Pp1

355 views
334 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
355
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pp1

  1. 1. Evidence of the Divine
  2. 2. Human Curiosity! <ul><li>What existed at the beginning of the universe? </li></ul><ul><li>How did it begin, and why? </li></ul><ul><li>Why did it take the form it did? </li></ul><ul><li>Who are we? Where did we come from, and why for? </li></ul><ul><li>Where are we going? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Faith and Reason <ul><li>It is through reason that man justifies his faith. And rational justification produces conviction. </li></ul><ul><li>Rational argument is an intellectual need of every faithful; otherwise, he will not be able to stand firmly on his faith. </li></ul><ul><li>It is reason, which transforms a blind faith into an intellectual choice. </li></ul><ul><li>History shows that man has employed three ways of argument to find a rational ground in favour of his faith. </li></ul><ul><li>These four ways reflect different stages in intellectual development. </li></ul>
  4. 4. NATURAL ARGUMENT <ul><li>The first way of argument is one, which is based on nature. </li></ul><ul><li>That is, simple facts or common experiences. Some examples of this kind are found in the Quran. </li></ul><ul><li>There is one such argument related to Prophet Abraham. </li></ul>
  5. 5. NATURAL ARGUMENT <ul><li>This is narrated in the Quran in these words: “ And thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and that he might be of those who are sure. </li></ul><ul><li>So when the night overshadowed him, he saw a star; said he: this is my Lord?  So when it set, he said: I do not love the setting ones. </li></ul><ul><li>Then when he saw the moon rising he said: this is my Lord?  So when it set, he said: If my Lord had not guided me I should certainly be of the erring people. </li></ul><ul><li>Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: this is my Lord?  this is greater.  So when it set, he said: O my people! Surely I am clear of what you associate (with God). (6:75-78) </li></ul>
  6. 6. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT <ul><li>This argument commonly known as First Cause may be summed up as follows; </li></ul><ul><li>The world man observes with his senses must have been brought into being by God as the First Cause. </li></ul><ul><li>The Philosophers have argued that the observable order of causation is not self-explanatory. It can only be accounted for by the existence of a First Cause. </li></ul><ul><li>This First Cause, however, must not be considered simply as the First in a series of continuing causes, but rather as the First Cause in the sense of being the cause for the whole series of observable Causes. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Quantum Indeterminacy! <ul><li>Some critics object that the actions or a free will of subatomic particles are uncaused; hence, why not also the world as a whole? </li></ul><ul><li>The whole science proceeds on the assumption that a reason can be found for why things are as they are, that it is the end of science if one finds an “uncaused” event, or one for which there is no reason at all. </li></ul><ul><li>The Bohr/Heisenberg thesis that some quantum events occur without a cause seems to count against this claim. </li></ul><ul><li>There is a certain indeterminacy about quantum processes. Yet the process as whole is far from random.   </li></ul>
  8. 8. [54/49] Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure. <ul><li>The balance and precise strength of the fundamental gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear forces needs to be exactly what it is if conscious life is to exist. So Peter Atkins says: </li></ul><ul><li>If nuclei were bound together slightly more weakly, or slightly more strongly, the universe would lack chemistry. </li></ul><ul><li>If the electric force were slightly stronger than it is, evolution would not reach organisms before the sun went out. </li></ul><ul><li>If it were only slightly less, stars would not have planets, and life would be unknown. Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited, p. 23. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Limits of Human Understanding <ul><li>Abstraction: Scientific comprehension is of basic relational elements of the physical structure of the universe, therefore it gives a generalised and abstract picture. </li></ul><ul><li>Intellect works discursively: That is, it is incapable of intuiting things in one all-embracing experience. It has to consider things one after the other, making connections by inference and extrapolation, and moving from one element to another in succession. </li></ul><ul><li>A fully comprehensive intellect, like that of God, will understand all things in one intuitive, non-discursive, act, i.e. God knows everything in its full particularity by immediate apprehension. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Limits of Human Understanding <ul><li>Limited access to knowledge: There is absolutely no way in which we could have Knowledge of worlds and realities other than those in this space-time, for by definition they would have no spatial or temporal relation to us, which rules out all forms of knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>And there is no way in which a finite mind can encompass an infinite set of data. </li></ul>
  11. 11. SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT <ul><li>Religion or faith is related to things like the existence of God, something intangible and unobservable.  Whereas non-religious things like the sun has a tangible and observable existence.  </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, it came to be regarded that direct argument is possible for establishing non-religious things, only. Whereas, it is only indirect or inferential argument which can be employed to prove religious propositions. </li></ul>
  12. 12. SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT <ul><li>The discovery of anti-matter, black holes, and dark energy, which have intangible existence, entailed that a scientist could see only the effect of a thing and not the thing itself. </li></ul><ul><li>Here the scientist felt that direct argument could be applied to the tangible effect but it was not possible at all to apply direct argument on the intangible cause.  </li></ul><ul><li>The most important of all the changes brought about by this new development in this world of science was that it was admitted in the scientific circles that inferential argument was as valid as direct argument.  </li></ul><ul><li>That is, if a cause shows continuous effect then the existence of this intangible cause will be accepted as a fact just as the existence of tangible effect is accepted as a proved fact. </li></ul>
  13. 13. SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT <ul><li>After reaching this extent of rational argument the difference between religious argument and scientific argument is no longer exists. </li></ul><ul><li>The evidence of the Devine is seen in the order and complexity in nature versus the laws of probability and the second law of thermodynamics. </li></ul>
  14. 14. What is the Purpose of Life? Who got the Right to answer this question?

×