Getting Wet in the Ocean of Cosmos
This article text is part of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
In this section of our book, we come across two original examples which narrate another impossibility, the third impossible scenario of the three impossible scenarios which could have been faced in case of the acceptance of the claim of nature, which is the third way of the three ways, “material causes, self-creation and nature” that are brought forward to explain the coming into existence of matter by leaving the Creator out of consideration. These examples make it easier for us to understand what the laws of nature are and what they are not.
As we have already pointed out in many cases up until here, the thing called nature, is nothing more than the rules of invention and administration of the living and non-living matter/objects around us. It reflects the working principles of the objects and the patterns of behaviour shown by the matter under certain conditions. It is an abstract concept which does not have material existence. Therefore, the laws which function in nature, as they are the expressions of what is happening in the matter” do not have any properties such as inventing, ruling/judging and having possession of power. Therefore, the claim that invention and the administration of the matter/objects are realized by nature is fundamentally flawed at its core and it is nothing more than a funny assertion.
In the text of Risale-i Nur, striking examples are provided in order to realize this more concretely in the minds and to make it appear clearly that this claim is nonsense.
In the first example, a person comes across a palace which is made and operated with high technology and contains thousands of artful objects. It is told that if this person thinks that all these one of these objects has made all of them and he makes his investigation in this way, this situation could be explained by the fact that this person is someone who has no idea about civilization, or a mindless one.
This man, who is unaware of the working principles of the wonders of the civilization, while he was in such an obsessive search, finds out a notebook, containing the working principles and construction program of the palace. Since this notebook has a special relationship with the palace, he sees a higher probability of the palace being built by that notebook and then he concludes that that palace is created and operated by this notebook.
You can also imagine this example like this: imagine a room where there is a computer system loaded with all programs enabling the functioning of the palace. Here, there should be such a mindless man, who comes across this room, and concludes that this system works on its own and it designs and operated the whole palace. In the same manner, seeing the nature, which is just like an operating system of all the objects in the universe, which has a design with mind-bending complexity and a visual beauty, as the creator who has made and has been operating these objects, is really a serious logical mistake.
Indeed, the reason that leads many people to such a mistake, the feeling of being obliged to reject the idea of a non-material creator who creates and manages this universe and even if it is forceful, to try to find out another answer except this one. As you know, rejecting from the very beginning is called prejudice.
In fact, this is also contrary to scientific thinking technique. These are all shameful attitudes in the name of science: to make the scientific thinking an instrument of this erroneous thinking in order to impose personal preferences and conditionings in the name of scientific thinking; to present this conditioning as a necessity of scientific thinking; and to establish restrictive rules in this area by claiming that assuming the existence of a creator or assuming his existence as probability are all against scientific thinking.
Nobody, who claims that he is doing science, could dare to impose such a rule. He simply cannot. In the face of the probability of a creator, such rule is incredible. How can one call this as scientific thinking technique”? In fact, this is an unscientific thinking technique. The attitude which is really against scientific thinking is, in the face of the probability of the existence of the creator, behaving as if there is no such probability, basing all principles and rules upon this wrong assumption and narrating and interpreting the working of the universe as if there is no creator, and being disturbed even by the idea of the existence of a creator.
Yes, we have already mentioned that this disturbance is pronounced by some advocates of atheism like Richard Dawkins and that they did not see thinking the plausibility of the existence of a creator as consistent with science and scientific thinking. But, why shouldn’t the idea of the existence of a creator be consistent with science? To the contrary, it can be even more consistent with science. For example, which one is more logical and scientific: thinking that the computer before us came into existence on its own or making a research over the probability that it could be created by an engineer and by a factory? Which one could be considered as more consistent with the scientific thinking technique? Even if we do not have any idea about this computer at the beginning, isn’t the second option more healthy approach in terms of scientific thinking?
Somebody who examines the parts of a computer, consider that the building up of that computer by its parts is improbable. However, he also does not think that it can be done by an external engineer; he does not want to consider this as a probability. Although he does not see it much probable, since it is a preferable alternative compared to the parts of the computer, he would certainly feel obliged to accept and claim that the computer is built and worked by its operating system.
However, even if it is accepted that this operating system does have some material existence, and it occupies just a physical space of a few Gigabytes over hard disc and DVD, this operating system is nothing more than a program, and since it applies just the commands given to itself and it cannot be in the place of the one giving the commands and making the programs. Before anything else, it is far from creating these parts of the computer on its own and making them work in a harmonious way. This could be done only by an engineer and by a factory. Is it so difficult to tell this fact? Then, who has done this palace of the universe? Whose job is it? This is our issue.
Therefore, trying to explain these visible objects with the laws of nature, which are nothing more than the rules of invention and operation of these objects; is a meaningless effort and it is not different from trying to explain the making of a computer, its built-up and working just with its operating system without taking into account its designing engineer and producing factory. It is story-telling, a baseless science-fiction, and nonsense. It is not being scientific.
In the second example, the meaning of considering the laws of nature as material objects and as the one who creates the work happening within the matter/objects is explained with a wonderful explanation. This example is a very nice one. If you understand it, new doors will be opening in your world. Then you will look at the matter/object, their working, laws of nature, science and religion from a very different perspective.
Imagine this, a man, who is not aware of civilization, who does not know the order of the state, the discipline of the army and the order-command chain, a primitive man coming from the pre-historical ages, is registered in the Army. How would he interpret the orderly movements of the soldiers which are in conformity with each other with his primitive mind? Is it an unexpected attitude if that man imagines that these soldiers are tied to each other with an invisible rope and this rope is a marvellous one for this man who can’t know the real face of the issue due to his ignorance?
What would think a man who is not aware of the religious rules ordering the lives of people and who has never seen a mosque in his life, when he sees the movements and actions of people behind an Imam, worship leader? What meaning would he give to this? Would it be something unexpected, if he says that these people are tied to each other with a real rope? (This is also an excellent example. An example that never gets old although so many years has passed away since that book was written, we have not seen a better example since that time.)
A person, who has never seen a civilization before and who has no idea about technology, of course could not know the rules of the civilization determining people’s behaviours. He can’t understand how technological machines function and he can’t give any meaning to such things. And what if he does not listen to a Ustad (a teacher, master) who will give lessons of civilization to him and what if he does not pay attention to a book that will help him out of his ignorance…
Then, just like this example, this human being who thinks of himself as intelligent, once enters into this universe, wouldn’t he be more ignorant and primitive in terms of understanding its functioning and discovering its secrets?
Have not we just get our toes wet in the ocean of cosmos yet? Is this not what the scientists at the top say? We sincerely admit that our accumulation of knowledge, that is, whatever exists in the name of science, means we have just made our toes wet in the ocean of cosmos.
This primitive living being called human has never seen before how a power, which has effects on things without touching them, which invents and manages, could function. He could not know and imagine how such a great power, which is not bound with time and place, could manage everything, from the biggest to the smallest, together and simultaneously. He never understands how all objects could be created with the same ease, without any difference between the small and the big. If he is not informed, how can he know that all particles, just like the soldiers of an army, work under the command of the owner of that universe and that’s why they can move/act together, without disarrangement.
If he does not listen to what Quran, the voice of the Creator of the universe says, if he does not listen to the Master, the Messenger, Hz. Muhammed (SAV) who teaches what this universe and the things inside it are and their purpose of creation is
How can he know that nothing is stray, rambling around, not a toy of the probability, it does not move by chance; these big objects in the sky are not lifeless soulless objects and this world, with all its beauty and excellent order, is not the work of unconscious nature.
In fact, human being can reach to the conclusion of the necessity of the existence of a Creator with his own reasoning. Even, he is responsible for having the belief of Oneness (Tawheed) even if he lives in a period during which no prophet is sent. However, the information on the qualities that the Creator has, and the reason of the creation/existence and what does he wants from intelligent viewers like us could only be given by divine revelation.
How should a person, who has turned away from the shining guidance of divine revelation enlightening the path of truth like a non-material (spiritual) sun, know that the visual aesthetics, excellent design, wonderful functioning, uninterrupted order of and the achievement of impossible missions assumed by everything big and small existing in this universe remind us, with their spiritual/non-material language, of their Creator; glorify Him by demonstrating his excellence, praise him by being grateful for his blessing, mention (dhkir) his name by being an evidence of His greatness, and with the every state of every being, worship Him spiritually/non-materially all the time…
As he does not know and could not understand, he would take refuge in such state of delirium, he will try to console himself with ignorant explanations; he will be much deceived and he will also deceive others. He will imagine the nature and its laws as material beings, and attribute the invention and management of the matter/objects to its unconscious hands.
And even, he will see how easy and quickly the matter/objects come into existence, and instead of seeing these wonderful activities as evidence of the existence of the creator, he will lose his reason so as to try to use this event, evidencing the existence of a never-ending, Absolute Power, as a testimony to its non-existence and he will say: “Everything is already happening easily on its own. Why is there a need for a creator?” Even without being aware of what a great mistake he makes, he will display the biggest ignorance of the history of humanity before the eyes of everybody without shame. He will show “courage” of calling this as science. He will be deceived a lot and will deceive others a lot.
A Short Intermediary Note: Look, how far away the ignorance could go. Have a look at the difference of interpretation. Look, how close these approaches that are intersecting with each other. Look at this, how easy and slim, the thin line between faith and denial is and how easy passing from one side to another.
Carl Sagan endeared the science to millions of people. But, he was also deceived as well as he deceived these millions. Stephen William Hawking and Richard Dawkins are also in the same situation. And although we share the same basis for searching the truth, due to differences and falsity of their interpretation we are sorry, on their behalf. Sure, we ask Allah to show them the right path. But there is a breaking point right here. Allah would not leave the door of the truth ajar to those who insist on looking at it from the blind spot. He would close that door and would never open again. Because, such a person does not look at the universe to really learn and know about it. He looks at it in an obsessive way and continues to do so. Insistently, he says “I will deny”. What kind of words are these: “I do not want to think about the existence of the creator. Even the idea of his existence disturbs me.”? Such a thing is unacceptable. A scientist should not say anything like that. He should not say it in the name of being scientific. Then, what if the creator exists? A computer has an engineer and a factory but this universe could not have? Isn’t there any probability? How does being disturbed by this probability befit with the science? Where does such a sentence belong? At the most it could be his personal opinion and interpretation. It is personal and subjective. You can’t call it scientific. Then we can say that Creator is the scientific truth and evolution is nonsense. Whatever…
“Since the truth does not bore” we also say it once again: Nature is an imaginative concept which does not have material reality. Even though its material existence is accepted, it could only be a piece of art; it can’t be the artist, the master of that art.
 In the history of Life of Said-i Nursi (Tarihçe-i Hayat) which is given a place in Risale-i Nur, it is recorded that he gives this reply when he was asked why he repeated continuously a certain reality that he considered very important.
As it does not have such capabilities, he can’t do it. Since it does not have and such capabilities do not appear with it, then, it means it does not do these works, but they are done by someone else above it. In this situation it is necessary to accept that, nature is not itself an artist, but it is rather a canvas on which a picture is painted, that is why the pieces of art are shown over it.
We see there are certain embroideries decorated on the nature, and we do not deny it. We don’t have such a claim. We accept the parameters provided by the science as given. But there is a difference of interpretation here. Our objection is to the labelling of the differences of opinion as science. We say our interpretation is this one. Our interpretation is more logical. And we claim that those embroideries are made by someone else.
Short Intermediary Note: This thought is old but a very strong one. And nobody could claim that it is unscientific. Anyone who considers the theory of evolution should consider this thought as scientific as well. At least he should think of it as a theory, opinion, and an interpretation. Otherwise, we assume that this man is obsessive.
The laws of nature apply rules and have effects, but we say that the one who puts these rules, that is to say, law-maker, is someone else. We accept that nature sometimes functions as a curtain covering the states of the matter that look not appropriate with the greatness and the glory of the divine power but we reject the idea that it is the creator itself. We say that, the created actions work in nature and it is not nature what creates and work on those actions. A law of nature, which has abstract existence, is not a force that has the characteristics of carrying out actions on its own, so it is not possible to attribute the actions done within the objects to the laws of nature.
Nature is like a table over which a note is written. It is not the hand holding the pen or the person writing the note. It can’t be.
It is so difficult to deduce this? Is it so unscientific and nonsense?