← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you, dear ones. In the previous episode, we explained that when an atheist denies the existence of the Creator, it leads him to strip reliability from the innate components that a person finds within themselves. We will see how this leads him to a series of denials: denying cognitive axioms, morals, the purpose of existence, and free will. Denying the existence of these components innately, or denying that they have value.
Why? Couldn't he deny the Creator and preserve these axioms—which the atheist finds within themselves despite themselves—instead of entering this series of stubbornness and loss? No, he cannot! Why? We will see... and we will begin with cognitive necessities.
This episode will be rich in value; we will discuss:
First of all, brothers, faith founds everything on the existence of God the Almighty; in the faith-based perspective: God created the heavens and the earth in truth, and by His wisdom, He established immutable laws for them, and He created man with an innate disposition that produces necessary cognitive axioms for him, from which the human mind proceeds to discover the truths of things.
The atheist has a problem with every one of these nine statements: (creation), (God), (in truth), (by His wisdom), (immutable laws), (innate disposition), (necessary cognitive axioms), (human mind), (truths of things). We will explain this in detail.
In the faith-based perspective, God the Almighty says: "Indeed, We have created man in the best of stature" [At-Tin:4]. Meaning that He placed in man the innate attraction and the ability to know the truth in perceptions and morals, and the search for the true purpose of life. He deposits these meanings in the soul of every person who comes into life to begin learning from it. "Our Lord is the One who gave everything its creation, then guided" [Ta-Ha:50]. And we said that this innate disposition of man
They fled from contradiction, only to fall into madness. And indeed, brothers, this speech - though it is a kind of madness - you will find those who boast of it and sing the praises of the so-called "scientists" who adhere to it. This is a tax of atheism and a natural consequence of it.
These individuals, although they claim to revere experimental science and say, "We do not believe in what is beyond nature because it cannot be tested," their arguments ultimately lead to the destruction of experimental science at its very foundation. All exploration is based on observing causal relationships and deriving absolute scientific conclusions. However, according to their principle, if a million experiments show that the reaction of an acid with a base produces salt and water, they prevent themselves from deriving a generalization and an absolute scientific truth from this. In fact, according to their principle, there is no obstacle to something other than salt and water being produced in the million-and-first experiment. For if they derive a scientific principle and this principle becomes an absolute truth, they have built this principle on rational necessities, such as considering the universe to have fixed laws and that the interaction of these two substances is the cause of the formation of salt and water.
Who established these laws? Who made this causation a firmly established truth? Randomness and chance do not establish laws nor do they create absolute truths. Therefore, they deny the rational necessities. Thus, experimental science becomes futile, and the application of its results becomes futile. The AIDS virus is not the cause of AIDS; rather, they are two things that coincided. Diseases do not have causes, and treatment is not the cause of healing. If a new disease were to appear, it would be futile and a waste of time to spend billions on discovering its cause, for in the end, we might discover that this disease, like the universe, has no cause.
The atheists who fled from contradiction by denying causality find no alternative but to contradict themselves in practice with what they claim. If an atheist's car is hit by another car, and the owner of the other car says, "Your car hitting mine is not the cause of the damage to my car; rather, they are two things that occurred coincidentally without a causal relationship," would the atheist accept this? If someone stabs an atheist with a knife and then says, "The bleeding of your blood is not the cause of my stabbing you," would the atheist accept this? Of course not. Atheists unconsciously acknowledge the necessary rational principles in their lives and sciences. However, when it comes to the greatest truth, which is the existence of the Creator - may He be glorified - they deny these principles.