Studying Atheism
All discussions on existence of God leads to one single question at the end and that is if the one who’s created and running the universe is the nature law or it is a supreme power outside of the domain of the natural law. The question who’s created the natural law or who’s created God are not relevant as one of them has to be outside of the causal chain of the cause and effect law. What makes it more challenging is the fact that when you check the natural law as an entity against the criteria of concept of God given in Surah Ikhlas it’s hard to find any gaps. Therefore the real question that need to be answered is not whether God or Supreme power exists but it’s whether the supreme power, whoever be it, is interested in humans or not. If yes what is the evidence that it’s communicating with us and it’s not indifferent to whatever we do or whatever is happening to us. This is where Sir Ghamidi reasoning on existence of God helps a lot. The argument is based on witnesses of our innate instinct, history, prophets and rationale. The evidence is far stronger than what is generally needed in a court of law to convict someone of the capital punishment. If you are choosing atheism as a subject, i would suggest you investigate into the above question whether God is indifferent or not rather than whether God exists or not.
@Sid ” laws of nature and Surah Ikhlas” If you take natural laws an entity i.e. an operating system like android or iOS, you can define it using Surah Ikhlas and even other verse like ” no leaf fall but he knows about it ” etc. All of them are as much true for the natural law as for God. For example, God is one so is the natural law as you can’t have two operating systems in your phone concurrently. So it’s hard to refute natural law as God in Islam until it’s proven that the natural law is not conscious and living entity which would be against Quran and therefore it would necessitate existence of a Creator of the natural laws. The only thing that can provide an evidence of whether or not natural law is living and conscious entity is the “intelligent design” or “natural selection” theory. Atheists believe the design part of the creation is also governed by the natural laws and therefore their “God” is the natural law (and therefore the natural law is a conscious being and we can’t refute it as Quran is not very clear on this to my limited knowledge). Although we believe there is a Creator of natural laws and He is the one who decides what to create using the natural laws and that’s our God yet there is no evidence that He is the same or separate entity from the natural laws. The only difference (that matters) we have with atheist is that whether “God” (no matter which one) is interested in mankind on Earth or not and if He is how he interacts with us. The only answer i can think of is that God communicates with us through ideas, dreams and revelations (or may be miracles). None of them fall in the domain of physical science and therefore here your innate belief come handy to decide what you want to believe in. Those who do not acknowledge the innate instinct can never agree with us. “There’s no such thing as law of cause and effect” This is something new to me and that might be because i have some serious gaps in my knowledge for my random learning habits instead of taking a complete course. Please share some video or Wikipedia links. “there is no such thing as cause n effect” at macro level kills the premise of the argument of existence of God in Quran as I understand it.
That’s not how natural selection works. But this is your opinion and I respect that.
Yes sure, Farahi sahab’s Hujjajul Quran will be a great resource. I just checked and Sajid Hameed sahab’s course on this book is available for free on Youtube . Meezan has no jurisprudence (fiqh) in it. Qanon-e-Muasharat is part of law (sharia). Even if discussions of law do not interest you, it might still be a useful exercise to go through them in order to understand Islam’s overall ideology. In my opinion laws really drive the point across in understanding the wisdom of the Quran. Fitrah is just natural human disposition. It encompasses the very nature of human beings, so trying to prove it through science, in my opinion, is an inessential exercise. We don’t attain anything useful in using science to prove that a watermelon is a watermelon. In such cases empirical evidence is sufficient enough, which within itself is the basis of science.
Yes you didn’t but that’s the analogy u use Twins in the womb is also false analogy, implying they only know the mother once outside the womb meaning we can only know God when we go outside the world (after death) I agree, thank you for your time and effort. My aim is to understand atheism at it roots and, with this discussion, I hope u can see that God can’t be proven to a theist (myself) let alone an atheist Apologize for any words that may have bothered u in any way