Badges mark quoted or attributed material (Qur'an, hadith, another author, an opposing view). Unbadged passages are Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's own words.
GOD’S EXISTENCE p. 60
How can one discover God? I answered this question in an English talk at the India International Center, New Delhi, on 9 May 2009, on the topic: “How to discover God?” p. 60
In the talk, I said that discovering God is not an academic issue. Instead, it is about a personal quest every human should embark on. p. 60
Everyone has a natural desire or urge to know that Being who has bestowed them with existence. I, too, like other people, was confronted with this issue. I was born in a family where the environment was religious. Because of this influence, I began to believe in God traditionally. Later, when my awareness matured, I wanted to reason out that belief. To reinvestigate this issue, I studied the relevant subjects. p. 60
As is known, the subject of God is related to three fields of knowledge: philosophy, science, and religion. Here, I will describe some of my experiences with philosophy and science. p. 60
During my studies, I came across the famous French philosopher Descartes (d. 1650). He famously said, “I think. Therefore, I am.” p. 60other source
This formula applies to man’s existence, but it applies in just the same manner to the existence of God. Expanding on the above statement by Descartes, one can say: p. 60
“The existence of man makes the existence of God understandable.” p. 60
This was my first philosophical argument about God’s existence. I framed this in these words: “I am; therefore, God is.” p. 61
Scientific Validity of the Inferential Argument p. 61
After this, I sought to study this issue using scientific methods. As long as studies in science were limited to the macro world, only something that could be directly observed was regarded as valid. However, when the journey of the study of science moved on and arrived at the micro world, a significant change occurred. If earlier, the observational or direct argument was regarded as valid, with the splitting of the atom, the inferential argument came to be considered equally valid. The principle of arguments from the seen (direct argument) to the unseen (inferential argument) was now accepted as a proper scientific argument and method. p. 61
This issue can be easily explained through simple examples. For example, if you want to count apples, you can say: “Two apples plus two apples make four apples.” This is an example of an observational or direct argument. p. 61
An example of the inferential or indirect argument is that Isaac Newton saw an apple falling from a tree and landing on the ground. This was an observation. After this, he arrived at an inference—that there is a force of gravity on Earth that pulled the apple down. From the apple’s falling, Newton inferred the existence of a force that he could not directly see but whose presence he could infer which had caused the apple to fall—the gravitational force. Finally, he surveyed other relevant data, and it was verified that the inference that he had made was valid: the force of gravity did exist. p. 61
In quite the same manner, we cannot see God. However, we can infer that God exists from the immense order, design, and precision in everything the universe contains. p. 62
To understand the scientific methodology, I read many books. One such book was by the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell, titled Human Knowledge. In this book, Russell says there are two types of knowledge—knowledge of things and truths. p. 62original + quote
The observational method of argument helps discover things that can be observed through one or more of our five senses, but the issue of God’s existence is related to the subject of truth. That is why, in this matter, the argument applicable here is the inferential argument, which is as scientifically as valid as the direct argument. p. 62
It was in 1965 that I met with a professor of philosophy. I discussed the existence of God with him. During our conversation, he asked: “What criterion do you have to prove the existence of God?” I replied, “The same criterion you have to prove anything else.” p. 62original + quote
After this, I explained to him the methods of argument mentioned above. I said that the issue of God’s existence is related to the subject of truth. Therefore, using the inferential argument, one can use the same criterion to prove God’s existence and the veracity of any truth. He accepted my argument and became silent. p. 62
Where there is Design, there is a Designer. p. 63
Serious scholars have accepted the argument from design to prove God’s existence. For instance, Bertrand Russell acknowledged that theology generally uses the argument method called ‘argument from design’ to prove God’s existence. According to Russell, this method is based completely on scientific logic. That is why this argument is as valid as any other scientific argument. The gist of this argument is: “Where there is design, there is a designer.” Applying this argument to the universe, one can say, “There is an amazing design in every bit of the universe, and so there is a Designer of the universe.” Intelligent design in the universe clearly points to an Intelligent Designer, another name for God. p. 63original + quote
The scientific study of objects began in 1609 when the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (d. 1642) observed the stars through an initial telescope. After that, there were further advancements in telescopic observations, leading to the establishment of the Palomar Observatory in California in 1949, which allowed for larger-scale astronomical observations. Later, electronic telescopes were developed, and the United States installed the Hubble Observatory in 1990. p. 63
Through such studies, it was discovered that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, the event of the Big Bang occurred in the universe, after which the current world of stars and planets came into existence. Then, about a billion years ago, a Little Bang occurred, forming the present solar system. Following that, a Water Bang occurred on planet Earth, filling the earth with water. Subsequently, life and everything related to life emerged. p. 63
Who but the Divine Designer could have devised such an amazing and orderly design that the universe displays? Referring to the signs in the universe, Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann (1844-1906), an Austrian physicist and philosopher, remarked: p. 64original + quote
“Was it a God who wrote these signs, revealing the hidden and mysterious forces of nature around me, which fill my heart with quiet joy?” p. 64
The answer to Boltzmann’s query is most definitely in the affirmative. p. 64
In 1989, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States sent a particular satellite called the Cosmic Background Explorer into space to further study the ‘Bing Bang’ event. This satellite has sent images of upper space, revealing the presence of ripples on the surface of the outer regions of the universe. This finding is not limited to the ripples discovered by the ‘Bing Bang’ but extends to the countless phenomena spread throughout the cosmos. When serious humans study the universe, they may ponder, like Boltzmann, asking, “Was it a God who wrote these signs?” p. 64
When the scientific study of the universe is conducted, it becomes evident that the entire cosmos is flawless. In the vast expanse of space, countless stars and planets are constantly in motion, yet unlike our cities, accidents do not occur in them. It seems as if, in the immense space, there is an accident-free traffic system operating on a grand scale. On our earth, nature presents numerous events at every moment. It appears to be a tremendous industrial system but operates as a zero-defect industry. It is an unparalleled cosmic control and an appeal for harmony that undoubtedly lies behind it. This clearly suggests that a great God—the Creator and Sustainer of the universe—is orchestrating these events. p. 64
Evidence for the existence of the Creator is abundant in the creation. Therefore, using the inferential method of argument, we can state that this evidence in the creation points to the presence of the Creator. p. 65
Intelligent Planning is Evidence of an Intelligent Planner p. 65
From the data that modern science has provided us about the features of the creation of the universe, we can easily infer the existence of an All-Powerful Creator of the universe, as the examples below show: p. 65
1. Intelligent planning is very clearly evident in the universe. This planning is visible everywhere, from the tiniest particles to the sun and the moon. This is undoubtedly evidence that a Supreme Mind is at work behind this universe. The conviction of an unseen Creator being behind the visible creation is as scientific as accepting the existence of unobservable X-rays on seeing an X-ray image. p. 65
2. Observation of things in the universe reveals that there are exceptions and uniformity. An exception is something that does not follow a general rule. Consider a simple example: Generally speaking, every person has five fingers on each hand, which is an almost uniform pattern. However, each person’s fingerprints are different and unique. This exception to a uniform pattern could not have been possible without the purposeful intervention of a superior Being, whom we call God. p. 66
3. Earth is in the solar system, which, in turn, is located in the Milky Way galaxy. There may be 100 billion galaxies in the universe. There is a fascinating aspect of the Milky Way that points to the Supreme Mind that is behind the universe. The middle region of the Milky Way is exceedingly hot. If our solar system had been located there, no life, including human life, could have been possible on Earth. However, our solar system is strangely located at a distant corner of the Milky Way. Because of this, it is safe from the dangerous environment of the middle region of the Milky Way, which makes life possible on Earth. This is clear evidence of planned intervention, and this planned intervention is clear evidence of a powerful Mind behind it, another name for God. p. 66
4. There are several planets in the solar system, one of which is our Earth. Earth, while revolving in its orbit around the Sun, is also rotating around its axis. Nevertheless, the dual pathways of the planet Earth—one around its axis and the other around the Sun—are firmly fixed, and deviation has never been noted in this regard. This phenomenon is inexplicable without accepting the existence of a Supreme Being who has established it this way and has maintained it for billions of years. p. 66
5. It is said that the Milky Way galaxy alone might contain at least 100 billion stars and perhaps a somewhat similar number of planets. Considering that there may be well over 100 billion galaxies in the universe, you can understand that the number of astronomical bodies in the universe must be mind-boggling! Be that as it may, as far as we know, among all the innumerable astronomical bodies in the universe, the Earth is the only one with a life-support system suitable for a creature like a man. p. 67
A life-support system can be described as a natural system that provides all of the elements essential for maintaining life, including oxygen, water, food, control of temperature, etc. Because of this natural system on Earth, it is a livable place for a creature like man. So far, no other habitable place of this sort has been found in the entire universe. p. 68
Here, on Earth, all that is needed to support life has been made available without effort from human beings. Without this life-support system, the existence of man, or any other species, would have been entirely impossible. This unique life-support system is such solid evidence of the presence of God that no truly sensible person can sincerely deny it. p. 68
These are only a few innumerable examples that point to the existence of a Creator and Sustainer of the universe—or, in other words, God. p. 68
Scientific Evidence of the One God p. 68
Albert Einstein (d. 1955) is considered the most extraordinary scientific mind of the 20th century. Einstein studied the universe in great detail and found a profound sense of spirituality in every part of it. Upon realizing this, he said, “The most incomprehensible fact about nature is that it is comprehensible.” p. 68
In this statement, Einstein indirectly acknowledges the existence of God. If we were to rephrase his statement, it would be as follows: “Without God, the natural world remains completely incomprehensible, but with God, the natural world becomes fully understandable.” p. 68
This universe is undoubtedly a significant realm. Scientists are people who study aspects of the universe in great depth. Compared to other people, they are often more familiar with and aware of the meaningfulness of the universe. Thus, generally, scientists have acknowledged the meaningfulness of the universe. Because of their particular mindset, many scientists avoid using the word ‘God’, but without taking God’s name, they are compelled to admit to the reality that the word ‘God’ points to. For example, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Arthur Eddington (d. 1944) acknowledged this reality by saying, “The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.” Likewise, British scientist Sir James Jeans (d. 1946) wrote a book titled The Mysterious Universe, where he remarked that the universe bears witness to a mathematical mind. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle believed that the universe is intelligent, even authoring a book titled The Intelligent Universe. p. 69original + quote
The existence of God is undoubtedly a proven reality in just the same way as any other proven reality. The existence of God is not a matter of some mysterious belief. Instead, it is an intellectually-accepted fact, just like any other fact. Now, the question is: Is God one, or are there many gods responsible for the creation and administration of the universe? In other words, which concept of God is valid: One based on polytheism, one based on monotheism, or what is called tawheed in Islam? On this point, evidence entirely supports tawheed, or monotheism. p. 69
At one time, superstitions were rife in the world, and many people believed that many gods controlled the universe—for example, a sun god, a moon god, a rain god, etc. However, today, this view does not have much support. p. 69
The British mathematician and scientist Isaac Newton (d. 1727) is considered one of the pioneers of modern science. He is said to have discovered the Law of Gravity when he saw an apple falling from an apple tree. Why did the apple not go up? Why did it come down? These questions led to the discovery that there is a specific force, the force of gravity, at work on Earth. The theory is regarded even today as an accepted principle in science. p. 70
Newton stated that four forces controlled the system of the universe. These four forces are: p. 70other source
1. Gravitational Force p. 70
2. Electromagnetic Force p. 70
3. Strong Nuclear Force p. 70
4. Weak Nuclear Force p. 70
At one time, scientists believed that through the interactions of these four forces, all the phenomena of the universe came into being. However, in line with its nature, science is always in quest of oneness. The scientific observation of the universe reveals that one law is at work in the whole system of Nature. Thus, physics is continuously in search of a unified theory. The ‘conscience’ of science is constantly engaged in trying to reduce the number of forces of nature and discover some such principle of nature that can explain all phenomena. p. 70
Abdus Salam (b. 1926), Sheldon Glashow (b. 1932), and Steven Weinberg (b. 1933) were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for research on this. They unified the strong and weak nuclear forces in a single mathematical scheme. This theory was named as G-S-W Theory. Through this, they proved that both these forces are one. In this way, they lessened the number of forces that were said to be behind the functioning of the universe from four to three. p. 70
However, even with these three forces, the scientific mind was unsatisfied. It wanted to reduce this figure further and bring it to one. This task was performed by the British scientist Stephen Hawking (d. 2018), who was considered an influential name in theoretical physics. He proved through complex mathematical calculations that only one force controls the universe. This theory has now been accepted as a fact among the educated classes. Generally, it is referred to as ‘single string theory’. The single-string theory provides a scientific basis supporting the belief in the One God. Furthermore, it provides a religious belief with the status of an intellectually-accepted truth. On a purely scientific basis, it can now be said that there is a God in this universe, that this God is one and only one, and that the concept of God is purely scientific. p. 71
There can be no more convincing explanation than the single All-Powerful Creator. p. 71
Evidence of the Monotheistic Concept of God p. 71
At the end of my lecture, I observed that the audience agreed with the scientific evidence presented for the existence of God. However, a highly educated senior Hindu lady spoke to me after the speech, saying, “I agree with your statement, Maulana Sahib. But I believe there is no need for a scientific argument to prove God’s existence because, in my opinion, God is present inside us. Please explain this matter.” p. 71original + quote
Contemplating the question, I realized that what this lady said was no simple matter. The fact is that there are two distinct concepts of God. One is Tawheed or monotheism—the belief in the One God as a personal God. The other is monism, which is based on the concept of an impersonal God. Monism is the same thing referred to as the ‘indwelling God.’ p. 72
According to monism, God is a power, just as the force of gravity is a power, and this power is present in everything. Although some Muslim Sufis also adopted the theory of monism, it is incorrect. The fact is that monism is a philosophical concept that has been incorporated into religion. p. 72
The concept of monism is found in some religious traditions. According to monism, God has no form of His own. He is a formless God. According to this notion, God has no separate existence of His own. Whatever exists in the universe is all a manifestation with a form of this formless God. This concept is a philosophical one. Many philosophers accept God in this sense. They refer to God through words such as ‘spirit’ or ‘idea.’ This same philosophical concept has come to be incorporated as a religious belief in some religious traditions. p. 72
However, this concept of a formless God with no separate being or existence is merely a baseless speculation. It has no evidential basis. The universe that we experience in the form of creation is entirely with form. It is illogical to claim that a God who was a mere ‘spirit’ or ‘idea’ and had no separate identity brought innumerable forms into existence, all being His own. p. 72
A modern scientific study of the universe strongly suggests the presence of a Superior Mind in the creation and administration of the universe, a Creator who is separate from the creation. This simultaneously negates the monistic concept of God as it testifies to the monotheistic understanding of God. p. 73
The monotheistic concept of God is rational. It is based on dualism, that the creation, including man and God, have a separate existence. Both have separate identities. God is the Creator, and all His creations, including man, are the created. This is the theological concept termed dualism, which states that God and His creation are separate entities. According to the monotheistic concept of God, two distinct entities emerge: the Creator and the creation. God is the Creator, and all the things in the universe are His creation, including human beings. There is no third position. On the one hand, there is God, and on the other hand, there is God’s creation. Thus, we have the Unity of God—monotheism. p. 73
Monotheism is the belief that all power lies in the hand of one God alone. It is God alone who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is God alone who is behind the functioning of the entire universe. p. 73