now for once, examine what kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with an

example so simple as to be understood even by children:

Evolutionary theory asserts that life is formed by chance. According to this claim, inorganic and

unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they somehow formed other living things,

including man. Let us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the building-blocks

of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what

treatments it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us

formulate an experiment on this subject and let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really

claim without pronouncing loudly under the name Darwinian formula:

Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living beings such as phosphorus,

nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels

any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but they think as necessary. Let them add in this

mixture as many amino acids which have no possibility of forming under natural conditions and as many

proteins a single one of which has a formation probability of 10

-950

as they like. Let them expose these

mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically

developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts

wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of

conditions they believe to be necessary for a human’s formation. No matter what they do, they cannot

produce from these barrels a human, say a professor that examines his cell structure under the electron

microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies,

carnations, bananas, oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes, peaches,

peafowls, pheasants, multicoloured butterflies, or millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed,

they could not obtain even a single cell of any one of them.

Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form the cell by coming together. They cannot take a new decision

and divide this cell into two, then take other decisions and create the professors who first invent the

electron microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Matter is an

unconscious, lifeless heap, and it comes to life with Allah’s superior creation.

Evolutionary theory, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy completely contrary to reason. Thinking

even a little bit on the claims of the evolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.

Blind Materialism

The coincidences of evolution place atoms to such a stand that atoms supposedly form the human eye and

open up to a luminous, three dimensioned, five sensed world from inside this pitch dark heap. This is such

a world that even the technology of the 21

st

century has not attained the image and sound quality of these

atoms that came alive by chance. It is so much so that even if you bring the most developed sound

techniques together, you will see that they have a far more primitive quality than the human ear. Even if

you put together the most developed image techniques, you will not be able to achieve the image quality

of the eye.

When it is clear that all these technological products are brought about not by coincidences, but by the

conscious designs of conscious engineers, it would be nonsense to defend that living mechanism far more

complex than these have come about by coincidences. For every design proves a designer. Evolution does

not want to see the great design in nature, because to accept the Creator, that is, Allah, Who has brought

this design into existence conflicts with the prejudices and ideologies of evolutionists.

The basis of all these ideologies is the philosophy known as materialism. Materialist philosophy is the

thought holding that matter is not created, that it has been existing since eternity and there is no reality but

matter. It is extremely opposed to the belief in Allah and religion. This is not science but a philosophy.

Evolutionists are dedicated not to science but to this materialist philosophy and they distort science to suit

to this philosophy. A well known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from

Harvard University, confesses this concrete fact:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material

explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori

adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that

produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to

the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in

the door.

(Richard Lewontin, The Demon-Haunted World,

The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

The Biggest Obstacle To Evolution: Soul

There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living

beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not

surprise anyone.

The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest

sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the

superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros

also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an

evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the

grounds of that resemblance.

Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if

level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of

the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer

to man. They are even superior in some aspects.

There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere outward resemblance. An ape is

an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a

conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are

the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a

huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any

other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.

Allah Creates According To His Will

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is

that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a

result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each

progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that

those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.

If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be

remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that

this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no

alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the

entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a

physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and

formed the land animals, for such a transition. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land

and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of

making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word be. Any other explanation for such a

miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.

The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in

turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge,

and intelligence.

That Creator is Allah, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

[A true Sunni]

sometimes proving the existence of God to an entrenched atheist is very difficult and sometimes fortuitously it is very simple. I was on a flight that was coming into land at an airport and it was a very turbulent landing. My manager a confirmed hardcore atheist was seated next to me. I glanced over at him as the plane shook and tilted as it came into land. He had gone pale and his knuckles were drained of blood from gripping the arm rests so tightly. He was terrified and i was worried to put it mildly.

After we landed I looked at him and said 'dont deny that even you offered up a prayer God ' that we landed safely. To his credit he never denied muttering up a few prayers even though we ribbed him about it may times. He found God but didnt find religion.

[Jenna]

subhanallah, its amazing how great our Imams are. We know nothing compared to their knowledge

[Renaissance_Man]

There is no need for any creator, as such. The universe is an amalgamation of complex matter and energy and we dont know it fully, although we will one day. The universe is just infinitely old (and I am not predicting future; I am talking about the past) without the need of a creator. Give me any good solid reason with evidence to prove the existence of God; I m sure, you wont be able to. Do all your research and let me know if u have the answer.

Here's something to consider. If the universe was eternal, matter would not be subject to change. But we know that matter does change into energy. We also know that at some point in time, before the big bang and the creation of time, matter did not exist and was created. Something that changes or varies logically cannot be eternal. Otherwise there would be no big bang and the universe would have existed forever, and could be incapable of being changed. Matter is therefore contingent and it needs a cause or external agent to bring it into existence. This is why a creator or first cause is needed for the universe. And since we are on the subject of Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq (as), let me share another hadith on the same subject by him:

http://al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part3/part3-ch1.htm

H 210, Ch. 1, h 2

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from Muhammad ibn Ali from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn abu Hashim from Ahmad ibn Muhsin al-Maythami who said that I was with abu Mansur al-Mutatbbib who said the following.

"One of my friends has said that he was with ibn abu al-‘Awja’ and ‘Abdallah ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the holy Mosque of Makkah and ibn al-Muqaffa‘ said, "Do you see these creatures, pointing towards the location where people walk seven times around the Kabah‘? Of all these no one deserves to be called a human being accept that Shaikh sitting there, meaning thereby Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.). The rest is garble and beasts." Upon this ibn abu al-‘Awja’ said, "For what reason do you call him a human being and not the rest?" Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then replied, "Because I saw with him what I did not see with the others." Ibn abu al-"Awja’ then said, "We must test your claim." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then said, "I advise you not to do so lest you will lose whatever faith you have. Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then said, "I do not think that is what you mean. I think you are afraid of failing to substantiate what you have just said about this man." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then said, "If that is what you think then go to him and protect yourself as much as you can. Be strong as much as you can so you are not harnnessed and note all points against and in your favor. Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then left and ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and I remained there. When ibn abu al-‘Awja’ returned he said, "Woe is you, O ibn al-Muqaffa‘. This is not a human being even though he lives in this world. He is a spiritual being but appears in the form of man whenever he wants the out world and turns into a spiritual being whenever he wants the inner world. That is the way he is." Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ then asked, "How does that happen?" Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ then said, "I sat near him and when everyone had gone he turned to me and said, "If it is the way they (people walking around the Ka‘bah) say, which is true then they are saved and you are destroyed. If it is the way you say it is, which is not so then you and they are all equal." I then asked, "May Allah be kind to you. What is it that we say and what is it that they say? We all say the same thing." He said, "How can what you say be equal to what they say? They say that they will have a return, a day of receiving their rewards and penalties. They believe in a religion which says that in the heavens is the Lord and that they are habitable while you say that they are in ruins and there is nothing in them."Ibn abu al-‘Awja’ has said, "I then found the opportunity to speak and I asked, "What then keeps this Lord, if it is true the way they say that He exists, from appearing to His creatures and call them to His worship so that no two people would oppose each other? Why is He hiding from them and has only sent messengers? If He would have been in direct contact with them it would have been more helpful to have faith in Him." He then responded, "Woe is you, how someone who is already shown His power within you is hiding from you? He brought you up. You did not even exist. He made you grow when you were so small. He gave you strength and power when you were so weak and will make you weak again after being strong. He make you sick after being healthy and can give you good health after suffering sickness. He can make you happy after you experience anger and make you angry after being happy. He can make you sad after your joy and give you joy after sadness. He can give love after your experiencing hatred and hatred after enjoying love. He can give you determination after your uncertainty and uncertainty after having determination. He can give you strong desires after your experiencing dislike and dislike after having strong desires. He can give you willingness after experiencing fear and concerns and fear after having strong willingness. He can give you hope after despair and despair after having a great deal of hope. He can give you good remembrance of what you had no idea and remove what you may have had as a belief." He kept reminding and counting for me the effects of His power within my soul that I could not deny and I begin to have a feeling that all that is between me and him will all appear in the open."

From the same source the following is narrated from a number of our people in a Marfu‘ manner as additional statements to the above discourse of ibn abu al-‘Awja’ with Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.). That abu al-‘Awja’ came the next day to the meeting of the Imam and sat down quietly. The Imam (a.s.) said to him, "Would you like to review the issues we discussed yesterday?" He replied, "I did intend to do so, O son of the messenger of Allah." The Imam then said, "It is strange that one who does not believe in Allah acknowledges the existence of the messenger of Allah." He replied, "It is only the habit that made me say so." The ‘Alim (the Imam) then asked, "What is it that keeps you quite?" He replied, "It is your excellence and awesome spiritual ability that hold my tongue back from speaking. I have seen many scholars and have debated many theologians but I never experienced such an awesome feeling from them as I feel in your presence." The Imam then said, " It may happen. I would like to open this session with a question to you. The Imam turned to him and asked, "Are you created or uncreated?" ‘Abdul Karim ibn abu al-‘Awja’ answered, " I am uncreated." The ‘Alim then asked him, "Describe for us then, how you might have been if you were created." ‘Abdal Karim remained quiet and confused and began to scribble scrabble with a piece of wood, saying, long, wide, deep, short, moving and motionless all these are the qualities of His creatures." The ‘Alim (Imam) then said, "If you do not know anything other than these as the qualities of the creation then consider yourself a creature because that is what you find within yourself that take place and come into existence." ‘Abdal Karim then said, "You have asked me a question that no one before had ever asked and no one ever would ask afterwards." Abu ‘Abdallah then said, "It is fine. I noticed that you did not ask any thing in the time past but how would you know that you will not ask any thing in future? Besides, O ‘Abdal Karim, what you said is against your notion that from the beginning all things are equal. How then you made them before and after? The Imam then said, "O ‘Abdal Karim let me explain it for you. Suppose if you had a bag with you full of pearls and someone asked you, "Is there a Dinar in your bag?" You then denied and said, "No, there is no Dinar in my bag." The person then said, "Alright, then describe for me the qualities of the Dinar but you had no knowledge of the qualities of the Dinar. Could you deny the existence of the Dinar that was from the bag but you did not know about it?" he replied, "No, I would not deny." The Imam then said, "The world is bigger, taller and wider than a bag. Perhaps in the world there is a creature as such that you do not know in whose case you would not be able to tell the qualities of the created from the non-created." ‘Abdal Karim remained quiet but some of his people agreed to accept Islam and a few of them remained.

He came again to the meeting of the Imam on the third day and said, "I like to reverse the question." The Imam replied, "Ask whatever you like." He then asked, "What is the proof that bodies did not exist and then they came into existence?" The Imam then said, "I have not seen anything small or large that on adding to it something of the same size would not make it bigger and in this there is a change and transformation from the first condition. If it, however, would have been eternal, there would have been no changing and transformation. What may cease to exist or change it may come into existence and may get destroyed, thus, with its existence after its none existence is entering into the state of coming into being and as being eternal this will take it into nothingness but the two qualities of being eternal and nothingness and the qualities of a contingent and something without a beginning in one thing do come together." ‘Abdal Karim then said, "Suppose, I noticed that with a view to the two conditions you mentioned you considered it a proof of their contingency. If, however, things would remain small, despite the addition, then how would you prove their contingency?" The ‘Alim then said, "We speak of this universe that is already there. Were we to take it away and place another universe in its place nothingness would have, certainly, been a stronger proof of its contingency than its removal and its replacing with a different one. I, however, will answer you according to your assumption. If things would still remain small but it would certainly come into one’s thinking that whenever something like it added to another thing it then would be bigger. The fact that it can change is proof of its becoming temporal and in its changing condition is proof of its contingency. There is nothing beyond it for you, O ‘Abdal Karim. ‘Abdal Karim had nothing else to say.

Next year he met the Imam (a.s.) in Makkah again and people from his followers said that ‘Abdal Karim has become a Muslim. The Imam told him that ‘Abdal Karim was blind in this matter and would not become a Muslim. When he saw the ‘Alim he said, "My master, my chief!" The ‘Alim then asked him, "What brings you here?" He then replied, "It is the habits of the body and the traditions of the town to see what craziness makes them shave and throw pebbles." The ‘Alim said, "It seems that you still live in your arrogance and misguidance, O ‘Abdal Karim." He began to speak but the Imam said, "Disputation during Hajj is not permissible. The Imam freed his gown from the hand of the heretic man and said, "If it is the way you say and it is not true, then we as well as you are all saved. However, if it is the way we say and it is true we are saved but you are destroyed." ‘Abdal Karim then turned to his people saying, "I feel pain in my heart. Take me back. They took him away and he died.

[Kamranistan]

JazakAllah khair for this

[ali_ghaida]

If all the holes in science are filled, we still know that God must exist because science is merely a chain of causes and effects. The number of scientific laws which this chain is made up of must be limited because an infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible. If there is going to be a race with infinite people and person A starts when person B starts and person B starts when person C starts and so on, the race would never start. Thus, if we start from biology and go down the chain of cause and effect we will be led into chemistry, and finally into physics. Eventually we will reach a wall at which the chain ends. The end of the chain has causes which are not effects of any other causes. That being said, where did these primary laws of science come from? Scientists conclude that they were created instantly at plank’s wall (at 10^-43 seconds of time). These primary laws cause a cascade of causes and effects which constitutes physics, which leads to chemistry, which leads to biology, which leads to our complex anatomy; how is it possible that these perfect laws came from nothing without an intelligent Creator? The belief in God does not hinge on the fact that there are unexplainable factors in science, but instead on the fact that there is a necessity of an Intelligent First Cause who created these laws of science. When dealing with the origins of science, two questions arise: Where did these laws come from, and who or what designed them. God is the only explanation for both of these questions because science cannot be the cause of its own origin. Such an assertion would constitute a circular chain of cause and effect which is logically impossible. If there was a race between person A, B and C: A starts when B starts, B starts when C starts, and C starts when A starts, the race would never start because A has to be running (exist) to be the starting point of B and at the same time be motionless (nonexistent) to be started (created) by C. This would make A running (existent) and motionless (nonexistent) at the same time.

Religion answers questions that are outside the scope of science, for example, what is the First Cause that created and sustains all the laws of science. Thus, science can never be used to replace the necessity of God because it is not absolute. Science consists of a group of laws that work together to create order and perfection.

Many people have tried to disprove God through the theory of evolution even though this theory does not contradict God’s existence in any way. Unfortunately, even theists feel that they have to disprove evolution in order to prove God’s existence. If animals were, in fact, designed through the process of evolution, God is still the One who created science as a whole in the first place.