One way philosophers have proven that uncaused entities exist, are with abstract entities, such as numbers, they say numbers have a necessary existence and don’t need a cause for their existence.

A thing exists necessarily if however things had been, it would still have existed. These include such abstract entities as numbers, and in theology, God. The difficulty lies in understanding how a thing could have this kind of status, and what kind of things could be supposed to have it.

Abstract things (i.e. things existing only in the mind) are immaterial and are still fathomable to us like numbers, feelings and morals and they are a ‘reality’ for us. We can easily accept such things without any problems – so accepting the “abstract God”, an immaterial and a “necessary being”, should not be a problem at all! :-)

If we ask the question “How can an immaterial God self-exist?” We can answer it with another question…”How does our soul exist and work?” We forget our own existence and we cannot even explain that…

Does anyone know the reality of the soul (by this, I mean the psyche/self-consciousness/the “I”)? We don’t truly know, but we accept the existence of “it” (i.e. ourselves) and see the reality of it by our “thinking” mechanism. The reality of knowing our soul is that we think and do things – we just think and do it – we can’t explain how this thinking remotely happens or really works. If we want to do something, like move our hand – we just do it, by thinking – yet no-one can really explain how this thinking occurs – it just happens when you want it to happen – yet no-one can explain this trigger of thinking – we drive our body like a vehicle yet we do not know the exact workings of the ignition etc which is a mystery to us!
To my main point… I don’t see atheists question this by saying, “we do not see the soul (psyche/consciousness), we do understand how our it works, we don’t know what reality of its existence nor how it came into existence and we can drive ourselves almost automatically… we do not have an answer from x,y,z therefore the soul does not exist… therefore we do not exist!”

The same criteria are true for God, but the same logic is not applied by atheists :@

An analogy I would use is, a robot-toy programmed to do limited things, which uses AI, sensors, can talk, move and even know the toy maker in a limited way. This robot then goes onto try to fathom the reality of its maker, and question the reality of its maker, when it will struggle to and cannot even fathom the reality of its own existence!!!

I conclude by saying…
A finite mind cannot understand the infinite mind, that belongs to God! A contingent being will never fathom how a necessary being exists! A finite being cannot understand how a eternal being exists!

Wake up atheists and accept the more plausible proofs. If you want concrete, irrefutable and immutable proof then look into the Qur’an… ultimately the literary miracle of the Qur’an will blow away every other plausible proof, even if they were combined together.

Can science prove William Shakespeare existed? Or closer to home, Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, whose theory Atheists have whole-heartedly adopted as an article of faith, by which they claim to proof that a God, or Designer, does not exist?
Scientific methodology (empiricism) cannot answer this, as it lies outside its scope and boundaries! The methodology of knowing these people, who you do not see and cannot see, you need to look into the branch of knowledge called HISTORY and apply certain principles, to arrive at a conclusion to determine whether they existed or not.

Similarly, ask somebody to proof do NUMBERS exist, Using scientific empiricism you will give them a mental shock waves. You do not see numbers, nor feel numbers, nor hear numbers, nor taste numbers nor smell them i.e. they cannot be detected by our senses! Numbers simply exist in our minds as abstract non-physical entities and literally non-nonsensical (i.e. senses cannot detect them only the mind) The branch of knowledge that can answer this, is called MATHEMATICS.

…Brings me nicely to two other branches of knowledge: PHILOSOPHY and THEOLOGY, The former can proof there is ‘Creator’, the latter can proof and actually label WHO/WHAT the creator is!

I’m looking forward to your next article Imraan, as I think you’ve already made some good points in the comments here.

The article is directed towards Atheists/ Agnostics that provide alternate explanations for the origins of the universe. However I will address some of the interesting point brought up.
Richie: I would argue that ‘self-proclaimed atheists who do not believe in a God simply due to the weak evidence for his/her existence’ is not necessarily always the case and a generalization. Even Richard Dawkins makes the distinction between them in what he calls the “spectrum of theistic probability” which is a way of categorizing one’s belief regarding the probability of the existence of a deity into 7 levels, the last of which is #7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God.” Omitted was the part of the quote you quoted where Dawkins calls himself “about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

The definition of Atheism has long been a debated term. My contention is not to engage in semantics but rather to investigate the alternative explanations put forth by The Atheists/ Agnostics to explain the origin of man, life and the universe. This is my intention insha’allah

With regard to your second argument about the debate over whether a negative can be proven, I should have been clearer in stating that this article is directed towards those who put forth an explanation of the origins of the universe we live in by providing a non-theistic rationale. However when you said: “Scientifically and philisophically speaking, it is nearly impossible to ‘prove’ that any phenomena does not exist.”
Here it seems you are mixing 2 separate concepts. Scientifically, it can never prove ontological claims that are beyond our 5 senses, For eg, can science prove the “mind” exists? Or how about the soul (secret of life)? Can science prove that a house must have a builder? It cannot since these things cannot be subject to the scientific method or experimentation which requires the senses, and the quantifiable object under study. In closing it is outside the realm of science to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Philosophically, I would disagree with you also. I can prove that squared-circles do not exist, as with married bachelors or giant midgets. This is due to the law of non-contradiction. Similarly, I am claiming here that universe which is an ‘effect’ must have a cause. If someone takes that position that one of the possible explanations for the origins of the universe is NOT God, this requires an alternate explanation since the law of contradictions states that the universe cannot be caused and uncaused simultaneously, which goes into absurdity.
Lastly, you said that phenomena cannot be proven or disproved. Here you are making a false analogy. Phenomena by definition is an observable fact or event or an object or aspect known through the senses. If you read the article carefully I define God as transcendent unlimited, independent being i.e non-observable and beyond the senses when I referred to the Atheist rejection of it.
I may sound very vague however I intend to address these point and the point brought up by A.Musa in the next entry inshallah

Most self-proclaimed atheists today are actually agnostic atheists – they do not believe in the existence of a particular deity, but acknowledge that they cannot know for certain that a deity does not exist. Scientifically and philisophically speaking, it is nearly impossible to ‘prove’ that any phenomena does not exist. And this fact is mis-represented and horribly abused by theists.

While it is true that one cannot know for certain that any particular phenomena does not exist, one does not believe in the existance of that particular phenomena without adequate proof. Therefore, self-proclaimed atheists do not believe in a God simply due to the weak evidence for his/her existance, and various arguments against the existance of such a deity.

I hope you are able to perform some background research about this extremely complex topic rather than merely presenting the same old theistic talking points.

Abû Mûsâ’s Edit: I’ve edited your name. Although pseudonyms are allowed, please don’t post using the actual names of other people.