The Concept of the Universe Questioning Existence (An Scientific Approach Which Accepts the Existence of a Creator)
Üsküdar University Special Seminar Program
This seminar program was presented at the Nermin Tarhan Conference Hall at Üsküdar University Central Campus on Friday, November 29, 2019.
In order to honor the outstanding achievements, the awards given to the successor with high spiritual value are called plaques. At the end of the program, Ediz Sözüer was presented a plaque signed by Üsküdar University Rector Nevzat Tarhan.
Address of the Seminar Video: https://youtu.be/MniGC9ujjC8
We divided each topic of the seminar into short videos. A total of 10 short videos appeared.
The Google Drive storage address below has been uploaded to the seminar text, Powerpoint presentation, and seminar video. You can view or download if you want. (Turkish and English. English Powerpoint presentation is being prepared.)
For seminar photos and plaque presentation, please visit:
Ediz Sözüer presents this very special presentation and seminar video with the following words:
This presentation is a turning point in the academic community. Be sure to watch the seminar video. You will witness many extra dialogues that you will not find in the text and the most lively sound and excitement of the expressed truths.
May Allah bring us the progeny (the new generation that will lead us to the high Qur’anic civilization), I hope.
The spirit and spirituality of Medresetüzzehra began to manifest itself in all its glory and with the highest and lush voice and sound logic. Watch, you’il be entitled. You will hear the footsteps of the Qur’an civilization … Read and watch… ”
In this very special seminar presentation, which will appeal to all those who question existence and especially attract the attention of the academic community, first of all, we will to share some of our conclusions on the value, for the humanity, of the scientific works and approaches which search for evidence for the acceptance of a creator and which make their conclusions in this regard. Name of this presentation is: “Questioning the Factors That Determine the Value of Scientific Information”
This is also, in a sense, an evaluation of Medresetüzzehra Educational Approach presented by (islamic theology genius that dissolves religion, science and logic in the same pot) Bediüzzaman Said Nursi as an innovative educational project in the early 1900s. Medresetüzzehra Educational Approach: The special name, which stands for “the reconciliation of the intelligent and religious sciences with one another”, presented as an innovative educational project at the beginning of the century by Bediüzzaman Said Nursi.
Our seminar aims to provide serious analysis and studies, as a philosophical basis, in terms of introduction to the Scientific World of such an educational approach which accepts the existence of a Creator, by developing scientific models, and interpretations which can prove to be alternatives to scientific approaches to the existence of the Creator, by developing alternative scientific approaches that can be accepted and by establishing the philosophy of science and curriculum of “Medresetüzzehra Education Approach”. Other topics are as follows:
Why Can the Logic not Find Truth On İts Own? What do We Understand When We Say Proving? What does Proving Mean?
Why can’t the Material Reasons and the Laws of Nature be Accepted as “The Real Effective Reason” of the Universe and the Formation of Living Things?
The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of The Existence of A Creator
The Comprehensible of the Universe is not an Incomprehensible Thing (Criticism of Agnostic Philosophy)
Investigation of “The Essence of the Issue is Faith and Evidences is a Supporting Factor”.
Revealing the Absolute Inadmissability of a Universe Where the Truth is Unknowable for a Believer in An Ideal and Acceptable Faith’s Universe Vision
We will focus on cornerstones of an ideal and acceptable faith. First, we will present that a universe with an unknowable truth is absolutely unacceptable for Muslims. Then, that “faith is trustworthy (constant), and evidences are but auxiliary” and how to understand it will be analyzed as another integral part of the issue and emphasized with importance in Risale-i Nur.
Based on the demonstrability of scientific accuracy, rationality, precision and supportability by evidence of religious truths, being an abstract truth on rational inference, not compelling for the will with freedom of choice and that evidences express theoretical precision, and by presenting the structural difference between denial and evidence, we will present the conformity of creator’s existence with science and that it is healthier, more rational and without relation to prepossession or presupposition to deduce and gather evidence with the thought that, even with no idea, matter has a creator.
Key Words: Agnostic Philosophy, The Genesis model, Atheism, Philosophy of science, The faith in Oneness (Tawheed).
The Concept of the Universe Questioning Existence
(An Scientific Approach Which Accepts the Existence of a Creator)
Seminar Full Text:
Training Program Presentation and Introduction
We will present you the seminar which is part of the academic education activities of our training program called “Journeys of Discovery“. Together, we will embark on an imaginary and mental journey of discovery, an exciting adventure. For making sense of the world in which we exist and obtaining an awareness that is more amazing than ever before… We would like you to accompany us in this journey. In this program, you are invited to adventure of searching and finding a great truth. There is only one fixed price for a ticket of the Journey: A strong sense of wonder in the search for truth. Let’s just say that immediately: In this here, we are not in a position to teach you what we know. Because all of the topics we will handle here are the ones that are already questioned in our inner world.
First of all, we want you to know what we’re busy with and what we’re doing. Therefore we’re going to talk about our book “A Journey of Discovery for an Extraordinary Treasure: Risale-i Nur (The Treatise of Light) Training Program”. Our book is 2018 Golden Pen Writing Award Winner in the field of religion-research. This work introduced with the slogan “Let’s Get Acquainted with the Books Discovering the Secret of the Universe!” In addition, we will talk about our “Journeys of Discovery Risale-i Nur (Treatise of Light) Training Program”, building on our source book and which is the first in its area in the whole world.
See what is written in the introduction text of our source book. This book is the basic / resource book and academic course curriculum of our education program.
“This book is penned down in order to introduce you a piece of work, that is so unbelievably and astonishingly perfect that it will surprise you with the high truths and grand scientific discoveries contained therein and will make some of you say “How come I have never heard of it until now!” (Or could not really discover it).
The main subject of study of these books is the following:
To give correct answers to three basic questions of existence, which have remained as the unknown secrets of the universe that have been always wondered by the humanity. The discovery of the right answers in these areas has been possible not only with the use of the mind/intellect which is incapable of reaching to the truth on its own but rather with the common guidance of divine revelation and the mind. Nevertheless, the answers to the questions that were asked have been discovered solely with rational inferences and logical evidences. These three questions are:
High truths, which the whole humanity needs and which are appealing to all those who look for the explanation of the basic reality of existence and which is more interesting for the world of science and the scientists and which is brought by divine revelation, are discovered once again and proved with rational methods in these works.
Especially today, while quantum physics, astronomy and astrophysics have reached to such advanced levels, common answers are looked for these three questions on matter, universe and human being; the science and these works study the same subjects and share a common ground of work.
Here you are: The work, which contains in itself a spiritual/immaterial treasury for people who have an irresistible interest and passion for science and learning, is called Risale-i Nur (Treatise of Light).”
Our training program is designed to introduce Risale-i Nur, which gives the most correct and comprehensive answers to the three basic questions of existence and presents Islam in a logical way in accordance with the understanding of the epoch. We believe that the content of our book/training program, which is entitled as “Visually Supported and Academically Qualified Journeys of Discovery Risale-i Nur (Treatise of Light) Training Program”, has the capacity to increase the love for science/knowledge and the number investigative people who think intellectually; to meet the society’s need to approach and to describe the moral, spiritual and religious values in an academic framework and to make serious contributions to the intellectual transformation that we need as a society. Our book/training program is composed of two sections.
The first section is entitled as: “Discovering the Value of the Treasure of Faith”. We can see this first section as the comprehension of the greatness and value of a treasure. The second section is entitled as “Proving the Existence of the Treasure of Faith with Evidences”. In this part, six pillars of faith are proved with evidences. In other words, in the second section, the existence of the treasure sought to be achieved, whose value is understood/appreciated in the first section, is proved; its place is discovered, and this great and magnificent treasure is acquired.
Our program, which is based on our book, A Journey of Discovery for an Extraordinary Treasure: Risale-i Nur (The Treatise of Light) Training Program, is constructed in a visual format with explanations by making use of almost 2000 visuals, made up of informative graphics, impressive pictures and highlighted texts and lecture videos as well as 170 striking videos related to the subject.
Having been woven piece by piece with the sensitivity of an artist, with the conversion of the visual material used in the programs into visual/interactive books, a first in its field (as an innovative religious education tool) it was brought into the use of public as a multidimensional service and education project.
We present our basic/resource book with 12 Booklets in the form of visual/interactive books under the title of “The Series of Booklets of Risale-i Nur Explanatory Texts”.
As a result of the intensive work that has been going on for about 6 years, the resulting picture is as follows: Used in 2000 visuals and 170 videos, a gigantic and spectacular work is a first and completely different experience in the world. 12 small books (ie a set of 52 books consisting of 48 small and 4 large books) and 688 page basic/resource training book and 1479 page Visual/Interactive Version, presented in four different versions in text and visual/interactive, Turkish and English.
Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, at the beginning of last century, presented “Medresetüzzehra Education Approach”, as the special name of a project of innovational educational program, teaching of rational and religious sciences together, their reconciliation and integration. Our program aims to provide serious analysis and studies, as a philosophical basis, in terms of introduction to the Scientific World of such an educational approach which accepts the existence of a Creator, by developing scientific models, and interpretations which can prove to be alternatives to scientific approaches to the existence of the Creator, by developing alternative scientific approaches that can be accepted and by establishing the philosophy of science and curriculum of “Medresetüzzehra Education Approach”. As a prototype of “Medresetüzzehra” (though responding to the original aim fully and worth being taught in the educational institutions), it is open to all kind of examination with all its materials (all texts, videos, presentations and book files)
From these addresses, the content of the educational program, the official presentation file, the analysis of the intellectual infrastructure of the educational program and the detailed determination and analysis of the innovative religious textbook can be accessed.
You can enter this section by clicking on the blue strip below.
I would like to direct your attention to the fact that here our analysis does not aim to prove the existence of a creator. However, in our presentation you will witness a serious search for truth, evidence-based determinations and basic approaches.
For providing academic proof of the truth of the Belief in Allah on an intellectual and scientific basis in full detail; we make our entire book (provided that it is read carefully) an excellent resource in this field.
The name of our book is: “Academic Proof of the Creator (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)”
This book is part of our basic/resource book and You can find both text books and visual/interactive books on our website.
(Click on the book image.)
In our basic book, there are very serious evidences about the existence of the creator or the correctness of the Islamic religion in various places, but we recommend this little book because it is the section that deals with the existence of the creator from top to bottom.
Now, You Are Invited to the Adventure… Discovering the high truths about the humanity, life, universe and religion… Making sense of the world in which we exist… Obtaining an awareness that is more amazing than ever before… A Wonderful Mental journey… Amazing Facts… Now we invite you in from the door of all this, please come in!
The Factor Determining the Real Value of Scientific Information
We have a short and impressive video before moving on to our first title and before our imaginary journey on a totally different mental journey: Our story in four minutes… (You can watch this impressive video by clicking here or the picture below. Watch in hd and full screen.)
Once our spirit is sent to our body, we find ourselves unsolicitously in this amazing and beautiful universe. Well, “Why are we here? Who has sent us here? And where are we going after here? Who are we and what is wanted from us? What are we doing here?” Why are the real answers to such questions asked during all history of mankind important for us?
What can be expected from a product, which is presented in the name of science? How should its value be measured? What should it provide human-beings with and with what content should it be presented so that, in real terms, it could be considered valuable as a scientific product?
We wonder, what characteristics should the science, our companion in better understanding the universe, have so that it could take us to higher levels in our personal development during our exchange of information with it? In our opinion, the modern age’s philosophy and science, which are working in order to discover the formation of the matter and the laws of its working, and very skilful in finding out the specifics and the principles in this regard, are far from making any contribution to the elevation of human spirit and his personal development.
Because the information provided by them is soulless, dull, gloomy and meaningless. The scientific data and the mass of information which are not meaningfully interpreted could give a person nothing but the feeling of fear, dread and quandary.
Such a human being could gain value and importance only from the perspective of mind and comprehension and he has already done so. However, since the weakness of his body, the limitlessness of his needs and his imprisonment for death stay as they were before and he continues to seem as if he would “disappear into the nothingness” therefore, would not the value that he gained turn into worthlessness and the meaning, that he has had, turn into meaninglessness? Now at this important point, we ask:
What kind of truth can change this situation fundamentally?
Man has risen up with his mind and now he comes down back with the death. Then, what kind of truth may give rise to him and give back his value? We are asking this question.
Is such a great discovery possible, which would not fail the high potential and far-reaching capabilities of the human being?
Do you think that the value of such a meaningful reality could be estimated properly?
Because such a discovery will also reveal the fact that the purpose of our existence in the world is to see the special treatment towards us and to appreciate it (If this is the case in reality, and it this fact is revealed).
In other words, if someone has brought you here and he has been nurturing you with blessings, this is not in vain. Since we have intellect and comprehension facilities, it is understood that we are asked for something. What is that? It is so easy. It is to see, recognize that special treatment and appreciate it.
If this is really the case, then, the life and the world we live in shall be brightened by a very different light and we will be able to look at the universe from a very different perspective. It means that we will be able to have this opportunity as a human being. Each one of us will be able to say “This world is my home and it is specially built for me”.
It will come to the light that the world is not a chaotic place moving haphazardly in the space and among the meteors, for which it is worried that it will bring its doomsday by hitting one of them, leading us into a mystery; a place where continuously some are born and some others die; but rather a guesthouse for us.
The goal of obtaining this information in the highest degree of certainty is a high horizon for the science. The quality of all findings in this direction and the inferences of all studies to be made in this area will be a factor that will determine the real value of scientific information.
Moreover, we claim that the value of scientific approaches and studies which search for evidences for acceptance of existence of a creator and which make their conclusions in this direction is much higher and meaningful for the humanity compared to atheistic approaches which leave the creator out of consideration from the very beginning.
The discovery of the fact that the world is a temporary guesthouse is a great truth giving birth to a chain of spectacular truths. Recognizing, in its real sense, the owner/master of the palace would change the colour/appearance of everything, and it will be the basis of earning the eternal life.
A person, who knows why he or she is here, will look at everything or every event from this perspective.
Now, we will focus on very substantial and important issues, which are the cornerstone of an ideal and acceptable faith for a person who is searching for truth and questioning the existence.
First, we will present that the concept of a universe where the truth is unknowable is absolutely unacceptable for a believer. Then, we will analyze the matter of “how faith is trustee (constant), and the evidences are merely auxiliary elements”, which is another integral part of this issue and is emphasized with importance in Risale-i Nur, and how it should be understood.
An important information for the correct understanding of our presentation: In our presentation, we will emphasize that the idea of a universe where truth is unknown is unacceptable, especially for a believer. The word “truth” is not meant here as “the existence of the creator”, which is the most fundamental truth of the objects and the universe. There is no complete uncertainty about the existence of the Creator, and as a result of the evidence and investigations put forward, the truthfullness of this fundamental truth can be judged and conscientiously and intellectually accepted. However, in our presentation, even though the evidence of the existence of a Creator was emphasized; it is not this fundamental truth that we emphasize that its obscurity cannot be imagined. “They are the essential truths that the existence of the Creator involves.”
For example: Anyone who attempts to understand a work done by Allah, should look at this universe, by taking into account the shape which this universe takes when the existence of Allah is accepted.
When the events are not observed with the lights of the indispensable results of His Existence, then erroneous conclusions are made. For instance, it can be said: “How come Allah permits such cruelties and deaths? Why is the tyrant not punished? Why are the oppressed not recompensed?”
And we reply: This is the situation where the universe is seen in a gloomy manner when the existence of Allah is not taken into account? However, with the creation of the land of eternal life, then the second part of the film, which is not taken into account, starts.
Then, every event that we see as bad and ugly will show their principal meaning which is good and nice in reality. The oppression of the tyrant will not go unpunished, and the victim’s sufferings will not be for nothing. Every truth and every event lived in this world will gain their real meaning and erudite shapes.
All pillars of faith are realized and proved as a requisite of the belief in Allah. And they can truly be understood under the light of the belief in Allah. We find it useful to express this issue as a summary in terms of grounding our analysis. Let me explain: Since there is only One God, Allah, then He will surely create, in all parts of the universe, the ones with the consciousness who will see His Art and be amazed by that Art, who will witness the wonderful works of His and worship Him. This is the essence of the belief in the existence of Angels. There is One God, and then it would not be normal if He would not introduce Himself and make others know Him. That’s why the Belief in Prophets and Books. There is One God, Allah, there must be an eternal place which will save all his beautiful arts from decaying and being ruined, from waste and from triviality; an eternal place that will save His servants who love Him, loved by Him, who knows and who makes others know Him, from non-existence/nihility and the purposes of the creation form meaninglessness; an eternal place that will realize the real beautiful truth of all ugliness and injustices that are caught by our superficial eyes. Here you are the basis of belief in Hereafter…
Since there is one and only God, Allah who does every work dexterously; who creates the matter with a stable and ordered structure, He certainly holds, in his divine science, all the plans, programs, models and scientific spiritual molds of his works and he realizes his works as it times come so that his works run smoothly like a clockwork.
Since this is the case, it is never possible that He may leave his servants, who could understand and appreciate these works, on their own, without recording their actions; let some other incidental force to rule, in its real term, and to intervene in the lives of His servants and that He may not accept the participation of other partner, in His being worshipped, being asked help and being thanked/appreciated by his servants. Here you are: the meaning of the belief in Predetermination and in that everything comes from Allah whether good or bad.
Yes, the vision of the concept of a universe in which the truth (that is, the essential truths dictated by the Creator’s existence) is unknown is unacceptable to a believer. This decretal is especially for the truths of faith and a believer.
Because the existence of the Creator, which is the basic truth (due to the mystery of offering inflicted upon human beings by the trial and religion), is not as clear as it will necessarily be accepted by everyone. However, this does not imply a complete and absolute uncertainty.
Because the existence of a creator is a reasonable and rational matter enough to prove its proof and to open a door to the reason. With the result that although there exists a truth to be judged for its certainty, it is fundamentally theoretical. However, someone, who does not believe or is still in search with respect to believing and is hesitant, should say that “If there is a creator of this universe and wants us to know its existence, then the truth that he wants us to find must be knowable.
And this universe must have the quality and order to make inferences and observations in this direction.
So, if there is a Creator, I must make inferences by predicting that there must be an understandable universe and an accessible, knowable, assured truth and I must search by being careful whether it is so or not”.
How can we imagine an Allah who created a universe where the truth is unknown (for its servants whom it obliged to find the truth with reason)?
You may say that “I couldn’t find, I couldn’t see, I couldn’t be sure”. But you cannot say, “It cannot be found, seen or known for certain”. Naturally, this provision applies particularly to a believer.
The place of truth is known with the help of reason and revelation, but it is disclosed from its place with the heart and other graces (spiritual devices such as emotion, feeling, intuition). (The term we use must be understood as a metaphorical and literary form of expression. Otherwise, of course, truth is not a material thing, whether it has a place or location.) In other words, the truths of faith are the truths that are realized, confirmed, felt and the truths which are judged with certainty by hearth. They’re not just known with mind.
Why Can the Logic not Find Truth On İts Own?
Does faith to the unseen (the invisible to the eye) mean to have an unjustified belief in something which does not have evidence and we do not know? No, it’s never like that. Reason alone cannot discover the truth in all its details, it is in need of a guide (knowledge of revelation).
Why can the logic not find its way on its own? For instance, somebody secretly puts you asleep by anesthetizing you and take you to a facility on an island. When you wake up you see there are several people like you brought to the island against their will.
In the island, there is an well established accommodation facility. Free food, free accommodation and opportunities to travel and see around are provided. As if each one of us is invited to a feast.
Now we ask this: How could people on the island know the purpose of the establishment of a facility existing on the island?
We wonder if it there is any other way of finding conclusive information on how they came to the island other than the notification of this information by the one who brought them to the island?
In addition, every wise person appreciates the importance of finding those answers and sees, as a cause, that wondering why he is brought to the island is a necessity of being a human. It is so obvious who will answer: The One who has sent you there, who established and has been running that facility, will also give you the answer.
If a person is brought to somewhere, against his will, for a purpose, then, the right to speak in that issue belongs to the One who brought him there. The one who knows the answer to this question is only that person knows why you are brought there and what you are asked for. It can’t be anyone else.
Therefore, first of all, we have to find out who has brought us here and then we should learn the answers to our questions from him.
In fact, we are saying a very simple thing:
“Since the one who does, knows, for sure, the one who knows also speaks.” This is a rule of logic.
The person who constructs the universe, who operates this world as a guesthouse and who sent him into this universe against his will, certainly and only knows its reason and what man is asked for.
So, without any doubt, He will notify these things as well. And presumably, he must have informed. Don’t you think so?
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. This provision is the common view of Maturidism (a righteous sect about faith) and Abu Hanifa.
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.
Faith in the unseen, of course, does not mean having an unjustified belief in something you do not know without evidence. Only in the evidence from the creation to the effectual, although the influence of the effectual is visible to the eye, but itself is not visible. It is like that the painter who paints that artwork with that brush himself is not visible, at a camera angle where only the working brush is visible on a painting. Of course, in such a case, that artistic painting should not be known as painted by the brush that works on it and assuming the existence of a painter with artistic talent behind it is the requirement of the reason. That is not to believe in something completely unknown, unseen, as some might think. Because “proof“ means to reveal the truth of a claim by showing evidence. We will elaborate this point again.
Looking at the Reality from a Blind-Spot
The issue gets stacked always at the same point over the thin line between faith and denial. It can be said that the eye of the one who doesn’t want to accept, with obstinacy, the Creator and a conscious creation is looking at the reality from a blind point of view. All the art, wisdom and blessings, which can indeed be recognized even by a person of average mind, are hidden in that blind spot where he is looking.
In other words, our problem is not solely related with logical. It does not start or end just with logic and rationality. After all, the matter at hand is something that can’t have hundred percent certainty. But, you have to make a conclusion in accordance with the evidence that you see, with the existing situation and make a decision.
Hence, as a result of our detailed investigations, it becomes obvious that atheists make their preference for the other option due to sickness in their heart. This is not something that can be seen with our eyes and held with our hands.
Is this not the act of treating? But, what is done is just extending our hand and giving the glass. But this has a meaning. Since we are humans, with a heart and a mind, and since we are not machines and just don’t act only with what we see. What is that meaning? An abstract concept: the act of treatment! How can this be seen? For Allah’s sake, you tell this. We have already given a clue. Can it be seen with eyes. No, it can’t. How can it be seen or let’s say, appreciated? The answer: It is appreciated with mind and heart. Not anything else. That action is seen by the eye, and its meaning is appreciated by mind and heart! Therefore, we have to have a sensitive heart which can feel it. Therefore, we have to have a working mind, so that we can make these conclusions.
It is a famous dictum in Risale-i Nur, “Those who look for everything in the matter/objects have their mind in their eyes. And the eye is blind when it comes to the matters of faith.” It can’t see non-material connections and abstract things.
Since, the ability to deduce the existence of an action from a work; and by looking at that action recognizing that there is somebody who carries out that action is a completely abstract concept that can only be seen and appreciated by mind and heart; and it has a much different meaning than knowing the existence of something that can be seen with naked eye and held in our hands, believing is a matter of ordainment. Allah ordains the light of faith and the gem of the true path only for those who use their will in the right way. But, since believing in something invisible (iman-ı bilgayb) is the basis of the faith, it is possible to deny the truth as it is not something that is visible and tactile, albeit the evidence being very strong.
In any case, the proposal made by the religion and the characteristics of the trial of the human being depends on the fact that the truths of faith do not have such a clarity and certainty that everybody is not in a position to accept it involuntarily. In other words, the evidence of the reality of the truth should not transcend the point where they are so much compelling that the willpower becomes irrelevant.
The scientific righteousness, the acceptability of the truth of faith can be shown and they have such a consistency that it can be concluded: “Yes, this should certainly be this way, it can’t be otherwise” and they are supported by evidence opening the door for the mind. However, since they are abstract truths based on logical deductions, the willpower, the freedom of choice is not taken away. If there were evidence and miracles that are so much compelling so that everybody would have to accept them, then the secret of the trial would be spoiled. So the door opens to the mind only to the degree to prove the evidence. If it were crystal clear (clear, with a certainty that no evidence would be needed and everyone would necessarily accept it), everyone would agree, and the result would be a waste of the trial.
An important point: When we say that “there is already an issue of which the certainty is not 100 percent.”, we mean that the truths of faith are not in the precision of mathematics and at a certainty that is visible and does not require evidence. If there is a truth with mathematical certainty, the secret of the trial is broken. The truth of faith will get closer to 100%, maybe with 99.999999..99% probability. It will be like this and it should be so. People will think “There is no alternative. All the matter and objects in the whole universe must have been created by a single Power” but it will not be 100%. If it is so, then the secret of the trial will be spoiled. The truths of fate are obvious so that they can prove their own evidence. But they are not so obvious that everybody will accept them forcibly and to an extent they have a veiled structure and they should be like that.
If it is not so, how can you differentiate between people with a soul made of diamond and people with a soul made of coal? Because, then, everybody would accept the truth of faith.
There are two points in this matter:
1- Theoretically, we can talk about hundred percent certainty of these proofs and we do.
2- However, we also say that it is not hundred percent at a mathematical certainty that everyone will have to accept and at a point that there is no concrete-visual evidence, there is no clear certainty that does not require any evidence to prove and there is no evidence which is compelling and taking the will away. (Due to the trial secret.) Yes, it is only theoretical that the truths of faith are hundred percent. That is to say, they are not practically certain concrete-visual issues that will not overpower denial. They are hypothetical. Otherwise, there is no freedom where there is no will and no responsibility where there is no freedom of choice. It should be in such a consistency anyway. As Blaise Pascal puts it: “There is enough light for those who want to see, and enough shadow for those who want to blind themselves.”
So there is no compelling, enforcer evidence. But, of course, (we emphasize again with importance that), just as this is so, we cannot say that the evidence does not express theoretical certainty. So it is not a concrete and undeniable clear reality like the presence of the computer on your desk. This issue is indisputable. There is a energy-space (kind of possibility) for denial in matters of faith. In the case of computers, there is no denial. If we do not express this matter like this, we cannot make anyone responsible. Offering of the religion and the secret of trial can only be based on this “acceptability and deniability” (that is not to say, there are no evidences that include certainty).
What do We Understand When We Say Proving? What does Proving Mean?
At that point, we need to clarify some concepts. What do we understand when we say “proving”? What does “proving” mean? What does it mean if a claim has hard/conclusive evidence? What is the difference between the logical evidence and the concrete reality? First of all, even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it could still be possible to prove it with logical evidence. “Proving” means showing crystal clear the trueness of a claim by giving evidence. Now, in matters related to faith, there is no such evidence that can be held in your hands and seen by your eyes. Nevertheless, it would be a great injustice to reality and a wrong judgment to say that these matters are not rational and that there are no accurate logical evidence just because this is the case.
Let’s make the matter more concrete. The probability of the formation of a universe which could enable us to live was calculated by famous British physician Roger Penrose. The probability for the formation of an environment suitable for living beings, that was found by Penrose, taking into account all physical variables, different permutations of their sequences and all other possible outcomes of Bing Bang was:
10 to the 10th power to 123rd power. It is difficult to even think what this number means. For example, 10 to 3rd power means 1000. For, 10 to 10th power to 3rd power, there are 1000 zeros on the right side of “1”. But here, we are putting 10123 zeros and there is even no description of or name given to this number in math. 10123 is a bigger number than the total number of atoms in all over the universe, which is 1078. And the number found by Penrose is much higher than that.
I wonder: what did Penrose think about this number that he found? Penrose makes the following comment on this mind-blowing number:
“This number, that is the probability of 1 divided by 10 powered by 10 powered by 123, shows us how precise and definite the purpose of the creator is. This is really an extraordinary number. If someone wants to write this number down, this is not possible to write by using natural numbers, because, he has to write so many zeros next to 1 that even if he or she puts a zero on every proton and neutron in the universe, still he will be much behind his purpose”.
As it is clearly manifested, there is no possibility for the creation of the universe by coincidence.
Karl Stern, a psychiatrist at Montreal University, makes the following evaluation on those who want to ignore this reality: “Thinking that the existing structure of the universe is the result of coincidence is totally an insane thought. I do not use the term insane not in any slang form but just as a technical term. In reality, there are similarities between such a thought and the way of schizophrenic thinking.” (Schizophrenia is a disorder of thinking where the patient has weird ideas and conclusions which are indeed irrelevant to thinking.)
Insisting on the alternative of evolution and nature, resembles insisting that the Shakespeare’s pieces are written by one billion monkeys, for one billion years, by typing on one billion typewriters.
And, we attempt to make a calculation of probability for that, we can find a number which is very close to zero, but not zero. On the other hand, everybody knows that any one of the works belonging to Shakespeare could never be written by monkeys.
This is the main point of our issue, mathematically there is a possibility, but there are no possibilities in practice, that is to say we can talk about hundred percent certainty of our issue in the theoretical sense, although not in the absolute certainty. The matter is to realize this.
Here, the point is to notice this fact. We reply to those who say “Yes, it is a small probability but still it is possible!” with the following words: “No, it is never possible! This can’t be called a probability”. Yes, it is true, there is a mathematical probability. And this probability is not zero. But such small possibilities can be considered “zero” in practice. Because, in practice, such a thing will not have the conditions to be formed in real life.
In current conditions, in order to create life by chance, it is necessary to go to another universe. Because the calculations of probability we make in this world exceed the limits of this universe. A protein cannot come into being by chance. The number of particles in this universe and all the seconds passed away during its lifetime are not enough to make these trials in a successful way and to create that protein. As a matter of fact, it is seen that there is a need for a large number of universes in order for life to come into being by chance, without any external intervention with the calculations of possibilities, and the idea of “multiple universes” which is accepted that those experiments are being done in each of them and which is a current popular science subject is a different version of the thought that tries to deny the creation of the universe.
The main purpose of this thesis is to increase the number of possible trials and the time period available to form a universe which hosts living beings, therefore, to increase the probability of formation of the universe through so-called chances and find the opportunity to say the following sentence: “There are multiple universes in infinite numbers. Once this is the case, then, it is possible to have the life initiated in one universe or in the other.” We will present you with what Steven Weinberg, a Nobel winning physicist said in an interview, made by the proponent of atheism Richard Dawkins. Weinberg says: “In order to make human life possible, the numbers of multi-universes should be so high. In fact, it should be 1056 at least.
If you think you have some information about fluctuation, you should say 10120 at least. In fact, this is somewhat confusing.” The words of Weinberger are remarkable.
But, why should it be confusing to make conclusions from this data? In fact, it is not confusing at all. What does it mean to accept the existing of 10120 universes in addition to the existing one instead of accepting the existence of the Creator? This number means this: in the universe, the total number of atoms is 1078. If we put 1 trillion, that is 1012, zeros next to it; this makes up: 1078*1012=1090. Still this is an unbelievably smaller number than 10120. In other words, by accepting this, you have to accept without any evidence the existence of such a big number of universes, which is much bigger than the number you reach when you add 1 trillion zeros over each atom in the universe. If you feel that you have to reject the existence of a creator or if you condition yourself in this direction, then you find yourself blocked in a dead street.
However, there are just two options to explain the stable/constant laws and the delicate balance apparent in nature. Either the existence of the creator, which Richard Dawkins and other atheists are disturbed even thinking of, will be accepted. Or, the existence of 10120 universes, for whose existence there is not any evidence, or even if there is¸ there is confusing evidence. For Allah’s sake! Why making such a decision is difficult? Is the difficulty only related to the being logical to the undesired option which is the existence of a creator? Is it more appropriate and more suitable with scientific thinking?
Or is this difficulty related with that the probability of the desired option, that is creation based on coincidence, is low, almost impossible, and that even the advocates of this thinking, who advocate it feverishly, have difficulty in obtaining the approval of their logic for the realization of such a probability?
In conclusion, at this point we can easily say that the insistence of the scientists, who are proponents of the atheistic thinking, in believing in this superstition, makes the idea of the existence of a single creator even stronger.
Yes, trying to explain the origin of life with such a fictional approach should not be seen as scientific. Because it is essential to make inferences according to the data and conditions of the apparent universe and to call these inferences as science. (The rational evidences on the existence of a creator, formed on the basis of “devolving from the work to the existence of owner of the work” is consistent with this basis and must be seen in scientific nature. We have elaborated this opinion in the following sections of our presentation and presented it with its justifications.) In the face of the ruthless criticism of the ideas of those who accept a creator and being considered unscientific; we believe that such impossible scenarios and purely fictional approaches, which are compulsory only as a result of insisting on not accepting a creator, will give those who accept a creator the right to see these approaches as unscientific.
Besides, in a universe which is continuously renewed, this possibility is never probable. These calculations of probability are based on fixed forms. But the universe if being renewed continuously, so the color of the work changes much more. Because the impossible possibilities in countless places and numbers will continue to occur consistently and it is clear that the possibility of such a thing must be rejected directly and without calculation.
The Comprehensible of the Universe is not an Incomprehensible Thing
(Criticism of Agnostic Philosophy)
In the Risale-i Nur, we observe that Sophists, who deny the existence of the universe and the philosophical views such as agnosticism which claims that the universe is unknowable, are not taken into account seriously and they are not emphasized. In fact, if we would not make deductions from the matter and objects we see around us, and then what can we take as a basis while making science? We just would like to touch upon a few points on these unfounded allegations and end this issue.
First Point, (as mentioned in the Second Position of 21st Word of Risale-i Nur) is the principle that the probability which is not based on evidence has no value.
As long as there is no conclusive evidence proving that the universe does not exist and that the apparent form of the universe that we sense with our senses eyes is so different that this changes and turns around the basic structure of the reality, then, all doubt in this regards will not be taken seriously.
The second point is is related to Albert Einstein’s following words: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible”. This point gives us a proper perspective about the existence of the universe and the visible reality of the matter.
If it were not so, it would not be possible either to understand and explain, with orderly principles, something which is not existing or which we could not comprehend correctly. We take these words one step further and say that: “The appearance of the universe in a comprehensible way for human beings is such a clear evidence of the fact that the reason for the existence of human beings is to understand the universe and man was sent to be a thoughtful addressee of the person who made the universe, that even the person with the simplest mind knows this in the depths of his heart and his mind and feel this reality with the deepest respect. Only some of them deny this great reality by turning a blind eye to it, by covering it up or by changing its shape and they betray themselves”
“The Essence of the Issue is Faith and Evidences is a Supporting Factor”
We have come to our important explanations about the issue of faith as a trustee (constant) and evidences are only auxiliary elements which is another inseparable part of the subject that we are dealing with and emphasized in Risale-i Nur. When evaluating the evidence, that is, even when one has not yet believed, it is rational to see faith as the trustee (constant) of the matter because of the structural difference between proof and denial. Because, logically, only the accuracy of the evidence requires the truth of faith. However, even if there are thousands of opposing evidence (because it is denial), it does not necessarily require that it is wrong or destroyed (this has nothing to do with prejudice). The point is: The essence of the issue is faith. Evidence is a supporting factor.
If the pieces of evidences are refuted one by one and differentiated, the truth of faith which stays above them is not shaken; even if there are hundred pieces of counter evidence and doubts, this situation would not harm its health and certainty.
Because, the occupation of faith is an approval based on information and evidence. This provision is the same before and after faith, it does not change. Such an assessment is logical. Hundreds and thousand pieces of evidence may be provided for and against the truth of a claim or the existence of an object.
Even one piece of evidence for the trueness of that claim or for the existence of the object is real, the trueness of the claim or the existence of the object is manifested. The contrary is unthinkable. Therefore, here, the distinctness of the occupation of proving comes to the light.
Despite hundred pieces of evidence as to the non-existence of that object or the fallacy of that claim, there is always a possibility that these pieces of evidences could be false and that the object could exist. Because there will always remain an open door since such evidence for the nonexistence cannot cover the whole reality/truth. Also, there could be numerous and different reasons behind the evidence supporting the non-existence. It is always possible to consider the existence of a possibility contrary to these pieces of evidence and the reality could be materialized in this manner. Before anything else, it is not a logical approach to deny and abandon the matters of faith, over which definite and unhesitant conviction has been formed as to the trueness of them, with the joining of a thousand pieces of evidence.
Because, the fallacy of some evidence would not change the result and trueness of one evidence will necessitate the trueness of the outcome. When the trueness of the claim is manifested, all the reasons and explanations of the counter evidence and doubts, which are unknown to us will be considered as solved and will be void. Thinking the contrary as possible is logically impossible. In other words, we do not have to know the right explanations of all doubts of deniers and all answers to their questions! We do not have such an obligation!
Let the denier give thousands of doubts and counter evidence. In order to save our faith and to prove the trueness of the path of faith, which is our occupation, we need not to refute each of them or search and find out explanations of them one by one. Because nonbelievers are on the path of denial. A denier has a serious structural difference. We are on the path of the proof. We also have a structural difference.
Once the trueness of any of the faith front’s evidence is manifested in a real sense, then we have to accept logically that, all doubts and counter evidence put by the denier have a certain point of dissolution (even we don’t know the exact reasons and explanations behind them).
Just as in the example of Palace given in Risale-i Nur, once one of the doors is opened, all doors are automatically opened. (Risale-i Nur Collection, Flashes, Thirteenth to flash, Third Point of Thirteenth Mark) Because, now we are already inside that Palace. It is critical to understand this issue, because, it is a point which can save us together with our faith.
Now we are making it simpler. One thing either exists or not. A claim (for example for prophethood) is either true or false. It is not possible to be in the middle. As such, evidence similar to the doors of the palace, helps us open the doors of that palace and go inside. How beautiful and how advantageous point is this for the one who is going on the path of faith. Similar to hundreds of doors, maybe there are hundreds of evidence. Occupation of faith is such a strong approach.
Just like how opening of one door enables the entry into the palace, truth of just one evidence, brings into the light the trueness of faith and dissolves wholly and definitely all wrong and contrary evidence and doubts, which are similar to closed doors, even though we do not know the details of how and in what ways. This is a requirement of the mind and logic.
The structural/characteristic difference between the denial and proof necessitates it. How wonderful and relaxing, this point is for those who are walking on the path of faith. As mentioned in the 2nd Station of 21st Word of Risale-i Nur, a possibility not stemming from single evidence is never taken into account.
Just like this rule, counter evidences and doubts which are a few in numbers, weak and unimportant and all are liable to be explained and refuted, against hundreds and thousands of pieces of the evidence of faith which are very logical and once united gain an unshakable force like an unbreakable rope, could not harm the certainty of faith and could not lead to the acceptance the opposite of these truths.
Why can’t the Material Reasons and the Laws of Nature be Accepted as “The Real Effective Reason” of the Universe and the Formation of Living Things?
We will provide a basic approach about why the combination of material causes in nature and the existence of natural laws cannot be accepted as the “real effective cause” of the creation of the universe and of living things. Further examples should be understood in the light of these two basic approaches.
First of all, emphasize this: Any living thing which is created artfully is being created/formed together with some accompanying material causes. However, the fact that they are co-existing at the same time, and that its formation is conditioned on the existence of the material causes could not be a sufficient evidence by itself for the invention of that artful objects by the material causes. Yes, the existence of an object could be dependent on numerous conditions. It is not possible to claim that a condition is enough by itself for the existence of an object just because lack of it leads to the nonexistence of that object.
In other words, a simple condition for a thing is not the “real effective reason” of that thing. If you do not give water to a garden, it dries out. Just by looking at this fact, it can’t be said that water is the sole reason of existence of the plants in the garden.
The appearance of the images on a television is dependent on the condition of a switch button being pressed. However, believing that it is the magical switch what makes this television work is something that could be done, by someone who is unaware of the existence of factory producing that TV, the electronic engineers and numerous parts making up the television, that is to say, the civilization. Or at best he or she could be considered as one who can’t think of this fine point
The Laws of Nature are not objects with the material substance, which have the properties, capabilities to create themselves or other things. They could not be the source of anything or any event. They could not be “the real effective reason” of any formation.
They are nothing more than explanations of the working of a systematic event or formation.
Otherwise, let alone the creation of the matter/objects or be a source for the movement of the matter and objects, these laws could not even explain their own essence or the reasons of their existence. Newton’s law of motion has never moved any billiard ball over a table.
Laws only enable us to observe the movement of the ball and to forecast its course until another event / force interrupts it.
Let alone creating anything, laws could not even make a ball move. Just because you give a fancy name to a visible event or you have explained the principles of the formation of that event, your explanations could neither be the real cause creating that event or become a source of effect leading to that event.
Trying to explain the regular movement/action of the matter just by the laws of nature only resembles the following example: Just how much far away from being intelligent and scientific is trying to explain (the creation/flight) of a passenger plane,
Which is designed by an expert engineer and produced by a big factory, just with the air’s lifting power, with law of thermodynamics, with electric power or with coming together of the parts of the plane, and even going further and claiming that the plane is self-created, not taking into account the engineer and the factory at all, not mentioning their names and leaving them out of any explanation in this regard.
We think it is a thousand times more unintelligent and unscientific than this example to explain the mechanism of birds, which have a far more advanced flight system, comprising thousands of species, hundreds of millions of members with laws of nature.
Just like it is impossible for a plane to build itself (presumably, there is no one claiming for the opposite). In a similar way, the matter /objects in the universe resemble the parts of a plane. The parts of the plane cannot be produced and they cannot function without the knowledge and the will of an engineer and the power of a factory. In fact, everybody accepts and nobody denies that this plane is made by using these parts. This is a very important detail. Those who express the necessity of a creator also accept it and do not deny it.
However, in addition, they say that the pieces cannot say “Let’s get together and form an airplane.” To express this clear necessity, which is not very difficult to understand, cannot be seen as unscientific. There is no denial of material reasons in the idea that “the universe itself was built and cleverly designed and the universe cannot be the creator of the things and creatures inside itself”. Is it science or the, material causes, the nature or the creator? There is no need to make a choice between them, there are no dichotomies. Because in fact, they all function/work together!
The point against which we make our objection is this: why the engineer of that plane is not taken into account.
In this inference, it is concluded by material reason that all these causes, and the object of design and great art are made by someone who has the characteristics and the qualities to create them.
The modern language of science has discovered “real effecting cause and nature” of every event in the universe and has a way of presenting and exhibiting them as if it has clearly revealed them. However, this is completely misleading.
Now see how “the incessantly burning of stars in the space without oxygen for billions of years” have been explained!
Important and subtle information: The phrase used in the question is used to emphasize the unusualness of the incident in question, and the aim of “burning” is, of course, to give light and heat through a chemical reaction, and it is metaphorical. If such a gigantic light and heat in the world were to be provided and sustained by a fire burning with oxygen, although the world would need to use millions of times the world’s size of wood, coal, and kerosene as much as thousands times of the seas; it is indeed a magnificent and wonderful miracle that the sun is continuously luminous and warm without need for wood, gas, charcoal, and that the light and heat provide amazing and delicate conditions for the existence and continuity of life on our privileged planet. The fact that an unconscious reaction yields thousands of benefits that require such a degree of consciousness and intent, of course, requires the presence of a hidden handler behind the scenes.
The following description should be considered from this point of view and the following should be observed:
With the depiction in the question “How stars burn continuously in oxygen-free space for billions of years”, it is emphasized using metaphor and comparison that how an astonishing phenomenon it is.
The technical description of the incident has already been referred to science and is a separate area of expertise. What we emphasize is that whatever its mechanism and processes of operation (we are already not interested in this, and this is not and should not be important at all, for the purpose and the point of truth we want to tell), no matter what fancy and technical name is given and tried to be banalized, we will tear this curtain of banality and we want to realize the truth of eternal order that never changes.
Yes, regardless of its scientific explanation, we say that the “orderliness”, which is obviously visible like the sun and not changing, and “usefulness”, which reflects a purpose and goal like the glass underneath, indicates, shows another handler behind the work.
Let us understand whether the expressions used in the “scientific” explanation of “how stars burn continuously in oxygen-free space for billions of years” are expressions of meaningful truth.
But first of all, in order to create awareness for you, we will draw your attention to the following: But first of all, in order to create awareness for you, we will draw your attention to the following: The answer given by the science is not more meaningful than those expressions “The sun burns because it burns; a star shines as it is a star”.
Now, we will watch an impressive video: “Sun Animation”
Video address: https://youtu.be/Bu0nJCHNeS8
Please have a look at these words: “When we go up into the space we see that there is no oxygen. Then, how does this happen? The answer is so easy (?!). The sun produces its own energy. Heat and pressure levels are very high in the sun. We can call it a giant store of hydrogen. It contains hydrogen and helium atoms. The essence of the matter is the reaction of hydrogen and helium atoms. The reaction of these two atoms produces an enormous amount of energy. This energy is heat. Also, as a result of this reaction, stars shine.”
It is not possible to say that we are truly enlightened by these fancy expressions of modern science. The thing that we should be aware of is that nothing is meant to express anything more than the event itself and the way it works, and more interestingly, if attention is paid to the style of narration, an event in the grandeur that is worth admiring every day is presented in a highly ordinary and simplified manner. Yes, such a science without religion is such an unfaithful fallacy.
It is necessary to know for certain that only the Qur’an teaches the actual truth of things and says: “It (Allah), has made a lamp for you…” That is the true wisdom.
Now, again let us give another clear example. A discipline of science investigating the physical characteristics of the soil could easily calculate that it is a very low probability to have such a “fine-tuning” in the soil which enables it to be soft enough so as to be suitable for farming and at the same time firm enough so as to have construction over it.
When we look at the works that are presented to us as “scientific”, we see that the soil’s most detailed characteristics are described, it is classified in most detailed manners whereas the questions as to why the earth is suitable for the formation of human civilization and
What is the meaning and the value of this fact for our civilization and humankind and what this information would mean in our journey of making sense out of our universe and,
What kind of power is behind this miraculous structure, “which is clearly understood to be presented to our usage on purpose” and how we should thank for such a miraculous help, are left outside the context of the science. This situation deprives the humanity of the spiritual and moral ascent and the science of being a meaningful information activity.
We are asking: isn’t it necessary, due to respect to science and to the human mind, to admit sincerely the real meaning of the scientific data that has been obtained?
The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of The Existence of A Creator
At this point, we will demonstrate that the idea of the existence of a creator is scientific and that it is a much healthier and rational way to make inferences and gather evidence with the idea that even if we have no idea yet at all, there is a creator of the things, which has nothing to do with prejudgment and presupposition.
If an approach whose absolute accuracy is not proven and which does not have experimental data, has correct logical inferences which are supported by researches based on serious rational evidence, it can be accepted as an alternative scientific model and based on this model, research can be carried out.
Such scientific approaches cannot be considered as a subjective intellectual approach or cannot be categorized as philosophy as they have the characteristics of the scientific working model.
A model of the universe, which is accepted to be created, constructed and controlled by a single creator cannot be considered as non-scientific because it is possible to verify it by logical evidence and to prove the necessity of the model with logical analysis which are conclusive at the level of necessity.
Then, why is this so?
For what reasons is it against being scientific to think that this computer we have here, is produced “by a computer engineer who we have never seen” or “by a factory whose detailed properties we never know”?
Even when there is no scientist who can claim otherwise; and even when saying that “The parts of that computer came together and created it on their own” is not more in line with being scientific; then thinking that living things which are much more perfect, speaking, smiling, being sad or this orderly universe are created by a logical consciousness, that is, by a mindful creator or making an inference in that direction is “against being scientific”?
And claiming that such wonders of design come together and are formed on their own is “being scientific”?
Is that so?
What kind of logic is this? Could anyone who respects science believe in such a thing? The expressions such as “We act as if there is no creator, science is neutral”, which are introduced as the philosophy of science are far from being credible. They claim to be neutral, but they do not behave accordingly. Always and under every condition, they behave as if there is no creator; everything is told with assumptions based on the non-existence of the creator. They say: “Flower does…”, “Nature does that…” and even they claim, “Nature creates…”
Don’t we have to ask what kind of neutrality is this? In our opinion, this style of presentation is not real impartiality. Certainly, it is not even science at all. We think that it is nothing but promoting as science what you fictionalize in your mind.
Indeed, the reason that leads many people to such a mistake, is 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 conditioning 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, this disturbance is pronounced by some advocates of atheism and they say they don’t 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.
Now let us go on with the same example and ask you: Which alternative possibility would it be more logical to engage in to a research and which one would be more appropriate to the scientific thinking technique?
The first alternative is the idea that the computer standing in front of us is formed by itself.
The second alternative is to conduct a research by exploring the possibility that the computer may have been designed by an engineer and made using a factory organization full of workers.
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 workers used in production and factory.
The example we will be giving here is a well-known one. However, it is very useful in understanding the essence of the matter and its basic logic. That’s why we think that it should be highlighted.
A painter is working behind a curtain and we can just see his brush. How can we know that this painter has painted that picture?
Since the painter is out of our sight, should we think the picture is painted by the paint and brush? However, if we examine carefully, we see that these paints and the brush do not have the capacity to process and make art. Hence, this situation makes us look for a painter with an ability to make art and it makes us accept his existence as if we have seen him.
Let us ask you this:
According to this example, is it possible to have a visual and material evidence of the existence of the painter?
But, just because this is the case, accepting that the work is done by objects which are visible but which do not have the capability to do that work is not more scientific than accepting that there is a dexterous painter behind the curtain, who is capable of doing artistic work.
As a result, we would like to emphasize that:
The art over the matter/objects is a nonmaterial abstract reality, which is invisible to the eye but can only be known and appreciated by the heart.
Even though we do not have material and visual evidence, the existence of the piece of art seen by our material eye is a strong and definite enough evidence for the existence of the painter. And seeing the existence of the work, that is, the piece of art, as a “scientific evidence” for the trueness of the existence of the painter and using that in evidencing the existence of the painter are acceptable logical evidence whose truth can be seen by the eye of the mind.
As you see, the rational evidence about the existence of a creator, which is formed on the basis of “the transition (making an inference) from the piece of art to the existence of its Artist/Master” have the same characteristics.
They are both very strong and their consistency with mind and logic is absolute; they also have the quality of proving at the level of certainty. This is what we say and claim.
The truths of religion are basically theoretical, but in terms of their results, they are conclusive realities, which have logical and theoretical evidence, giving support to each other and with their soundness not giving any possibility to opposite ideas.
Let us emphasize again: The fact that something is not in mathematical certainty and that by the secret of offering being both acceptable and deniable, and not being at a degree of crystal clear (explicit certainty) because of its theoretical nature is never an obstacle to belief (firm belief).
As a result of all, we can conclude with certainty that the imagination of a universe in which truth is unknown is definitely an unacceptable fallacy and delusion (especially for a believer) and the appropriateness of inductive logical inferences related to the existence of a creator with scientific thinking and their inclination to scientific evidencing are beyond any doubt.
Hoyle, Fred, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, s. 130
Quran, Surah Noah, 16. Verse.
Nursî, Said, Letters, s.89, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, Signs of Miraculousness, p.124, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, Letters, Kernels of Truth, p.473, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, The Words, p.341, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, The Words, p.266, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, The Words, 21. Söz, p.278, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, Flashes, 13. Flash, p.89, Risale-i Nur Collection, Envar Publishing
Nursî, Said, On Nature, Risale-i Nur Collection, Nesil Publishing 1996
Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
Sözüer, Ediz, Academic Proof of the Creator: New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature, p.7, Access Address: Google Books, 2017
Sözüer, Ediz, Journeys of Discovery Risale-i Nur (Treatise of Light) Training Program Basic/Resource Book and Academic Course Curriculum, Cinius Publishing. 2017 (Access Address for English version: Google Books, 2019)