The New 100% Proof for God! - The End of Agnosticism
Published on
Maybe, no one even uploaded this video to YouTube. We can never know. It sounds meaningless, doesn't it? The fact that you are watching this video already proves that someone must have uploaded it. So, there is no room left for doubt. Just because you can’t see the uploader, does that mean he doesn’t exist? Or does it mean that we cannot know whether he exists? Of course not. The same goes for the universe. Now that it's already created just like a video, how can anyone say, "We cannot know if a creator exists or not"? It just doesn’t make sense either. The existence of a creator isn't just about belief. It's something we have to accept based on evidence, reason, and logic.
Agnostics say, "We can never know whether God exists." But here is the strange part. They are not just watching the video; they are actually in it. Something either exists or it doesn’t. We all know there is no in-between. So when someone says, "I'm somewhere in the middle," they are actually leaning, maybe without even realizing it, towards denial, towards atheism. In logic, this is called the law of excluded middle. It means something is either A or not A. Something is either black or not black. There is no third option. In the same way, something either exists or it doesn’t. So agnostic philosophy is invalid in basic logic.
And also, knowing that God exists isn’t like solving some complicated math problem. It’s a truth that’s built into us, into both our nature and how we are made. There is an eye-opening study on this by Professor Justin L. Barrett at Oxford University. Barrett and 57 other academics carried out research in 20 different countries. They found that children around the age of three naturally believe in a supernatural power, a creator. So children at around age three actually treat all of the supernatural agents in their cultural context as about the same, even if the adults don’t think that they’re all very smart. But the young children treated them all as super-smart; they know everything.
While there is developmental support for the idea that there is this creator God that's super-powerful and super-knowing and immortal. Believing in a creator isn’t some idea we pick up later in life. It's a natural tendency that’s already part of our fitra (our inborn nature). There is also further research on this topic. Think about it this way: if you were walking on the beach and saw a heart in the sand with two letters inside it and "I love you" written under it, you’d probably say, "Someone must be making a love confession." What if someone came along and said, "Did someone draw this? Maybe no one wrote it at all"? How would you react? Would you take him seriously?
Or if we found a fork from thousands of years ago in an archaeological dig, we would immediately assume it was made by a conscious, knowledgeable being. We wouldn’t attribute the creation of a simple fork to nature, physical laws, or chance. We would say there was intent behind it. And intent naturally points to a conscious mind. But isn’t our world, with all its people, systems, and living beings, far more complex than a fork? Why, then, do we hesitate to attribute it to a knowledgeable creator? Or imagine that you hear the result of a football match. It ended 1-0.
Then someone asks: "Who scored the goal?" "We don’t know if anyone scored because we didn’t see who did it." What would you say to that? If the score is 1-0, it makes no sense to question whether anyone scored at all. The goal is real; the result is right there. Someone must have scored it, right? Well, the same goes for the universe. It’s already here, clearly in existence. In a way, it’s like moving from 0 to 1. The goal has happened. The universe came into existence. So, how can anyone still say, "We cannot know if someone caused it"? Agnosticism is split into categories like strong faith, weak faith, and so on. But let’s not get into those details now. Let’s just focus on the main issue.
In the Risale-i Nur collection, there is a very strong logical inference. Since existence is real, then it must have an explanation. Every single day, hundreds of thousands of living beings come into existence right before our eyes. This can only be explained in one of four ways: Atoms created the universe and are somehow still creating it. Everything came into existence by itself and continues doing so. The laws of nature created all of this and continue doing so. Or a creator brought everything into existence from nothing and continues to create. If we prove that the first three are logically impossible, the fourth one becomes a rational necessity.
Let’s break it down: Atoms cannot be the ones behind this order because atoms came into existence later. How could matter bring itself into existence when it didn't even exist yet? And atoms are lifeless, mindless, unaware, and have no will. They don’t have the knowledge or power to build such perfect systems. They cannot create life because they don’t have life, and they can’t control the harmony we see in the universe. So atoms can’t be the answer. Second, it’s also impossible for everything to just happen on its own because something cannot create itself. Imagine, can a mother give birth to herself? Of course not.
As we said, in order to exist, it would have to already exist in the first place. But matter is not eternal; it’s changing. Something that changes is not infinite. Moreover, when we look at an atom, it's weak, it's blind, it has no awareness, and it has no life. So there has to be an eternal being, full of will and power, unchanging, timeless, full of knowledge, Who brought it into being from nothing and controls it. The laws of nature cannot do this on their own either, because a law of nature is not a physical thing. It’s just a name we give to how matter behaves in a certain pattern. Stopping at a red light is a rule, but the rule itself has no power to stop the cars.
The rule cannot punish anyone or keep order by itself. Rules don’t operate on their own; they are enforced. In the same way, the laws of nature cannot do anything unless there is a conscious will behind them. In the end, it’s clear that the first three options are impossible. And the existence of Allah is a truth that the mind cannot deny. Interestingly, agnostics often say, "We just can’t know." But the strange thing is, they are usually fine with accepting one of the first three options we just mentioned: atoms, chance, or the laws of nature. Now, for those who want to understand this issue more deeply, let’s take a closer look at the main claims of agnosticism.
There are three main claims in agnostic thinking. The first claim of agnostic philosophy is this: The human mind isn’t capable enough to know a creator, so His existence cannot be known. But why? Who decides this? There is a difference between knowing that God exists and fully understanding all of His attributes, like infinity. Of course, a limited mind cannot completely understand the infinite, but that doesn’t mean we cannot know that He exists. For example, we may not fully understand the nature of electricity, but we never doubt that it exists because we see its effects, its light, and its power, and we say that there must be a source behind this.
There are three levels of existence: wajib (necessary being), mumkin (possible being), and mumtani' (impossible being). The existence of Allah is logically necessary, and that’s what we call wajib al-wujud (the necessary being). Think about it. Can we see an image on a TV screen if there is no electricity? If the main source is gone, everything else disappears with it. It doesn’t just collapse; it never even starts. God is the main source of everything, and without Him, we cannot talk about anything. If there is smoke, there must be fire. If there is shadow, there is light. If there is a letter, there must be a writer. If there is art, there must be an artist.
The act of bringing this universe into existence also has a doer, and that is Allah. There is a remarkable statement in the Risale-i Nur: "An attribute cannot exist without the one it describes." In other words, if there is an attribute, it must belong to someone. For example, if you saw light sparkling on the surface of the sea, you would have to explain it. Either you say there is a sun above that reflects its light, or you accept that each water droplet has its own sun inside it. That’s why someone who starts by saying, "We cannot know whether God exists," ends up accepting all atoms as gods.
But qualities that are reflected in the universe, such as life, mercy, wisdom, generosity, and so on, must belong to one God, beyond atoms. The second fundamental claim of agnostic philosophy is this: Nothing can be known for certain unless it’s observed physically or tested scientifically. But why? Who set this rule? Why should certain knowledge only come from scientific observation? We cannot say that something doesn’t exist just because we can’t see it. It’s simply denying the truth by restricting ourselves to the limits we have set. People in Europe once believed that all swans were white until black swans were discovered in Australia.
Limiting ourselves to what we can see with our eyes and then making a universal claim that something doesn’t exist is a serious mistake in thinking. Non-existence cannot be proven, and that’s why denying the creator’s existence is, from the very beginning, a philosophy with no proof, just an empty claim. Moreover, God is not a material being, so why should we expect to observe Him in an experimental setting? Also, we believe in many things we cannot see. For example, no one sees gravity directly, right? But we observe its effects, experience its results, and accept its existence without a doubt.
Or our soul, our feelings, our character, our thoughts, justice, law, morality, brotherhood, love, kindness, compassion, generosity, jealousy, these are not material. But they are accepted by everyone and are lived by. While experiencing so many invisible truths, is it really logical to accept only what’s visible? Especially when logic itself is invisible. There are two basic types of knowledge: self-evident and deductive. For example, do you need external evidence to know that you exist, that you are hungry, thirsty, sad, or happy? Of course not. These are things we know internally, without needing any proof. They are certain knowledge.
In other words, we don’t need scientific evidence for everything. Intuitive knowledge is an innate guide we are born with, and humans unconsciously know certain truths. For example, moral principles: It’s wrong to harm another person for no reason. We know this intuitively. Or eating human flesh is wrong and disgusting, right? This intuition is embedded in us from birth. Or logical knowledge: Something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Or a whole is always greater than its part. We know this directly through intuition. Or mathematical knowledge: For example, 5 is greater than 1. Or historical knowledge: We know that the past existed and has been experienced, right?
So we don’t need any scientific evidence, right? We could list many more examples like this. Humans learn not only from the external world but also from their inner world. In the same way, we can also know the existence of the creator. Why should this be impossible? Also, science is changeable. It can make mistakes and always comes up with new ideas. For example, science once said atoms couldn’t be split, but they were. It said the universe was static, but we have discovered that it has a beginning and is expanding. To deny the existence of God based on a system that’s always changing is to risk the eternal life after death, which is simply not logical.
In fact, science is just an effort to understand how Allah governs the universe. Finding a recipe doesn’t mean denying the existence of the chef, right? Understanding how the universe works is the same. The third claim of agnostic philosophy is this: We cannot know whether God exists, so there is no need to worry about religion. But let’s face the truth: death is real, and it’s inevitable. It’s a reality that will knock on everyone’s door sooner or later. How can someone who worries about even a small stress at work ignore the risk of eternal torment after death? It’s human nature to desire eternity and not want to be separated from loved ones.
How can the thought of losing your mother, father, or loved ones be insignificant? If we say, "There is no need to seek answers to these questions or study Islam. Let’s just enjoy life," we are only deceiving ourselves. Also, in reality, people can’t live their everyday lives stuck in the middle, not sure about anything. Think about it: smoke is coming from your house, and someone says to you, "It might be on fire," and the answer: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not." Or it’s pouring rain, and someone says, "Your house might be flooding," and the answer: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not. Let’s just keep chatting." Do those answers make any sense to you?
Of course not, because in situations like that, people react clearly; they take action. Now think about this: there is a universe that was created out of nothing. There has to be a creator, and there is a prophet ﷺ whose truth has stood the test of time. And there is a warning about the possibility of eternal hell. But then you hear this: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not. I’ll just go on with my life." Throughout the video, we presented many rational proofs. Even one example would be enough, but we explained more to make the issue clearer. In fact, only one rational answer is enough to accept Islam. Why? For example, imagine a palace with a hundred doors that serves as a refuge from danger.
There is no benefit in staying outside. On the contrary, there is pain and suffering out there. If only one door of the palace were open, what would you do? You would enter through that one door, right? Because it offers you safety and protection. In Islam, there are thousands of open doors. So why wouldn't a person want to enter it? Moreover, the entire universe screams out the existence of Allah. All it takes is to look closely and sincerely. The existence of our souls, where did it come from? From the atoms who don’t have souls? Or the laws that govern everything in the universe? What exactly are these laws? Or the fine-tuning evidence, doesn’t it clearly point to Allah’s existence?
Additionally, through the evidence of need, the evidence of possibility and limitation, the evidence of cooperation, the evidence of purpose, the scientific and literary miracles in the Quran, its historical miracles, and its social miracles despite being unlettered, our prophet brought solutions that have remained valuable for centuries. This further demonstrates the existence of Allah. It’s intellectually impossible to remain undecided. So is it more reasonable to be preoccupied with imaginary uncertainties, or is it wiser to step towards the truth, where mind and heart meet, toward Islam? Life is a journey that passes in the blink of an eye. One day, it will end suddenly.
When that day comes, you will no longer have the luxury of saying, "I don’t know." Now, while you are still breathing, it’s time to think. Take a step. If eternal life is in question, how rational is it to remain blind to the greatest possibility? What if it’s real? What if the one who created you is waiting for you? What if there is a God who loves you, knows you, and is ready to forgive you? Then do yourself the greatest favor: don’t be afraid to face the truth. Agnosticism wants to keep you standing at the threshold of that door. But if you take that step, you might truly feel the meaning of your existence for the very first time. The choice is yours.
Agnostics say, "We can never know whether God exists." But here is the strange part. They are not just watching the video; they are actually in it. Something either exists or it doesn’t. We all know there is no in-between. So when someone says, "I'm somewhere in the middle," they are actually leaning, maybe without even realizing it, towards denial, towards atheism. In logic, this is called the law of excluded middle. It means something is either A or not A. Something is either black or not black. There is no third option. In the same way, something either exists or it doesn’t. So agnostic philosophy is invalid in basic logic.
And also, knowing that God exists isn’t like solving some complicated math problem. It’s a truth that’s built into us, into both our nature and how we are made. There is an eye-opening study on this by Professor Justin L. Barrett at Oxford University. Barrett and 57 other academics carried out research in 20 different countries. They found that children around the age of three naturally believe in a supernatural power, a creator. So children at around age three actually treat all of the supernatural agents in their cultural context as about the same, even if the adults don’t think that they’re all very smart. But the young children treated them all as super-smart; they know everything.
While there is developmental support for the idea that there is this creator God that's super-powerful and super-knowing and immortal. Believing in a creator isn’t some idea we pick up later in life. It's a natural tendency that’s already part of our fitra (our inborn nature). There is also further research on this topic. Think about it this way: if you were walking on the beach and saw a heart in the sand with two letters inside it and "I love you" written under it, you’d probably say, "Someone must be making a love confession." What if someone came along and said, "Did someone draw this? Maybe no one wrote it at all"? How would you react? Would you take him seriously?
Or if we found a fork from thousands of years ago in an archaeological dig, we would immediately assume it was made by a conscious, knowledgeable being. We wouldn’t attribute the creation of a simple fork to nature, physical laws, or chance. We would say there was intent behind it. And intent naturally points to a conscious mind. But isn’t our world, with all its people, systems, and living beings, far more complex than a fork? Why, then, do we hesitate to attribute it to a knowledgeable creator? Or imagine that you hear the result of a football match. It ended 1-0.
Then someone asks: "Who scored the goal?" "We don’t know if anyone scored because we didn’t see who did it." What would you say to that? If the score is 1-0, it makes no sense to question whether anyone scored at all. The goal is real; the result is right there. Someone must have scored it, right? Well, the same goes for the universe. It’s already here, clearly in existence. In a way, it’s like moving from 0 to 1. The goal has happened. The universe came into existence. So, how can anyone still say, "We cannot know if someone caused it"? Agnosticism is split into categories like strong faith, weak faith, and so on. But let’s not get into those details now. Let’s just focus on the main issue.
In the Risale-i Nur collection, there is a very strong logical inference. Since existence is real, then it must have an explanation. Every single day, hundreds of thousands of living beings come into existence right before our eyes. This can only be explained in one of four ways: Atoms created the universe and are somehow still creating it. Everything came into existence by itself and continues doing so. The laws of nature created all of this and continue doing so. Or a creator brought everything into existence from nothing and continues to create. If we prove that the first three are logically impossible, the fourth one becomes a rational necessity.
Let’s break it down: Atoms cannot be the ones behind this order because atoms came into existence later. How could matter bring itself into existence when it didn't even exist yet? And atoms are lifeless, mindless, unaware, and have no will. They don’t have the knowledge or power to build such perfect systems. They cannot create life because they don’t have life, and they can’t control the harmony we see in the universe. So atoms can’t be the answer. Second, it’s also impossible for everything to just happen on its own because something cannot create itself. Imagine, can a mother give birth to herself? Of course not.
As we said, in order to exist, it would have to already exist in the first place. But matter is not eternal; it’s changing. Something that changes is not infinite. Moreover, when we look at an atom, it's weak, it's blind, it has no awareness, and it has no life. So there has to be an eternal being, full of will and power, unchanging, timeless, full of knowledge, Who brought it into being from nothing and controls it. The laws of nature cannot do this on their own either, because a law of nature is not a physical thing. It’s just a name we give to how matter behaves in a certain pattern. Stopping at a red light is a rule, but the rule itself has no power to stop the cars.
The rule cannot punish anyone or keep order by itself. Rules don’t operate on their own; they are enforced. In the same way, the laws of nature cannot do anything unless there is a conscious will behind them. In the end, it’s clear that the first three options are impossible. And the existence of Allah is a truth that the mind cannot deny. Interestingly, agnostics often say, "We just can’t know." But the strange thing is, they are usually fine with accepting one of the first three options we just mentioned: atoms, chance, or the laws of nature. Now, for those who want to understand this issue more deeply, let’s take a closer look at the main claims of agnosticism.
There are three main claims in agnostic thinking. The first claim of agnostic philosophy is this: The human mind isn’t capable enough to know a creator, so His existence cannot be known. But why? Who decides this? There is a difference between knowing that God exists and fully understanding all of His attributes, like infinity. Of course, a limited mind cannot completely understand the infinite, but that doesn’t mean we cannot know that He exists. For example, we may not fully understand the nature of electricity, but we never doubt that it exists because we see its effects, its light, and its power, and we say that there must be a source behind this.
There are three levels of existence: wajib (necessary being), mumkin (possible being), and mumtani' (impossible being). The existence of Allah is logically necessary, and that’s what we call wajib al-wujud (the necessary being). Think about it. Can we see an image on a TV screen if there is no electricity? If the main source is gone, everything else disappears with it. It doesn’t just collapse; it never even starts. God is the main source of everything, and without Him, we cannot talk about anything. If there is smoke, there must be fire. If there is shadow, there is light. If there is a letter, there must be a writer. If there is art, there must be an artist.
The act of bringing this universe into existence also has a doer, and that is Allah. There is a remarkable statement in the Risale-i Nur: "An attribute cannot exist without the one it describes." In other words, if there is an attribute, it must belong to someone. For example, if you saw light sparkling on the surface of the sea, you would have to explain it. Either you say there is a sun above that reflects its light, or you accept that each water droplet has its own sun inside it. That’s why someone who starts by saying, "We cannot know whether God exists," ends up accepting all atoms as gods.
But qualities that are reflected in the universe, such as life, mercy, wisdom, generosity, and so on, must belong to one God, beyond atoms. The second fundamental claim of agnostic philosophy is this: Nothing can be known for certain unless it’s observed physically or tested scientifically. But why? Who set this rule? Why should certain knowledge only come from scientific observation? We cannot say that something doesn’t exist just because we can’t see it. It’s simply denying the truth by restricting ourselves to the limits we have set. People in Europe once believed that all swans were white until black swans were discovered in Australia.
Limiting ourselves to what we can see with our eyes and then making a universal claim that something doesn’t exist is a serious mistake in thinking. Non-existence cannot be proven, and that’s why denying the creator’s existence is, from the very beginning, a philosophy with no proof, just an empty claim. Moreover, God is not a material being, so why should we expect to observe Him in an experimental setting? Also, we believe in many things we cannot see. For example, no one sees gravity directly, right? But we observe its effects, experience its results, and accept its existence without a doubt.
Or our soul, our feelings, our character, our thoughts, justice, law, morality, brotherhood, love, kindness, compassion, generosity, jealousy, these are not material. But they are accepted by everyone and are lived by. While experiencing so many invisible truths, is it really logical to accept only what’s visible? Especially when logic itself is invisible. There are two basic types of knowledge: self-evident and deductive. For example, do you need external evidence to know that you exist, that you are hungry, thirsty, sad, or happy? Of course not. These are things we know internally, without needing any proof. They are certain knowledge.
In other words, we don’t need scientific evidence for everything. Intuitive knowledge is an innate guide we are born with, and humans unconsciously know certain truths. For example, moral principles: It’s wrong to harm another person for no reason. We know this intuitively. Or eating human flesh is wrong and disgusting, right? This intuition is embedded in us from birth. Or logical knowledge: Something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Or a whole is always greater than its part. We know this directly through intuition. Or mathematical knowledge: For example, 5 is greater than 1. Or historical knowledge: We know that the past existed and has been experienced, right?
So we don’t need any scientific evidence, right? We could list many more examples like this. Humans learn not only from the external world but also from their inner world. In the same way, we can also know the existence of the creator. Why should this be impossible? Also, science is changeable. It can make mistakes and always comes up with new ideas. For example, science once said atoms couldn’t be split, but they were. It said the universe was static, but we have discovered that it has a beginning and is expanding. To deny the existence of God based on a system that’s always changing is to risk the eternal life after death, which is simply not logical.
In fact, science is just an effort to understand how Allah governs the universe. Finding a recipe doesn’t mean denying the existence of the chef, right? Understanding how the universe works is the same. The third claim of agnostic philosophy is this: We cannot know whether God exists, so there is no need to worry about religion. But let’s face the truth: death is real, and it’s inevitable. It’s a reality that will knock on everyone’s door sooner or later. How can someone who worries about even a small stress at work ignore the risk of eternal torment after death? It’s human nature to desire eternity and not want to be separated from loved ones.
How can the thought of losing your mother, father, or loved ones be insignificant? If we say, "There is no need to seek answers to these questions or study Islam. Let’s just enjoy life," we are only deceiving ourselves. Also, in reality, people can’t live their everyday lives stuck in the middle, not sure about anything. Think about it: smoke is coming from your house, and someone says to you, "It might be on fire," and the answer: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not." Or it’s pouring rain, and someone says, "Your house might be flooding," and the answer: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not. Let’s just keep chatting." Do those answers make any sense to you?
Of course not, because in situations like that, people react clearly; they take action. Now think about this: there is a universe that was created out of nothing. There has to be a creator, and there is a prophet ﷺ whose truth has stood the test of time. And there is a warning about the possibility of eternal hell. But then you hear this: "I don’t know, maybe, maybe not. I’ll just go on with my life." Throughout the video, we presented many rational proofs. Even one example would be enough, but we explained more to make the issue clearer. In fact, only one rational answer is enough to accept Islam. Why? For example, imagine a palace with a hundred doors that serves as a refuge from danger.
There is no benefit in staying outside. On the contrary, there is pain and suffering out there. If only one door of the palace were open, what would you do? You would enter through that one door, right? Because it offers you safety and protection. In Islam, there are thousands of open doors. So why wouldn't a person want to enter it? Moreover, the entire universe screams out the existence of Allah. All it takes is to look closely and sincerely. The existence of our souls, where did it come from? From the atoms who don’t have souls? Or the laws that govern everything in the universe? What exactly are these laws? Or the fine-tuning evidence, doesn’t it clearly point to Allah’s existence?
Additionally, through the evidence of need, the evidence of possibility and limitation, the evidence of cooperation, the evidence of purpose, the scientific and literary miracles in the Quran, its historical miracles, and its social miracles despite being unlettered, our prophet brought solutions that have remained valuable for centuries. This further demonstrates the existence of Allah. It’s intellectually impossible to remain undecided. So is it more reasonable to be preoccupied with imaginary uncertainties, or is it wiser to step towards the truth, where mind and heart meet, toward Islam? Life is a journey that passes in the blink of an eye. One day, it will end suddenly.
When that day comes, you will no longer have the luxury of saying, "I don’t know." Now, while you are still breathing, it’s time to think. Take a step. If eternal life is in question, how rational is it to remain blind to the greatest possibility? What if it’s real? What if the one who created you is waiting for you? What if there is a God who loves you, knows you, and is ready to forgive you? Then do yourself the greatest favor: don’t be afraid to face the truth. Agnosticism wants to keep you standing at the threshold of that door. But if you take that step, you might truly feel the meaning of your existence for the very first time. The choice is yours.