We live in an era where God is most challenged by almost everyone who thinks that they are smart enough to know that really is no God. People think that worshipping God, is somehow a form of dementia in witnessing non-existent things or immaturity the same way children have their imaginary friends. People think that humans have advanced so much in science and technology, that to believe in a superstitious being that created everything is archaic, meaning, people are in no such need for a miracle doer as science have pretty much explained everything. Or so they thought.
There is a story about a conversation that transpired between a believer in God and an atheist. It is between Sheikh Wahiduddin Khan, an Islamic scholar from India and an unnamed atheist who was a medical doctor who is only known as a fan of Bertrand Russel, an atheist philosopher. This conversation happened in 1965 where much of recent scientific discoveries have already been made. This conversation will change your perception, whether you believe in God or an absolute atheist or an agnostic. People who believe in God tend to avoid such conversations thinking that there is no use to argue with someone who does not believe in God to make him believe. Others feel that they do not need to put themselves under any situation where they might be ridiculed, because atheists, as believed by some people, could ridicule God, so, they are more than capable to ridicule a human being, whose intellect, emotions or patience may be limited. We all know how tenacious an atheist could be in any religious discourse. They are overflowing with confidence which comes from their belief that they could exist without a God.
The conversation went like this, the atheist started the conversation, as usually is the case as they believe that it is their moral obligation to cure the world of the madness they call as the belief in God. The atheist asked the Muslim Scholar, ‘What is your proof that God exists?’
This is the common question you’d hear from any atheist, a sort of a knockout blow to anyone that they wish to challenge in the subject. As you may already guess, many of us may fumble for words trying to answer such a question because most of us do not even know that such a question exists. We all naturally believe in God and hearing such a question could seriously affect our thinking, making our brains shut down like a computer after a program crashes and stops responding.
But the Muslim scholar, Sheikh Wahiduddin, was not to be intimidated. He knew the answer. He intelligently said, ‘I believe in God using the same arguments you have for His non-existence.’ The atheist, as the Muslim scholar said, did not say anything further. He did not even reply. But why?
Well, you may have heard of an argument, that people should not believe in God because to see is to believe and this argument is often depicted in jokes and anecdotes about conversations between atheists and believers. This argument itself is illogical, as God’s may not be seen but His existence could be proved at is it manifested by the glory of His creations.
The greatness of the creation reflects the greatness of the Creator. Just like how we do not see Leonardo da Vinci now, we believe that he is a great painter, because we could still see that Mona Lisa and all his other works of art. This is the scientific methodology of the pre-atomic era where scientists regard observation as the main evidence of something’s existence. If a phenomenon, an idea or event is existent, it should be observable – to see is to believe so to speak. This pre-atomic era of reasoning revolves around direct argument. Gravity, heat and other physical phenomenon have been discovered, measured and studied this way.
The conversation between the Muslim scholar and the atheist ended abruptly because we live in the atomic era – the atheist knows that too. We live in an era where something may exist even without being observed by everyone. Subatomic particles have been discovered. Waves, plasma, and others have been discovered but not everyone gets to observe these. In fact, not every scientist or physicist is fortunate enough to see these in person – but they still believe in it even if these are things that they did not observe themselves. In this time period, to see is to believe means nothing as not everything that exists could be seen simply by anyone.
Nowadays, it is enough to say that having a probability is enough proof that something exists or is happening. Things don’t have to be absolute. That is why we have theoretical cosmology, a science that Stephen Hawking, an atheist, is known for. If we could believe that an atheist who could not even walk, could talk about space as if he sees it – then we have enough reason to believe in anyone may believe in God even if he does not see Him. Inferential argument nowadays is just as valid as direct argument way back before we discovered electrons, x-rays etc. Inferential argument nowadays is even more vital as we delve deeper now about relativity, quantum physics, and others.
It is easy to discover God behind all the rudeness that atheists show towards the people who believe in God whether they are Christians, Muslim, Jews or anyone. God exists, and in fact, the question is not about whether or not God exists, the question is about whether there is a God or there is nothing at all. As God is the supreme-being, He also is the supreme expert in anything mathematical, scientific, and logical. Going back to the atheist doctor who spoke to the Muslim scholar, he did not reply because he knew that he is about to get into an endless debate with an intelligent believer in God. As the answer given by the Muslim scholar implied that belief in God is not mere superstition, as every piece of logical and scientific evidence against it could be used to prove it too. Believing in God or discovering Him is never contrary to science, logic or common sense.
