Islam Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Muslims, experts in Islam, and those interested in learning more about Islam. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Can a Muslim prove to an atheist or an infidel that God actually exists?

As far as I know most atheists will argue that since they can't hear, see or feel God then He doesn't exist.

share|improve this question
This question is one of the necessary questions a daa'ee must be able to answer. It must not have been closed. – Tabrez Ahmed Jun 25 '12 at 15:50
An atheist will not argue that lack of evidence proves God does not exist. He will argue that lack of evidence means one cannot prove he does exist. There is a very important and significant difference between the two. – Flimzy Jun 25 '12 at 16:13
Doesn't the Qur'an contains science ahead of that time? ...Which has been discounted by some because they argue that "the Prophet (PBUH) was a merchant and by travelling, he was able to gather a vast amount of knowledge, was educated, could write poetry, etc". – Mateen Ulhaq Jun 25 '12 at 20:21
I request all to read this article:… – Tabrez Ahmed Oct 8 '12 at 17:52

11 Answers 11

up vote 30 down vote accepted

If there was a clearcut incontrovertible proof that was acceptable to everybody (like say a mathematical proof) then this life wouldn't be a test. It wouldn't be a test of someone's submission to God, it would be a test of whether they have the brains to accept logic or not. And the whole point of this life is to test whether we are humble and accepting of God's Lordship over us, or whether we are arrogant and reject and deny Him. So my contention is that such a proof cannot exist. God says that if He had wanted, everyone would have believed. This is one such way of having everyone believe - but then what's the point?

Then the question becomes - what kind of proof does exist? And before we get into that, we have to take a step back and define the parameters of what constitutes proof. In the scientific world (and this is perfectly fine) it requires physically proving something. It requires a hypothesis and then an experiment to falsifiably prove something (vastly oversimplifying here). So the only evidence considered in scientific experiments is somewhat restricted.

The problem comes when one tries to take the scientific method and apply it to things it wasn't meant for, like philosophy or religion. In Islam we accept divine revelation as a source of proof as well because we believe in the truthfulness of the Messenger (saws) to deliver the message of God.

Even if you don't believe in divine revelation, the Qur'an itself commands humans to ponder over Creation and to reflect over it, and to let that guide them to Allah. It even provides arguments against atheists. For example, in Surat Toor and other places. There is another place where Allah offers 4 possibilities for the provenance of Creation - will update the answer if I find it.

Lastly, if you apply Bayes Rule to find the probability that everything came into being just on its own and try to find the posterior probability of every single coincidence and complexity and start multiplying them together, you have a vanishing probability of everything just happening on its own. You can make it as small as you like when you keep adding events to the chain. This is a probabilistic proof so it doesn't count as an absolute proof.

share|improve this answer
+1, I request a further reading. – Tabrez Ahmed Oct 8 '12 at 17:54
That never satisfies an atheist. How can you believe in anything without evidence? That even goes against many Quranic verses that invites us to reason and reflection! But for a brief critique of your position, an evidence doesn't have to be physical. Logical arguments are made to prove things that are not directly observable. And through logical arguments theist philosophers since Aristotle onward, have attempted to come up with logical proofs for God. – infatuated Feb 3 '14 at 17:14
But the most advanced, logically valid argument is "the Argument of the Sincere" by Mulla Sadra, the 16th century most prominent Persian, Shiite philosopher. I may attempt to summarize his argument in a separate answer or find an scholarly article on it – infatuated Feb 3 '14 at 17:14
This is more a Christian view!! not Islamic. – azerafati Apr 29 '14 at 5:02
Bludream, why do you say this is a Christian view and not Islamic? – Umar Farooq Khawaja Jun 3 '14 at 3:03

وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَنظُرُ إِلَيْكَ ۚ أَفَأَنتَ تَهْدِي الْعُمْيَ وَلَوْ كَانُوا لَا يُبْصِرُونَ

And among them are those who look at you. But can you guide the blind although they will not see? (10:43)

The best thing you can do is to convey Allah's message and stay back.

share|improve this answer

This is not directly a continuation of my previous post, hence, a new post:

First. Can an atheist proves that God doesn't exist? No! How can then they conclude "if there is no proof for existence of God so there is no God"? At least they should consider both the probabilities that God exists and God doesn't exist. Even this much honesty will change their ways of living entirely.

Second. See if these two proofs suffice:

  1. Divide all existences in two classes, those which are dispensable and those which are indispensable. Define a dispensable existence as an existence that may or may not exist, so needs a cause for its existence, and an indispensable existence as an existence that is impossible to not exist and so needs no cause for its existence (if it needed then the absence of cause would have meant into its nonexistence which is contrary to its definition). All that we need to do is to prove the set of indispensable existences is not empty and has at least one element that belongs to the set. Obviously ourselves and anything that we know anything about in this universe would belong to the set of dispensable existences. An atheist will easily accept this since the whole science is working by studying the causes and what they cause. Now let only mention that if an existence A is cause of another existence B it is impossible that B is also cause of A, or if a gathering of existences A is the cause of another gathering of existences B it is impossible that B is also cause of A. Now obviously if we add a third existence C or a third gathering of existences C in the loop the loop would be still impossible, that is, the loop A -> B -> C -> A would be still impossible. Now consider the set of all dispensable existences and study the set as a whole. No close causality loop is possible inside this set and at least one outsider cause is required for the whole set of dispensable existences to become existed. This outsider existence which is not a dispensable existence has no other way than to be an indispensable existence. Hence the proof is complete. Now we should prove its uniqueness that is the set of all indispensable existences should be proved that is a singleton, a set with only one element inside it. It is already clear as by definition an indispensable existence cannot be limited and if there are two of them this would be a limit for their existences. Meanwhile an indispensable existence should have existed eternally in the past and future with no change, has no part and is not compound as is yet obvious from the definition. The proof above is an altered version of Sinawi reasoning (برهان سینوی), belonging to Avicenna.

  2. We should distinguish between two notions, the very existence and the qualities of existences. What causality talk about is only the quality of existence, if the cause for existence of something alters the quality of existence of the result alters, nothing happens about the existence itself which has been eternally the same in past and future. Also there is nothing that can help distinguish between different existences, I mean the very notion of existence itself. The existence is simply the same for everything that exists and this defines the notion of "uniqueness of the existence" which is then called God, a concept which is not compound and have no change with time and can never become nonexistence. In the above reasoning that is called the reasoning of the truthfuls and was originated by Mulla Sadra God is proved by only Himself. According to this reasoning God exists and is unique is proved as obvious as soon as we identify that something, anything, exist! More complete versions of this reasoning can be found in the link addressed above, it is too lengthily for me to translate it here.

Also there are other reasonings in Shia literature, but the two above should suffice God Willing, specifically the first one I guess.

share|improve this answer

As others have stated the Quran's perspective seems to be that even the Prophet himself (let alone an ordinary Muslim) cannot guide another person independent of how much effort he puts into it and this includes providing a "proof" (verse 28:56):

إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and it is He who best knows the guided ones.

Or in verses 2:6 2:7 it says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ * خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ ۖ وَعَلَىٰ أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Regarding those who disbelieved, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. * God hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

(It is very interesting to me since this seems to be very similar to what you described in the question, i.e. "they can't hear, see or feel God" though Quran doesn't mean the usual senses by these.)

On the other hand, Quran says that there is no doubt that God exists, e.g. verse 14:10 says:

قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِيَغْفِرَ لَكُم مِّن ذُنُوبِكُمْ وَيُؤَخِّرَكُمْ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى قَالُوا إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا تُرِيدُونَ أَن تَصُدُّونَا عَمَّا كَانَ يَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا فَأْتُونَا بِسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ

Their messengers said: "Is there a doubt about God, the fissioner of the skies and the earth? He invites you to forgive you from your sins and give you respite till a named term." They said: "Are ye more than humans like ourselves?! Ye wish to turn us away from [what] our fathers used to worship! Bring us a clear proof!"

(The following verses contains the reply given by the prophets to them.)

So from Quran's perspective there is no doubt about the existence of the God who has created the earth and the skies.

(Usually people don't have much problem with accepting some force that has caused the universe to exist as long as it is something abstract. I should add that the recent forms of atheism might be a little bit different from the old ones since the new atheists feel they have reasonable ways of explaining how universe become to exist without anything before it but this will go beyond what is asked in the question.)

share|improve this answer

Firstly all who reject existence of God do not know what is God. God is not a man in sky. God is not material at all. Using "he" for God does not mean he is a man. But it is only to we can communicate and talk about God. Maybe reading sermon 1 here is a good start to know what is God.

Here is a wonderful debate Imam Sadiq S.A. taught to Mufaddal to he can argue with Atheists.

This article containing interesting debates about God with some of who reject God is also useful for atheists:

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq's [a] contribution to the sciences

There are many different methods for finding God. Some find God by philosophy. But the better way is seeing and meeting God which in by Irfan method (here and here). This method is very hard but you can spritual things like angels and meet God. Such people have power of miracle and controlling the universe. in fact by this method a human becomes like God and dissolves in God like a drop of water fallen in ocean. They can die whenever they want and go (by their soul) and see what they want like paradise, hell, angels, future, God ,.. Then back to their body in this world. They have servants from Jinn who work for them. Jinns are not limited in time and place and can quickly go from one side of earth to other side and bring news or deliver a letter or do other works. They can go from one place to other place in one moment (by their physical body) using Tay al-Arz power granted by God. Nature is under their control. They can convert a stone to gold only by looking it.

When you meet God then you will not need proof for its existence.

Method of Irfan is very difficult and in fact few can practice it to final steps. although many claim to practices this method successfully to collect some followers like most of sufi people.

Mulla Sadra is the great scholar who combined Islamic Philosophy and Islamic Irfan to find and know and meet God. His method is known as "the four travels" which is the name of his book in this subject. Most of current twelver shia scholars use this method to meet God. also many of scholars can not understand what he says and accuse him and who teach his works to apostasy because who finds powers of Intuition in Irfan can see spiritual things like angels, other universes, can see future or other things never seen in our physical universe and so who have not seen such things think he is saying nonsense.

Greater than Mulla Sadra is Mir Damad who rare people can understand his books. When Imam Khomeini wanted to teach works of him in Hawzeh for scholars and who study in Hawzeh of Qum saw Mir Damad in dram (maybe Intuition because they usually keep their Intuition power secret and call it only dream) that said: "do not teach my works". Imam Khomeini said I think it was because no one could understand what he says and they will call him and me apostate and will lead in insulting Mir Damad. So I decided teach the "the four travels" (Asfar Arba'e) of Mulla Sadra instead.

In Islamic philosophy only logic and reasoning is used.

These translated book are useful for who is interested:

Our Philosophy

The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message

A History of Muslim Philosophy

however God has promised in Quran:

وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

[29:69] Sahih International

And those who strive for Us - We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good.

This means if an atheist is a real truth seeker and do his strive for finding truth then God will show him some miracles and proofs and evidences to he be guided. But most of atheists I have talked do not have to do ENOUGH research and strive. Internet is full of anti Islam and anti shia websites full of propaganda and claims of refuting everything Islam says. But claim of refute is different of really refuting. All of such so called refute are answered by Islamic scholars but they jump to Google and search and believe the first site they find. Unfortunately websites refuting such refutes have not good SEO!

Anyway finding truth is not easy and needs real strive for it. in fact they are mostly lazy in research and prefer having an enjoyable life and when see a truth do not accept it and find a justification to avoid accepting it and continue their enjoying life.

share|improve this answer

Let me answer this from the position of an atheist, and scientific rationalist that I am.

Can a Muslim prove to an atheist or an infidel that God actually exists?

No, Muslim cannot "prove" to an atheist that the God exists.

The reasons are the following:

  1. The atheist would require the scientific proof, which does not exist

  2. The Islam is entirely based on the personal experiences of the prophet Muhammad, which are unique thus unreproducible. Scientific proof would require the evidence to be independently tested and that means that the evidence first has to be reproduced, which is impossible.

  3. If you are not a scientist, you probably know nothing about the scientific method required for the deed.

As far as I know most atheists will argue that since they can't hear, see or feel God then He doesn't exist.

There are many things that we cannot hear (we do not hear ultrasound, yet we use it to examine the baby in mother's womb), see (we do not see the x-rays and yet we use it to diagnose a fractured limb) or feel (we do not feel magnetism, yet we use it in MRI to diagnose a cancer or brain aneurism) and yet they exist and are the products of science, not religion.

(Please note that the atheism is not a worldview. It is a label given by religious people to the opposed group. However, most atheists are scientific rationalists, and that is in most cases our position. That means that we do not accept anything that cannot be scientifically proven.)

Of course, the rationalist knows that not everything is or can be proven, and yet we do not see any alternative because we are more interested in material facts then in our eternal soul.

If a scientist cannot explain some phenomenon he will not jump to conclusion that the phenomenon is supernatural. He will try to explain it scientifically again, and again and again until he succeeds. If the scientist fails to explain the phenomenon, it is still OK for him to say "I don't know", when he does not, in contrast with various religious authorities who usually claim to know all.

The science is a world view incompatible to religion and it is governed by diametrically different set of rules.

Note that an atheist might not even care about reading the Qur'an and exploring His miracles until he accepts the idea that there is actually a god.

It is possible that an atheist becomes a believer. Has happened numerous times before. That does not mean that someone proved to that atheist that the god exists by exposing him to Quran or the Bible.

Scientist does not just accept. For believing something to be the truth, he requires objective evidence.

As I said before, Quran, in the scientific eyes, is not considered as objective evidence in favor to God's existence, let alone the definitive proof.

share|improve this answer
Have you read the whole Quran to say that? – Islam Jul 21 '13 at 12:09
@ali to say what exactly? – kolja Jul 21 '13 at 23:03
I would argue that saying scientific proof for God does not exist is a strong claim. What would you consider to be acceptable proof for the existence of God? – cartomancer Aug 17 '13 at 6:48
@cartomancer well, definite proof, even if there is a God and even if scientific evidence of it existed, may never be obtainable. Right now, there is even no scientific evidence for God, let alone the proof. It would be very hard for any entity to convince a skeptic that he/she is a God. For instance, if you die and decompose (instead of being frozen in cryotech facility - that's easy) and after 100 years find yourself resurrected, with all your memories intact, it can still be explained without the need for supernatural. However, you would need a VERY technologically advanced being to do it. – kolja Aug 17 '13 at 23:47
Some people never read Quran with open heart, and make such claims about it. – Farhan Nov 27 '13 at 6:55

Actually there are some proofs for the existence of God, Allah. But as anything to be proved should first be defined so let me define Allah as follows: God is the perfect existence. Note that although it's right that we can never fully understand Allah but we can always judge if something/someone else can be God or not, and such judgments implicitly imply we have a definition for God based on which we can study who can and who cannot be a God, can He have a body or be incarnated in flesh or not, can he begotten or be a father or not, and many other judgments that we have committed before and would commit here after. The definition is so easy, but also very functional, it can be used to prove both His existence and uniqueness.

Existence. A requirement of being perfect is being independent, such that nothing can affect its being, no other existence can give it the existence (birth) or draw for it an end (death). Thus from perfectness one can easily conclude God not having a cause for His existence (although we should first prove that He exists!). Now let return to our own universe. We have the causality principle, it is more intellectual than observational and is founded more on logic behind this universe than our epistemic knowledge of the universe (it is logically wrong that some happening be thought as not having a cause), also it is one of the very few cornerstones of any science so that our discussion would remain scientific if we use it! Well, anything and any happening in this universe has its own cause, its cause on its own would be a thing or an event in the same universe, so it will have its own cause, and continue the trend this way. Now there are two possibilities, that the chain just produced would never end, or that it will have an end. Obviously the chain cannot have end in the same universe as everything and every event in this universe has a cause but it is possible that the chain ends out of this universe where the causality principle fails to exist, God can be an existence in that outer universe! But what about the other possibility, that the chain has no end? If the chain has no end, it would be continued to infinity, some state this by its own is impossible but let us assume it still valid, however, if I look at this whole infinite universe still it is universish, I mean in its intrinsic nature, and needs cause for its existence and that's contrary to the assumption that there would be no uppermost cause for the chains. Use something like the Zorn's lemma to put it more precisely and scientifically, if required.

Uniqueness. This Cosmological Argument proved the existence of God but not His uniqueness. For the sake of proving the God's uniqueness we should return to our definition of God, that he is perfect and, thus, independent. If there are Gods instead of one God, then according to the God's definition none of them can prevent the others from what they Will to do, remember that none of them can be affected by any other existence and preventing a will is not possible unless one would affect the other. Therefore, Gods would exist without any inter-relation between them. But then we come to this side and see there are universe(s) created (say, caused) by these Gods, their Wills are independent, so definitely there would arise a chaos and this reasoning is stated by Allah Himself:

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّـهُ لَفَسَدَتَا ۚ فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّـهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ

If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him! [21:22]

Actually the collocation argument about God is more about to prove His uniqueness than His existence.

Note that God as an existence which will never be affected by any other existence would then be uncreated and immortal, so everlasting from both sides (how wouldn't be Him? the Creator, cause, of time). Also according to this He would be one single notion not having parts, as otherwise, He will need His parts to remain existed and this would be contrary to his perfectness. And etc.

Anyway, there is yet some other proofs for Existence of God that I strongly suggest you study them, one is called the "truthfuls argument" (one of the strongest proofs I have ever seen) and others are "the dispensable and dispensable beings argument" and "the poor being argument". Also see this. Sorry for these last references all being in Persian, maybe you can use some translators to be able to read them.

PS. About the trutfuls argument, honestly I didn’t find any source in English for further reading. But to say in short, it is much more philosophically and logically precise and detailed than any other argument I have seen for proving the existence of God. Actually it tries to prove the existence of God inspired by these three verses of Quran: "... Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?"[41:53] and "Allah bears witness that there is no god but He ..." [3:18] and "He is the First and the Last and the Appeared Outside and the Hidden Inside, and He is Cognizant of all things." [57:3]. Indeed, the argument is based on nothing from the sensed world, be it motion or its collocation and etc., but on the very notion of existence, the Being. It starts from the trivial statements that there exists something, that there exists many things, then generate a chain of existences of which the first ring is the one being not owing its being to any other being. To do so it has a rather long algorithm-alike set of logical statements, declared axiomatically. To read more about this I would rather suggest reading this, this and to download this booklet in pdf, again all in Persian. For Arabic sources you may like to study the leading books written by Avicenna, Mulla Sadra and some others.

Also I had been told about another kind of "truthfuls argument" which was totally different from the one cited above, maybe the name is wrong as I didn’t find anything about it now. It doesn't proof the existence of God on its own, to be honest, but rather proves why we should believe in God's existence! I have heard and read two different kind of proofs for this:

  1. The former which is weaker, but still strong enough, asks about intellectual reaction of a reasonable person against a great risk! For example you are a reasonable healthy person, there is some food over the desk which you are going to eat, too delicious it should be you judge from its smelling, then all of a sudden a child or a mad person comes to you and say the dish is poisonous! Will you trust in that child or mad person and abandon eating the food, or you just want to eat and justify yourself with statements like "he is just a child, I doubt if he even knows what's poison!" or "he is just a mad guy, no one would trust in him, so why should I do?". On one side is a delicious food, and on the other side is the risk that I would die! The risk is bigger than you can bear it I guess, a delicious food doesn't worth dying, does it! Now look back through the history, there have come quite many men years apart from each other, all being the most honest, merciful, reasonable, truthful and ... among their people, they all came to say one thing: Do not pray gods but only one God. Is there any possibility that we could bear the risk that there exists a unique God but we don't care about it? After all praying this God or not the present life is full of both joy and suffer for both the believers and non-believers, a little more limitations but remaining safe for certain!
  2. The latter which is stronger is an argument from Imam Sadiq --peace be upon him-- when an atheist was murmuring against the people turning around Kaaba (Tavaaf) in Mecca, calling them dumb. Imam asks him why do you think they are dumbs and God does not exist? He denied what he was murmuring about. Imam said if you are right and they are wrong --which it is not of course-- and there is no God and no after-death judgement then no one of these people would suffer as people will all be the same after death, but if they are right and you are wrong --which is really the case-- then they have prepared for that judgment and you have not, so you will suffer but not them.

So to conclude that "believing in God" irrespective of his real existence is an intellectual must, although be a weaker statement compared to the proof of existence of God.

share|improve this answer
Respectfully, the cosmological argument has been found... less than 100% complete. I would be interested in the "truthfuls argument", but alas Persian / Arabic are not my strong suits. – Marc Gravell Oct 8 '12 at 17:12
@MarcGravell, I added the post script about the Truthfuls argument, however, although I agree with you that there are objections against the cosmological argument but above I have tried to write its statement in a way to get rid of all such objections, so that I had hope for it to be complete :) – owari Oct 9 '12 at 7:40
Thank you; for info, your added "2" (and actually, the key part of "1") is a form of "Pascal's Wager" (which has plenty of existing commentary/critique, so I won't add any here). – Marc Gravell Oct 9 '12 at 8:13
@MarcGravell, I do not agree with you, although these arguments state one thing but their reasonings are far apart. I read about the objections about Pascal's Wager and didn't find any of them valid on the above cited argument. You know any valid one for me to think about it? Note that the argument is from Imam Sadiq peace be upon him, living about 1200 years before, and we think of him as infallible, never doing sin or even mistake, so believe his argument to be just precise. So, please bring the objection you think shake its foundation. – owari Oct 9 '12 at 11:02
The Imam Sadiq "compare the cost if they are wrong" is exactly Pascal's wager; the rebuttal is trivial and two-fold; firstly it ignores the "what if there is a different God, or requires a different form of worship" scenario (i.e. the other 2900 Gods/religions we (as a race) have used at various times), and secondly: it ignores the costs in the "no God" case, i.e. costs to the individual and society (wasted time/resources, "opportunity-cost", harm actively done enforcing it, etc). Happy to discuss it more, but would be more a "chat" thing, I suspect. – Marc Gravell Oct 9 '12 at 11:07

I can break this down pretty simply:

When we refer to scientifically proven evidence, what we're actually talking about is collectively verified observation. E.g. if I make an observation about the acceleration of gravity at sea level, you can verify this observation if you have similar means.

Collectively verified knowledge is considered a superior form of knowledge because it's subjected to the objections of multiple observers.

Religions like Islam typically rely on subjective knowledge. Everything debated in this domain relies on the axiom that factual information was revealed to messenger and proofs have to contort around that assumption.

You cannot collectively verify Islam unless someone has informed the observer what to believe. In the case of the acceleration of gravity at sea level, I can ask you to find a way to measure it before I give my observation in order to increase the weight of the observation. This cannot be done for religions since as far as I know, no one has come to the same conclusions that Islam comes to without some sort of cultural programming.

Some people talk about the misapplication of the scientific method but I think this is flawed logic. Collectively verified knowledge is on a higher order than subjective knowledge because you have multiple actors involved. There is no type of knowledge that is exempt from the rigor that comes with collective verification- least of all philosophical.

share|improve this answer

We cannot prove to an atheists the existence of Allah. In fact we cannot prove the existence of Allah to anyone. We can at most find evidence to support our claims, but in the end it comes to "belief".

An analogy occurs in mathematics, where people ask, can we prove all the correct statements? The answer is no and it is proven by Godel's incomplete theorem. That an axiomatic system capable of arithmetic is either complete or consistent. In plain words there are always statements that are true but we cannot prove.

To believe in Allah is to take as an axiom the existence and uniqueness of Allah. It is the basis upon which we do rational reasoning, and we do not do reasoning on that, if you already chose your axiom.

But then of course different people choose different axioms. An atheist's axioms are by definition different. Therefore Quran itself is a miracle, but only if you believe so. Just like

This sentence is correct.

If you believe so, then it becomes correct. If you don't, then it becomes incorrect for you, and it is still consistent.

That being said, of course, Muslims believe that Allah alone decides the truth and it is (at least its complete version is) above human understanding.

Therefore we are the people who accept these axioms, and they are the people who reject these axioms. We cannot prove to them, but merely show evidence to them of what we believe, just like they cannot prove us but show evidence to us of what they believe.

And Allah knows the best and may him guide those who go astray like how he guided me.

share|improve this answer

I will give you a direct answer based on Atheist belief, you said:

atheists will argue that since they can't hear, see or feel God then He doesn't exist.

None of us have ever seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor smelled, nor tasted our grand, grand, grand, grand parents, yet we believe that they did exist.

Based on the "Atheist" argument, none of us should believe that our grand, grand, grand, grand parents existed since there is no evidence to prove this.

Either the Atheist logic is flawed, or we must believe based on that logic that our ancestors never existed due to lack of evidence.

This bring me to the point of hypocrisy, how can you have such a belief, yet believe that your ancestors did exist, I'm sure most, if not all Atheist believe in the existence of their ancestors.

That being said, just because the Atheist logic is flawed, we can't conclude that therefore god exists.

Science has advanced very rapidly, our understanding of the existence is increasing by the minute. So what has science concluded? Well, simply put, science has concluded that there is no such thing as random. That is a critical piece of evidence pointing to God's existence.

What does it mean when scientists say nothing is random? Definition of random: enter image description here

Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision

Science says that the universe is predetermined, meaning that if we were to restart the universe an infinite number of times, the result will be exactly the same, that quiet clearly points to conscious decision.

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record.

share|improve this answer

Atheism is irrational. One can compare the atheist to a man who is born blind and refuses to acknowledge the existence of light because he cannot perceive light. This blind man's very existence depends on light, yet his inability to perceive it allows him to deny what is so obvious to the sighted. No amount of rational argument, evidence, facts and proof will convince him because he has limited himself to trusting in his faulty perception. To expand on this example, the human being is incapable of perceiving reality in its entirety. For instance, we must rely on the opinions of theoreticians to understand what our limited perceptions cannot perceive as atoms, neutrons, protons, and the mysterious properties of matter and energy which quantum physics explores. The opinions of these theoreticians are often accepted without question, because their theories seem to explain the nature of the universe that we can perceive. So, science divides the universe into the 'seen' (perceptible) and the 'unseen' (imperceptible) in order to account for existence and substance. Islam has stated the case for the imperceptible universe long before Western theoreticians offered their ideas on the subject. Islam explains that both the perceptible and the imperceptible universe were created in one act. Q 21:30: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?" From Surah ArRahman, we know that the heavens are divided into one perceived universe and 6 imperceptible universes or heavens. In other words the perceptible and the imperceptible are different states of the same substance/essence; the imperceptible being progressively more refined as it moves away from the perceptible. Isn't that what quantum physics is now discovering? In Islam, the ultimate imperception is the uncaused cause or Allah who is totally removed from the creation because He caused creation and, therefore, is not part of it. Allah is the ultimate reality, the ultimate refinement and the ultimate truth. Quran has promoted the information regarding the perceptible and the imperceptible states of existence for 1400 years. If we live long enough and are really patient, maybe the world of science will conclude what Muslims have known for a millennium and a half.

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Apr 29 '14 at 14:35

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?