{"title":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","author":{"id":2106,"name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","slug":"hamza_andreas_tzortzis","image":"\/uploads\/users\/non-profile.jpg","role":"Author","about":"","promote":0,"status":1,"created_at":"2014-07-30T08:00:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2014-07-30T08:00:00.000000Z","language_id":1,"parent_id":null,"i18ns":[],"image_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/users\/non-profile.jpg","get_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis"},"books":{"current_page":1,"data":[],"first_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?books_page=1","from":null,"last_page":1,"last_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?books_page=1","links":[{"url":null,"label":"&laquo; Previous","page":null,"active":false},{"url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?books_page=1","label":"1","page":1,"active":true},{"url":null,"label":"Next &raquo;","page":null,"active":false}],"next_page_url":null,"path":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106","per_page":25,"prev_page_url":null,"to":null,"total":0},"videos":{"current_page":1,"data":[{"id":1979,"title":"How To Give Dawah","slug":"how-to-give-dawah-1432798757","type":"youtube","code":"http:\/\/youtu.be\/_9MiC189cQw","hints":"","arabic_notes":"<h1 id=\"watch-headline-title\" class=\"yt\"><span id=\"eow-title\" class=\"watch-title long-title\" title=\"Ep. 6 (BONUS) Advanced Dawah to Christian and Atheists | Mission Dawah - Online Training\" dir=\"ltr\">How To Give Dawah<\/span><\/h1>","read_counter":10089,"status":1,"is_volume":null,"created_at":"2015-02-03T09:00:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:11.000000Z","language_id":1,"article_id":null,"book_id":null,"author_id":2106,"category_id":12,"volume_id":null,"image":null,"file":null,"promote":0,"volume_count":null,"volume_title":null,"order":1,"get_image_md":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/_9MiC189cQw\/0.jpg","get_image_sm":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/_9MiC189cQw\/default.jpg","author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_slug":"For-New-Muslim","category_name":"For New Muslim","get_date":"2015-02-03","video_player":"<iframe width=\"100%\"  src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/_9MiC189cQw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>"},{"id":2345,"title":"\ub2f9\uc2e0\uc758 \uc120\ud0dd\uc740? \uc774\uc2ac\ub78c\uc778\uac00 \ubb34\uc2e0\ub860\uc778\uac00","slug":"\ub2f9\uc2e0\uc758-\uc120\ud0dd\uc740-\uc774\uc2ac\ub78c\uc778\uac00-\ubb34\uc2e0\ub860\uc778\uac00-1434280908","type":"youtube","code":"http:\/\/youtu.be\/E1YWJbDTqpU","hints":"<div class=\"clearfix\" id=\"watch7-headline\">\r\n<div id=\"watch-headline-title\">\r\n<h2><span dir=\"ltr\">\ub2f9\uc2e0\uc758 \uc120\ud0dd\uc740? \uc774\uc2ac\ub78c\uc778\uac00 \ubb34\uc2e0\ub860\uc778\uac00 <\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<h2>\uc774\uc2ac\ub78c \ud559\uc790 \ud568\uc790 \ud2f0\uc800\ub974\uc988\uc2a4(Hamza Tzortzis)<\/h2>","arabic_notes":null,"read_counter":9754,"status":1,"is_volume":0,"created_at":"2015-06-14T09:26:28.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T13:03:31.000000Z","language_id":35,"article_id":null,"book_id":null,"author_id":2106,"category_id":9,"volume_id":null,"image":"","file":"","promote":1,"volume_count":null,"volume_title":null,"order":1,"get_image_md":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/E1YWJbDTqpU\/0.jpg","get_image_sm":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/E1YWJbDTqpU\/default.jpg","author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_slug":"The-Existence-of-God","category_name":"The Existence of God","get_date":"2015-06-14","video_player":"<iframe width=\"100%\"  src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/E1YWJbDTqpU\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>"},{"id":4761,"title":" The Key to Paradise - Hamza Tzortzis","slug":"the-key-to-paradise-hamza-tzortzis-1473261054","type":"youtube","code":"http:\/\/youtu.be\/QhvH2B-J8z8","hints":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 16px;\">Paradise is an amazing place. In it there&#39;s no hunger, no suffering, no injustice, no oppression, no fitnah, and no trials. We all want Paradise, but how can we get there? Join oss and find the key to Paradise with Hamza Tzortzis.<br \/>\r\n(English)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 16px;\">Paradiset er et fantastisk sted. I det; finnes ingen sult, ingen lidelse, ingen urett, ingen undertrykkelse, ingen fitnah, og ingen pr&oslash;velser. Vi alle &oslash;nsker Paradiset, men hvordan kan vi oss komme dit? Bli med og finn n&oslash;kkelen til Paradiset med Hamza Tzortzis.<br \/>\r\n(Norsk)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n","arabic_notes":"","read_counter":12365,"status":1,"is_volume":0,"created_at":"2016-09-07T08:00:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T13:54:30.000000Z","language_id":1,"article_id":null,"book_id":null,"author_id":2106,"category_id":13,"volume_id":null,"image":null,"file":null,"promote":0,"volume_count":null,"volume_title":null,"order":1,"get_image_md":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/QhvH2B-J8z8\/0.jpg","get_image_sm":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/QhvH2B-J8z8\/default.jpg","author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_slug":"Purpose-of-Life","category_name":"Purpose of Life","get_date":"2016-09-07","video_player":"<iframe width=\"100%\"  src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/QhvH2B-J8z8\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>"},{"id":4762,"title":" Sahabah's Struggle for Paradise - Adnan Rashid","slug":"sahabah-s-struggle-for-paradise-adnan-rashid-1473261195","type":"youtube","code":"http:\/\/youtu.be\/U9v20xyJjaE","hints":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 16px;\">Who were the companions of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him)? What did they do? Why did Allah choose them to spread His religion? Why were many of them promised Paradise? Why are they better than every single human being living today? Find the answers to these questions and find out who the Sahabah was and how they struggled for Jannah.<br \/>\r\n(English)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 16px;\">Hvem var f&oslash;lgesvennene til islams Profet (fred v&aelig;re med ham)? Hva gjorde de? Hvorfor valgte Allah dem til &aring; spre hans religion? Hvorfor ble mange av dem lovet Paradiset? Hvorfor er de bedre enn hvert enkelt menneske som lever i dag? Finn svarene p&aring; disse sp&oslash;rsm&aring;lene og finn ut hvem Sahabah var og hvordan de strevet for Jannah.<br \/>\r\n(Norsk)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n","arabic_notes":"","read_counter":16055,"status":1,"is_volume":0,"created_at":"2016-09-07T08:00:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T13:45:12.000000Z","language_id":1,"article_id":null,"book_id":null,"author_id":2106,"category_id":20,"volume_id":null,"image":null,"file":null,"promote":0,"volume_count":null,"volume_title":null,"order":1,"get_image_md":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/U9v20xyJjaE\/0.jpg","get_image_sm":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/U9v20xyJjaE\/default.jpg","author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_slug":"Biographies-Scholars","category_name":"Biographies & Scholars","get_date":"2016-09-07","video_player":"<iframe width=\"100%\"  src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/U9v20xyJjaE\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>"}],"first_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?videos_page=1","from":1,"last_page":1,"last_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?videos_page=1","links":[{"url":null,"label":"&laquo; Previous","page":null,"active":false},{"url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?videos_page=1","label":"1","page":1,"active":true},{"url":null,"label":"Next &raquo;","page":null,"active":false}],"next_page_url":null,"path":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106","per_page":25,"prev_page_url":null,"to":4,"total":4},"audios":{"current_page":1,"data":[],"first_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?audios_page=1","from":null,"last_page":1,"last_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?audios_page=1","links":[{"url":null,"label":"&laquo; Previous","page":null,"active":false},{"url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?audios_page=1","label":"1","page":1,"active":true},{"url":null,"label":"Next &raquo;","page":null,"active":false}],"next_page_url":null,"path":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106","per_page":25,"prev_page_url":null,"to":null,"total":0},"articles":{"current_page":1,"data":[{"id":323,"title":"Philosophical Reflections","slug":"philosophical-reflections","word":"\/uploads\/articles\/en_Philosophical Reflections.docx","pdf":"\/uploads\/articles\/en_Philosophical Reflections.pdf","mime_type":null,"type":"node","path":"\/nodes\/view\/type:article\/slug:philosophical-reflections","hint":"","body":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-large;\">Philosophical Reflections<\/span><\/h1>\r\n<p>&nbsp;<img style=\"display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;\" src=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/images\/Philosophical_Reflections_part_1._001.jpg\" alt=\"PhilosophicalReflections1.jpg\" \/><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">These philosophical reflections are my thoughts on; truth, success, purpose, death, thinking, and worldview.&nbsp; They were written with the intention to express my initial thinking that led to my current conclusions on life.&nbsp; I have deliberately ended on questions rather than answers, as I wanted to provide a conceptual framework for readers who may not share my worldview, and to seek the answers for themselves.&nbsp; Relevant Quranic verses have been included as introductory literary devices to evoke thought and set the mental scene.&nbsp; This approach is a major theme in the Quran, as it frequently mentions, &ldquo;Do you not reflect?&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">There is an African proverb that states &ldquo;He who asks questions, cannot avoid the answers&rdquo;, so I hope these reflections will evoke thought and facilitate guidance for all those who seek it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Truth<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&ldquo;The truth is from your Lord, so on no account be among the doubters.&rdquo; (Quran 2: 147)<br \/> &ldquo;Do not mix the truth with falsehood, or hide the truth when you know it.&rdquo; (Quran 2: 42)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The question of truth has perplexed the mind of nearly every human being that has lived on this planet.&nbsp; What is truth? How do we get to know truth? Is there such a thing as truth? This type of thinking dates back to the ancient Greek Philosopher Socrates, as a young man he endlessly questioned and sought after the truth.&nbsp; However, in our day and age we do not really think about concepts such as truth.&nbsp; We may have argued, &ldquo;tell me the truth!&rdquo; if we suspect our friends of betrayal, or we &ldquo;swear to tell the truth&rdquo; in a court of law, but when it comes to our existence, and questioning what it means to be a human being, we forget about truth and adopt skepticism as a philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Skepticism answers in the negative the following question: can we know anything? It essentially implies the belief that the truth about life and the universe will never be known.&nbsp; Founded by Pyrrho of Elis, Skepticism was advocated and put into writing by the Greek Philosopher Sextus Empiricus who was the first to detail and codify the doctrine.&nbsp; This school of philosophy is common in today&rsquo;s society, however, its approach regarding truth is unwarranted because we can discover it, and the only way to do that is by endless, insistent questioning.&nbsp; Socrates was great at questioning and by doing so he would bring his opponents to realise the truth, and this is because he believed the truth was already within us.&nbsp; For example, there are many universal principles that we can never deny, and to deny them would deny knowledge itself.&nbsp; For instance, take two planks of wood that are equal in length: do we know they are equal because they are the same length or do we know what the concept of equality is prior to our experience? It is because we have the innate, inbuilt concept of equality that enables us to see that the planks of wood are the same length.&nbsp; Also, we know that half of something is less than its whole, and we know the truth of the fact that all fathers are men.&nbsp; These innate ideas and concepts are known in epistemology as a priori, which means knowledge independent from experience.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">From a practical perspective the skeptic&rsquo;s position is untenable, because we know the truth of the laws of physics that enable bridges to withstand heavy loads, including the laws that keep boats afloat.&nbsp; If a skeptical position was assumed when building our houses, would we agree to implement the architect&rsquo;s design? The Polish Philosopher Leszek Kolakowski writes,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&ldquo;We might say: well, since we know nothing, what is the point of constructing theories that have no foundation? But if philosophers and scholars had seriously attempted to achieve such self-satisfied serenity, would they have been able to build our civilization? Would modern physics have been invented?&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So there are some universal truths that we can feel secure in accepting, and the way to find out further truths is to use these universal truths as a starting point, which is called epistemic foundationalism in the language of philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The importance of truth has been emphasized by many thinkers past and present.&nbsp; Plato the ancient Philosopher said &ldquo;And isn&rsquo;t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are.&rdquo; So why is the search for truth important? The significance of truth is not only intuitive; it is something that gives us a sense of reality, that things are real.&nbsp; In absence of truth life on occasions can seem unreal and illusory in a certain sense.&nbsp; Additionally, many psychologists have acknowledged that human beings want to be right and seek to learn from social norms when they are unsure about things, this psychological process is known as &lsquo;Normative and Informational Social Influence&rsquo;.&nbsp; In this view the search for truth is very important as it has the possibility of shaping who we are or the person we want to be.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Another way of looking at this is that not searching for truth is tantamount to lying to ourselves, or even accepting a lie, because anything other than truth will be accepting it&rsquo;s opposite.&nbsp; So the search for truth would be a means of trying to be more sincere with our own existence, as we would be seeking to establish the truth of who we are and the life we are living.&nbsp; Finally, holding on to the skeptical view that there is no truth is self-defeating, because the claim that there is no truth is actually a truth claim, so how can anyone claim that skepticism is true but everything else is not? This is the inconsistency of the skeptical view; a skeptic would claim the truth of skepticism but would deny all other truths! Consequently no matter what position we hold we still have to accept a truth, and in this light, let the search for truth begin!<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Success<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&ldquo;&hellip;they are the ones who are successful.&rdquo; (Quran 7:157)<br \/> &ldquo;Truly, this is the supreme success!&rdquo; (Quran 37:60)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">One of the best definitions I have found of success is &ldquo;the completion of what is intended&rdquo;.&nbsp; For example, if I were to intend to learn how to drive, and I passed my driving test, that would be a success.&nbsp; As human beings we intend to achieve things all the time; to get a promotion; to be our own boss; to be a good father and husband; to travel the world or to write a book.&nbsp; If we achieve or complete our aims and objectives then it can be argued we have been successful.&nbsp; However is this view of success meaningful? &nbsp;I would argue it is not.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">If we live our lives to complete the things that we intend to achieve, without even questioning the intention of our own existence, we will have not found any ultimate meaning to our own lives.&nbsp; Therefore our view of success is almost baseless and devoid of real value.&nbsp; If each person completes his life by intending to achieve all of the things we mentioned, and he or she didn&rsquo;t even complete the intended meaning for his or her life, then can we call their lives successful? We can even ask: does it really matter whether they ever existed at all? His or her life may be of some importance relative to the things they want to complete, but what is the ultimate significance of completing their own lives?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Let&rsquo;s look at it from a scientific perspective, our children, our actions, our loved ones and everything we do are just arrangements of molecules.&nbsp; Carbon and other atoms in various combinations make up our lives and even the things we intend to complete.&nbsp; From this perspective mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of flies, or a herd of sheep, for their makeup is all the same.&nbsp; Also, if we follow the scientific line of thought our end is also meaningless, we just die and that&rsquo;s it.&nbsp; This is true for each individual person.&nbsp; The amazing achievements of the scientist to the advancement of human thinking, the on-going research of bio-medicine to find the cure for cancer, the efforts of the politician to establish justice and peace in the world, all these come to nothing.&nbsp; Even if human beings were to exist forever, the mere infinite duration of our lives would not make them any more meaningful, there would still be no ultimate significance.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus understood the meaningless reality of life in absence of acknowledging the intention of our existence.&nbsp; This is why Sartre wrote of the &ldquo;nausea&rdquo; of existence and Camus saw life as absurd indicating that the universe has no meaning at all.&nbsp; The German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in clear concise pronouncements that the world and human history does not have any meaning, any rational order or aim.&nbsp; Nietzsche argued that there is only a mindless chaos, a directionless world tending towards no end.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">If we found the intention of our existence, thereby giving our lives ultimate meaning, and we were to achieve and complete what was intended &ndash; that would indeed be true success.&nbsp; In contrast to this type of thinking someone may contend by stating that this whole discussion assumes that some metaphysical entity created the whole universe with some sort of purpose.&nbsp; This is true, but by removing this assumption we will only be presuming atheism to be true.&nbsp; Additionally, the logical conclusion of atheism is that our very existence is pointless, which is a conclusion not many atheists would like to follow through due to it being at odds with our innate nature and psychological disposition.&nbsp; So the following questions naturally follow, what is the intention of our existence, and what outlook would make sense of our continuous search for ultimate meaning and success?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Purpose<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&ldquo;So where are you going?&rdquo; (Quran 81:26)<br \/> &ldquo;Our Lord! You have not created all this without purpose&rdquo; (Quran 3:190)<br \/> &ldquo;God did not create all these without a true purpose; He explains His signs to those who understand.&rdquo; (Quran 10:5)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who inspired two of the 20th century&rsquo;s principal philosophical movements, once said, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t know why we are here, but I&rsquo;m pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.&rdquo; Wittgenstein did not have the answer to the perennial question of what is humanity&rsquo;s purpose, but he did indicate that there must be one, even if the answer could not be discovered intuitively.&nbsp; However, it can be argued that the assumption that there is a purpose may be false, and if it is false, then there is nothing to be bothered about, and we should all just carry on living.&nbsp; As Albert Camus, the French Algerian philosopher and journalist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, explained &ldquo;You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life&rdquo;.&nbsp; Camus&rsquo; point is not ontological, it doesn&rsquo;t probe into the nature of reality, and his concern seems to be an existential one, meaning that the important thing is how life works for you, the life of individual; regardless of any truth behind existence.&nbsp; So in light of this we must ask: is it reasonable to believe we have a purpose?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">To answer this, take the following points into consideration:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">You are probably reading this in your bedroom sitting on your chair, and you are definitely wearing some clothes.&nbsp; So I ask you a question: for what purpose? Why are you wearing the clothes and what purpose does the chair fulfill? Since these are rhetorical questions you don&rsquo;t have to answer, because we all know the answer.&nbsp; The chair&rsquo;s purpose is to allow us to sit down by supporting our weight, and our clothes fulfill the purpose of keeping us warm, hiding our nakedness and making us look good! Now from your bedroom let me transport you to a forest somewhere in the world, now this forest obviously has trees and on a particular tree there is a moth.&nbsp; This moth is on this tree drinking its sap, underneath that moth there is another moth and its role is somewhat bizarre, it drinks the excrement of the first moth.&nbsp; This is because the first moth almost instantaneously removes its waste while drinking the sap.&nbsp; You are probably thinking where I am going with this, well; firstly let us discuss what the purpose of the second moth is.&nbsp; Its purpose is to clean up the excrement of the first moth in order to prevent it trickling down the tree so that ants, and other insects, would not be encouraged to travel up the trail and in consequence eat the first moth.&nbsp; So in simple terms the second moth is the first moth&rsquo;s insurance policy!<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Now take this into consideration, you probably didn&rsquo;t know anything about this moth three minutes ago, in fact if moth genocide were to occur, you wouldn&rsquo;t really care &ndash; well most of you anyway.&nbsp; However, we attribute purpose to such an insignificant creature, and coming back to our clothes and the chair, which are inanimate objects with no emotional and mental faculties, we attribute purpose to these too! Still, we do not attribute purpose to our own existence? Is this not absurd?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Believing that we have no purpose is not only irrational, it is practically problematic because it presents an indication that a lot of the things we have achieved as humans beings most probably would not have happened as many of the people who have accomplished amazing achievements, including the discovery of penicillin, would not have had the drive to attain what they did.&nbsp; This is because these very people had a purpose driven approach to life, without which we would be just like animals obeying our instincts, in other words chemical robots wandering around waiting for the battery acid to dry up! The realities of a purposeless existence was also highlighted by the Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who claimed that the world is bankrupt and there is no reason to rejoice in its existence, he even argued that it would be better if it did not exist and questioned whether suicide was a plausible solution.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So why is it irrational? Well, it is irrational because if everything complex and designed that we discover seems to have a purpose, including the insignificant moth, as well as the things we develop and create, then it logically follows that we have a purpose too.&nbsp; To deny this would be tantamount of believing in things without any evidence, as there is no evidence to say we have no purpose, on the contrary we have evidence to say that things have a purpose and we can infer that about ourselves too.&nbsp; Even scientists indicate that it is irrational to assert that our universe is impersonal and the product of blind chance.&nbsp; Interestingly they have explained that the physical processes in the universe have some sort of purpose, for instance the Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle described the universe with the attributes of God, and the physicists Zeldovich and Novikov asked why did nature choose to create this universe instead of another?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Finally, we can argue that without a purpose we do not really have a deeper profound meaning to our life.&nbsp; For instance if we take the logical conclusion of an apathetic scientific view on our existence, we are on a sinking ship.&nbsp; This ship is called the universe, because according to scientists the universe is going to suffer a heat death, and one day the Sun will destroy the earth.&nbsp; Therefore this ship is going to sink, so I ask you, what is the point of reshuffling the deck chairs or giving a glass of milk to the old lady? As Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the Russian writer and essayist said, &ldquo;Without some goal and some effort to reach it, no one can live.&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Various contentions can follow from this discussion; firstly a purposeless worldview gives us more freedom to create purpose for ourselves.&nbsp; To further explain, some existentialists have argued that our life is actually based on nothing, and from this nothingness we can create a new realm of possibility for our lives, and therefore create purpose for ourselves.&nbsp; This philosophy rests on the idea that everything is meaningless and that we should create a new language for ourselves in order to live fulfilling lives.&nbsp; The flaw with this approach is that it uses meaning to claim meaninglessness; it also represents a self-delusion as they deny purpose but create one for themselves.&nbsp; Additionally it implies that there are no objective moral values and truths because an ontological foundation is absent.&nbsp; This is counter-intuitive and opposes our cross-cultural consensus of our moral thinking.&nbsp; The philosophy of war is a good example to show this type of moral consensus.&nbsp; For 2,500 years there was a cross-cultural agreement that poisons should not be used in war, even if you were being defeated.&nbsp; Although in practice people did not always conform, but they did however agree to this rule.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Another contention includes the evolutionist&rsquo;s stance that our purpose is to propagate our DNA, as Richard Dawkins in his publication &lsquo;The Selfish Gene&rsquo; states that our bodies have been developed to do just that.&nbsp; The problem with this analysis is that it relegates our existence to a random accident via a lengthy biological process, in essence the value of our life loses its meaning and morality is relegated to individual taste, as Michael Ruse a Philosopher of Science states,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&ldquo;Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth&hellip; Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory.&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The evolutionary perspective creates more problems than it solves as it cannot provide an adequate explanation for consciousness and the presence of our rational faculties.&nbsp; Taking consciousness as an example, how can a subjective immaterial reality come from a material substance? Consciousness is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure.&nbsp; The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is.&nbsp; One thing that we can be sure of is that consciousness cannot be explained biologically or chemically, the main reason for this is that evolution doesn&rsquo;t discover consciousness; it&rsquo;s actually the other way round.&nbsp; For evolution to try and explain the truth of consciousness would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this, the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein.&nbsp; If those advocating a physical explanation for consciousness, bigger questions would need answering such as &lsquo;how can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?&rsquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So if consciousness cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked, &lsquo;how did it come to be?&rsquo; The history of the universe indicates that consciousness just spontaneously arose and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner.&nbsp; Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of consciousness or its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to convince.&nbsp; Even the neo-atheist Richard Dawkins admits defeat concerning consciousness, he states &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t know.&nbsp; We don&rsquo;t understand it.&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In conclusion there are more reasons to believe that we have a deeper purpose rather than the other options of purposelessness and the cold valueless propagation of our DNA.&nbsp; Realising that we have a purpose is the best explanation via the inferences we make concerning the universe and the things around us.&nbsp; Even the Scottish Philosopher David Hume was attributed of saying &ldquo;A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence&rdquo;, so in this case, it would be wiser to conclude that human beings must have a purpose, and let us not forget that it nourishes us with a more significant explanation for our existence.&nbsp; However, the following question naturally arises: what is our purpose?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Death<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&nbsp;&ldquo;Every soul is certain to taste death.&rdquo; (Quran 21:35)<br \/> &ldquo;Death will overtake you no matter where you may be&rdquo; (Quran 4:78)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Death is something we as living beings do not enjoy thinking about.&nbsp; It creates the realisation within us that all of the attachments we have built in this world are no longer going to be.&nbsp; Significantly, it awakens us to the brutal fact that we will no longer exist on the planet.&nbsp; There have been many philosophies on death, for example thinkers discussed that death is an interruption to life, like sleep or a disease, only permanent.&nbsp; Others explained that death is to be considered as part of life, something which every person has to come to terms with in order to live well; part of what is involved in accepting our finitude.&nbsp; Some thinkers claimed death is to be considered as a transition from this life to an afterlife, the eternal life of bliss or pain.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Whatever our views on death are, one thing we can all agree on is that it is something that we do not think about enough.&nbsp; This may sound morbid but there is a profound value of reflecting on death, it brings about the actualisation that we are all human beings with a short life.&nbsp; Our egos will no longer seem that important, our attachments and desires to the material world are put into perspective, and our lives are questioned; all of which is a source of great benefit, as the 11th century Theologian and Philosopher al-Ghazali said, &ldquo;&hellip;in the recollection of death there is reward and merit.&rdquo; Contemplating about death provokes thought and give us that window in our lives to really reflect on the ephemeral nature of our existence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In light of death, how should we view life? What does it tell us about the importance we attach to things, and how does it deliver meaning to our existence? If we view life through the lenses of death we seem to be in an emotional and intellectual space where we can really assess our situation on this planet.&nbsp; How did I come to be? What should I be doing here? Where am I going? Death is the driving force behind these critical questions, because the moment we recognise that this life is short and that we will breathe our last one day, it puts everything into perspective.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So let us reflect on death; imagine you are here one minute and the next you are no more.&nbsp; You have probably experienced loved ones that have passed away; how did you feel? Was there not a sense of loneliness, emptiness and lack of attachment to the things we used to take so seriously? Now if you were to taste death right now, as every human being will, what would that mean to you? What would you want to have done differently if you were given the chance to go back? What thoughts and ideas would you take more seriously? And what would your outlook be if you could re-live your life once experiencing the tragic reality of death?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The sad thing about death is that we can&rsquo;t go back to change our perspectives, or to think about life, or to challenge our outlook and detach ourselves from the empty nature of worldly life.&nbsp; The good thing though, something that we can begin to do is to take the brave step to deeply reflect on death, and best of all we could make all of these changes now, right this minute.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Thinking<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&nbsp;&ldquo;&hellip;for those who reflect.&rdquo; (Quran 10:24)<br \/> &ldquo;&hellip;and he taught Adam the names of everything&hellip;&rdquo; (Quran 2:31)<br \/> &ldquo;Do they not use their minds?&rdquo; (Quran 6:32)<br \/> &ldquo;Do they not reflect within themselves?&rdquo; (Quran 30:8)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">How should we think? How can we understand the world around us? What methods should we use to gain a true understanding of the world? These questions have puzzled the minds of many great thinkers throughout history.&nbsp; Our human tradition is full of debates and discussions trying to find answers.&nbsp; The likes of Locke, Hume and Kant, and many others have tried to provide answers to shed light on the perennial debate concerning our understanding of the world.&nbsp; Some of these thinkers, such as Locke, claimed that our knowledge of the world is limited to our perceptions only, in other words knowledge is dependent on our sense experience, also known as a posteriori in epistemology, which forms the empiricist tradition in philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Locke argued that our minds were a blank sheet, a tabula rasa, waiting to be written on by experience.&nbsp; Other thinkers like Leibniz argued, in his &lsquo;Nouveax Essais sur l&rsquo;entendement humain&rsquo;, that as human beings we have innate concepts and ideas that are necessary to understand the world around us, known as a priori in epistemology, which means that knowledge can be gained independent of sense experience, and forms the rationalist tradition in philosophy.&nbsp; Leibniz&rsquo;s view seems to be a stronger position as it is makes more sense, however some philosophers and scientists deny this and claim that you can&rsquo;t think of examples of things we can know independent of our sense experience.&nbsp; This is not true; take the following examples into consideration:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Circles have no corners.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">4+4 = 8.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Time is irreversible.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Everything that begins to exist has a cause.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The whole is greater than its half (just eat half an apple!)<\/span><\/li>\r\n<li><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Causality<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Let&rsquo;s take causality as an example to illustrate that we can&rsquo;t just rely on sense experience.&nbsp; Causality can be known without experience because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us.&nbsp; It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything.&nbsp; The contention that this is just an assumption is not true because without causality we would not be able to have the concept of the real world, and we would not understand our sense experience.&nbsp; Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC.&nbsp; Your eyes may wander to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn.&nbsp; Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past.&nbsp; What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on.&nbsp; However with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the innate idea of causality.&nbsp; In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is.&nbsp; It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So it seems that the correct way of forming conclusions is by using our innate ideas and the experiences of the world around us, in other words using rational thought or what some people call reason.&nbsp; Just relying on our experience of the material world would not be sufficient as a method of thinking as it would not be able to confirm political truths, moral truths, mathematical truths, logical truths, and let&rsquo;s not forget to mention a fundamental truth like causality.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Though we can understand the world around us using rational thought, how can we formulate an argument or verify our conclusions? Well, this lies in the study of logic which essentially means the principles of reasoning, with particular emphasis on the structure of our arguments.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Let&rsquo;s illustrate the use of logic in the following example: if our friend Mary says &ldquo;John is coming to dinner tonight&rdquo;, and David says &ldquo;Mary is not coming to dinner tonight&rdquo;.&nbsp; Is what they say consistent? Well, logic would tell us that if they are referring to the same person and the same day then no, their statements would not be consistent.&nbsp; However if they are referring to a different person or a different day then yes their statements would be consistent.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So let&rsquo;s combine the two processes.&nbsp; John says &ldquo;Whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause&rdquo;.&nbsp; Now from a logical perspective it is a valid argument as the last statement &ldquo;therefore the universe has a cause&rdquo; logically follows from the first two statements.&nbsp; But this doesn&rsquo;t mean it is rational or reasonable.&nbsp; In order to find out that it is reasonable we would have to investigate using our innate ideas and our sense experience to see if the first two statements are true.&nbsp; If they are, then the conclusion will not only be a valid argument but it would also be a sound argument.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Just relying on empiricism would not give us an answer as it would lead us to suspend judgment on whether the universe has a cause or not because it cannot be sensed.&nbsp; However this would be equivalent of denying the existence of your great great great great great great great grandmother, because there is no empirical evidence for her existence.&nbsp; You may argue &ldquo;but I wouldn&rsquo;t be here today!&rdquo;, that is true, but that would be using rational thought to form that conclusion, as you would have deduced that you must have had a great great great great great great great grandmother as all human beings must have had a grandmother in order to exist.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">This is how all of us should start to think about life and the universe, so we could form the right conclusions using valid arguments.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>World-view<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-quran\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>&nbsp;&ldquo;But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and Quran it is bad for you.&nbsp; And God Knows, while you know not.&rdquo; (Quran 2:216)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Live and let live, don&rsquo;t harm others and you&rsquo;ll be fine.&nbsp; This makes sense, right? Even to the point that it shouldn&rsquo;t be questioned.&nbsp; But why is this? Why do we automatically accept some ideas and reject others? Why do certain viewpoints seem agreeable to us yet we disagree with others, all without really thinking about them?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The answer lies in the concept of a world-view.&nbsp; A world-view is a philosophy of living that enables us to make sense of life and our daily experiences.&nbsp; The world-view we adopt affects the way we process ideas, and allows us to understand society and our place in it.&nbsp; A world-view is important in particular association with our society today &ndash; this is because the contemporary world has had a huge effect on human psychology.&nbsp; We seem unable to deal with the unpredictable changes and increased complexity of life &ndash; subsequently stress, uncertainty and frustration become common and our minds are overloaded with information.&nbsp; A world-view is the framework that ties all of this together, and allows us to understand life&rsquo;s complexity and unpredictability, it helps us make the critical decisions that will shape our future and our own selves, and it aids us in providing a picture of the whole.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">World-views vary and can range from being shallow to comprehensive.&nbsp; A shallow world-view is one that just gives us the framework to react to day-to-day experiences, such as work and friendships.&nbsp; This type of world-view is usually formed via our previous experiences in life and it develops by creating templates of understanding the world by contemplating on our history with it.&nbsp; This type of world-view is problematic as it obstructs us from progression by maintaining an inflexible fixation on the past, with no possibility of viewing the world in a positive or different way that will enable our transformation.&nbsp; It is limited in its scope as it becomes only as comprehensive as your experiences, and individually our experiences are very limited.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">A comprehensive world-view, as discussed by the philosopher Leo Apostel, encompasses everything in life and it includes various components, for instance it provides a model for the world by answering the basic question &ldquo;who are we?&rdquo; In addition it provides an explanation usually answering &ldquo;why is the world the way it is?&rdquo; and &ldquo;where did we come from?&rdquo; Another important part of a comprehensive world-view includes extrapolating from the past into the future to answer the question &ldquo;where are we going?&rdquo; It should endeavour to answer &ldquo;what is good and what is evil?&rdquo;, in other words to include morality and ethics, while giving us a sense of purpose, direction and goals for our actions.&nbsp; Additionally, the answer to the question &ldquo;what for?&rdquo; may help us to understand the real meaning of life and a comprehensive world-view must answer &ldquo;how should we act?&rdquo; thereby helping us to solve practical problems.&nbsp; Lastly a comprehensive world-view should answer the question &ldquo;what is true and what is false?&rdquo;, this is equivalent to what in philosophy is called &ldquo;epistemology&rdquo; or &ldquo;the theory of knowledge&rdquo;, therefore it would allow us to distinguish between what is correct and what is incorrect.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">For any situation there are various possible outcomes all of which are dictated by the world-view that someone adopts.&nbsp; Instead of discussing the actions, or fruits, of a world-view the foundations of the world-view should be challenged and validated.&nbsp; So the world-view that is more correct or has stronger intellectual foundations should be the one to adopt.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">This is why when looking into Islam the primary focus should not be an assessment of women&rsquo;s rights, clothing and on instances sensationalized by the media, because the assessment of these will be biased and skewed in line with your existing world-view.&nbsp; But rather, the intellectual foundations of any world-view should be assessed for its truth, and the one with greater reasons to believe in its truth should be the world-view to adopt, because it will be in line with the principle of: whatever comes from truth is true.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So let the journey begin!<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>","excerpt":"","terms":null,"visibility_roles":"","comment_status":1,"comment_count":0,"read_counter":12938,"lft":417,"rght":418,"promote":1,"sticky":0,"status":1,"publish_start":null,"publish_end":null,"created_at":"2014-07-30T13:55:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T08:56:05.000000Z","language_id":1,"user_id":7,"author_id":2106,"publisher_id":0,"category_id":1,"parent_id":null,"author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_name":"Introducing Islam","category_slug":"Introducing-islam","get_date":"2014-07-30","pdf_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/en_Philosophical Reflections.pdf","word_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/en_Philosophical Reflections.docx"},{"id":423,"title":"How Do We Know God is One? A Philosophical and Theological Perspective","slug":"how-do-we-know-god-is-one-a-philosophical-and-theological-perspective","word":"\/uploads\/articles\/How Do We Know God is One.docx","pdf":"\/uploads\/articles\/How Do We Know God is One.pdf","mime_type":null,"type":"node","path":"\/nodes\/view\/type:article\/slug:how-do-we-know-god-is-one-a-philosophical-and-theological-perspective","hint":"","body":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-large;\">How Do We Know God is One? A Philosophical and Theological Perspective<\/span><\/h1>\r\n<h1 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"> (part 1 of 3)<\/span><\/h1>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><img style=\"display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;\" src=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/images\/How_Do_We_Know_God_is_One_(part_1_of_3)._001.jpg\" alt=\"HowDoWeKnowGodisOne1.jpg\" \/><br \/><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">One of the many common questions that were asked during the Islamic Awareness Tour was &ldquo;If God does exist what reasons do we have to believe He is one?&rdquo; This question is important as it addresses a fundamental concept in Islamic theology, the concept of God&rsquo;s oneness.&nbsp; The oneness of God, in Arabic&nbsp;<em>Tawhid<\/em>, is a central theme in the Qur&rsquo;an and is the message of all of the Prophets. The Qur&rsquo;an eloquently describes the nature of God and His oneness in the 112th chapter,<strong>&ldquo;Say: He is God, the One.&nbsp; God is the One upon whom all creation depend upon for their sustenance.&nbsp; He begot no one nor was He begotten.&nbsp; No one is comparable to him.&rdquo;<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Before I begin to answer the question, it is important to add that the concept of oneness in Islam is not limited to God&rsquo;s singularity and uniqueness.&nbsp; There are many aspects to this concept which involve the way human beings should worship God, how they should understand His lordship, and how they should understand God&rsquo;s names and attributes.&nbsp; It doesn&rsquo;t stop there as these ideas transform an individual&rsquo;s world view and outlook, as a famous Asian-subcontinent thinker once wrote,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&ldquo;A believer in this&hellip;can never be narrow in outlook.&nbsp; He believes in a God Who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Master of the East and the West and Sustainer of the entire universe.&nbsp; After this belief he does not regard anything in the world as a stranger to himself.&nbsp; He looks on everything in the universe as belonging to the same Lord he himself belongs to.&nbsp; His sympathy, love and service are not confined to any particular sphere or group.&nbsp; His vision is enlarged, his intellectual horizon widens, and his outlook becomes as liberal and as boundless as is the Kingdom of God.&nbsp; How can this width of vision and breadth of mind be achieved by an atheist, a polytheist or one who believes in a deity supposed to possess limited and defective powers like a man?&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In light of this there are many ways to answer the question referring to God&rsquo;s singularity and uniqueness, thereby providing a positive case for the oneness of God, and they range from theological to philosophical arguments.&nbsp; I will present the following 5 arguments:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Occam&rsquo;s Razor<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Logical Argument<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Conceptual Differentiation<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Uniqueness<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Revelation<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Occam&rsquo;s Razor<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The Qur&rsquo;an rhetorically asks the question &ldquo;Did the universe come out of nothing?&rdquo; The answer seems quite obvious due to the metaphysical and undeniable logic that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause.&nbsp; It would be irrational to posit more than one cause for the universe, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible.&nbsp; The reasons for this include the absurdity of the actual infinite existing in reality; take the following examples into consideration,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You have an infinite number of people in a room, if I take two people away, how many do you have left?&nbsp; The answer is infinity minus two.&nbsp; However does this make sense?&nbsp; If there are less than an infinite number of people in a room you should be able to count that number in the real world.&nbsp; But you can&rsquo;t, in other words the infinite doesn&rsquo;t make sense in the real world.&nbsp; In light of this Mathematicians Kasman and Newman state &ldquo;The infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say &lsquo;There are fish in the sea&rsquo;&rdquo;.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imagine I am a soldier and I want to shoot an enemy.&nbsp; In order for me to shoot I have to ask permission from the soldier behind me to shoot, but he has also has to ask permission from the soldier behind him to shoot, now imagine this continued forever, in other words an infinite amount of time?&nbsp; Will I ever shoot the enemy?&nbsp; The answers is plain obvious.&nbsp; In the same light an infinite regress of causes for the universe would mean there would be no universe in existence in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">So the conclusion that the universe has a single independent uncaused cause seems quite plausible, however you can still posit a plurality of causes all occurring at the same time.&nbsp; Is this a sound argument?&nbsp; I believe it is not a strong argument if we take Ockham&rsquo;s Razor into consideration.&nbsp; Ockham&rsquo;s Razor is a philosophical principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.&nbsp; This principle enjoins &ldquo;Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate&rdquo;, in English &ldquo;Plurality should not be posited without necessity.&rdquo; In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Essentially it means that in absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation.&nbsp; In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one.&nbsp; Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.&nbsp; In other words to add more causes would not enhance the argument&rsquo;s explanatory power or scope.&nbsp; For example, to claim that the universe was caused by an all powerful cause is just as comprehensive than to claim to was caused by two all powerful causes.&nbsp; Because one all powerful cause is all that is required, simply because it is&nbsp;all powerful.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">A contention to this argument is that if we were to apply this principle to the pyramids in Egypt we would absurdly adopt the view that it was made by one person.&nbsp; However, this is a misapplication of the principle.&nbsp; Taking the view that the pyramids were built by one person is actually not the simplest and most comprehensive explanation as it raises far more questions than it answers.&nbsp; For instance, how can one man build the pyramids?&nbsp; It is far more comprehensive to postulate that it was built by many men.&nbsp; In light of this, someone can say that the universe is so complex that it would be absurd to postulate that it was created by only one being.&nbsp; This contention, although valid, is misplaced.&nbsp; A powerful being creating the whole universe is a far more coherent and simple explanation than a plurality of causes.&nbsp; Now the critic may continue and argue that the pyramids could then have been built by an all powerful being.&nbsp; But the problem with this is that nothing&nbsp;within&nbsp;the universe is an all powerful being, and since the pyramids were built by an efficient cause (a person or persons that act) then it follows it must be of the same type of cause.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h1 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">(part 2 of 3)<\/span><\/h1>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Logical Argument<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Logic necessitates that if there were more than one God who created the universe it would be in chaos and there would not be the level of order we find in the cosmos.&nbsp; However you may point out that your car was made by more than one creator, one person fitted the wheels, and someone else installed the engine and another person the computer system.&nbsp; So from this example there can be more than one creator with the created thing still able to exhibit order and stability.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In order to respond to this contention what has to be understood is that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is the concept of God and not &lsquo;designer&rsquo; or &lsquo;creator&rsquo;.&nbsp; There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the car example, but there cannot be more than one God.&nbsp; This is because God by definition is the being that has an unlimited imposing will, if there were two or more Gods that would mean that they would have a competition of wills and that would result in chaos and disorder.&nbsp; However you may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive, which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">This is explained well by Ibn Abi Al-Izz in his commentary of &lsquo;<em>Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah<\/em>&rsquo;:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&ldquo;The most common argument they advance is known as the argument of exclusion.&nbsp; This argument runs like this.&nbsp; If there were two creators and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to move, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities.&nbsp; First, the wills of the two are both carried out; second, only the will of one of them is carried out; third, the will of neither of them is carried.&nbsp; The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries.&nbsp; The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible.&nbsp; This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God.&nbsp; Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.&rdquo;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Conceptual Differentiation<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">What makes us appreciate difference and duality?&nbsp; How do we differentiate between two people walking in the street?&nbsp; The answer lies in what is called conceptual differentiation.&nbsp; These concepts include space, distance, form, and physical features.&nbsp; Take the following diagram into consideration,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.&nbsp; In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all?&nbsp; You could not, because these concepts are required to perceive any number of entities.&nbsp; Now since the cause of the universe is outside the universe (if the cause was part of the universe it would mean that the universe created itself, this is absurd as it would necessitate the universe to exist and not exist at the same time!), you can safely assume that there are no conceptual differentiators such as distance, shape, colour and size; because these concepts only make sense within the universe.&nbsp; Therefore if there are no knowable conceptual differentiators we cannot claim a multiplicity of causes, as I have explained above the impossibility of perceiving plurality or multiplicity in absence of these concepts.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Since you have no concepts to acknowledge a plurality of causes does this mean that even a single cause can&rsquo;t exist?&nbsp; No it doesn&rsquo;t, because if there were no cause for the universe then that would mean the universe, in the words of Bertrand Russell, &ldquo;Is just there and that&rsquo;s all&rdquo;.&nbsp; In other words it would mean the universe is infinite, however this cannot be the case, as mentioned above the universe began to exist.&nbsp; Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and that a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Uniqueness<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The cause of the universe must be unique, as the Qur&rsquo;an says &ldquo;There is nothing like Him&rdquo;.&nbsp; If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself.&nbsp; This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself.&nbsp; Now you may ask the question: why can&rsquo;t the cause of the universe resemble the universe?&nbsp; The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material &ndash; which is the universe itself &ndash; and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states &ldquo;Energy cannot be created or destroyed&rdquo;, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself.&nbsp; If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create.&nbsp; So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">How does this relate to the oneness of God?&nbsp; Well if there were more than one cause for the universe that would mean they are not unique anymore.&nbsp; However you may still argue that there can be two immaterial causes, and I would reply: what does that mean?&nbsp; It would seem that you are violating Occam&rsquo;s Razor and I would refer you to the first argument.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h1 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">(part 3 of 3)<\/span><\/h1>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Revelation<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">A simpler way of providing evidence for God&rsquo;s oneness is by referring to revelation.&nbsp; The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true.&nbsp; The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Let&rsquo;s take the last assumption first.&nbsp; If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally.&nbsp; What I mean by &ldquo;internally&rdquo; here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by &ldquo;externally&rdquo; is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world.&nbsp; Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Human beings are different.&nbsp; They have, what Psychologists call, &ldquo;individual differences&rdquo;, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more.&nbsp; These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ.&nbsp; So you can see that if these processes were solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.&nbsp; This is true from a historical point of view, since the ancient world 6000 BCE, there are records of approximately 3,700 different names and concepts for God!<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a &ldquo;common sense&rdquo; method, or what philosophers call rational thought and w hat Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies.&nbsp; This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation.&nbsp; The Quran aptly mentions &ldquo;Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?&rdquo; If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant.&nbsp; It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is.&nbsp; God would have to tell you via external revelation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Take the following example into consideration, you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren&rsquo;t expecting anyone, so you cry out &ldquo;who is it?&rdquo; in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you.&nbsp; So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Quran as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text<a title=\" IslamReligion.com: The Quran is the only unchanged Word of God.&nbsp; Previous revelations of God have either been lost or altered.&nbsp; \" href=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/10217\/#_ftn20658\">[1]<\/a>, these criteria include,<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It must be consistent with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God.&nbsp; For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It must be internally and externally consistent.&nbsp; In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency.&nbsp; Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It must have signposts to transcendence.&nbsp; In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In the case of the Quran &ndash; and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth &ndash; cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation.&nbsp; Some of these signposts include:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The linguistic and literary inimitability<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Quran &ndash; then what it says about God is true.&nbsp; In the context of this discussion the Quran says &ldquo;Know that your Lord God is one&rdquo;.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">These are some of the arguments that can be used to show that God is one; however this topic &ndash; once truly understood &ndash; will have some profound effects on the human conscious.&nbsp; The oneness of God is not only related to the fact that He is uniquely one, rather it refers to His worship, lordship, names and attributes, something that can only be tasted by pondering on reality, meditating on the meaning of the Quran, and becoming a manifestation of its message.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\">\r\n<hr size=\"2\" \/>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Footnotes:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-footnote-text\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><a title=\"Back to the refrence of this footnote\" href=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/10217\/#_ftnref20658\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;IslamReligion.com: The Quran is the only unchanged Word of God.&nbsp; Previous revelations of God have either been lost or altered.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>","excerpt":"","terms":null,"visibility_roles":"","comment_status":1,"comment_count":0,"read_counter":16533,"lft":617,"rght":618,"promote":1,"sticky":0,"status":1,"publish_start":null,"publish_end":null,"created_at":"2014-08-02T00:27:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-06T18:06:55.000000Z","language_id":1,"user_id":7,"author_id":2106,"publisher_id":0,"category_id":9,"parent_id":null,"author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_name":"The Existence of God","category_slug":"The-Existence-of-God","get_date":"2014-08-02","pdf_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/How Do We Know God is One.pdf","word_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/How Do We Know God is One.docx"},{"id":2973,"title":"A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran","slug":"a-philosophical-perspective-on-the-uniqueness-of-the-quran","word":"\/uploads\/articles\/en-A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran.docx","pdf":"\/uploads\/articles\/en-A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran.pdf","mime_type":null,"type":"node","path":"\/nodes\/view\/type:article\/slug:a-philosophical-perspective-on-the-uniqueness-of-the-quran","hint":"<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">\u0627\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644:<\/span> \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0646\u0638\u0648\u0631 \u0627\u0644\u0641\u0644\u0633\u0641\u064a \u0644\u062a\u0641\u0631\u062f \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0622\u0646 <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<hr \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> \u062a\u0623\u0644\u064a\u0641:<\/span> \u062d\u0645\u0632\u0629 \u0623\u0646\u062f\u0631\u064a\u0627 <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<hr \/>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0627\u0634\u0631:<\/span> \u0645\u0648\u0642\u0639 \u062f\u064a\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0633\u0644\u0627\u0645<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","body":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-large;\"><strong>A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p>&nbsp;<img style=\"display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;\" src=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/images\/A_Philosophical_Perspective_on_the_Uniqueness_of_the_Quran._001.jpg\" alt=\"Philosophical Perspective on Quran.jpg\" \/><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">William Shakespeare, who was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language, is often used as an example of unique literature. The argument posed is that if Shakespeare expressed his poetry and prose in a unique manner &ndash; and he is a human being &ndash; then surely no matter how unique the Quran is, it must also be from a human being.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">However there are some problems with the above argument. It does not take into account the nature of the Quran&rsquo;s uniqueness and it doesn&rsquo;t understand the uniqueness of literary geniuses such as Shakespeare. Although Shakespeare composed poetry and prose that received an unparalleled aesthetic reception, the literary form he expressed his works in was not unique. In many instances Shakespeare used the common &nbsp;Iambic Pentameter (The Iambic pentameter is a meter in poetry. It refers to a line consisting of five iambic feet. The word \"pentameter\" simply means that there are five feet in the line.) However in the case of the Quran, its language is in an entirely unknown and unmatched literary form. The structural features of the Quranic discourse render it unique and not the subjective appreciation of its literary and linguistic makeup.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">With this in mind there are two approaches that can show that there are greater reasons to believe that the Quran is from the divine and a miraculous text. The first approach is rational deduction and the second is the philosophy of Miracles.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Rational Deduction<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Rational deduction is the thinking process where logical conclusions are drawn from a universally accepted statement or provable premises. This process is also called rational inference or logical deduction.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">In the context of the Quran&rsquo;s uniqueness the universally accepted statement supported by eastern and western scholarship is:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\"The Quran was not successfully imitated by the Arabs at the time of revelation\"<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">From this statement the following logical conclusions can be drawn:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">1. The Quran could not have come from an Arab as the Arabs, at the time of revelation, were linguists par excellence and they failed to challenge the Quran. They had even admitted that the Quran could have not come from a human being.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">2. The Quran could not have come from a Non-Arab as the language in the Quran is Arabic, and the knowledge of the Arabic language is a pre-requisite to successfully challenge the Quran.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">3. The Quran could not have come from the Prophet Muhammad due to the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;a. The Prophet Muhammad was an Arab himself and all the Arabs failed to challenge the Quran.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;b. The Arabs linguists at the time of revelation never accused the Prophet of being the author of the Quran.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;c. The Prophet Muhammad experienced many trials and tribulations during the course of his Prophetic mission. For example his children died, his beloved wife Khadija passed away, he was boycotted, his close companions were tortured and killed, yet the Quran&rsquo;s literary character remains that of the divine voice and character. Nothing in the Quran expresses the turmoil and emotions of the Prophet Muhammad. It is almost a psychological and physiological impossibility to go through what the Prophet went through and yet none of the emotions are expressed in the literary character of the Quran.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;d. The Quran is a known literary masterpiece yet its verses were at many times revealed for specific circumstances and events that occurred. However, without revision or deletion they are literary masterpieces. All literary masterpieces have undergone revision and deletion to ensure literary perfection, however the Quran was revealed instantaneously.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;e. The hadith or narrations of the Prophet Muhammad are in a totally different style than that of the Quran. How can any human being express themselves orally over a 23 year period (which was the period of Quranic revelation) in two distinct styles? This is a psychological and physiological impossibility according to modern research.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">&nbsp;f. All types of human expression can be imitated if the blueprint of that expression exists. For example artwork can be imitated even though some art is thought to be extraordinary or amazingly unique. But in the case of the Quran we have the blueprint &ndash; the Quran itself &ndash; yet no one has been able to imitate its unique literary form.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">4. The Quran could not have come from another being such as a Jinn or Spirit because the basis of their existence is the Quran and revelation itself. Their existence is based upon revelation and not empirical evidence. Therefore if someone claims that the source of the Quran to be another being then they would have to prove its existence and in this case proving revelation. In the case of using the Quran as the revelation to establish Jinns&rsquo; existence then that would mean the whole rational deduction exercise would not be required in the first place, as the Quran would already have been established as a divine text, because to believe in Jinns&rsquo; existence would mean belief in the Quran in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-bullet\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">5. The Quran can only have come from the Divine as it is the only logical explanation as all other explanations have been discarded because they do not explain the uniqueness of the Quran in a comprehensive and coherent manner.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Philosophy of Miracles<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The word miracle is derived from the Latin word &lsquo;miraculum&rsquo; meaning \"something wonderful\". A miracle is commonly defined as a violation of a natural law (lex naturalis); however this is an incoherent definition. This incoherence is due our understanding of natural laws, as the Philosopher Bilynskyj observes \"&hellip;so long as natural laws are conceived of as universal inductive generalizations, the notion of violation of a natural law is incoherent.\"<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Natural laws are inductive generalizations of patterns we observe in the universe. If the definition of a miracle is a violation of a natural law, in other words a violation of the patterns we observe in the universe, then an obvious conceptual problem occurs. The problem is: why can&rsquo;t we take this perceived violation of the pattern as part of the pattern? Therefore the more coherent description of a miracle is not a &lsquo;violation&rsquo; but an &lsquo;impossibility&rsquo;. The Philosopher William Lane Craig rejects the definition of a miracle as a \"violation of a natural law\" and replaces it with the coherent definition of \"events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature\". What this means is that miracles are acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The Miraculous Quran<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">What makes the Quran a miracle, is that it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall within the known Arabic literary forms of Prose and Poetry.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The Quran is a miracle as its literary form cannot be explained via the productive capacity of the Arabic language, because all the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet the Quran&rsquo;s literary form has not been imitated. The Arabs who were known to have been Arab linguists par excellence failed to successfully challenge the Quran. Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot who was a notable British Orientalist and translator states:<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\"and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.\"<a title=\" F. F. Arbuthnot. 1885. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5\" href=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/10703\/#_ftn25327\">[1]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">The implication of this is that there is no link between the Quran and the Arabic language; however this seems impossible because the Quran is made up of the Arabic language! On the other hand, all the combinations of Arabic words and letters have been used to try and imitate the Quran. Therefore, it can only be concluded that a supernatural explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form &ndash; the Quran.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-body-text-1\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">When we look at the productive nature of the Arabic language to find an answer for the unique literary form of the Quran, we find no link between it and the divine text, thus making it an impossibility requiring supernatural explanation. So it logically follows that if the Quran is a literary event that lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language, then, by definition, it is a miracle.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\">\r\n<hr size=\"2\" \/>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><strong>Footnotes:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"w-footnote-text\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><a title=\"Back to the refrence of this footnote\" href=\"http:\/\/www.islamreligion.com\/articles\/10703\/#_ftnref25327\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;F. F. Arbuthnot. 1885. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>","excerpt":"","terms":null,"visibility_roles":"","comment_status":1,"comment_count":0,"read_counter":15239,"lft":5769,"rght":5770,"promote":1,"sticky":0,"status":1,"publish_start":null,"publish_end":null,"created_at":"2014-12-09T18:09:00.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T11:54:16.000000Z","language_id":1,"user_id":13,"author_id":2106,"publisher_id":0,"category_id":15,"parent_id":null,"author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_name":"About Qur'an & Hadith","category_slug":"About-Quran-and-Hadith","get_date":"2014-12-09","pdf_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/en-A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran.pdf","word_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/en-A Philosophical Perspective on the Uniqueness of the Quran.docx"},{"id":4561,"title":"\u00bfC\u00f3mo sabemos que Dios es Uno? Una perspectiva  filos\u00f3fica y teol\u00f3gica","slug":"como-sabemos-que-dios-es-uno-una-perspectiva-filosofica-y-teologica","word":"\/uploads\/articles\/es_Como_sabemos_que_Dios_es_Uno.docx","pdf":"\/uploads\/articles\/es_Como_sabemos_que_Dios_es_Uno.pdf","mime_type":null,"type":"node","path":"\/node\/type:node\/slug:como-sabemos-que-dios-es-uno-una-perspectiva-filosofica-y-teologica","hint":"<p dir=\"rtl\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 20px;\">\u0627\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644: \u0643\u064a\u0641 \u0646\u062a\u0639\u0631\u0641 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0648\u062d\u062f\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u061f<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n<div dir=\"rtl\">\r\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><span class=\"divx1\">\u0627\u0644\u0643\u0627\u062a\u0628: <\/span>\u062d\u0645\u0632\u0629 \u062a\u0632\u0648\u0631\u062a\u0632\u0633<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n<div>\r\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><span class=\"divx1\">\u0627\u0644\u0646\u0627\u0634\u0631: <\/span>\u0645\u0648\u0642\u0639 \u062f\u064a\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0633\u0644\u0627\u0645 www.islamreligion.com<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><span class=\"divx1\">\u0646\u0628\u0630\u0629 \u0645\u062e\u062a\u0635\u0631\u0629: <\/span>\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0629 \u0645\u062a\u0631\u062c\u0645\u0629 \u0625\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u063a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0623\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629\u060c \u062a\u0646\u0627\u0642\u0634 \u0642\u0636\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u062d\u062f\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 - \u0639\u0632 \u0648\u062c\u0644 -\u060c \u0641\u064a \u0631\u0628\u0648\u0628\u064a\u062a\u0647\u060c \u0648\u0623\u0644\u0648\u0647\u064a\u062a\u0647\u060c \u0648\u0641\u064a \u0623\u0633\u0645\u0627\u0626\u0647 \u0648\u0635\u0641\u0627\u062a\u0647\u060c \u0648\u0642\u062f \u062a\u0646\u0627\u0648\u0644\u0647\u0627 \u0641\u064a \u0636\u0648\u0621 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u0631\u0627\u0647\u064a\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0637\u0639\u0629\u060c \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0623\u062f\u0644\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0642\u0646\u0639\u0629\u060c \u0627\u0644\u062a\u064a \u062a\u0639\u062a\u0645\u062f \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0622\u0646 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0633\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0635\u062d\u064a\u062d\u0629.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n","body":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><br \/>\r\n<span style=\"font-size:16px;\"><strong><span style=\"color:#FF0000;\"><span style=\"font-size: 20px;\">&iquest;C&oacute;mo sabemos que Dios es Uno? Una perspectiva&nbsp; filos&oacute;fica y teol&oacute;gica<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">\u0643\u064a\u0641 \u0646\u062a\u0639\u0631\u0641 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0648\u062d\u062f\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u061f<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">\u0627\u0644\u0644\u063a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<br \/>\r\nHamza Andreas Tzortzis<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">\u062d\u0645\u0632\u0629 \u062a\u0632\u0648\u0631\u062a\u0632\u0633<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><br \/>\r\n<span style=\"font-size:16px;\">\uf097\uf099<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Traductor: Muhammad Isa Garc&iacute;a<br \/>\r\nRevisor: Anas Quevedo<br \/>\r\n&nbsp;<br \/>\r\n\u062a\u0631\u062c\u0645\u0629: \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0639\u064a\u0633\u0649 \u063a\u0627\u0631\u0633\u064a\u0627<br \/>\r\n\u0645\u0631\u0627\u062c\u0639\u0629: \u0623\u0646\u0633 \u0642\u064a\u0628\u064a\u062f\u0648<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><br \/>\r\n&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">&iquest;C&oacute;mo sabemos que Dios es Uno?<br \/>\r\n&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><br \/>\r\n<span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Una de las muchas preguntas recurrentes que fueron formuladas durante el Islamic Awareness Tour fue: &ldquo;Si Dios existe, &iquest;qu&eacute; razones te-nemos para creer que &Eacute;l es Uno? Esta pregunta es importante ya que conlleva un concepto fundamental en la teolog&iacute;a isl&aacute;mica, el concepto de la Unidad y Unicidad de Dios. La unicidad de Dios, en &aacute;rabe Tawhid, es un tema central en el Cor&aacute;n y es el mensaje de todos los profetas. El Cor&aacute;n describe elocuentemente la naturaleza de Dios y Su Unidad y Unicidad en el cap&iacute;tulo 112:<br \/>\r\n&ldquo;Di: &lsquo;&Eacute;l es Al-lah, Uno. Al-lah es el Absoluto. No engendr&oacute; ni fue engendrado. Y no hay nada ni nadie que sea semejante a &Eacute;l&rsquo;&rdquo;.<br \/>\r\nAntes de comenzar a responder esta pregunta, es importante agre-gar que el concepto de unidad en el Islam no est&aacute; limitado a la unicidad y la singularidad de Dios. Hay muchos aspectos de este concepto que involucran la forma en que los seres humanos debemos adorar a Dios, c&oacute;mo debemos entender Su Se&ntilde;or&iacute;o, y c&oacute;mo debemos entender los nombres y atributos de Dios. Y no termina aqu&iacute;, ya que estas ideas transforman la visi&oacute;n y la concepci&oacute;n del mundo del individuo, como escribi&oacute; un famoso pensador del subcontinente asi&aacute;tico:<br \/>\r\n&ldquo;Quien cree en esto&hellip; jam&aacute;s puede ser estrecho de visi&oacute;n. Cree en un Dios que es el Creador de los cielos y de la Tierra, el Due&ntilde;o del oriente y del occidente, y el Sustentador del univer-so entero. Gracias a esta creencia, no considera que haya nada extra&ntilde;o a &eacute;l en el mundo. Lo observa todo en el universo como perteneciente al mismo Se&ntilde;or al que &eacute;l pertenece. Su simpat&iacute;a, amor y servicio no est&aacute;n confinados a ninguna esfera ni grupo. Su visi&oacute;n se extiende, su horizonte intelectual se ampl&iacute;a, y su punto de vista se hace tan liberal e ilimitado como lo es el Reino de Dios. &iquest;C&oacute;mo esta amplitud de miras y esta enverga-dura mental pueden ser alcanzadas por un ateo, un polite&iacute;sta, o alguien que cree en una deidad que se supone tiene poderes limitados y defectuosos como un hombre?&rdquo;<br \/>\r\nA la luz de esto, hay muchas formas de responder la pregunta con respecto a la singularidad y la unicidad de Dios, proporcionando ar-gumentos sobre la unidad de Dios, y estas van de los argumentos teo-l&oacute;gicos a los filos&oacute;ficos. A continuaci&oacute;n se exponen cinco argumentos:<br \/>\r\n1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;La navaja de Ockham<br \/>\r\n2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;El argumento l&oacute;gico<br \/>\r\n3.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;La diferenciaci&oacute;n conceptual<br \/>\r\n4.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;La unicidad<br \/>\r\n5.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;La revelaci&oacute;n<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">La navaja de Ockham<br \/>\r\nEl Cor&aacute;n pregunta de manera ret&oacute;rica: &ldquo;&iquest;El universo surgi&oacute; de la nada?&rdquo;. La respuesta parece muy obvia, dada la l&oacute;gica innegable y me-taf&iacute;sica de que todo lo que comienza a existir tiene una causa, y ya que el universo tuvo un comienzo, sin duda debe tener una causa. Ser&iacute;a irracional asumir m&aacute;s de una causa para el universo, ya que una regre-si&oacute;n infinita de causas es imposible. Las razones de ello incluyen el ab-surdo de la existencia del infinito en la realidad. Tomemos en consideraci&oacute;n los siguientes ejemplos:<br \/>\r\n1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Tienes un n&uacute;mero infinito de personas en una habitaci&oacute;n, si salen dos personas, &iquest;cu&aacute;ntas te quedan? La respuesta es infinito menos dos. Sin embargo, &iquest;esto tiene sentido? Si hay menos que un n&uacute;mero infinito de personas en una habitaci&oacute;n, deber&iacute;as estar en capacidad de contarlas en el mundo real. Pero no puedes, es decir, el infinito no tiene sentido en el mundo real. Es por esto que los matem&aacute;ticos Kasman y Newman afirmaron: &ldquo;Por supuesto que el infinito no existe de la misma manera en que decimos &lsquo;hay peces en el mar&rsquo;&rdquo;.<br \/>\r\n2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Imagina que eres un soldado y quieres dispararle a un enemigo. Para que puedas dispararle debes pedirle permiso para disparar al soldado que tienes detr&aacute;s, pero &eacute;l tambi&eacute;n tiene que pedirle permi-so para disparar al soldado que est&aacute; detr&aacute;s suyo. Ahora, imagina que esto contin&uacute;a para siempre, en otras palabras, una cantidad in-finita de tiempo. &iquest;Le disparar&aacute;s alguna vez al enemigo? La respues-ta es obvia. Del mismo modo, una regresi&oacute;n infinita de causas para el universo significar&iacute;a que no existir&iacute;a el universo.<br \/>\r\nPor lo tanto, la conclusi&oacute;n de que el universo tiene una sola causa independiente, que a su vez no tiene causa, resulta plausible; sin em-bargo, todav&iacute;a puedes asumir una cantidad de causas ocurriendo al mismo tiempo. &iquest;Este argumento es s&oacute;lido? Creo que no es un argu-mento fuerte si tomamos en consideraci&oacute;n la navaja de Ockham. La navaja de Ockham es un principio filos&oacute;fico atribuido al fil&oacute;sofo y fraile franciscano ingl&eacute;s William of Ockham. Este principio afirma que &ldquo;en igualdad de condiciones, la explicaci&oacute;n m&aacute;s sencilla suele ser la correcta&rdquo;. En otras palabras, la explicaci&oacute;n m&aacute;s completa y simple es la mejor explicaci&oacute;n.<br \/>\r\nEn esencia, esto significa que en ausencia de cualquier evidencia, o en ausencia de la necesidad de una diversidad de causas, debemos mantener la explicaci&oacute;n m&aacute;s amplia y sencilla. En este caso, no tene-mos evidencia para decir que la causa del universo es en realidad una combinaci&oacute;n de dos, tres o mil causas; por lo tanto, la explicaci&oacute;n m&aacute;s completa y simple es que esta causa es solo una. Postular una multipli-cidad de causas no ayuda en nada a completar el argumento. En otras palabras, agregar m&aacute;s causas no aumenta el alcance ni el poder expli-cativo del argumento. Por ejemplo, afirmar que el universo fue causa-do por una causa todopoderosa es un argumento tan completo como afirmar que fue causado por dos causas todopoderosas. Sin embargo, una causa todopoderosa es todo lo que se requiere, simplemente por-que es todopoderosa.<br \/>\r\nUna objeci&oacute;n a este argumento es que si fu&eacute;ramos a aplicar el mis-mo principio a las pir&aacute;mides de Egipto, adoptar&iacute;amos la opini&oacute;n ab-surda de que fueron hechas por una sola persona. Sin embargo, esta es una mala aplicaci&oacute;n del principio. Tomar la opini&oacute;n de que las pir&aacute;mi-des fueron construidas por una persona no es realmente la explicaci&oacute;n m&aacute;s amplia y sencilla, puesto que genera m&aacute;s preguntas que las que responde. Por ejemplo, &iquest;c&oacute;mo pudo un solo hombre construir las pi-r&aacute;mides? Es mucho m&aacute;s completo postular que fueron construidas por muchos hombres. A la luz de esto, alguien puede decir que el universo es tan complejo que ser&iacute;a absurdo postular que fue construido por un solo ser. Esta objeci&oacute;n, aunque v&aacute;lida, est&aacute; fuera de lugar. Un ser pode-roso creando el universo entero es una explicaci&oacute;n mucho m&aacute;s cohe-rente y simple que una diversidad de causas. Ahora bien, el cr&iacute;tico puede continuar y argumentar que las pir&aacute;mides pudieron entonces haber sido construidas por un ser todopoderoso. Pero el problema con esto es que nada dentro del universo es, en lo absoluto, un ser todopo-deroso; y ya que las pir&aacute;mides fueron construidas por una causa efi-ciente (una persona o personas que act&uacute;an), entonces se deduce que deben ser del mismo tipo de causa.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Argumento l&oacute;gico<br \/>\r\nLa l&oacute;gica dicta que si existiera m&aacute;s de un Dios que hubiera creado al universo, este estar&iacute;a en caos y no existir&iacute;a el nivel de orden que en-contramos hoy en el cosmos. Sin embargo, se podr&iacute;a se&ntilde;alar que un autom&oacute;vil fue creado por m&aacute;s de un creador, una persona coloc&oacute; las llantas, otra instal&oacute; el motor y otra el sistema computarizado. De modo que es posible que haya m&aacute;s de un creador para una cosa creada que exhiba orden y estabilidad.<br \/>\r\nA fin de responder esta objeci&oacute;n, lo que debe entenderse es que la mejor explicaci&oacute;n para los or&iacute;genes del universo es el concepto de Dios y no de &ldquo;dise&ntilde;ador&rdquo; o &ldquo;creador&rdquo;. Existe la posibilidad de m&uacute;ltiples dise&ntilde;adores o creadores, como lo subraya el ejemplo del autom&oacute;vil, pero no puede haber m&aacute;s de un Dios. Esto es debido a que Dios, por definici&oacute;n, es el ser que tiene una voluntad imponente ilimitada, as&iacute; que si hubiera dos o m&aacute;s dioses, eso significar&iacute;a que tendr&iacute;an una lucha de voluntades, lo que resultar&iacute;a en caos y desorden. Sin embargo, podemos asumir que ellos podr&iacute;an ponerse de acuerdo para tener la misma voluntad o para que cada uno tuviera su propio dominio, pero eso significar&iacute;a que sus voluntades estar&iacute;an limitadas y pasivas, lo que significar&iacute;a que ellos, por definici&oacute;n, &iexcl;ya no ser&iacute;an dioses!<br \/>\r\nEsto est&aacute; bien explicado por Ibn Abi Al Izz en su comentario de Aqidah At-Tahawiyyah:<br \/>\r\n&ldquo;El argumento m&aacute;s com&uacute;n que sostienen es conocido como el argumento de la exclusi&oacute;n. Este argumento es as&iacute;: Si hubiera dos creadores y ellos estuvieran en desacuerdo con respecto a algo &ndash;como que uno quisiera mover X, mientras que el otro no quisiera moverlo; o que uno quisiera hacer de Y un ser vivo, mientras que el otro quisiera hacerlo inerte&ndash;, entonces, ha-blando l&oacute;gicamente, solo habr&iacute;a tres posibilidades. Primero, las voluntades de los dos se llevan a cabo; segundo, solo la vo-luntad de uno de ellos se lleva a cabo; tercero, ninguna de sus voluntades es llevada a cabo. El primer caso no es posible por-que requiere la existencia de contrarios. La tercera posibilidad tambi&eacute;n queda descartada porque implica que un cuerpo ni se mueve ni no se mueve, y eso es imposible. Esto tambi&eacute;n implicar&iacute;a que los dos ser&iacute;an incapaces de llevar a cabo sus vo-luntades, lo que los descalificar&iacute;a de ser dioses. Finalmente, si la voluntad de uno de ellos se realiza y la del otro no, solo aquel cuya voluntad se realiza merece ser Dios y el otro no puede ser considerado una deidad&rdquo;.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Diferenciaci&oacute;n conceptual<br \/>\r\n&iquest;Qu&eacute; hace que apreciemos la diferencia y la dualidad? &iquest;C&oacute;mo dife-renciamos entre dos personas que caminan por la calle? La respuesta est&aacute; en lo que se denomina diferenciaci&oacute;n conceptual. Estos conceptos incluyen espacio, distancia, forma y caracter&iacute;sticas f&iacute;sicas. Tomemos por ejemplo el siguiente diagrama:<br \/>\r\n&nbsp;<br \/>\r\nLa raz&oacute;n por la que podemos percibir que hay dos objetos en el diagrama es que hay diferencias en su color, tama&ntilde;o y forma, inclu-yendo su ubicaci&oacute;n, ya que hay una distancia entre ellos. En ausencia de estos conceptos, &iquest;podr&iacute;amos acaso percibir los dos objetos, o inclu-so alg&uacute;n objeto? En verdad, no, puesto que estos conceptos se requie-ren para percibir cualquier n&uacute;mero de entidades. Ahora bien, ya que la causa del universo est&aacute; fuera del universo (si la causa fuera parte del universo, eso significar&iacute;a que el universo se cre&oacute; a s&iacute; mismo, esto es absurdo pues implicar&iacute;a que el universo en un punto existe y no existe a la vez), podemos asumir que no hay diferenciadores conceptuales como distancia, forma, color y tama&ntilde;o, puesto que dichos conceptos solo tienen sentido dentro del universo. Por lo tanto, si no hay diferen-ciadores conceptuales reconocibles, no podemos afirmar que haya una multiplicada de causas, pues como ya se explic&oacute;, es imposible percibir la pluralidad o diversidad en ausencia de tales conceptos.<br \/>\r\nYa que no se tienen conceptos para reconocer una pluralidad de causas, &iquest;esto significa que no puede existir ni siquiera una causa? No, puesto que si no hubiera causa para el universo, entonces eso signifi-car&iacute;a que el universo, en palabras de Bertrand Russell, &ldquo;simplemente est&aacute; ah&iacute; y eso es todo&rdquo;. En otras palabras, eso significar&iacute;a que el uni-verso es infinito, sin embargo esto no puede ser, como ya se mencion&oacute;, puesto que el universo tuvo un comienzo. Por lo tanto, una causa singular e independiente es racionalmente necesaria para explicar el hecho de que el universo comenzara a existir y que una diversidad de causas no pueda ser percibida debido a la ausencia de diferenciadores conceptuales.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Unicidad<br \/>\r\nLa causa del universo tiene que ser &uacute;nica, como dice el Cor&aacute;n: &ldquo;No hay nada ni nadie que sea semejante a &Eacute;l&rdquo;. Si la causa del universo no fuera &uacute;nica, eso significar&iacute;a que hay algunas similitudes entre la causa del universo y el universo mismo. Esto no es posible, ya que ello pon-dr&iacute;a a la causa del universo dentro del universo (si definimos el uni-verso como la suma de toda la materia) y ello conllevar&iacute;a al absurdo, pues implicar&iacute;a que el universo se cre&oacute; a s&iacute; mismo. Ahora bien, es po-sible formular esta pregunta: &iquest;Por qu&eacute; la causa del universo no puede parecerse al universo? La respuesta salta a la vista: Esta causa debe ser inmaterial puesto que cre&oacute; la suma de todo lo material, que es el universo en s&iacute;; y otro principio que apoya esto es la primera ley de la termodin&aacute;mica, que afirma que &ldquo;la energ&iacute;a no puede ser creada ni destruida&rdquo;, por lo tanto, la energ&iacute;a (es decir, la materia) no puede crearse a s&iacute; misma. Si la causa fuera material, entonces desafiar&iacute;a este principio, pues significar&iacute;a que la materia y la energ&iacute;a se crean a s&iacute; mismas. Por lo tanto, podemos concluir que la causa del universo debe ser inmaterial y, en consecuencia, &uacute;nica.<br \/>\r\n&iquest;C&oacute;mo se relaciona esto con la Unicidad de Dios? Pues bien, si hu-biera m&aacute;s de una causa para el universo, eso significar&iacute;a que no son causas &uacute;nicas. Sin embargo, a&uacute;n se podr&iacute;a argumentar que pueden ha-ber dos causas inmateriales, a lo que debemos responder: &iquest;Qu&eacute; signifi-ca eso? Eso violar&iacute;a la teor&iacute;a de la navaja de Ockham y nos llevar&iacute;a de nuevo al primer argumento.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Revelaci&oacute;n<br \/>\r\nUna forma m&aacute;s sencilla de proporcionar evidencia para la unidad de Dios es refiri&eacute;ndonos a la revelaci&oacute;n. El argumento aqu&iacute; es que si Dios se ha anunciado a S&iacute; mismo a la humanidad, y puede probarse que esta revelaci&oacute;n proviene de &Eacute;l, entonces lo que &Eacute;l menciona sobre S&iacute; mismo es obviamente cierto. Las hip&oacute;tesis temerarias, desde una perspectiva agn&oacute;stica al menos, son: &iquest;C&oacute;mo sabes que Dios se ha anunciado a S&iacute; mismo a la humanidad, y en qu&eacute; forma est&aacute; esta revela-ci&oacute;n?<br \/>\r\nTomemos primero el &uacute;ltimo supuesto. Si Dios se ha anunciado a S&iacute; mismo a la humanidad, solo hay dos formas posibles de averiguarlo: externa e internamente. Aqu&iacute;, &ldquo;internamente&rdquo; se refiere a que pode-mos averiguar Qui&eacute;n es Dios simplemente a trav&eacute;s de la introspecci&oacute;n y la internalizaci&oacute;n; y &ldquo;externamente&rdquo; se refiere a que podemos averi-guar Qui&eacute;n es Dios a trav&eacute;s de la comunicaci&oacute;n exterior a nosotros mismos, es decir, puede ser probada en el mundo independiente a la mente. Averiguar sobre Dios internamente es poco plausible por las siguientes razones:<br \/>\r\n1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Los seres humanos somos diferentes. Tenemos lo que los psic&oacute;-logos llaman &ldquo;diferencias individuales&rdquo;, que incluyen el ADN, las experiencias, el contexto social, las capacidades intelectuales y emocionales, diferencias de g&eacute;nero, entre muchas otras. Estas diferencias juegan un papel en nuestra habilidad para internali-zar a trav&eacute;s de la introspecci&oacute;n o la intuici&oacute;n, por lo tanto, los resultados de la introspecci&oacute;n o de confiar en la intuici&oacute;n ser&aacute;n diferentes. Entonces, queda claro que si estos procesos fueran utilizados &uacute;nicamente para saber de Dios, inevitablemente ha-br&iacute;a diferencias en nuestra concepci&oacute;n de &Eacute;l. Esto es cierto des-de una perspectiva hist&oacute;rica, ya que en el mundo antiguo, hacia el 6000 a. C. hay registros de aproximadamente 3.700 nombres y conceptos distintos de Dios.<br \/>\r\n2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Ya que el m&eacute;todo utilizado para concluir que Dios existe es un m&eacute;-todo de &ldquo;sentido com&uacute;n&rdquo;, o lo que los fil&oacute;sofos llaman pensamiento racional y lo que los te&oacute;logos musulmanes llaman pensamiento in-nato, tratar de averiguar internamente acerca de Dios llevar&aacute; a fa-lacias. Esto es debido a que lo que se puede concluir utilizando al universo como evidencia para una causa trascendental indepen-diente, es que debe ser eterno, &uacute;nico, poderoso y personal; cual-quier otra cosa ser&iacute;a especulaci&oacute;n. El Cor&aacute;n menciona acertadamente: &ldquo;&iquest;Por qu&eacute; dicen de Dios cosas de las que no tienen conocimiento?&rdquo;. Tratar de internalizar lo que es Dios ser&iacute;a equiva-lente a un rat&oacute;n tratando de conceptualizar y pensar como un ele-fante. Es obvio que el ser humano no es eterno ni &uacute;nico ni poderoso; por lo tanto, el ser humano no puede conceptualizar qui&eacute;n es Dios. Dios tiene que dec&iacute;rselo a la humanidad a trav&eacute;s de la revelaci&oacute;n externa.<br \/>\r\nTomemos el siguiente ejemplo en consideraci&oacute;n: sabes que Dios existe del mismo modo en que puedes asumir tranquilamente, al escu-char que golpean la puerta, que hay algo ah&iacute;, pero no sabes lo que es. Como no esperas a nadie, preguntas &ldquo;&iquest;qui&eacute;n es?&rdquo;, a fin de saber, la &uacute;ni-ca forma de saber es si la persona tras la puerta te responde. As&iacute; que puedes concluir que si Dios ha dicho o anunciado algo, ello debe ser externo al ser humano.<br \/>\r\nDesde una perspectiva isl&aacute;mica, esta comunicaci&oacute;n externa es el Cor&aacute;n y es el &uacute;nico texto, entre los que afirman provenir de Dios, que se ajusta a los criterios para un texto divino , dichos criterios incluyen:<br \/>\r\n1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Debe ser consistente con la conclusi&oacute;n racional e intuitiva sobre Dios. Por ejemplo, si un libro dice que Dios es un elefante con 40 brazos, puedes asumir tranquilamente que ese libro no proviene de Dios, ya que Dios es externo al universo.<br \/>\r\n2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Debe ser consistente interna y externamente. En otras palabras, si en la p&aacute;gina 20 dice que Dios es uno y luego en la p&aacute;gina 340 dice que Dios es tres, esa ser&iacute;a una inconsistencia interna. Adem&aacute;s, si el libro dice que el universo solo tiene 6.000 a&ntilde;os de antig&uuml;edad esa ser&iacute;a una inconsistencia externa, ya que la realidad, como la cono-cemos, es que el universo es mucho m&aacute;s antiguo que eso.<br \/>\r\n3.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Debe tener se&ntilde;ales a la trascendencia. En t&eacute;rminos sencillos, debe contener evidencia que muestre que proviene de Dios.<br \/>\r\nEn el caso del Cor&aacute;n &ndash;y este art&iacute;culo no es el lugar para discutir esto en profundidad&ndash;, este no puede ser explicado de manera natural; por lo tanto, las explicaciones supernaturales son la mejor explicaci&oacute;n. Al-gunas de sus se&ntilde;ales incluyen:<br \/>\r\na.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Su inimitabilidad ling&uuml;&iacute;stica y literaria.<br \/>\r\nb.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Contiene relatos hist&oacute;ricos que no pod&iacute;an haber sido conocidos por el ser humano en la &eacute;poca de la revelaci&oacute;n.<br \/>\r\nc.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Contiene algunas descripciones de fen&oacute;menos naturales que no pod&iacute;an ser del conocimiento de ning&uacute;n ser humano en el momento de la revelaci&oacute;n.<br \/>\r\nEn conclusi&oacute;n, ya que la &uacute;nica forma de saber lo que Dios ha anun-ciado a la humanidad es a trav&eacute;s de la revelaci&oacute;n externa, y se puede probar que esta revelaci&oacute;n es el Cor&aacute;n, entonces lo que el Cor&aacute;n dice de Dios es cierto. En el contexto de esta discusi&oacute;n, el Cor&aacute;n dice: &ldquo;Se-pan que su Se&ntilde;or Dios es Uno&rdquo;.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">Conclusi&oacute;n<br \/>\r\nEstos son algunos de los argumentos que se pueden esgrimir para demostrar que Dios es Uno. Sin embargo, este tema &ndash;una vez se en-tiende realmente&ndash; tendr&aacute; algunos efectos profundos en la consciencia humana. La Unidad y Unicidad de Dios no solo se refiere al hecho de que &Eacute;l es &uacute;nicamente uno, sino que se refiere a Su culto, se&ntilde;or&iacute;o, nom-bres y atributos, algo que solo puede ser probado reflexionando sobre la realidad, meditando sobre el significado del Cor&aacute;n, y convirti&eacute;ndose en una manifestaci&oacute;n de su mensaje.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size:16px;\">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\r\n","excerpt":"","terms":"","visibility_roles":"","comment_status":1,"comment_count":0,"read_counter":11210,"lft":8889,"rght":8890,"promote":1,"sticky":0,"status":1,"publish_start":null,"publish_end":null,"created_at":"2016-08-15T02:51:53.000000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-07T13:04:23.000000Z","language_id":12,"user_id":2,"author_id":2106,"publisher_id":97,"category_id":9,"parent_id":null,"author_name":"Hamza Andreas Tzortzis","category_name":"The Existence of God","category_slug":"The-Existence-of-God","get_date":"2016-08-15","pdf_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/es_Como_sabemos_que_Dios_es_Uno.pdf","word_asset":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/uploads\/articles\/es_Como_sabemos_que_Dios_es_Uno.docx"}],"first_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?articles_page=1","from":1,"last_page":1,"last_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?articles_page=1","links":[{"url":null,"label":"&laquo; Previous","page":null,"active":false},{"url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?articles_page=1","label":"1","page":1,"active":true},{"url":null,"label":"Next &raquo;","page":null,"active":false}],"next_page_url":null,"path":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106","per_page":25,"prev_page_url":null,"to":4,"total":4},"fatawas":{"current_page":1,"data":[],"first_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?fatawas_page=1","from":null,"last_page":1,"last_page_url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?fatawas_page=1","links":[{"url":null,"label":"&laquo; Previous","page":null,"active":false},{"url":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106?fatawas_page=1","label":"1","page":1,"active":true},{"url":null,"label":"Next &raquo;","page":null,"active":false}],"next_page_url":null,"path":"http:\/\/www.islamland.com\/index.php\/per\/api\/authors\/2106","per_page":25,"prev_page_url":null,"to":null,"total":0},"books_total":0,"videos_total":4,"audios_total":0,"fatawas_total":0,"articles_total":4,"q":"","count":8}