Firstly, let’s define “rational thought” and “rational proof”:
Rational thought is what is defined as "that which can be proven decisively using the five senses". Even if this is not an agreed upon definition in all the dictionaries, but let us agree on this definition, since the summary of this definition is what we all agree upon. For example, I can “rationally” prove to you that fire burns the skin by taking a lighter and lighting a flame under your hand. The reason why this is rationally proven is because you will sense this with your five senses: you will see (sense of sight) the burning, feel (sense of touch) the heat, and maybe even hear (sense of hearing) the fizzling, and smell (sense of smell) the smoke, etc. Now imagine not having any of these senses, including even taste; could you then ever prove that fire burns? No. Therefore you need your senses to prove anything and everything. Remember, we are talking about “proof” and not a hunch, or a feeling, or the most likely case, etc. We want decisive, irrefutable, proof.
So, what we are looking for here is rational proof of everything we say, so that no one can disagree with anything said. No one can say that fire does not burn, or that sharp metal does not cut, or that the sun is bright and hot, etc. If any of you do, then you need medical help, or are just being silly and argumentative.
So, if one person says: "I can see angels", but no one else can see this using their natural eyesight, then this is not rational proof. Rational proof must be something that every person, with fully functioning senses, can immediately sense (whether directly, or from evidence of its existence – such as footsteps indicate the existence of something with a foot), and conclude to be true.
Equally, if someone says: "I can feel the existence of god", but cannot sense it through the five senses, then this is not rational proof, either. This is emotional thought, and cannot be a basis of proof. So, if I told you I can "feel" a blue car outside, this in no way will constitute proof to support the argument that a blue car exists outside. Only if I say I can see the blue car outside, or that I can see the reflection of the blue car outside (and then this must be verified by the person listening, using his sense of sight), can we conclude decisively that this car exists outside.
And on the same note, we must agree that we do not need to directly sense the existence of a certain reality for it to be proven rationally. An example of this is knowing that a 3000 year old, intricately designed, sword, found in a desert somewhere, was made by a human. Despite the fact that we cannot see the person who made it, the fact that the sword was made by a human is immediately known upon discovery of the sword, since there are certain thought processes that deduce rational conclusions, which we take for granted. I will go into some detail regarding these thought processes later on in this post.
To begin, let's establish one thing that we can all agree upon: We cannot see the creator.
So, how are we going to prove his existence? Well, we already said that we do not need to see something to know it exists. But instead of making such an unsupported statement, let me prove this decisively: (and to preempt your thinking: this is not the proof. This is another basis of rational thought that we need to agree upon in order to discuss the proof).
Let’s look into why we immediately know that a car is made by a human in a factory, or that a bird’s nest is made by a bird (or a human maybe), or that your shirt that you are wearing is made by a human somewhere in the world. Sure, we can just say “its obvious”, but we need to fully analyze it to better understand rational thought processes:
Let’s take the shirt example. Let’s say it’s a black cotton shirt, with a little logo on the front, with two short sleeves and is about 60cm in height, 40cm in width and has a 50cm collar (in diameter), and the ends of the sleeves are folded in and sewn, as is the bottom of the shirt. Now why would we immediately conclude that a human made this shirt, even if it was with the help of a machine, but definitely a human was involved at some point? We need to break this thought process apart:
A simple answer is the degree of “design” and “purpose” behind every aspect of the shirt, and the fact that every aspect of the shirt has a particular purpose, which immediately negates any possibility of chance being the cause of every aspect of its design. This clearly indicates the existence of an intelligent being behind the existence of the shirt (i.e. a human).
But more importantly, to understand what made this shirt (its origin), we have to ask if this shirt even had a beginning in the first place (seems like a silly question, but remember the subject of this discussion). If the shirt has no beginning (meaning that it has existed for eternity) then no human made it and it would be meaningless to even ask if a human made it. But if it is impossible for the shirt to be eternal, then we must ask how this shirt became what it is today. So, either the shirt is eternal or not. If it is not eternal, it was made by something; if it is eternal, then that is the end of the subject.
As for the characteristics of something eternal (meaning it has no beginning…we are not concerned with whether it has an end or not in this discussion) is that it must have qualities that would allow it to have existed without time. Remember, we are trying to see what could possibly exist with absolutely no start to it, and absolutely no end to it. Therefore, an eternal thing must not grow, break down, and must not “need” anything in order for it to exist or initiate actions. The reason why it must have these characteristics are as follows:
1- Not grow: everything that grows needs a “point A” to start from, for it to “grow” to “point B”. Anything that grows needs to be at a “lesser” point before the observed growth, for it to make it to the “grown” point. Therefore, everything that grows can be traced back into its history to a starting point where its growth began (from zero). For that thing to come into existence from zero, to “growth-point number 1”, it would require an external force, since we know that “nothing” cannot create “something”. And therefore, anything that grows cannot be eternal.
2- Not break down: The reverse applies for this point. For something to break down, it would require a “stronger” point previously, for it to reach a “broken down” point. So, since we know that for anything to progress through a “breaking down” process, it needs a starting point, and hence we know that an “eternal” thing cannot have any qualities that break down or deteriorate.
3- Not need anything in order for it to exist: Any evidence of dependency on something before it immediately proves that the thing cannot be eternal. This is because existing for eternity necessitates independence from all external forces.
(Although something that is eternal is hard to imagine, but just to help you understand this: you need to remove the factor of dependency on “time”, since an eternal thing exists independent of time, and is completely unaffected by it. Just a side note)
4- Not need anything in order to initiate actions: It is clear to see that no action can happen unless some force causes that action. A stone will not move unless a force is exerted on it to move it. This is very obvious. So, when we see a rolling rock, we know that the movement of this rock has either existed for eternity (which on this earth is impossible), or that something caused it to begin. Therefore, the rolling of the rock cannot be eternal, since it requires something to begin its actions, and thus cannot have existed like this for eternity. I will elaborate on this a little further down.
And now, to answer the original question: The shirt cannot be eternal for two reasons:
The shirt is made of certain materials, such as cotton, spandex, polyester and maybe plastic/rubber for the logo. The real question is not if the shirt is eternal or not, rather it is if the materials that make up the shirt are eternal or not. And the decisive answer is that these materials cannot possibly be eternal because they have “grown” from a previous state (oil, seeds, etc), break down (no shirt can last for eternity, this is rationally visible), and depend on other things to bring them into existence and to come together. Therefore, we can decisively see that the shirt cannot be eternal, since its parts are decisively not eternal. Ten non-eternal components, plus one hundred non-eternal components, plus a million non-eternal components, all equal one non-eternal final product. Now, the conclusion that the shirt is not eternal is absolutely obvious to all of us, but I just wanted to break down our “reasons” (thought processes) for this conclusion down to the bare bones.
Now we know what our “rational” reasons for this, and similar, conclusions are.
From here I would like to make a note: it seems that when most people are discussing proofs related to things around us, in nature, science, technology or even a simple conversation, we always demand rational proof (like if I said “hey man, I just found a bag with $500,000 in it” you would not believe me until I gave you rational proof). But when we are discussing anything related to religion or god, we become totally irrational, and discuss based on “feelings” and “trust”.
I wondered why this is, and came to realize that it is due to the secularist creed that most people believe in. Secularism has abolished “truth” when it comes to analysis of where the universe came from. It has deemed religion to be meaningless and insignificant, and therefore any conclusion, no matter how impossible or irrational, is acceptable and deemed to be a “truth”. This is despite the fact that the universe can only come from one place, and can only end up in one place. Same as the example of a particular tree in front of your house: it either grew out of the ground right there all by itself (with no interference or assistance at all), or it was put there, whole, by those who built the yard. It is impossible for the same tree to have come from both places. So, why then, when we discuss how the universe came to exist, we become totally irrational and say: “everyone is correct” or “what you believe is truth to you”? It is impossible for everyone to be correct regarding the origin of the tree, for example, where let’s say someone actually planted the tree whole in reality, but you “believe” that it grew there all by itself. Your belief in this case is not the truth at all. And it doesn’t matter how much you believe this, it will never become truth.
Similarly there can only be one true, correct conclusion as to where the universe came from: It was either created (by one specific process/thing), or it has existed forever. And it cannot be both.
So, now we come to the final step:
The proof of the necessity of the existence of a creator:
There are three primary aspects to the universe:
1) Man
2) Life, and…
3) The Universe, as a whole.
Based on previous basis’ established to define what is rationally eternal or not, we can see that none of these things are eternal, for the following reasons:
1- Man: Man cannot be eternal, since we can see that he is completely dependent in his existence on his parents. He grows, breaks down, and dies. He cannot possibly be eternal, and this is far too obvious for explanation. But someone might ask: how do you know that the process of birth, conception, then birth again, etc. is not an eternal cycle going back into eternity. The answer to this is simple:
Imagine a soldier (soldier A) lying on his stomach, waiting to shoot his target. Now this soldier cannot shoot his target until the soldier next to him (soldier B) shoots his target. And that soldier cannot shoot his target unless the soldier next to him (soldier C) shoots first, and so on. Now imagine that this line of soldiers waiting to shoot goes into eternity. If every soldier along the line is dependent on the soldier before him to shoot, then no one can ever shoot, unless there is a soldier at some point that is not dependent on anyone before him, and he gives the order to shoot.
The example of “soldier A” is the same as us existing here today. We need our parents (soldier B) to exist (shoot) before us, in order for us to exist. And they need their parents (soldier C) for them to exist, and so on. Therefore, since we DO exist today, this means that there must have been something at the beginning of the process to start it that does not depend on anything before it in order to exist.
An even simpler example: if you saw a line of standing dominoes in front of you, and then saw the line getting knocked down one by one, coming towards you, until the last domino in front of you is knocked down, but you cannot see the beginning of the line at all, would you ever be able to rationally conclude that this line continues for ever and ever with no beginning? The fact that the line reached you, and each fallen domino depended on the previous one hitting it, means that it must have a beginning, and something must have started the process. This is rational, and everyone agrees on it.
The only time one can disagree is if they are talking about an imaginary world, but we are talking about the real universe here and now, with the current laws of physics, and not an imaginary universe, same as we are talking about real dominoes in real life, not some imaginary, impossible reality of dominoes. We are not talking theory here; we are talking reality.
Therefore, we can see that man is dependent on things before him to exist, and grows from a certain point to a certain maximum point, and breaks down, and therefore man is not eternal.
2- Life: Life sometimes is perceived to be “eternal”, but there is nothing to support this theory at all. Life is completely dependent on the being it lives in. It cannot be transferred, or returned to a dead body once it leaves. It starts with a body, and ends with that body, and we all know that everything on this earth dies. Therefore, life is limited and “breaks down” meaning it comes to an end. Anyone who says “energy is everywhere” and “life is transferred to others”, I would like to see some proof of this. It is clear that the population of the earth is increasing, so how is this possible if life is just being transferred? The numbers do not add up. Clearly, that theory is baseless and is just a figment of someone’s imagination (or maybe it’s the acid).
3- The Universe: And finally the universe. Simply put: the sum of all limited things is a limited thing. The sum of all things that grow and break down is something that grows and breaks down. The sum of all things not eternal is a very big thing that is not eternal. Hence, since the universe is made up completely of things that are not eternal, it, therefore, cannot be eternal.
Anyone who might say that the universe is a product of a chain of events that have led to today should read the section above on “Man” and the dominoes example again. It is impossible for the universe to exist today from an eternal chain of events going back into history, as this contradicts all rational thought.
Therefore, in conclusion, is it clear to see that the sum of man, life and the universe, which are all not eternal, amount to a non-eternal final product. And since anything that is not eternal requires a beginning, and all things with a beginning require an independent force to initiate it, we can rationally conclude that the universe requires an independent “being” with the “intelligence” and capability of designing it, bringing it into existence from nothing, and controlling it (as incredibly massive as it is).
This “Independent Being” is the
creator who is self-subsisting and independent of everything external to
itself. Otherwise the finite and dependent universe of ours would not have
existed. This concept of an unlimited and self-subsisting creator is explained
in the Qur’ān in just a few beautiful lines:
“Say: He, Allāh, is One. Allāh is He on Whom
all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him” [Qur’ān
112: 1-4]
source: http://awaremuslim.blogspot.com/2007/05/rational-proof-in-existence-of-creator.html
No comments:
Post a Comment