Does God Exist?

So you’ve made it to this page. Good! Ideally, this means that you are intrigued and interested in learning.

If you’re visiting this site, odds are good that you’re an Austinite; and if you’re an Austinite, then odds are good that you are an agnostic atheist, meaning that you don’t know if there is a God and a correct religion (agnostic), so by default you choose to disbelieve in all concepts of God and all religions (atheist). Or, perhaps we are unfairly generalizing the population of Austin. Maybe you’re a Christian or a Jew or even a Zoroastrian.

Admittedly, agnosticism is a logical, rational stance to take when it comes to the issue of God and religion; and if you have not yet heard the truth of Islam, it makes sense that this is the stance you would align yourself with. This author was formerly an atheist with this same exact line of thinking.

So, in order to establish that Islam is the correct religion revealed to us by God, we must first establish that God exists. Wouldn’t you agree?

We will make three main arguments regarding the existence of God: The Rational and Logical Argument, The Moralistic Argument, and The Scientific Argument.

The Rational and Logical Argument

So, we know scientifically that at one point in time, the Universe did not exist. Then, at another point in time, the Universe (i.e., time, space, and matter) exploded into existence, and has been continuously expanding ever since. This is known as the Big Bang Theory, which was proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927, and later supported by Edwin Hubble in the 1930s. Since then, the Big Bang Theory has been unanimously agreed upon and accepted by the scientific community.

Basically, the point here is that at one point, the Universe didn’t exist; and then at another point, it did. Try to keep in mind how immensely, hugely, immeasurably enormous the Universe is, although it is a concept that is difficult for human consciousness to fully grasp.

you-are-here.jpg

There are five logical possibilities as to why the Universe, and existence itself, exists:

The Universe came into existence from nothing. It just “is”.

The Universe caused itself to come into existence.

The Universe is eternal and has always existed. It just “is”.

The Universe and existence itself is an illusion created by the human mind.

The Universe was created by some transcendent, supreme, intelligent power

There is also a logical premise that needs to be introduced here:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

The Universe began to exist

Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Let’s explore each of these aforementioned five possibilities rationally and logically, and we’ll see which one makes the most sense.

POSSIBILITY 1 – THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING, IT JUST “IS”

This possibility is very easy to refute with simple rational thinking. Ask yourself, can something come from nothing? Out of nothing, nothing comes. For it to do otherwise would completely negate the definition of “nothing”. Nothing means the complete absence of anything. Can you think of any example in our observable Universe where something comes from nothing?

nothing.jpg

POSSIBILITY 2 – THE UNIVERSE CAUSED ITSELF TO COME INTO EXISTENCE

This too can be refuted with simple rational thinking. How can something cause itself to exist if it does not first exist in order to initiate the cause? How can something “decide” to come into existence if it does not yet exist in order to make the decision?

Just for a practical example, let’s say you are the Universe, and you decide that you want to come into existence. How could you make that decision if you didn’t already exist in order to make the decision?

This ties back to the conclusion from the previous possibility, that something cannot come from nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. In the same way that your mother cannot give birth to herself, something cannot cause itself to exist.

circular-reasoning.jpg

POSSIBILITY 3 – THE UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL AND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, IT JUST “IS”

This is perhaps the easiest possibility to refute. We know that this isn’t possible, because before the events of the Big Bang, the Universe did not exist. The Universe existed after the Big Bang. Therefore, the Universe began to exist, and is not eternal. In fact, let us propose another logical premise to illustrate this point:

What is eternal does not begin and does not end

The Universe began

Therefore, the Universe is not eternal

POSSIBILITY 4 – THE UNIVERSE AND EXISTENCE ITSELF IS AN ILLUSION CREATED BY THE HUMAN MIND

You’ll see theories like this come from the more deep thinking, philosophical individuals, and at first glance, this idea seems to be deep and intriguing. However, this too can also be easily refuted. We know scientifically that the Universe has existed for billions and billions of years, whereas humans have only existed for a minute fraction of that. How could the Universe be an illusion created by our minds when it existed long before we did?

POSSIBILITY 5 – THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY SOME TRANSCENDENT, SUPREME, INTELLIGENT POWER

This is the only logical conclusion we’re left with, and frankly, it’s the only one within the realm of actual possibility. We’ve established that something cannot come from nothing. We’ve established that something that does not yet exist cannot possibly cause itself to exist. We know that the Universe began to exist, therefore it is not eternal. We know that the Universe cannot be a product of our consciousness because it existed long before we did. Let’s go back to the logical premise we proposed earlier:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

The Universe began to exist

Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Still with us so far? We’ve established that the Universe must have a cause. Now it is upon us to ponder and reflect upon the nature of this cause. Upon further reflection, we can come to several conclusion about the nature of this cause:

This cause must be one

This cause must be uncaused

This cause must be immaterial, beyond creation, eternal

This cause must be personal, it must have a personality

Let’s break these down into further detail and explanation.

POINT 1 – THIS CAUSE MUST BE ONE

ocksrazor.jpg

Using the philosophical principle of Ockham’s Razor, we can determine that the cause of the Universe must be one. What is Ockham’s Razor, you ask? Ockham’s Razor basically states to not multiply entities beyond necessity. Another simpler explanation would be “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one”, or “More things should not be used than are necessary”.

To put this in practical terms, let’s explore an example. Let’s say that during a windy night, two trees in your yard have fallen down. Suppose there are two possible explanations:

The wind has blown them down

Two meteorites have each taken down one tree, and after that hit each other and removed any trace of themselves.

Even though both of these explanations are certainly possible, which one do you think is more likely? Surely, the first explanation is the best choice.

Likewise, we can conclude that the cause of the Universe must be one, because it only needs to be one. There is no need to have more than one cause, so why would there be more than one? With reference to the Universe, because we now understand that the Universe has a cause, we can conclude that this cause must have powers of creation, meaning that this cause must have the ability to create; otherwise nothing would exist.

So how could there be two (or more) Creators? If there were two (or more) Creators of the Universe, then surely the Universe would be at least slightly more disordered. An ordered, measurable Universe in which systems, patterns, and organization exists indicates that there must have been a single designer, or within the context of this initial point, a single cause. To assume that there are two (or more) Creators when there only needs to be one doesn’t make any rational sense.

POINT 2 – THIS CAUSE MUST BE UNCAUSED

This point addresses a question that many atheists propose and consider it to be a checkmate against all religion. You’ve probably asked the same question yourself:

“If God created the Universe, then who/what created God?”

This question leads to what’s known as an infinite regression, and therefore does not make any sense. To ask the question “who/what created God”, you must first accept the idea that God was indeed created and therefore not eternal, which negates the entire idea of God.

Example of infinite regression

Example of infinite regression

Within the context of what we’ve established so far, let’s explore another example. Suppose you ask “what caused the cause that caused the Universe?”. Well, why stop there? You then have to ask “what caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Universe?”. The question then must be repeated again: “what caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Universe?” As you can see, this question only repeats itself ad infinitum and can never be answered. But, we exist. We’re here. So surely there must be an answer to the initial question, “what caused the Universe?”.

Let’s explore another similar example, just to further drive this point home. Think carefully and critically about this.

Let’s suppose you work in an office, and you need to perform a task that requires special permission from your boss. However, before he can give you permission, he has to get permission from his boss; but before he can give him permission, he has to get permission from his boss, and this cycle repeats on and on forever. Do you ever get permission to complete the task?

But we’re here. We exist. The task has been completed. So somewhere, the highest boss must have given permission.

The simple answer to the question “If God created the Universe, then who/what created God?” is as follows:

God was not created, He is eternal, He has always existed, without beginning and without end. Before Him there was none, and after Him there is none.

POINT 3 – THIS CAUSE MUST BE IMMATERIAL, BEYOND CREATION, ETERNAL

The Universe is defined as all time, space, and matter; everything that exists. All material objects, all matter, all creation, exists within the confines of the Universe. The cause of the Universe, which we’ve already established must exist, must therefore be immaterial, or beyond creation. How can we make such a claim, you may ask?

If you were to propose that the cause or Creator of the Universe is material, meaning matter that is part of creation (i.e. part of the Universe), then you’re saying that material matter, “creation”, created itself, which we’ve already established is not possible and does not make sense; something that does not yet exist cannot cause itself to exist.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe must exist outside of the confines of the Universe, i.e. outside of the confines of time, space, and matter. If something exists outside of the confines of space, time, matter, it must therefore be immaterial.

Furthermore, if something exists outside of the confines of time, space, and matter, it must also be eternal, without beginning and without end, always existing. We know this because within the confines of time, space, and matter, material objects are subject to decay. In fact, the Universe as a whole is subject to decay. This is known as entropy. Therefore, if something exists outside of the confines of time, space, and matter, it must therefore not be subject to decay, and so it must be eternal.

POINT 4 – THIS CAUSE MUST BE PERSONAL

Why would a cause that is immaterial, eternal, without beginning and without end, bring something into existence that is material, finite, with beginning and end? How could something that is immaterial and eternal cause the existence of something completely opposite to itself?

The simple explanation is that it must have chosen to do so. If something is immaterial and eternal, then it is bound by nothing. It is outside of natural laws which exist within the Universe, and therefore outside of all boundaries and restrictions. Because of this, we must rationally conclude that this immaterial, eternal, uncaused, unbound cause must have chosen to bring the Universe into existence. Making a choice indicates having a will, and having a will indicates having a personality. Therefore, this immaterial, eternal, uncaused, unbound cause of the Universe must have a personality.

SUMMARY

Just to ensure that you’re not lost, this is a brief summary of everything we’ve discussed so far:

The Universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause.

This cause must be one, because more than one cause would be unnecessary and irrational.

This cause must be immaterial and therefore eternal, because material matter cannot create itself, and material matter is subject to decay and is therefore not eternal.

This cause must have a personality, because this immaterial eternal cause is outside the confines of time, space, and matter, and is therefore bound by nothing, which means that the only explanation of how/why it caused a finite material Universe to come into existence is by choice. Choice indicates will, and will indicates personality.

What concept in human understanding fulfills all of these characteristics and conditions? The one and only answer is Allah, Almighty God, the Glorious and Exalted.

The Moralistic Argument

This argument will explore morals, the foundations of human morality, and where human morality comes from.

The main questions to think about here are: What is the basis for morality? Where do your morals come from? Where does the sense of right and wrong come from? How can anything be qualified as right or wrong?

Let’s start by examining the atheist evolutionist’s perspective.

According to the atheist evolutionist, the universe just “is”, and we exist as a result of a long chain of successive random events. We are no different from any of the animals on Earth, we just happen to be a little bit further ahead in the evolutionary process than everything else. The only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our intellectual capacity, but aside from that, we are basically just meaningless biology.

We say, fair enough, but let’s interrogate and question this premise a little bit. Let’s take a moment to examine the animal kingdom.

cheetah-gazelle.jpg

When the cheetah chases down, pounces on, bites, and eats a gazelle after ripping out its throat, do you say to yourself “what an evil, wicked, immoral cheetah!”? No, of course not, the cheetah is just doing what cheetahs do.

When the female lion stalks, chases, pounces on, bites, and eats a zebra after ripping out its throat, do you say to yourself “what an evil, wicked, immoral lion!” No, of course not, the lion is just doing what lions do.

When the male shark attempts to reproduce by raping a female shark (look it up, it’s what they do), do you say to yourself “what an evil, wicked, immoral shark!” No, of course not, the shark is just doing what sharks do.

When the female turtle makes her journey onto the beach, lays her eggs, buries them, and then eventually makes her way back to the sea, leaving the eggs to fend for themselves once they hatch, do you say to yourself “what a horrible, neglectful mother!” No, of course not, she is just doing what turtles do. She is just following the way of the animal kingdom.

When the female praying mantis or female black widow spider kills and eats her male counterpart during or immediately after mating, do you condemn them and call them evil homicidal killers?

When falcons (or other predatory birds) swoop down onto baby rabbits and eat them, do you condemn them as evil infanticidal maniacs?

No, because in the animal kingdom, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no good and evil. There are just animals doing what animals do. How could anything in the animal kingdom be morally qualified as good and evil? It doesn’t make sense. Animals just do what they are designed to do (or have evolved to do, depending on your perspective).

Now, let’s take these same situations and apply them to human beings.

Wouldn’t you agree that killing babies and young children is a horrible act that is undeniably evil?

Wouldn’t you agree that a woman that kills and eats her husband after intercourse would be horrible and undeniably evil?

Wouldn’t you agree that a mother that leaves her newborn baby completely on its own to fend for itself would be an evil, neglectful mother?

Wouldn’t you agree that the act of rape is a horrible, unspeakable act that is undeniably evil?

right-wrong.jpg

Furthermore, all of these acts are objectively evil; meaning that regardless of the situation, even if society were brainwashed to the point of believing that rape and infanticide are okay, they would still be wrong, would they not? This is beyond human subjectivity. Even if the world were to be taken over by the Nazis and society was taught that mass murdering people in gas chambers is acceptable and okay, it would still be wrong, would it not?

But if you take the pure atheist evolutionist’s perspective, how does that make sense? Aren’t we just animals? Aren’t we just meaningless biology?

If we are just animals in the animal kingdom, how can anything we do be morally qualified as good or evil? We’re just humans doing what humans do, are we not? There is no good and evil, there are only typical acts of human behavior.

But wouldn’t you agree that killing babies and children is 100%, objectively, beyond human subjectivity, wrong? Wouldn’t you agree that committing genocide, mass murdering an entire population of people, is 100%, objectively, beyond human subjectivity, wrong?

Think about this next statement very carefully: The only possible way we can have this perspective as human beings is if God exists.

If we’re just animals, then there is no such thing as right and wrong, there are only typical animalistic behaviors. So where does our objective morality come from? The only rational answer is God.

There are two possible counter-arguments to the argument that we’ve just presented here:

Our objective morality is a product of evolution

Our objective morality is a product of social pressure

We can also interrogate these counter-arguments and see if they hold any weight.

The first possible counter-argument is that our objective morality is a product of evolution. We evolved to have morality, because it benefits our species and allows us to continue to grow and flourish. However, we would argue that while relative, subjective morality could fit within this definition, objective morality cannot.

The same idea applies to the counter-argument of objective morality being a product of social pressure. Again, while relative, subjective morality could apply here, objective morality could not.

This is because both of these supposed sources of morality are constantly changing, especially social pressure. What was considered morally acceptable one hundred, or fifty, or even twenty years ago is vastly different from what is considered morally acceptable today. This is why it is referred to as subjective, relative morality, because it changes with the times. Likewise if you attribute morality to evolution, that would also mean that morality would always be changing.

But is this how our morality works? Murder is murder, theft is theft, rape is rape, are they not? If we attribute morality to evolution, we could suppose that perhaps in a thousand years when the world becomes overpopulated, murder and theft would become acceptable as a means of survival of the fittest. Therefore, if we attribute morality to evolution, then we cannot possibly say that objective morality exists.

To summarize the argument:

If we are just advanced animals that are a product of evolution, then objective right and wrong do not exist.

Objective right and wrong do exist, therefore our morality cannot possibly be a product of evolution. It must come from something else, something beyond human subjectivity. Wouldn’t it make sense that the source of our morality is the same source for everything else in the Universe? i.e. Allah, The Creator, God Almighty.

The Scientific Argument

Much of this section will be taken from the book “A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam”, available for free here and here

So the previous two arguments present some nice ideas, sure. But you may still be asking, “but where is the cold hard evidence? Where is the scientific proof?”. After all, it is irrational to follow or believe in something just because it might sound good to you, right? Just like it is also irrational to disbelieve in something just because it doesn’t sound good to you. Facts are facts, evidences are evidences, whether we like them or not.

Contrary to popular belief, science and religion do not have to be enemies to each other.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

— Albert Einstein

Wouldn’t you agree that if something claims to be the word of Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, then it should not contradict any scientific evidences and findings in the least?

Not to bash Christians, but let’s take the Bible for example. In the very first few pages of the Bible, it says that day and night existed before the Sun. But how would this make sense? We can clearly see and observe that light comes from the Sun, in addition to what we’ve discovered about how night and day works in relation to the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun, so how could night and day possibly have existed before the Sun existed? Therefore, because the Bible contains this basic contradiction (among many, many others), we cannot rationally say that the Bible is the literal word of God; therefore it must’ve been written, or at least altered, by humans.

(See this page for the Islamic perspective on the Bible)

The Qur’an, on the other hand, not only does not contain any scientific contradictions, it contains many scientific facts that we’ve only recently discovered in the last one hundred years or so, and could not have possibly been known 1400 years ago when the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). So the question becomes, from where did Muhammad (SAWS) get this information?

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (THE BIG BANG THEORY)

big-bang.jpg

As we’ve already discussed, and as you likely already know, the Big Bang Theory states that at one point in time, the Universe did not exist. Then, at another point in time, the Universe (i.e., time, space, and matter) exploded into existence, and has been continuously expanding ever since. This was first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927, and later supported by Edwin Hubble. Since then, the Big Bang Theory has been unanimously agreed upon and accepted by the scientific community.

So what does the Qur’an say on this matter?

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

— Qur’an 21:30

THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

This is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. We know scientifically that the Universe is expanding. This was discovered by Edwin Hubble after comparing data gathered over several years, when he noticed that celestial bodies were getting consistently farther and farther away from each other, which implies that at one point, everything must have been joined together.

What does the Qur’an say about this?

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

— Qur’an 51:47

WATER AS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

water.jpg

It is widely known that water is the origin of life on the Earth. Water makes up roughly 70% of the Earth, as well a roughly 70% of our bodies. There can be no life without water, and where there is no water, there is no life. This is so widely known that it now borders on common sense.

So what does the Qur’an say?

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

— Qur’an 21:30

Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.

— Qur’an 24:45

EMBRYOLOGY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

In the Qur’an, Allah, Almighty God, speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)…

— Qur’an 23:12-14

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot. In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two, as we can see in Figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others. The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)

Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)

Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)

Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage. Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage. The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage is similar in appearance to a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.” (see figures 5 and 6)

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two. A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.) B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.

A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.

How could Muhammad have possibly known all this about fourteen hundred years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes, which did not exist at that time?

Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology, and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. He is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said:

“It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur’an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Qur’an is the word of God?”

He replied:

I find no difficulty in accepting this.

During one conference, Professor Moore stated:

….Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah*. The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Qur’an and Hadith** in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Qur’an cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.

* what the Prophet Muhammad said, did, or approved of

** reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of

OCEANOGRAPHY

BARRIER BETWEEN SALT WATER AND FRESH WATER

He released the two seas, meeting [side by side];

Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses. So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?

— Qur’an 55:19-21

salt-water-meets-fresh-water.jpg

And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.

— Qur’an 25:53

More information here

DEEP SEAS AND INTERNAL WAVES

Or (the unbelievers’ state) is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it…

— Qur’an 24:40

This verse mentions the darkness found in deep seas and oceans, where if a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it. The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all. Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment. Human beings cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters.

Scientists have recently discovered this darkness by means of special equipment and submarines that have enabled them to dive into the depths of the oceans.

We can also understand from the following sentences in the previous verse, “…in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds….”, that the deep waters of seas and oceans are covered by waves, and above these waves are other waves. It is clear that the second set of waves are the surface waves that we see, because the verse mentions that above the second waves there are clouds. But what about the first waves? Scientists have recently discovered that there are internal waves which “occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities.”

The internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because the deep waters have a higher density than the waters above them. Internal waves act like surface waves. They can also break, just like surface waves. Internal waves cannot be seen by the human eye, but they can be detected by studying temperature or salinity changes at a given location.

More information here

You can view more scientific evidences in the Qur’an here:

THE QUR’AN ON MOUNTAINS

THE QUR’AN ON THE CEREBRUM

THE QUR’AN ON CLOUDS

SCIENTISTS’ COMMENTS ON THE SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES OF THE QUR’AN

So where did Muhammad get all of this scientifically accurate information 1400 years ago when he was reciting the Qur’an to his companions? How did Muhammad acquire knowledge of the Big Bang and the expanding Universe before telescopes existed? Where did Muhammad acquire the knowledge of the details of human embryonic development before microscopes existed? How did Muhammad acquire knowledge of oceanography, geology, cognitive science, etc. 1400 years ago, while modern science has only discovered these things relatively recently?

Did he just guess? Did he just make it all up and he just happened to be correct?

Surely, as logic, reason, and specifically the principle of Ockham’s Razor would dictate, the correct answer is usually the simplest one.

The Prophet Muhammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, is the Messenger of God; and the Qur’an is the word of Allah, God Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, Lord of all the Worlds.