Rationale approach to affirm the Existence of God: Erm, I Don’t Think So

I prefer putting real people above all else
I prefer putting real people above all else

I prefer putting real people above all else

When I clicked on the link for an Islamic blog, I was hit with the title above, which linked to a paper that supposedly affirms the existence of God. Not surprisingly, the comments on the blog were turned off and the next line in the post read:

Take it or leave it. I will not argue with an atheist.

In other words, you aren’t interested in discussion.

However, thanks to the internet, anything you post publicly can be responded too. That’s exactly what’s about to happen.


The paper he links too can be read in its entirety (all 8 pages of it, which I did) by clicking on the link. Just as an aside, I love that the line beneath the title reads:

A certified presenter of Islam (BCII), a member of online dialogue to present Islam

Here I thought a ‘dialogue’ took place between two or more people. Silly me.

Anyways, let’s take a look at this evidence.

His first point is that belief in God seems to be innate:

Believing in God it seems to be something built in the human mind and heart. Consequently, it is not surprising to find that all human societies throughout human history, with very few exceptions, have believed in the existence of God. If we look throughout the history of mankind, definitely we find that the majority of people have believed in God. Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle rationally concluded that God must exist.

He goes on to conclude that non-belief in God is unnatural to the human-being.

If it happens in nature, it’s natural. Since there are people (atheists) who don’t believe in your god or any other god, we can conclude it’s natural. It happened in the natural world.

You even say that there are a few exceptions to believing in god, which shows you that you don’t even believe your own words. You’ve admitting that not everyone or every society has believed in a deity. So while you might argue that belief in a deity is innate in some people, it doesn’t seem to be the case in all people.

Also, no matter how many people believe in god, it still doesn’t prove you’re right. I’m still waiting for this rationale approach, although I’m assuming you meant ‘rational’.

His second point is literally that ‘there are no atheists in foxholes’.

In the time of extreme stress or fear, all people seek help from higher power and search for hope. They moreover pray supplications to God and they invoke God to save them at that hard moment. It plainly means that people really affirms God‟s presence and believe in Him. This situation is described in one of God‟s Book (Holy Quran).

Well, that’s clearly and demonstrably not true. You can easily do a Google search and find tales of atheist soldiers who recount their experiences. For example, you could find this one:

The radio man sputtered, “Oh, Lord! Lord! Help us!” My response to him was to stop praying. I exclaimed, “To hell with God! You help us! You radio back for mortar and artillery fire support!” Fortunately, he regained his composure and radioed the forward observers for fire support to be directed at our map coordinates. Common sense dictated that staying alive was more important than wasting precious time praying. Consequently, he saved our lives.

Well…there goes that theory. I guess there really are atheists in foxholes. But again, even if there weren’t, you’ve yet to provide a lick of evidence that your god exists.

His next point is the causality law:

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was in a very high density state and then expanded. After the initial expansion (sudden explosion), the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. It seems that The Big Bang Theory may explain the origin of the universe, but it does not have an explanation for the sudden explosion and it doesn’t explain the origin of the primordial dust cloud and. So where did that come from? Who, or what, created the primordial dust cloud?

Must be Allah! Or Zeus, Mithra, Odin, Jesus, Yahweh, Loki.

Just because we don’t know something, doesn’t mean you can stick your god in the gap of knowledge and proclaim you’re right. Besides, billions of other people are doing the exact same thing, and none of you can explain why you’re right and they’re wrong.

Your jumping to conclusions is not helping.

I find theists do this quite a bit. They’ll say you believe or don’t believe this, therefore you MUST believe this.

Um, no. It merely means I don’t believe what I said I don’t believe. This person is basically saying we must have been created from something, we didn’t create ourselves, therefore:

The only remaining possibility is that humans and the universe were created by a being which is not itself created (God).

Nope. We could be a computer simulation. There could be a scientific explanation for it. There are plenty of other potential or unknown explanations. Your explanation doesn’t automatically become the default one and you don’t get to tell people what they believe.

The next point is intelligent design.

This is such a weak argument. If you were a creator creating something specifically for one species, would you make 99.999999% of it uninhabitable by that species?

The Earth is mostly hostile to human life. Our planet is literally surrounded by an irradiated vacuum! Does that sound intelligently designed to you?

Then he plays the morality card.

If there is no God, there is no value for morality and our lives do not have any ultimate meaning and significance purpose. If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist.

This is the same argument made by many a Christian. I don’t get the connection between god existing or not existing and morality or value. Of course it has a purpose. We are all conscious beings and how we treat each other and how we experience this life is reason enough to evaluate our own morality. That’s the purpose.

Last but not least, he puts down his trump card: miracles.

A miracle is defined as an extraordinary event that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is attributed to a supernatural cause (God). This miracle usually happened on the hands of the prophets.

Miracles, when investigated, often have completely natural explanations. James Randi put out a challenge in 1964 that would pay one million dollars ‘to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation’, and it’s always resulted in an embarrassing display from people claiming to have extraordinary powers.

Every religion has its own set of miracle stories. None have been corroborated and your miracles are every bit as believable as another religions.

If that’s all you got, I can see why you don’t want to field comments on your blog. Your ‘dialogue’ is to yourself and those who are easily convinced or who already agree with you.



  1. All of the arguments in the paper are Christian apologetics rewritten for Islam.

    This raises a very, very interesting question: how can a Christian refute the Islamic versions outside of a Bible v. Quran swearing contest?

  2. Islamic apologists are children, they’re arguments are so juvenile that its hard to even engage them in an adult manner.

    Great post. I hope Islam Sources pops in for a chat… although i somehow doubt it.

  3. If it happens in nature, it’s natural.

    “Natural” and “unnatural” have all kinds of meanings. The meaning and the context is so ambiguous that it’s best to avoid these words to prove any point. I have recently reflected on this in a different context.

    But the question I have is why some religious people try to find a rational foundation for their faith thus making their faith conditional on some other stuff being true. Like this guy builds his faith on the foundation that the Creation story is true. He did not answer my question why he puts his belief in Creation before his belief in God.

      • I think it’s because even religious people yearn for evidence.

        Well, but isn’t the point of faith to believe in the unbelievable, “stand in the face of adversity”, etc.? People who try to justify their faith in God and fall into the traps of arguing with atheists seem to miss the point of their faith.

        It’s difficult to believe in ideals. From one hand, one needs to believe in ideals of some sort. On the other hand, one needs to acknowledge there is nothing in reality that can match the ideal. So, I guess, there is always some sort of mental struggle and cognitive dissonance. And people deal with it in different ways, sometimes, creating crazier theories than they try to justify.

  4. considering that Aristotle and his compatrots lived in Rome and Greece 300 years before Christ, it seems a bit contradictory and specious to haul them into the convo. At that time I suspect they were firmly ensconced in their own Greek and Roman gods, of which there were LOTS, and the single God ideal was not theirs.

    Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s