Muslim Proved God In Such A Powerful Way That Shocked The Atheist! - Emotional End!
Published on
- I am doing a PhD at İstanbul University. I am an atheist! There shouldn't be people born with three arms or five legs. Is it the duty of those disabled people to make me find God? Doesn't the fact that He created and said, "People must recognise me", show that He is needy? + No, it doesn't. -According to the verse in the Qur'an: He guides whom He wills to the right path and whom he doesn't. What is my role here, then? + Well, He is out of the matter then, doesn't the creator's existence outside of matter automatically mean that there is a creator? + Is it okay if I post this video on YouTube? - No problem + What do you do? Are you a student or working?
- I am doing a PhD at Istanbul University. + Do you believe in something? - I believe in atheism and philosophy. I was a Muslim for a long time. Dogmatically. I stayed as a deist for a long time, now, I am an atheist. + What convinced you that there is no creator? Have you found any evidence or any sign? - The creator that religions tell about is a personal God. He can love someone like me. For instance, He loves the Prophet He created. He resents people who don't worship Him. If there is a creator, He must be better and more perfect than me. + All right, let me ask you this: Why do you think having a characteristic like to love or be angry with someone is a deficiency for the creator?
Can't He be superior to you and love His servants and creations at the same time? Why should His love be evidence of His non-existence? - Since He is portrayed as a human, I said, "He doesn't exist." + You say, "Like a human...", the issue here is: God gives people something called "I". There is generosity in us, why do you think these were given to us? With these feelings, we can infer, so we can get to know the creator. The resemblance to humans is not physical. He only puts our feelings in so that we compare. But, of course, those feelings are not exactly the same. We can only infer.
- While I can't imagine something that is out of time and space, how is it possible that we will be held responsible for it? + Since we live in a time stream, we may not understand the concept of "timelessness", however not understanding it, is not evidence of His non-existence. + however not understanding it, is not evidence of His non-existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. + But, + we can see a lot of evidence for His existence. - What do you see? + Okay. Let's try to infer something out of it.
If we analyse it from the basis, everything is done by matter or a creator outside of matter, right? - Yeah. + There are two types of creatings in the universe. 1- Creating from nothing, 2- Creating by gathering materials that already exist. When I think about these two creating options, "Who performs these?", mentally and logically, I'll make an inference. For example, the first type, If we're talking about creating from nothing, certainly, there needs to be someone who has always existed and never needed anything. If someone is already in nothingness, He can't create Himself from nothingness. He is already in nothingness. If He needs someone or something, He can't create something new.
Someone, who has always existed and has never needed anyone, is required. Imagine One day you wake up, open your garage and find a Ferrari. We would say, "Somebody must have put this car here." Right? - Right. + Why? Because we know that "A Ferrari doesn't just come out of nowhere". One can understand this perfectly easily; and if the universe came into existence out of nothingness, we would say to ourselves, "It can't come into existence without anybody's intervention." We'd say, "Someone who is not time-bound, already existed and doesn't need anybody's help is necessary." When I take a look at the matter, it is changeable. You know the law of entropy. What happens in it?
The matter wears out. Something that can be worn out or be changed can't be eternal, because something eternal is infinite, unchanging, and constant. Then the matter doesn't have the attributes I am looking for, eternity and not needing anything. What did we learn from the Big Bang? Matter has emerged from nothing. The universe is expanding. What will happen if the universe is expanding if we rewind the tape? The universe will shrink into a single point, and we will reach the definition of nothingness. So, the matter couldn't have done this by itself. Secondly, we can look at a building by gathering materials together. In other words, the second type of creating.
For example, the continuous creation and emergence of hundreds of thousands of creatures daily. These are building activities. For the building to be made, four attributes must come together. What are they? Knowledge, willpower, power and life. Without even one of these, no building activity can take place. For example, imagine you are on the beach by the sea and want to build a house on it, even if it is made from sand, even then, these four attributes must be present. Knowledge is the knowledge of how to build that house. Willpower is the ability to choose whether to do something or not. Power (strength). Life. A dead thing can't even build a house from the sand.
Like this house in the example, four people are born in this world every second. Three hundred and eighty-five thousand babies and hundreds of thousands of beings come to life daily. So, each of these building activities requires someone with knowledge, willpower, power, and life behind it. And again, when I take a look at atoms and matter, they don't have any of these four attributes. We said there are two options: either matter or someone beyond matter. So, if the matter doesn't have these attributes, even if I can't see beyond matter, even if I can't perceive timelessness, I say, "There is One." I say, "One who has knowledge, willpower, power, and life.
One who is beyond time and space, and in need of nothing. One that is eternal and always existed. One who creates things from nothing. He is the One who does the two types of creation with building activities." What do you say? It's like we said in earlier. We said, "It's either matter or a creator." Isn't the inability of matter evidence for the creator's existence? - What you said, is it like the verse, "God said to be, and it came to be?" + There are two kinds of creation that we talked about. What I am saying is that the creator controls both. There was no universe, and He created something from nothing. God is creating step-by-step.
For example, when we take an apple, we sow seeds; when the seed turns into an apple, it doesn't just pop up. Right? - Yeah. + Now, God continues to create gradually until the seed becomes an apple. - Well, the seed you sowed is all about the laws of biology. If the conditions are right, it will germinate, and it will grow, and it will be a sapling, and it will bear fruit. If the conditions are not right, it won't. What is the role of the creator here? + This is a good question. Do you know what you missed? The things we call laws are actually names that tell us how God created and how He governs the universe.
For example, we say, "The laws are applied while a seed takes time to become a fruit." "In fact, these laws are the name of the order that tells us how the creator transforms the seed into fruit." The law doesn't do anything on its own. "If there is a law, someone behind the law governs the universe with that law." Let's say there is a smoking ban here. We hang the sign here. We come here and smoke. Now, can this sign inflict any punishment on us? - The sign can't. + Right? Who inflicts it (the punishment)? - Law enforcement needs to inflict it. + Why? The law doesn't do anything on its own.
"The law, this rule, whoever put it here, whoever rules here, must come, punish, and govern." Just like this example, the laws of biology, the laws of physics, the laws of the universe, can't do anything on their own. "If there is a law, there has to be someone who applies these laws in the background." For example, can you show me the law physically? Like, "This is the law in its physical form." - I can show you the sunrise and the sunset, but I can't show you gravity. + You can't show gravity. Why? Because it's not made of matter. Right? - Why these things stay there is about gravity, but I can't say, "This here is gravity". + That's exactly what I'm saying. Why? Because it's not material.
These are issues that we infer. This is our inference. These laws that you see here are names of how the creator manages the universe and how he governs matter. "If there is a system, there is a governor, if there is a law, there are those who apply the law." + So, this place shows the creator again. - Do you think the universe is too organised? I don't think so, it's in chaos. + We know what time the Sun will set and rise. Right? - Right. + Or one day, on the news, we hear: "There will be a solar eclipse; that happens once in a century." We wait, and it happens exactly as it is told. While these predictions happen due to mathematics, formulas, how come it shows us that there is no order?
You went to a university, and you are doing a PhD right now, you have a master's degree. You must have seen hundreds of formulas in your classes so far. Maybe you had to memorise them. Right? - Yeah. + With all these formulas you memorised, what do they actually show us? They show us that an order governs the universe. Because if there's a formula, there's an order. In a place of chaos and disorder, you pull out a formula and say, "Wait a minute. Alright. With this formula, it happens all the time at this rate." Can you come up with a formula? - The formulas show complete order. You're right, but, within this organised universe, three-armed and five-legged people should not be born.
+ First we have to ask ourselves: Does something like this happen 99% of the time, is it 1%, or even 1 in a million chance? If He deliberately creates that 1% according to a plan, we can't call it a flaw. For example, if I take this microphone + and use it as a phone. - You can't say it's flawed? +Yes, We can't say it's a flaw. - You know it is funny, because... for example, when we go to a paper or plate factory, even in that plate factory, there are three defects out of 1000. Let's say five in a thousand ... You're an industrial engineer; you know better. If God performs with error margin, if He does, He's flawed.
+ If God creates that 1% for a specific purpose, then this is a part of the order as well and not a flaw. We can measure the definition of order and perfection with fitness for purpose. How? For example, I take this microphone, and if I use it as a phone, can I say: "Just a minute. No one's calling this phone, bro. It's flawed?" - No, but if it doesn't capture sound, it's flawed. + It is flawed if it does not capture the sound well, but I can't say, "If I can't call someone with it, it is flawed", because the purpose of this microphone is to capture sound, and not to call someone. If it works as it should, I can't say, "It is flawed." You go to the library.
Can you say, "The library is so quiet. Is this library flawed"? - No. + Because that is the library's purpose, it is made to be a quiet place. + Because that is the library's purpose, it is made to be a quiet place. - It's supposed to be, by nature. - Exactly. +Just like this, God created people for a purpose. What is that purpose? He created it to introduce Himself. For example, people need to encounter diseases here. So that they may know the creator as "Al-Shaafi" (The Healer). They may know the creator as "Ar-Razzaq" (The All Provider) when it comes to hunger. Since God built this universe to recognise Him, any creation which will introduce God to us is suitable for the purpose.
Coming across some people that are born with three arms and two heads neither indicates the creator's non-existence nor that the universe is imperfect. Because what do people do? With every newborn baby, people pray. Why do people pray? The need to pray arises because these diseases are unknown to people. Praying is one of the essential foundations of creation. People were created to pray.
So, we can say: "Everything that leads people to know God, and facing issues such as helplessness, weakness, and disease that lead people to pray, is a good fit for the purpose of the creation of the universe." If something works according to its purpose, we can't say, "It's flawed." - Is it the duty of those disabled people to make me find God? + And for themselves... People make inferences for themselves, not just other people. As we said, people will find the creator along with their own attributes. One who sees himself weak finds the Almighty Creator. Their illnesses are actually letters to them.
If the purpose of writing a letter is to make you understand, people are sent here to understand. This is how this issue should be viewed. From the beginning to the end, we discussed the creator's existence. What do you say? When we look at the fact of creating something from nothing. If the matter doesn't have this attribute, doesn't the creator's existence outside of matter automatically mean that there is a creator? - You still called the creator, Ar-Razzaq, providing food, healing, ... My opinion hasn't changed. + I mean, having those attributes doesn't make sense to you. - Yeah. + What kind of creator makes sense? Does it make sense if He doesn't have any attributes?
- The God I had in my mind is plausible and better than me. + My version of a God is superior to yours. For instance, one of the attributes of God is "As-Samad", He doesn't need anything/anyone. - Doesn't the fact that He created and said, "My creation should know me", shows that He is in need? + It doesn't show that because ... - I think it shows. Why not? + If we say, "I think..." we cannot discover the issue's truth. + We need to look at the evidence here. - It doesn't change - for you or me, but that's how I understand it. + Imagine a mother caressing her child's head ... She woke up the night before, caressed her child's head, and went back to bed.
She did it because she wanted to, right? - Yes. + In other words, it is not a need. - Yes. + For God, creating is also something He wanted to do. It's His choice. It's not because of needing to do that. We said in the beginning: He must be eternal, so that He can create things from nothing. He must be in need of nothing, so that He can create things and continue building. If something is eternal, its compassion is infinite. Its might is infinite, there is no room for helplessness. Because we're talking about absoluteness. There is no limit. So, we can say, "He doesn't need anything/anyone." If you ask, "Why did He create?" This is a reflection of His names and attributes.
Someone generous will want to offer it his generosity to others. If there is an attribute, the attribute will want to be reflected and come to light. "Everyone who has beauty and perfection will want to show their beauty and perfection." In other words, the beautiful one will want to show his beauty. Since God has endless wealth, since He has infinite power, He wanted to create things, and with His generosity, with His gifts, He provided livelihood for His creation. He wanted this. He was not in need to do that. He created and showed His generosity to the people. And He says He will continue to provide for you in the eternal Heaven.
- Okay, God wanted to create me here, and, according to the verse in the Qur'an, He guides whom He wills to the right path and whom He doesn't. Let's say He didn't want to guide me because I'm an atheist, so I became an atheist. What's my role here, then? + This is a good question. + You read the translation of Qur'an, - Yeah! + right? - I have to read the translation since I am not a native Arab. + You may check Turkish tafseers (exegesis). Since the verses were revealed following certain events, if we don't know the essentials of an event, the core of it, it will be a personal inference. However, the verse was revealed for a specific reason. The meaning is given in context of the event.
The Prophet (pbuh) interpreted and explained that verse. When we look at the verse, God says... وَيَهْدٖي مَنْ يَشَٓاء "God guides whom He wills to the right path." In the other part, it tells whom God will guide. God says, "I guide whom I will." The question is, "Who does He wish to guide?" In other verses, He mentions the qualities of those people. What did he say: Just at the beginning of the Surah al Baqara: He says, "They (God-conscious people) believe in the unseen, they perform the prayers..." There are many characteristics of those people in the Qur'an. In other parts of the Qur'an, God has explained whom He will guide to the right path. This is where the willpower of man comes in.
If a man reads the Qur'an, the principles of faith and belief are clear. Do I want it (guidance) or not? If you look at it and say, "I don't want it." God says, "Those who don't want to be guided to the right path will not be guided." "Whom will I guide to the right path?" He says. The ones who want this guidance. He says whoever accepts this will be guided to the right path. Otherwise, people may understand it differently when they read the translation. - Okay. + What are you going to do? Keep looking? - No, I stopped looking a long time ago. I'm living out my life in a normal way. + I would like to ask a sincere question. You may not answer if you do not want to.
Now, when you say "atheism", you have your family, friends, loved ones, maybe you have someone you love, or you're married to; there are so many people you are attached to; atheism says: there's nothing after death. How do you cope with that? How can a person be happy with a thought like "I will go to nothingness"? Instead, with the slightest inference, "Yeah, well, there's 100 pieces of evidence against the creator. One of them seems plausible. I'll just accept that. Ninety-nine other things that don't make sense to me, I'll try to solve them step-by-step". Wouldn't that be nice? How else are you going to live with the idea of nothingness? - I'm happy because I'm in charge of my life.
+ Don't you feel the heaviness (mentally oppressive feeling) that you will be nothing in the end? How can you live with that? - After I die, I don't know, maybe I'll be a weed, cows will eat, produce milk, and kids drink that milk. Something like that. What else could it be? I was like this before I was born. I was in the sausage; I was in the pastrami; .... + Even when you're apart from someone you love for a month, you can't stand to be apart, right? I mean, there is that feeling of belonging. - Maybe, yes. + If we can't even stand being apart for a month, can we really see it as so trivial? This eternal separation ...
You can't stand to be separated from the one you love for a month, but "I'll never see them again forever." If there are a hundred plausible evidences, I think even one piece of evidence is enough to accept a creator. Take care. It's been a pleasure meeting you. + Take care. It's been a pleasure meeting you. - Likewise. + What is your belief? - Apatheism. It is also known as pragmatic atheism. - I'm a Christian. I became a Christian afterwords. - I have been a deist for the last two years. - Science has already explained it to us. At least it doesn't seam astonishing to me.
- I think you are looking for the Prophet in the wrong place - I would also like to be born in the tribe and eat avocado in paradise after I die. + I'll prove it at the level of 2+2=4 I'll prove it 100%.
- I am doing a PhD at Istanbul University. + Do you believe in something? - I believe in atheism and philosophy. I was a Muslim for a long time. Dogmatically. I stayed as a deist for a long time, now, I am an atheist. + What convinced you that there is no creator? Have you found any evidence or any sign? - The creator that religions tell about is a personal God. He can love someone like me. For instance, He loves the Prophet He created. He resents people who don't worship Him. If there is a creator, He must be better and more perfect than me. + All right, let me ask you this: Why do you think having a characteristic like to love or be angry with someone is a deficiency for the creator?
Can't He be superior to you and love His servants and creations at the same time? Why should His love be evidence of His non-existence? - Since He is portrayed as a human, I said, "He doesn't exist." + You say, "Like a human...", the issue here is: God gives people something called "I". There is generosity in us, why do you think these were given to us? With these feelings, we can infer, so we can get to know the creator. The resemblance to humans is not physical. He only puts our feelings in so that we compare. But, of course, those feelings are not exactly the same. We can only infer.
- While I can't imagine something that is out of time and space, how is it possible that we will be held responsible for it? + Since we live in a time stream, we may not understand the concept of "timelessness", however not understanding it, is not evidence of His non-existence. + however not understanding it, is not evidence of His non-existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. - It is also not an evidence for His existence. + But, + we can see a lot of evidence for His existence. - What do you see? + Okay. Let's try to infer something out of it.
If we analyse it from the basis, everything is done by matter or a creator outside of matter, right? - Yeah. + There are two types of creatings in the universe. 1- Creating from nothing, 2- Creating by gathering materials that already exist. When I think about these two creating options, "Who performs these?", mentally and logically, I'll make an inference. For example, the first type, If we're talking about creating from nothing, certainly, there needs to be someone who has always existed and never needed anything. If someone is already in nothingness, He can't create Himself from nothingness. He is already in nothingness. If He needs someone or something, He can't create something new.
Someone, who has always existed and has never needed anyone, is required. Imagine One day you wake up, open your garage and find a Ferrari. We would say, "Somebody must have put this car here." Right? - Right. + Why? Because we know that "A Ferrari doesn't just come out of nowhere". One can understand this perfectly easily; and if the universe came into existence out of nothingness, we would say to ourselves, "It can't come into existence without anybody's intervention." We'd say, "Someone who is not time-bound, already existed and doesn't need anybody's help is necessary." When I take a look at the matter, it is changeable. You know the law of entropy. What happens in it?
The matter wears out. Something that can be worn out or be changed can't be eternal, because something eternal is infinite, unchanging, and constant. Then the matter doesn't have the attributes I am looking for, eternity and not needing anything. What did we learn from the Big Bang? Matter has emerged from nothing. The universe is expanding. What will happen if the universe is expanding if we rewind the tape? The universe will shrink into a single point, and we will reach the definition of nothingness. So, the matter couldn't have done this by itself. Secondly, we can look at a building by gathering materials together. In other words, the second type of creating.
For example, the continuous creation and emergence of hundreds of thousands of creatures daily. These are building activities. For the building to be made, four attributes must come together. What are they? Knowledge, willpower, power and life. Without even one of these, no building activity can take place. For example, imagine you are on the beach by the sea and want to build a house on it, even if it is made from sand, even then, these four attributes must be present. Knowledge is the knowledge of how to build that house. Willpower is the ability to choose whether to do something or not. Power (strength). Life. A dead thing can't even build a house from the sand.
Like this house in the example, four people are born in this world every second. Three hundred and eighty-five thousand babies and hundreds of thousands of beings come to life daily. So, each of these building activities requires someone with knowledge, willpower, power, and life behind it. And again, when I take a look at atoms and matter, they don't have any of these four attributes. We said there are two options: either matter or someone beyond matter. So, if the matter doesn't have these attributes, even if I can't see beyond matter, even if I can't perceive timelessness, I say, "There is One." I say, "One who has knowledge, willpower, power, and life.
One who is beyond time and space, and in need of nothing. One that is eternal and always existed. One who creates things from nothing. He is the One who does the two types of creation with building activities." What do you say? It's like we said in earlier. We said, "It's either matter or a creator." Isn't the inability of matter evidence for the creator's existence? - What you said, is it like the verse, "God said to be, and it came to be?" + There are two kinds of creation that we talked about. What I am saying is that the creator controls both. There was no universe, and He created something from nothing. God is creating step-by-step.
For example, when we take an apple, we sow seeds; when the seed turns into an apple, it doesn't just pop up. Right? - Yeah. + Now, God continues to create gradually until the seed becomes an apple. - Well, the seed you sowed is all about the laws of biology. If the conditions are right, it will germinate, and it will grow, and it will be a sapling, and it will bear fruit. If the conditions are not right, it won't. What is the role of the creator here? + This is a good question. Do you know what you missed? The things we call laws are actually names that tell us how God created and how He governs the universe.
For example, we say, "The laws are applied while a seed takes time to become a fruit." "In fact, these laws are the name of the order that tells us how the creator transforms the seed into fruit." The law doesn't do anything on its own. "If there is a law, someone behind the law governs the universe with that law." Let's say there is a smoking ban here. We hang the sign here. We come here and smoke. Now, can this sign inflict any punishment on us? - The sign can't. + Right? Who inflicts it (the punishment)? - Law enforcement needs to inflict it. + Why? The law doesn't do anything on its own.
"The law, this rule, whoever put it here, whoever rules here, must come, punish, and govern." Just like this example, the laws of biology, the laws of physics, the laws of the universe, can't do anything on their own. "If there is a law, there has to be someone who applies these laws in the background." For example, can you show me the law physically? Like, "This is the law in its physical form." - I can show you the sunrise and the sunset, but I can't show you gravity. + You can't show gravity. Why? Because it's not made of matter. Right? - Why these things stay there is about gravity, but I can't say, "This here is gravity". + That's exactly what I'm saying. Why? Because it's not material.
These are issues that we infer. This is our inference. These laws that you see here are names of how the creator manages the universe and how he governs matter. "If there is a system, there is a governor, if there is a law, there are those who apply the law." + So, this place shows the creator again. - Do you think the universe is too organised? I don't think so, it's in chaos. + We know what time the Sun will set and rise. Right? - Right. + Or one day, on the news, we hear: "There will be a solar eclipse; that happens once in a century." We wait, and it happens exactly as it is told. While these predictions happen due to mathematics, formulas, how come it shows us that there is no order?
You went to a university, and you are doing a PhD right now, you have a master's degree. You must have seen hundreds of formulas in your classes so far. Maybe you had to memorise them. Right? - Yeah. + With all these formulas you memorised, what do they actually show us? They show us that an order governs the universe. Because if there's a formula, there's an order. In a place of chaos and disorder, you pull out a formula and say, "Wait a minute. Alright. With this formula, it happens all the time at this rate." Can you come up with a formula? - The formulas show complete order. You're right, but, within this organised universe, three-armed and five-legged people should not be born.
+ First we have to ask ourselves: Does something like this happen 99% of the time, is it 1%, or even 1 in a million chance? If He deliberately creates that 1% according to a plan, we can't call it a flaw. For example, if I take this microphone + and use it as a phone. - You can't say it's flawed? +Yes, We can't say it's a flaw. - You know it is funny, because... for example, when we go to a paper or plate factory, even in that plate factory, there are three defects out of 1000. Let's say five in a thousand ... You're an industrial engineer; you know better. If God performs with error margin, if He does, He's flawed.
+ If God creates that 1% for a specific purpose, then this is a part of the order as well and not a flaw. We can measure the definition of order and perfection with fitness for purpose. How? For example, I take this microphone, and if I use it as a phone, can I say: "Just a minute. No one's calling this phone, bro. It's flawed?" - No, but if it doesn't capture sound, it's flawed. + It is flawed if it does not capture the sound well, but I can't say, "If I can't call someone with it, it is flawed", because the purpose of this microphone is to capture sound, and not to call someone. If it works as it should, I can't say, "It is flawed." You go to the library.
Can you say, "The library is so quiet. Is this library flawed"? - No. + Because that is the library's purpose, it is made to be a quiet place. + Because that is the library's purpose, it is made to be a quiet place. - It's supposed to be, by nature. - Exactly. +Just like this, God created people for a purpose. What is that purpose? He created it to introduce Himself. For example, people need to encounter diseases here. So that they may know the creator as "Al-Shaafi" (The Healer). They may know the creator as "Ar-Razzaq" (The All Provider) when it comes to hunger. Since God built this universe to recognise Him, any creation which will introduce God to us is suitable for the purpose.
Coming across some people that are born with three arms and two heads neither indicates the creator's non-existence nor that the universe is imperfect. Because what do people do? With every newborn baby, people pray. Why do people pray? The need to pray arises because these diseases are unknown to people. Praying is one of the essential foundations of creation. People were created to pray.
So, we can say: "Everything that leads people to know God, and facing issues such as helplessness, weakness, and disease that lead people to pray, is a good fit for the purpose of the creation of the universe." If something works according to its purpose, we can't say, "It's flawed." - Is it the duty of those disabled people to make me find God? + And for themselves... People make inferences for themselves, not just other people. As we said, people will find the creator along with their own attributes. One who sees himself weak finds the Almighty Creator. Their illnesses are actually letters to them.
If the purpose of writing a letter is to make you understand, people are sent here to understand. This is how this issue should be viewed. From the beginning to the end, we discussed the creator's existence. What do you say? When we look at the fact of creating something from nothing. If the matter doesn't have this attribute, doesn't the creator's existence outside of matter automatically mean that there is a creator? - You still called the creator, Ar-Razzaq, providing food, healing, ... My opinion hasn't changed. + I mean, having those attributes doesn't make sense to you. - Yeah. + What kind of creator makes sense? Does it make sense if He doesn't have any attributes?
- The God I had in my mind is plausible and better than me. + My version of a God is superior to yours. For instance, one of the attributes of God is "As-Samad", He doesn't need anything/anyone. - Doesn't the fact that He created and said, "My creation should know me", shows that He is in need? + It doesn't show that because ... - I think it shows. Why not? + If we say, "I think..." we cannot discover the issue's truth. + We need to look at the evidence here. - It doesn't change - for you or me, but that's how I understand it. + Imagine a mother caressing her child's head ... She woke up the night before, caressed her child's head, and went back to bed.
She did it because she wanted to, right? - Yes. + In other words, it is not a need. - Yes. + For God, creating is also something He wanted to do. It's His choice. It's not because of needing to do that. We said in the beginning: He must be eternal, so that He can create things from nothing. He must be in need of nothing, so that He can create things and continue building. If something is eternal, its compassion is infinite. Its might is infinite, there is no room for helplessness. Because we're talking about absoluteness. There is no limit. So, we can say, "He doesn't need anything/anyone." If you ask, "Why did He create?" This is a reflection of His names and attributes.
Someone generous will want to offer it his generosity to others. If there is an attribute, the attribute will want to be reflected and come to light. "Everyone who has beauty and perfection will want to show their beauty and perfection." In other words, the beautiful one will want to show his beauty. Since God has endless wealth, since He has infinite power, He wanted to create things, and with His generosity, with His gifts, He provided livelihood for His creation. He wanted this. He was not in need to do that. He created and showed His generosity to the people. And He says He will continue to provide for you in the eternal Heaven.
- Okay, God wanted to create me here, and, according to the verse in the Qur'an, He guides whom He wills to the right path and whom He doesn't. Let's say He didn't want to guide me because I'm an atheist, so I became an atheist. What's my role here, then? + This is a good question. + You read the translation of Qur'an, - Yeah! + right? - I have to read the translation since I am not a native Arab. + You may check Turkish tafseers (exegesis). Since the verses were revealed following certain events, if we don't know the essentials of an event, the core of it, it will be a personal inference. However, the verse was revealed for a specific reason. The meaning is given in context of the event.
The Prophet (pbuh) interpreted and explained that verse. When we look at the verse, God says... وَيَهْدٖي مَنْ يَشَٓاء "God guides whom He wills to the right path." In the other part, it tells whom God will guide. God says, "I guide whom I will." The question is, "Who does He wish to guide?" In other verses, He mentions the qualities of those people. What did he say: Just at the beginning of the Surah al Baqara: He says, "They (God-conscious people) believe in the unseen, they perform the prayers..." There are many characteristics of those people in the Qur'an. In other parts of the Qur'an, God has explained whom He will guide to the right path. This is where the willpower of man comes in.
If a man reads the Qur'an, the principles of faith and belief are clear. Do I want it (guidance) or not? If you look at it and say, "I don't want it." God says, "Those who don't want to be guided to the right path will not be guided." "Whom will I guide to the right path?" He says. The ones who want this guidance. He says whoever accepts this will be guided to the right path. Otherwise, people may understand it differently when they read the translation. - Okay. + What are you going to do? Keep looking? - No, I stopped looking a long time ago. I'm living out my life in a normal way. + I would like to ask a sincere question. You may not answer if you do not want to.
Now, when you say "atheism", you have your family, friends, loved ones, maybe you have someone you love, or you're married to; there are so many people you are attached to; atheism says: there's nothing after death. How do you cope with that? How can a person be happy with a thought like "I will go to nothingness"? Instead, with the slightest inference, "Yeah, well, there's 100 pieces of evidence against the creator. One of them seems plausible. I'll just accept that. Ninety-nine other things that don't make sense to me, I'll try to solve them step-by-step". Wouldn't that be nice? How else are you going to live with the idea of nothingness? - I'm happy because I'm in charge of my life.
+ Don't you feel the heaviness (mentally oppressive feeling) that you will be nothing in the end? How can you live with that? - After I die, I don't know, maybe I'll be a weed, cows will eat, produce milk, and kids drink that milk. Something like that. What else could it be? I was like this before I was born. I was in the sausage; I was in the pastrami; .... + Even when you're apart from someone you love for a month, you can't stand to be apart, right? I mean, there is that feeling of belonging. - Maybe, yes. + If we can't even stand being apart for a month, can we really see it as so trivial? This eternal separation ...
You can't stand to be separated from the one you love for a month, but "I'll never see them again forever." If there are a hundred plausible evidences, I think even one piece of evidence is enough to accept a creator. Take care. It's been a pleasure meeting you. + Take care. It's been a pleasure meeting you. - Likewise. + What is your belief? - Apatheism. It is also known as pragmatic atheism. - I'm a Christian. I became a Christian afterwords. - I have been a deist for the last two years. - Science has already explained it to us. At least it doesn't seam astonishing to me.
- I think you are looking for the Prophet in the wrong place - I would also like to be born in the tribe and eat avocado in paradise after I die. + I'll prove it at the level of 2+2=4 I'll prove it 100%.