*If it is rationally acceptable for atheists to believe that universes can bring themselves into existence from nothing*
That is in no way connected to atheism, atheists can believe ANYTHING surrounding this, just not that god did it. So, an error in the first sentence.
”despite the absurdity of this claim”
A claim atheists are not making, but a HYPOTHESIS suggested by some scientsts, that is however being proven more and more.
*then believing in the purposeful creation of this universe by an all-powerful, all-knowing creator has greater rational justification.*
Well, that the universe came from nothing has scientific support such as the amounth of energy in the Universe, Creationism has absolutely no evidence at all.
*All humans are born with a hard-wired belief that the universe is ordered, purposeful and originated by a creator*
Which we can explain with the theory of evolution, it is beneficial to see patterns where there are none, so we have evolved a brain repeatable to religion.
*The simplest of observations upon the marvels of life and the universe support this belief.*
Nope, not one single piece of evidence, which will be proven by this paper puitting forward ZERO of them.
*This can be denied on grounds of emotion and arrogance but not on rational or scientific grounds.*
Yes it can: Creationism has ZERO evidence, therefore, there are ZERO reasons for accept it.
*In addition, the fundamental assumption behind all scientific observation, analysis and inquiry – without which it cannot take place – is design, order, regularity*
This is simply not true. It is true that we are LOOKING for order and regularity. What we do not do is making the HUGE logical jump that this would require intelligence.
*The Messengers of God were sent to guide people to detailed knowledge about the requirements which follow naturally and rationally*
No evidence for this CLAIM. They may as well have been mad.
*Based on research at Oxford University by Justin Barrett and Olivera Petrovich. See Children are born believers in God, Telegraph, 24th November 2008 and Infants have natural belief in God, The Age, Australia, 26th July 2008.*
This is a quote mine, they presented evidence that children as young as four years of age differentiate artificial and natural objects and prefer the explanation that God, rather than human beings, created those natural objects. That is of course not evidence of god. It is evidence of brainwashing.
*2 The science used to contradict this relies upon a prior assertion that materialism (naturalism) is true.*
No, it is based on EVIDENCE. If there is absolutely ZERO evidence that there is a god, natural explanations are what we are stuck with.
*Materialism is not proven by science*
That is NOT how it works. The material world is however absolutely proven true beyond any reasonable doubt, AND, we have absolutely ZERO evidence of anything outside the material world, so we do not ASSUME there is anything there.. IF we find EVIDENCE of something outside the material world, then we will change our minds. But as of now, the material world is the only world that has any evidence to support it.
*but is an assumed starting point*
NO, it is not the starting point. It is the only world we have EVIDENCE for. We start at ZERO, and then we look at evidence, so far, we have no evidence for anything outside the material world.
*Thus, worship of causes and effects is futile.*
It is not worship, it is simply following the evidence without making HUGE jumps to a creator.
*The tendency to see purpose and design in the universe cannot be erased even after extensive brainwashing with materialist beliefs.*
Which can be explained by evolution. So, we have a natural explanation where we understand basically every step, or magical force. I am gonna stick with not making the HUGE jump to magical force.
*The staunchest of atheists find it impossible to avoid the use of language which assumes design, order and purpose in the universe.*
Language adapts slowly. So yes, there are words that are hard to substitute, this only proves a large part of language was invented by people that where religious.
*They claim that there is only an illusion of design, indicating that they are either lying or do not trust their own physical senses – a sign of madness.*
The latter, your physical senses are not to be trusted. Ever been to a magic show? Those are evidence that your eyes can easily be fooled.
*Materialism and Naturalism Are Psychologically and Emotionally Preferred World Views*
Later on, this paper says that we are programmed with the belief that we have a creator (among other things) as evidence for Allah, which would be synonymous to Emotionally Preferred World Views, which is here being criticized.
*Right at the top in the atheist pyramid – the first of its three levels – are an extremely small minority of very intelligent, non-deluded, unpretentious, honest Atheists. They make the frank admission that science and its methods do not compel us to accept materialism*
They still say that we should accept what we have EVIDENCE for. So, materialism is the only option.
*Richard Lewontin is a famous evolutionary biologist and he wrote, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.*
I hate when creationists quote mine, scientists have no commitment to materialism, there just is no evidence for anything else. So in a way, it is the only choice as a scientist. There are competing theories (contradictions), but as soon one is actually proven true, the other one goes away. That would be the case with evolution, there are no longer competing theories, because evolution has beaten them all. THIS is what he is saying.
*It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.*
EXACTLY, and this is important: Since nature sometimes is counter-intuitive, we NEED science. We cannot just think to find the explanations, we need to test it, and we need to accept what these tests shows us no matter if it is insane. IF experiments shows us the universe came from nothing for example, then it makes no difference that it sounds insane, we need to follow the evidence, THIS is what he is saying. It is really disgusting when creationists twist scientists words.
*Morever, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”*
BECAUSE god has no evidence. THIS is what he means, once again.
*Thomas Nagel, a well-known atheist philosopher is also at the very top of the pyramid where honesty has some value.*
The last example of course, was not honest, the scientist was, just not how his words was twisted to fit the authors point. The author of this paper is a very dishonest individual. Lets see if he does the same with Nagel.
*He says that materialist explanations of the universe and origins of life grant psychological relief for sufferers of the ‘cosmic authority problem’ – which is a mental condition atheists suffer from but which few are honest enought to admit. He writes, “I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.*
You mean the exact same thing the religious are suffering from? That is, to WANT there to be a creator? So this argues neither side. Yes, we all want our believes to be true.
*It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God!*
Those are completely synonymous. And it is no different from the religious people wanting there to be a god.
*My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.*
And also for religion. Yes, we all want to be correct. Scientists however, follows evidence, and admits themselves wrong in a second if evidence proves that.
*One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.*
Well, it does. Of course the author provides no examples, but lets use ”moral”: Moral is beneficial for survival = Can be explained by evolution. Everything that is beneficial for us can be.
*Darwin enabled modern secular culture to have a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world…*
Which he did with EVIDENCE, the thing this paper so far has failed to bring.
*Darwin did not eliminate the fundamental features of purpose and design in biological systems.*
Yes, he did, according to 97% of the world’s scientists.
*These features are still present 130 years after his death and will not be eliminated any time soon by fairy-tales arrogance or sophistry in reason.*
That many people believe so, in no way makes it true. Logic is a bitch..
*Darwin enabled the re-expression of a paganistic naturalist religion*
It is not a religion by definition since there is no belief in the supernatural.
*All biological organisms have an in-built, purposefully designed and programmed capacity to adapt and undergo change within defined boundaries.*
First of all, what are his evidence for these boundaries? It is not in DNA at least, no bounderies there, we cal slice basically anything.
Secondly, we fully understand this capacity, and it requires no supernatural explanations, the explanation is that DNA-molecules does not make perfect copies of themselves.
*Before science and its mechanisms come into play a prior rational choice has to be made. Either it is reasoned that a designer is behind this which is the default hard-wired position confirmed by observation and sound reason.*
It is not confirmed by observation, what observations? And that we are ”hard-wired” is perfectly explainable by evolution, just like every other instinct.
*Or it is reasoned that matter self-organizes through random undirected processes.*
No, it is not. Evolution is not random. And since we do not know WHY the big bang happened, we cannot say if it was random or not.
*This is a deviation from common sense*
No, it is simply wrong. No one said it was random. It is a false dichotomy. The two choices are not ”intelligence” or ”random”. Evolution is neither.
*It is only after this choice has been made that science and its mechanisms come into play.*
No, Science start at ZERO, then look at the evidence. We do not start with the assumption of materialism, it is simply what evidence shows us so far. There simply is no evidence of a creator.
*Few atheists are willing to admit that this indeed the case.*
Well, that is because it is wrong logically from many perspectives.
*Michael Ruse is an ardent evolutionist and philosopher of science. He is also another honest man. He writes, “Evolution is a religion.*
He is a biologist, he is not an expert on the subject of atheism nor religion (which would be in the field of religious science/studies). He is a layperson on this subject, and if he says so, he is wrong, according to every definition of ”religion”.
*This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.*
Well, today we have around 4 million pieces of evidence pointing that way. Embryology and Biogeography being two of the strongest. I am not quite sure how much evidence something needs before it is considered believable in this guy’s world. But in any way, it still does not meet the criteria for being a religion.
*I do nevertheless think that often Dawkins and company show the sociological characteristics of the religious…*
No examples of this of course.
*so the New Atheists loathe people like me who (like them) have no religious belief but who think that science as such does not refute religion.*
Actually, very few scientists, not even Dawkins, says it does. But god has to move all the time as we discover new evidence. He went from being ”on that mountain” to being ”in heaven” to being ”beyond reach in any way”.
*Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion – call it a secular religion, if you like – out of their science.”*
That would be the opposite of religion.
*misrepresent science and its findings.*
That seem to be exactly what Muslims are doing all the time, or, not just Muslims, religious. Also, that is why we have PEER REVIEW. And no, those are not only performed by a closed group of the scientist in question’s best friends.
*These are people like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others.*
OK, so the first person, voted by scientists as ”humanity’s greatest thinker 2013” and has changed the field of biology, the second one is fairly likely to win a Nobel price at some point, is there a need to go on?
*They assert a level of confidence for their naturalist or materialist religion that is unwarranted and are motivated largely by emotional arguments involving morality, calamities, suffering and evil.*
Eh, no, that is YOU guys…
*They conceal or misrepresent the current status of scientific knowledge about the universe and life.*
They really do not. When they do not know, they usually say that. Scientists are not ashamed of not knowing everything.
*Whilst claiming to be driven by science and reason, they are in reality driven by psychological reasons. They are affected by the cosmic authority problem*
Well, partly, sure, just as the religious are (they want it to be a god), but that really is not evidence for or against god.
*but are not frank enough to admit it like the genuine and honest atheists at the top.*
Most do, yes.. Hitchens was fully open with it, he said those direct words, ”I do not want god to exist”. But this does not prove atheism wrong. There is still no evidence for god.
And we have all heard the answers to my argument, ”Existence, life, and so on, is evidence”. No, they are the QUESTIONS that you are trying to use god as an answer to, it is CIRCULAR to say it is the evidence.
*Despite the sophistication with which their conjectures are presented, their saying ultimately reduces down to the emotionally appealing belief of self-creation and self-organization of matter.*
No, it does not. That you do not understand the process and simplify it in absurdum is not evidence of anything.
*The universe created itself from nothing*
No one said it created itself, that would imply it was concious. Something led to the universe being created, we do not know exactly what.
*and the attributes of knowledge, will, power and wisdom that are normally ascribed to a creator*
Yes, but not by experts, by religious people who is simply GUESSING.
*They are ignorant of the fact that the atheist position is simply an emotionally preferred world-view*
No, it is the only logically and scientifically defendable position on god. No evidence = No reason to believe.
*Amateur atheists like Dawkins continue to support their naturalist religion through discredited claims.*
Such as? There are of course no examples.
*At present, evolutionary biologists are racing to put another plausible theory on the table which they refer to as the “extended evolutionary synthesis” – as a means of keeping the naturalist religion alive and well.*
That is how science works yes, it is a constantly changing field that will always keep changing.
*and not a scientifically validated truth.*
Science do not work with absolute truth. It works by getting closer and closer.
*This is not to imply that truths can only be validated by science.*
Of course not, the truths you like of course can. This would be emotionally guided selection on your part.
*Cosmic Authority Syndrome: The Mental Condition Underlying Atheism.*
You mean the exact mental condition causing the statement before this one?
*In the atheist mindset, the true underlying issue we are dealing with is the cosmic authority syndrome, an emotional condition representing a deviation from the human hard-wired default of believing in a supreme authority over the universe.*
First of all, there is really no such thing as an atheist mindset, since ”atheism” is describing a not-state.
Secondly, hard-wiring does not indicate truth. We are build to walk the steps of Africa, not to figure our the universe.
Also, this is as true for the religious side, they also WANT there to be a god, so, it really is not an argument.
*The greatest sufferer of this condition was Pharoah to whom Moses was sent.*
Oh, the guy who god made it so that he would refuse him, so that he could punish Pharaoh? Yeah, fair guy this god.
*Those in the second level of the pyramid are of this type, they are in denial about what truly and really motivates their position.*
Well, if you ask most atheist, and just not base your ideas on one guys assumptions, most atheists will tell you that since there are absolutely not one shred of evidence for god, there is simply no reason to believe in god.
No matter if someone wants god to exist or not, there are not one single piece of evidence for god.
*The issue of design and creation is not really under dispute. Everyone, including the atheist, believes in design and creation.*
No… SCIENTISTS (it has nothing to do with atheism) believe that things LOOK designed for reasons we can fully explain. Since we can fully explain why things LOOK designed, but are not, and there is ZERO evidence of the opposite, the rational stance is tha naturalistic one.
*The issue is to whom or what should the qualities necessary for producing the inherent design, sheer complexity and magnitude of life and the universe be ascribed. Naturalists play word games and ascribe creative power to “nature” and say design is only apparent.*
No, not creative power. The forces of physics can for example put 2 chemicals at the same place given enough time, and chemicals can combine on their own, they just do it. That is not creative power, it is the power of making things end up in the same place.
*The inherent properties of things (“nature”) do not have any creative power in their own right. But human disposition, observation and analysis, sound reason, the revealed Books and the messages of all the Prophets are in agreement that there is actual design leading to a creator.*
And they are wrong. You would say that the Hindu scriptures are wrong on the exact same grounds I say these scriptures are wrong.
*Methods of Proving God’s Existence*
*The evidence for a creator possessing knowledge, power and wisdom amongst many other attributes of perfection is varied and abundant and does not lie in any one particular thing or method.*
*The method of the Qurʾān is the use of self-evident truths*
And there are basically no self evidence truths. A self evident truth, is really a truth where the empirical evidence is really obvious. But they are rarely self evident, usually, they are just easily observed.
*(bayyināt) and signs (āyāt) and evidences (barāhīn).*
*The knowledge of each individual person that he was non-existent and did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which he comes to be is a self-evident truth. Every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being.*
It is actually not self evident, we know it because of observation. We have observed that humans come to life trough birth, as far as we have seen, no human has caused his own existence (Time travel may change this if we ever invent it), trough these observations we conclude that this statement is correct.
*This extends to all living beings in the universe, they did not originate themselves.*
As far as we have observed at least. If we ever do we will have to change our mind on that.
*This verse demonstrates through a series of rhetorical questions that the knowledge that man did not create the universe in which he resides is another self-evident truth.*
It is sort of self evident, but it is so because of observation, all though obvious ones, for example, we know that the unvierse is much older that humanity, so we cannot have created it.
Here is the kick though, if you told a CHILD that humans created the universe, he would believe it, and if you even made him believe that straying from this belief would result in torture, he would refuse to look at evidence that would disprove this obliviously wrongful idea.
*Likewise, the knowledge that the universe did not create itself is a self-evident truth.*
That the universe created itself is not likely, no, no scientist suggests that so.. I have never heard anyone suggest it at all.
*Likewise, the knowledge that multiple universes do not come into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self-evident truth.*
Well, the universes yes, BUT, whatever these universes are floating around in we know absolutely nothing about, the laws of physics may not apply to it at all, it may be eternal, it may be able to create itself.
*All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive, necessary, self-evident and not does require any empirical evidence for it to be considered true.*
No such things. Without empirical evidence, we have not CONFIRMED it true, if the truth is self evident, there will be OBVIOUS evidence for it. IF there is no evidence, it is not self evident.
*Therefore, there are only three possibilities. Either ”nothing created something else*
Which Quantum physics has proven possible. That is, that quantum fluctuations caused nothing to turn into something. Since the universe has a total of zero energy (as much positive as negative), it would not break the laws of thermodynamics.
Or to put it in mathematical terms:
*or ”something created itself”*
No one believes that.
*or ”something created something else”.*
Absolutely no evidence of that. But is is possible. That this something would be intelligent, is however HIGHLY unlikely.
*When each of these three possibilities are presented, all people of sound mind (even honest atheists) will say the latter, that ”something created something else”*
Many do. The HUGE logical jump comes when this something is attributed with intelligence. There may for example have been something like the universe before our current universe, that collapsed and caused the big bang. That would be something creating something.
*This is intuitive*
Well, yes, but that is not a good thing. The reason we need science is because intuition is useless when it comes to getting closer to truth.
*rational and in accordance with the sum of human observation and experience.*
We have never ever observed something like a universe get born, so there are ZERO observations that are in accordance with this, except maybe recently in the LHC.
*This “something” that did the creating is Allāh, the Lord of the worlds*
And there comes the HUUUUGE logical jump.
First of all, it could have been ”something” that did not have intelligence, a pre existing state to the current universe.
It could also have been all the other million of gods that humans believe in. Or even one humans have never conceived or worshiped.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that indicates Allah had a part in it.
*First, all humans are programmed with this belief.2 “The innate disposition upon which Allāh created mankind, let there be no change in Allāh’s creation” (Qurʾān 30:30). This innate disposition is known in Arabic as the fiṭrah and every child is born upon it.*
Every child is not born with it. Children of atheists that never get taught about god has no belief in one. And every singe child that is religious, has the same religion as its parents. This is evidence of brainwashing, not Allah.
*Allāh created mankind with an inclination to believe in Him*
And the same can be said about any other god in any other religion.
*and the desire to show gratitude and devotion to Him alone*
This is simply a lie, most children in India feel a desire to show gratitude and devotions to many gods. Most children in Japan feels gratitude towards Buddha for showing the way, and so on.
*Second, observation compels this belief. Atheists do not deny this.*
And this is most likely something that will be followed by quote mines or at least misinterpretations, but I keep an open mind until the evidence are in..
*Richard Dawkins admits, “I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something.*
Well yes, the universe is amazing, most people can agree to that.
*I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it.*
*We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life.*
Still true, all though you may read to much into ”religious”.
*And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.*
That would be a reverse version of the cosmic authority problem, to WANT to worship something. That is not evidence that this something exists of course.
*To escape from what belief in a creator necessitates (to show gratitude and devotion to this creator for the innumerable benefits one enjoys) a make-believe story is told: Matter self-creates and self-organizes to produce trees, birds, humans, airplanes and the Internet by random undirected processes*
No, that is an oversimplification. Matter did not self-create, something caused it (quantum fluctuations has the strongest evidence as of now for being the cause) it does not self-organizes to produce trees, birds, humans, airplanes and the Internet by random undirected processes, EVOLUTION is guided by natural selection.
*To Dawkins, it is a blind watchmaker who, without intent and purpose and in complete oblivion to what he is*
He is referring to the forces of physics…
*Based on research at Oxford University by Justin Barrett and Olivera Petrovich and refer also to Humans may be primed to believe in creation, New Scientist 29th February 2009.*
No, this is once again a horrific misrepresentation of science, Petrovich explains in her research that children see gases and chemicals as ”god”.
”I’ve also established that children’s natural concepts of God aren’t purely anthropomorphic. They certainly acquire a conception of God-as-man through their religious education, but no child actually links the representation of, for example, God-as-Jesus with the creator of the world. Rather, their images of God the creator correspond to abstract notions like gas, air, and person without a body. When you press them, they of course fall back on what they’ve been told, saying things like, “I know he’s a man because I saw him on the telly,” or “He’s just like my daddy.” These are very rational responses, but they’re not natural conceptions formed by children. Rather they’re imposed by the culture in which the children live.”
*and is all that they have to offer in response to the compelling rational argument through the evident design in creation and life.*
In science, it is really SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (=Repeatable observations) that counts, not intuition.
*Third, at the point of certain or impending death – when all the ways and means and material causes and effects are cut off – an atheist is consumed by the hope that rescue is still possible and a motion of appeal arises in his heart towards an object or being from which relief is anticipated.*
Yes, that is in our nature, it can be explained by evolution and in no way indicates god.
*This activity in the heart may or may not be vocalized, but it is a type of inward invocation.*
And where is your evidence that this is simply not caused by chemicals in your brain?
*Fourth, the immediate and natural anticipation of justice by an infant (or child or adult) when oppressed or harmed is proof of hard-wiring with an objective standard of justice*
Which once again can be explained by evolution, which has evidence, unlike god.
*that emanates from another being [Allāh]*
And for that, there is no evidence. Children have morals -missing information or arguments- —-> Allah. There is a jump there..
*Fifth, the collection of all independent or intertwined systems of material causes (asbāb) and their effects (musabbabāt) are evidence of their originator and determiner who must be external to the sum of them.*
It is evidence SOMETHING caused all these things to happen, it is absolutely no evidence that this cause has intelligence. The cause is the forces of physics.
*so is He not worthy of gratitude and devotion in exclusion to the deities you fabricate with your own hands?*
Well, they are said to have done the EXACT same thing, every single arugment put forward works as well for Vishnu, or Shiva, Or kali, so, you have not really proven anything so far, and ABSOLUTELY not which god was responsible if any.
*And if you marvel at what you create with your own hands with knowledge and skill, then you ought to marvel at the handiwork of the creator*
Well, it is actually quite unimpressive. Most the universe is deadly to life, most life is stupidly ”designed”, starvation, lack of resources, and so on, I am NOT impressed. If this was created, it is a really half ass job.
*the merging of technology with biological systems and the study of biological organisms to develop better design protocols and to make technological innovation are clear and undeniable evidences of purposeful design in biological life.*
No, it is evidence of US understanding life quite well and can ADAPT our technology after that.
*You cannot study DNA for example without being astounded by the amazing level of design.*
Complex does not mean designed.
*Where there is design, a designer follows*
Question-begging. DNA is a something complex not created by a conscious mind but by a natural process; that’s what you should be looking to refute – you can’t put your conclusion in your premise.
*by necessity in human reasoning.*
Human reasoning is not the way to truth, sorry. EVIDENCE is, and sometimes, they prove our reasoning WRONG.
*This reasoning is not falsifiable.*
And then it is also not provable nor scientific, and can be dismissed straight away.
*Atheists know this argument is logically compelling and cannot be easily undermined.*
Darwin did it like 150 years ago so, no, that is jsut not true.
*Unable to refute it on purely rational grounds*
We do not need to, we have EVIDENCE pointing the other way. And if we cannot prove nor refute something, then we do not know.. And that is OK.
*their position is to offer an alternative, competing way of looking at the universe*
It is really not a competition, creation has absolutely no evidence and the natural explanations has massive. It is like a fight between a worm and a tiger.
*It created itself and self-organized in a random, undirected way to produce galaxies, stars and planets and all diversity in life, but without intending to do so*
No, no physicist says that. Except the last part, there is no intention in nature, that is true. Especially the first part is completely wrong.
*These are only some of the many varied types of evidences for a creator.*
None presented so far, but lets see…
*Belief in a creator has never been denied by the vast majority of mankind*
Which is an ”argumentum ad populum”. A logical fallacy, it makes no difference how popular an idea is, popular opinion means nothing, EXPERT opinion however does.
*This is monotheism (tawḥīd) and is the justice and balance upon which the universe is established.*
OR polytheism according to a large part of the world’s people that you have failed to prove wrong. Or atheism, which you may have provided a reason for, but not any evidence against. That some atheists does not want there to be a god, does not mean there is one.
*This was the core message of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muḥammad (peace be upon them all) and is the foundation of Islām.*
Those are people that are either fictional or lived over a thousand years ago, and why listen to them over people with a 1000 years of more knowledge?
*Richard Dawkins admits this in his book The God Delusion*
No, he does not.. But provide a quote mine why don’t you?
*The worship of others – be they humans, the planetary bodies including the Earth, sun and moon, the forces or the elements, trees, stones, even the Prophets themselves or the righteous living or dead – is the greatest injustice (dhulm).*
According to a book that claims the moon is further away than the stars.
*In Islāmic terminology it is referred to as associationism. It is a violation of the truth upon which the universe stands and persists.*
But, why should we care at all about most 2000 years old ideas???
*When a religion is founded upon worship of other than Allāh or is named exclusively after an individual – a prophet or otherwise – or after a race, or after an element amongst the elements or a force amongst the forces, or a cause amongst the causes or an effect amongst the effects, or any part of what is referred to as nature, it is known not to have come from Allāh.*
Which seems to be a good thing…
*Besides the name of Islām, the names of all religions are contrived and invented and do not reflect the true*
And they all say the same about your religion. And you have as much evidence for your religion, and they have of theirs (which is absolutely nothing).