The Denial of God and the Principles of Atheism (With Critique and Analysis)

Author: Nekooyam, Mohammadreza (1327 – )

Title and Author: The Denial of God and the Principles of Atheism (With Critique and Analysis) / Author: Mohammadreza Nekooyam

Publication Details: Islamshahr, Sobhe Farda, 1389 (2010).

ISBN: 978-600-91763-0-4

Cataloguing Status: FIPA

Subject: Atheism, Theology, Idolatry

Dewey Decimal Classification: 297.464

National Bibliography Number: 2214476

Publisher: Sobhe Farda

Edition: Second (Revised Edition)

Publication Date: Winter 1389 (2010)

Print Run: 3000 copies

Location: Iran – Tehran – Islamshahr – Nasimshahr – Vajehabad, Javaherzadeh Street, No. 36

Postal Code: 3769138575

Fax: +98-21-4360348

Website: www.nekoonam.com

Copyright: Reserved for the Author

Preface

Does God exist? Does the intricate cosmic system have a creator? If so, where is He? What is He like? If not, what is the relationship between me and existence, between existence and me, and between myself and myself, and how should these relationships be understood?

If God exists, what impact does He have on the world, and what difference does His existence make to the world’s inhabitants? If He does not exist, what changes will occur in the world of existence, and how will the relationships between phenomena and the entire universe be altered? If God exists, who am I? If He does not exist, what will I be? If God exists, what is the nature of others and what should they be? And if He does not exist…?

The study of God’s existence is the most fundamental and tangible subject that humanity has ever dealt with throughout history. It is deeply intertwined with the soul, mind, existence, life, condition, and ultimate fate of human beings. Since human nature instinctively and unconsciously seeks its Creator and the origin of the universe without external teaching or interference, the discovery or denial of such a being plays a significant role in shaping one’s current life and ultimate destiny. Thus, humans, whether knowingly or unknowingly, engage their mind, heart, spirit, soul, and entire existence with this issue.

The truth of “God” is intrinsically tied to the human soul, and the concern with His non-existence or the mere whisper of His existence directly affects human nature, ethics, and psychology. Even though some may not recognize this truth, may refuse to acknowledge it, or may harbor animosity toward it, their ignorance or obstinacy nonetheless influences and affects all aspects of their existence.

The questions mentioned are among the most fundamental inquiries faced by humanity. Under the heavy pressure of such profound and existential questions, humanity resorts to creative thinking and, through this process, creates astonishing insights. Questions such as: What is existence and how does it function? Is the creation of the universe the best possible system, or not? How can this system, which produces evil, calamities, and eternal deprivation, be reconciled with the notion of a perfect creation? How can the suffering, hardships, miseries, and widespread sorrow in human life be explained in terms of a “best system”? If existence is indeed the best system and possesses an optimal, natural, and desirable quality, why is there so much imperfection, weakness, lack, violence, looting, malice, and hardship among the phenomena? If the Creator and ultimate agent of everything, shaping every destiny and outcome, is God, why then does humanity grapple with worldly deprivation and the ultimate bitterness of the afterlife? These are the issues that profoundly engage the human spirit, and for this reason, humans have undertaken a long journey in the pursuit of truth, attempting to find satisfying and peaceful answers. Yet, some have, in this complicated and often sorrowful journey, misdirected humanity away from the light of truth, distorting the path, the destination, and the way forward, and it is crucial not to overlook the role of misguided ideologies and selfish interests in obstructing humanity’s quest for the truth.

Humanity has struggled, faced difficulties, and endured hardships in its pursuit of answers, producing books and articles, delivering speeches, organizing conferences, and holding discussions. Philosophers and theologians in both the East and West have delved into this important issue, offering arguments for and against the existence of God.

The present work does not intend to assess the methods or success rates of these efforts in explaining or refuting the issue of God’s existence. Rather, it seeks to approach this topic with a new perspective, offering a fresh effort in the domain of critical discourse, analyzing the existence of God from a new angle, and presenting the critiques and objections of atheists openly and with fresh insight. This approach attempts to engage with the issue in an objective, impartial, and thoughtful manner, free from rigid, fruitless, and unhelpful biases, while seeking to evaluate and critique the issue of God’s existence in an open and fair manner.

Structure of the Work

The author critiques the arguments put forward by atheists regarding the existence of God, addressing both the causal and teleological objections. The first part explores the atheistic rejection of a necessary, eternal, and self-sufficient cause and its criticisms of the need for a necessary being, such as God. The second part examines arguments concerning the teleological aspects of the universe, investigating the atheist claims against the notion of a purposeful universe, and presenting philosophical rebuttals.

In the third section, the author turns to the origins of religion, addressing the idea that the concept of God and divine beings is merely a human invention, arising from historical, social, and psychological factors. The section on free will and human autonomy critiques the atheistic viewpoint on freedom and divine purpose, suggesting that human choice and moral agency have deeper metaphysical implications that must be explored.

Logical Argumentation and Dialectical vs. Analytic Reasoning

As it is stated in logic, the method of reasoning is either dialectical or analytic. One can refute another’s argument or independently provide evidence for one’s own claim; however, the distinction lies in the fact that a dialectical argument is derivative of another’s words, while an analytic argument is primary in nature, regardless of whether it is engaged with another’s reasoning or not.

In a dialectical argument, there is a form of subordination, whereas an analytic argument is characterised by its independence and freedom of method. However, refutation and affirmation do not operate in the same way. Refutation always stands in opposition to another’s affirmation, and without a claim or argument of affirmation being made, refutation cannot exist. For this reason, proponents of affirmation (those asserting the truth of a matter) must provide reasoning to substantiate their claims, while the refuter need not present any evidence but may merely assert their negation. It is important to note that refuters may still be considered relative affirmers, as few refuters entirely reject a cause or principle. For instance, those who deny the necessity of a divine cause but affirm a material cause still require reasoning to substantiate their argument, thus positioning themselves in the category of affirmers. This necessitates that all individuals, in defending their claims, engage in reasoning with due diligence and attention.

Based on the aforementioned, proponents of theism and materialism are, in certain ways, both separate and intertwined. Even if they share common titles or ideas, each group refutes the other, and while the truth may be particular to one group, both claim the truth of their own perspective. However, many of their claims are erroneous and unfounded, and their weaknesses are often clear to the public. That said, the falsity of the beliefs held by certain groups or schools may not always be evident to the general population. In these cases, only those with deep insight and expertise are able to critique, analyse, and scrutinise them.

Freedom of Thought and the Dangers of Sectarianism

The freedom of the human mind and the evolution of human thought have produced a myriad of ideas, which is why individuals act freely in all areas. However, unfortunately, a lack of discernment or failure to apply proper standards, along with a tendency towards superficiality, has led many individuals into chaos of thought, misguided development, fragmentation, and the creation of sects, each with its own accusations, treacheries, and abuses. This has incited conflict among people, leading to violence and destruction.

Thus, two distinct aspects emerge from this: one positive, representing the freedom of thought and intellectual development, and the other negative, representing superficiality, bigotry, lack of standards, oppression, factionalism, and the resulting societal instability.

Many of the fabricated sects and traditions, born of such narrow-mindedness, have led to the exploitation of society and contributed to the spread of colonialism. It is hoped that through the awakening of nations and the vigilance of communities, the disarray in human societies and the turmoil of the current world may come to an end, although such a wish appears to be an idealistic dream, faint and distant given the present circumstances. Only through a shift in intellectual and cultural development could such a vision be realised. However, we believe that this is not beyond reach.

Thought and Mystical Resonances

There is a close relationship between discussions on the prime cause and the final cause, which clearly highlights their significance. It must be noted, however, that such discussions only reflect the realness of these concepts from the perspective of creation and mental contemplation; for divine reality transcends intellectual comprehension and conceptualisation. Only the saints, through mystical practice and divine proximity, can experience a manifestation of these truths, understanding the complete nature of this reality — a reality that expresses the will, power, and purpose of God — which only the perfect spiritual ones can attain.

The discussion regarding the prime cause and the final cause in this context is intellectually driven and alludes only briefly to mystical resonances, providing a foundation for those engaged in spiritual proximity to approach these matters with greater insight.

Concluding Remarks

1. Multiplicity of Claims: The multiplicity of claims does not establish relativism in the truth or veracity of propositions. While there are numerous claims, the truth remains singular. However, proximity to the truth can differ across groups and schools, and even a false position may be closer to the truth in certain aspects, or at least closer relative to others.
2. Deceptive Claims and Superficiality: Many of the claims and embellishments arise from populist manipulation or the self-interest of individuals or groups, and not merely from the free thought of individuals. Human minds, often influenced by imitation and superficial thinking, play a significant role in the emergence of such claims.
3. Intersections of Atheistic and Theistic Principles: Many of the atheistic claims or speculative ideas may overlap with principles of monotheistic beliefs, even though certain aspects of these claims may be erroneous. Some of these claims lack solid philosophical or scientific foundation, which will be addressed elsewhere.
4. The Need for Proper Instruction: Despite the efforts to ensure clarity and smoothness in presenting the content of this work, it is evident that a full comprehension of the scientific and philosophical issues raised requires proper teaching methods. Thus, it is essential for readers to approach the text with careful deliberation and attention to its details.
5. The Necessity of Thoughtful Engagement with Doubts: One might question the need for introducing controversial or misleading discussions among believers, especially the general public, as these might lead to confusion or misguidance. The response to this is that the value of faith and righteous action is grounded in knowledge — in ‘epistemic clarity’. The more one possesses knowledge and certainty about their beliefs, the more valuable and genuine their faith and righteous deeds become. A community or individual lacking in epistemic clarity, and who acts on ignorance, cannot achieve meaningful spiritual growth.
6. The Role of Mysticism in Knowledge: True knowledge of God and authentic faith require thorough understanding and awareness. It is through reflection, engagement with doubts, and intellectual critique that one is able to strengthen their knowledge of the divine, as opposed to relying on ignorance, prejudice, or blind adherence. Just as in the medical field, one must first understand disease in order to cure it, so too must one understand the falsehoods of atheism and heresy in order to more fully embrace the true knowledge of God.
7. Conclusion of the Argument on Atheism: As discussed in this text, the primary principle of atheism often concerns the ‘non-necessity of a self-sufficient eternal being’. This idea is based on three general principles — causality, relativity, and exchange — which the human mind can easily grasp. These principles, which govern the relations of phenomena, suggest that the persistence and continuity of things does not require an absolute, necessary, eternal being. Instead, the interplay of causes and effects among phenomena themselves can account for the existence of the universe.

Critics of the Denialists

In response to the previous arguments, denialists might argue that the principle of “no need for an eternal absolute” is rooted in the principle of “non-existence of an eternal absolute.” Since the principle of “non-existence of an eternal absolute” holds in reality and the external world, the principle of “non-existence of an absolute necessity” essentially fulfills the principle of “no need for an eternal absolute” in the external world. This is because, with the non-existence of absolute necessity, there is no longer any basis or subject for the need for it, since the need for any cause is contingent on its existence. In this case, the general principle of the need for existence or the external reality of that need no longer serves as the subject for proving or disproving the possibility of an eternal necessary being. This is because the principle of “non-existence of the necessary being” is causally linked to the principle of “no need for the necessary being,” which, by implication, negates the need for it.

Thus, the general need is a causal principle that prevents the application of the resultant principle—no need for the necessary being. This means that the principle of no need for the necessary being is negated to the extent that the denialists propose a different mode of reasoning, arguing that with the principle of non-existence of the necessary being, reason dictates the non-necessity of the necessary being. Both the general principle of need for the necessary being and its opposite—no need for the necessary being—are consequently negated. The argument follows that, by the assumption of the non-existence of the necessary being, there is no “necessary being” to serve as the subject of either need or non-need.

In their defense, denialists believe it is not necessary to apply the principle of “no need for an eternal absolute” to refute the necessity of creatures for God, and thus the principle of causality and its resultant principles need not be invoked again.

Explanation: The general principle of need for any phenomenon exists, which prevents the application of the principle of non-need for an eternal absolute. This is because the eternal absolute, in terms of its concept and title, is an instance of a cause, and the general need of creatures cannot be reconciled with the negation of a specific cause.

Furthermore, with the introduction of the principle of non-existence of the necessary being, alongside the general principle of need (which is applied in cases of doubt), a new set of causal and resultant principles forms that negates the general need for the necessary being. This causal principle—the non-existence of the necessary being—leaves no room for the individual need for the eternal necessary being, and thus negates the need for it in a manner that requires no independent application of the principle of “no need for the necessary being.”

Critique of Denialists’ Defense

To critique the denialists’ defense, several points need to be clarified:

A) To negate the general need for all things, there is no specific negating principle that would justify the application of the principle that “no need for the necessary being” serves as a consequent or resultant principle. The concept of general need is self-evident; though, the application of such a causal principle would be beneficial to the denialists.

B) The non-necessity of the necessary being, even if it is assumed that the eternal necessary being does not exist, lacks a foundational principle to justify its application in denying or proving the need for it. In such a case, only a necessary implication arises, and there is no place to discuss a causal or resultant principle.

C) The principle of non-existence of the necessary being naturally results in the principle of non-need for the necessary being, even if the latter does not have an external reality.

D) Finally, assuming the causal principle—that is, the non-existence of the necessary being—the resultant principle of “need for the necessary being” is undermined. The necessity of the necessary being does not arise because, with the negation of the necessary being, the question of need or non-need cannot arise, as no subject is left to apply it to.

Critique of the Denialist’s Principle

The principle of “non-existence of the necessary being” does not have a causal and resultant relationship with the principle of “non-need for the absolute necessary,” because if the “non-existence of the necessary being” is a principle, the “non-need for the necessary being” cannot simultaneously be a principle that would be negated in the presence of the first principle. This is because the “non-existence of the necessary being” necessarily implies the negation of any dependence on such a being, thus invalidating the second principle.

Moreover, the principle of “non-existence of the necessary being” does not serve as the “dominant” principle, as it has no necessary consequence or subject of negation. Even if both principles were considered “dominant” and “subordinate,” the principle of the “non-existence of the necessary being” would effectively negate any application of “non-need for the necessary being” by virtue of its own implications.

Thus, with the assumption of the first principle, there is no subject for applying the second principle because the non-existence of the necessary being implies the logical non-existence of its need.

Summary of the Two Critiques:

1. In the first critique, the subordinate status of the second principle is negated due to the necessary implication of the first principle.
2. In the second critique, the second principle, as an independent principle, is entirely negated because there is no subject for its application.

Critique of the Dominant Principle

After critiquing the subordinate principle, the next step is to analyze the dominant principle. However, this discussion inevitably leads to a deeper investigation of the critiques surrounding the dominant principle.

The claim that the “non-existence of the necessary being” is a foundational principle is flawed, as such a title does not constitute an independent principle. This “dominant” principle is simply a form of general denial, which holds validity in cases of doubt, but it does not function as an independent or unique principle in the same way as the principle of causality or necessity would.

Denialists do not need a specific proof or principle to reject the concept of the “absolute necessity”; their denial of the necessary being is sufficient. It is only the “proofists” (those seeking to prove the existence of God) who need to provide a demonstrable argument. The denialists, assuming the existence of the dominant principle, can reject the concept of the necessary being entirely. Once such a denial is accepted, the “dominant principle” (i.e., the non-existence of the eternal necessary being) no longer holds as a valid premise. Consequently, the subordinate principle of “non-need for the necessary being” becomes irrelevant.

Conclusion: In both cases of denial or affirmation, the relationship between the dominant and subordinate principles is not applicable. The rejection or acceptance of the necessity of the eternal being leads to a necessary implication, but not a causal relationship between these principles.

The Critique of the Absolute Richness and the Need for a Fundamental Encounter

How can it be possible for the self-sufficient and transcendent entity, without the awareness of need or the ground for the realization of need within itself, to pursue the alleviation of the needs of the needy? Moreover, how can need itself, in its very nature, bring forth a desire for the alleviation of this need to the door of another, who is in opposition to it, and from someone who does not need it and, in essence, cannot be needy? All existential relationships are reciprocal, and charity or selflessness does not occur within existence; existence is in no way dependent on pity or charity.

The relationship of absolute necessity with the contingent and the possible, as well as the eternal self-sufficiency with the material dependent and the omnipotent with the weak and finite phenomena, is not a true relationship. Such an arrangement and movement of potential existence are impossible and resemble the relationship between a wolf and a lamb. Even assuming that such a relationship could exist in reality, it would be an unstable and incomplete one. The absolute self-sufficient entity could never find peace or contentment, as its power would not only create restlessness within it but also engender a sense of antagonism and coldness from the dependent towards the absolute self-sufficient. The feeling of lack and inferiority would forever torment the needy, preventing them from finding any comfort.

How can an entity that is self-sufficient and omnipotent, free from all common desires, act to alleviate the need of something so different from itself, without any obligation or necessity to do so? In this case, it is only the needy who will suffer eternally from the sadness and longing to resolve their deficiencies, while the whole world of existence, and especially the human form, remains disconnected from all these qualities, trembling and out of balance.

On the other hand, if the self-sufficient existence distanced itself from its nominal titles and assumed qualities, and diminished or separated its essential and true attributes to match this relationship, it would be devoid of its own existential truth, and thus no longer be the eternal necessary Being.

Hope and Relativity

Humans live with hope, and it is through hope that they feel a sense of pride and immortality, without being troubled by a sense of loss. Consequently, they strive to fulfill their needs in a relatively natural and healthy way, for they neither consider themselves as absolutely self-sufficient nor recognize anyone as such. Instead, they see all phenomena as interdependent, with each one contributing to the fulfillment of the other, all the while addressing their deficiencies with general existential principles. They do not consider themselves to be in need of the absolute self-sufficient Being, just as they do not see themselves as absolutely needy. Rather, the relativity of truths and the exchange of affairs keep them always alive, fresh, and limited, continuously aware of their need for something or someone that has become necessary within their existence. For a human sees their cause as akin to their own need, differing only in the direction of their respective requirements.

Such an existential harmony, along with the actualized qualities and tangible arrangement among all phenomena, is a truth and reality that is easily perceptible and provable, without requiring numerous presuppositions or foundational principles.

Critique of the Second Principle: The Referral of Need to the Heterogeneous

It has already been discussed that the principle of the impossibility of referring need to the heterogeneous sees the relationship between needy phenomena and the absolute self-sufficient as fundamentally divergent. According to the rule of divergence, no interaction or exchange can occur between two entirely divergent phenomena, and consequently, the absolute self-sufficient cannot create the needy or alleviate their needs.

In critiquing and analyzing this principle, one might acknowledge that, on the surface, this principle appears reasonable. The principle that causality and necessary correspondence imply a need for similarity is undeniable. However, its presentation here is misplaced. Phenomena in existence are not fundamentally heterogeneous in their essence, even though they differ in their attributes and even in their very nature. The essence of necessity, though it is the essence of the eternal self-sufficient Being, is the source of all divine and created attributes. All phenomena receive divine qualities in a limited and proportional manner, but all manifestations and phenomena are expressions of divine determinations. There is no true distinction or multiplicity in the appearance and manifestation of existence.

The determinations of the truth of existence take on the form of creation, and thus proving divergence or multiplicity requires evidence. Since such multiplicity and divergence are not found in reality, and no evidence supports them, it is not possible to assert or prove heterogeneity between phenomena and God, even though both have multiplicity in names, attributes, titles, and qualities.

The Relationship Between the Phenomena and the Divine

The relationship between the Divine and its creations is one of actor and action, of appearance and manifestation, of phenomenon and the underlying reality. This relationship is characterized by harmony, unity, and complete oneness. All the created entities’ identities and attributes are merely manifestations of the Divine essence. There is no divergence or multiplicity in the direction of the appearance and the manifested reality of existence. After establishing the truth of existence and refuting sophism, the principle of the unity of the essence — which is the primary truth of existence — is solidified. Any assertion of multiplicity or otherness must be supported by evidence, which is absent, as is the possibility of proving it without negating the truth of existence itself.

It is essential to note that the principle of truth is self-evident and cannot be denied. Moreover, the existence of both the divine and created faces is undeniable in phenomena. Based on the principle of truth, one cannot claim that everything exists only in the mind and that external reality is nonexistent. Such a view would fall prey to the criticisms of idealism and mentalism, which are ultimately sophistical and unacceptable to anyone. Thus, truth exists, and it is not merely a mental or conceptual construct, but an external and real existence.

Critique of the Concept of Heterogeneity

If it is claimed that the truth has two distinct faces — the divine and the created — and these are entirely separate from one another, evidence must be provided for this claim. If it is stated that the truth is solely creation and not divinity, this too requires proof, just as if one claims the truth is only divine, without any creation in between. However, the assertion that “the truth is one, and the faces of creation are merely manifestations of that singular truth” is a necessary consequence of the principle of truth itself. For when the principle of truth is self-evident and singular, the created faces do not possess any real otherness. They are merely expressions of the truth, and as such, any multiplicity or division is negated.

Multiplicity and the Denial of Truth

Furthermore, we must emphasize that proving multiplicity or plurality — or even the possibility thereof — is equivalent to denying the principle of truth itself. The essence of truth is unity, individuation, and concreteness. These cannot coexist with multiplicity. Proof of multiplicity contradicts the very identity of the truth, for multiplicity cannot be reconciled with the uniqueness and indivisibility that the essence of truth entails. The truth is, by definition, singular and not multiple, and all manifestations of the truth are simply expressions of its singular identity.

The Personal Reality of Existence

It may be presumed that the mere existence of a thing or a truth in unity does not conflict with its potential to have multiplicity, for one might argue that an external reality can possess unity while also having multiple instances or manifestations. However, this is a misconception. The fundamental reality of any thing is its personhood — its concrete, individual existence. Unity, multiplicity, and classification are merely mental categories, not inherent qualities of the thing itself. If things were defined by their universality or category, one could argue that truth could possess both unity and multiplicity, but as we have seen, the truth is an individual, real entity, and it allows no room for multiplicity, plurality, or otherness.

The truth is not a collection of multiple entities; it is a personal, singular reality. Its essence is unified, and this unity precludes any form of multiplicity or division. Thus, every manifestation, no matter how fragmented, is merely an expression of the singular truth, and all diversity and multiplicity in phenomena are forms of its appearance, not its essence.

The Need of the Needy from the Self-Sufficient

Another point that draws attention in this argument is that the need must be directed towards someone who is aware of the need and the reciprocal need, and requesting from an absolutely self-sufficient entity contradicts the very essence of rational demand and request.

In response to this claim, it must be stated that directing one’s need towards a needy individual is not possible; rather, all those in need must always turn to the Self-Sufficient for the fulfilment of their needs. This is because requesting to have a need fulfilled from another needy person is impossible, as one who lacks something cannot give it to another. All existential and created relationships are such that the needy are able to resolve their needs through the Self-Sufficient; even if that Self-Sufficient is also needy in other respects. Thus, all relational dynamics—whether existential or created—are based on causality, interdependence, and relativity, where the Self-Sufficient causes the fulfilment of needs, even if their own self-sufficiency is relative and limited.

In general, there are two types of self-sufficiency:

1. Limited Self-Sufficiency: This pertains to a specific direction or set of directions. In this case, it is contingent and secondary, and does not denote absolute necessity or intrinsic sufficiency.
2. Absolute Self-Sufficiency: This pertains to an intrinsic self-sufficiency, which is exclusive to the Divine.

A limited self-sufficiency, which is a created attribute, exists as a cause for granting existence, goodness, and perfection to its effect. Even though it is not intrinsic or necessary, with the presence of relative sufficiency, it enables the fulfilment of the need in a specific direction. Thus, the meaning of the statement that “in the realm of need, causality is impossible” becomes clear, as causality within this realm still occurs, even with relative self-sufficiency. If the cause in the realm of causality is itself needy, it cannot fulfil its role as a cause.

Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that a request for assistance must be made to a needy person, nor that turning towards the absolutely self-sufficient is impossible. Such statements are contrary to reality, as the fulfilment of needs must be sought from the Self-Sufficient, whether absolute or relative. Requesting assistance from the needy is irrational, as the cause must possess that which it grants, even if it is itself needy in other respects.

Charity and Altruism

If the terms “charity” and “altruism” in existence and creation imply a divergence, multiplicity, or otherness (i.e., charity and altruism are acts between separate entities), this is fundamentally incorrect both philosophically and scientifically. However, if they are understood in their correct meaning—that the bestowal of God to His creation is an expression of His divine attributes—then, beyond being entirely sound and correct, they are a language of divine love, affection, and mercy. In this sense, all divine attributes of beauty and majesty manifest in creation, and all the phenomena of existence and the divine laws are in harmony with God’s nature, whether in the domain of creation, nature, love, or choice.

As discussed earlier, the relationship between the Divine and the created is one of unity and identity, free from divergence and dissimilarity. The created beings relate to the Divine through the actualisation of their existence and qualities, with mercy, love, affection, altruism, and charity all being manifestations of the Divine’s appearance. On this basis, the claim that charity and altruism imply some form of duality is fundamentally mistaken, as all these actions are based on unity, without otherness or estrangement between the Creator and His creation.

The Divine and the Problem of Needing an Eternal Source

The third principle that skeptics raise concerns the alleged “self-sufficiency of beings to their eternal and absolute source,” asserting that no being truly needs such a source, and that the absence of such a source does not harm humans or the world. According to this view, throughout history, humans have independently solved their problems through their own strength and intellect, without needing a divine being to intervene.

Those who have accepted different gods or rejected any deity altogether, skeptics claim, show no difference in their lives. Both groups live similarly, with no significant impact on their lives regardless of whether they accept or reject the existence of a deity.

If it is claimed that there is no god or that God does exist, what difference would it make, and what change would it bring to us or the world? Denying God’s existence would not harm anyone, nor would proving God’s existence relieve anyone of their burdens.

If a being existed who was truly powerful and noble, the rejection of such a being would lead to some form of punishment or correction, yet those who deny the existence of God seem to live unaffected and enjoy prosperity, while it is the believers who appear to suffer, facing poverty, ignorance, suffering, and misfortune.

Critique of the Third Principle

The claim that beings do not need an eternal source is based on two distinct assertions:

1. Beings do not need an eternal source.
2. The absence of an eternal source proves its non-existence.

In analysing the first part, it is evident that the question of whether beings need such a source is irrelevant. The real issue is whether such a source exists, as the evidence determining its existence is what defines its place in reality, whether for existence itself or for the attributes and perfections of that existence. The lack of need for such a source does not imply its non-existence, and the argument from the principle of negation (absence of need) does not hold, as it cannot definitively prove non-existence.

Moreover, the second claim—that the lack of need for an eternal source proves its non-existence—is even more fallacious, as there is no necessary correlation between the two. Many things exist that we may not feel the need for, but that does not mean they do not exist. Hence, the absence of need for something does not establish its non-existence.

The Illusion of Denying the Existence of God

The argument that the human intellect never engages with the concept of an eternal source and that it dismisses such a notion as mere fantasy is a stance that not only shows a lack of deep philosophical inquiry but also neglects the very fabric of human nature and spirit. The concern for the divine, or at least the contemplation of its existence, is deeply embedded in human consciousness. Even those who deny the Divine are influenced by this inner struggle, whether they acknowledge it or not.

In fact, the very desire for spiritual meaning and understanding, the inquiry into the nature of existence and the ultimate cause of all things, speaks to the innate longing of the human soul to connect with the Divine. Whether they acknowledge it or not, those who deny the existence of God are still impacted by this divine concern, and their lives are marked by an underlying existential void.

The Comparison to Mythical Creatures

Comparing the Divine to mythical creatures such as the “ghoul” or “unicorn” (about which people speak, though no one has seen them) is a fallacious analogy. The Divine is not a figment of imagination, nor is it an unknown or mythical entity. While the existence of such mythical creatures may be questioned, the concept of God is intrinsic to the human experience, directly influencing morality, purpose, and existence. Unlike the mythical creatures, the Divine is central to human consciousness and cannot be reduced to mere fiction or myth.

The Traits of Believers, Skeptics, and Deniers

Those who embrace the Divine and acknowledge God’s unique and necessary existence find peace and contentment, whereas those who remain in doubt or denial experience inner turmoil and restlessness. Those who reject the Divine are plagued by pride and ignorance, which erode their spirit and inner peace. In contrast, the matter of mythical creatures like the ghoul or unicorn does not carry the same weight, and their denial does not have the same profound impact on the human psyche.

If we desire a celestial melody from the infallible in this regard, we entrust our hearts and souls to the words of the Commander of the Faithful, who says: “I found you worthy of worship.” [3] “You are deserving of existence, and I love you without any title or name. I neither desire paradise, nor fear hell: ‘I did not worship You out of fear of Your fire, nor for a hope of Your paradise.'”

The Confusion Between Truth and Title

Here, it is prudent to give particular attention to the Fourth Principle to clearly reveal the fragility of its claims and the critiques directed against it. The statement reads:

“According to the mentioned principle, proving the proposition ‘God exists’ is equivalent to negating it; because man has no conception of God to affirm His existence. When it is said, ‘God exists,’ it is like saying ‘something we do not know what it is exists.’ Now, any proposition that has this kind of subject, although it takes the form of a proposition, is akin to a proposition without a subject. A proposition without a subject, by necessity, has no ‘relation,’ and a proposition without a subject and relation cannot accommodate the predicate, so the title of the proposition cannot be ascribed to it.”

It is true that every proposition requires a subject, and a proposition without a subject is, in fact, not a proposition at all. Furthermore, ‘something we do not know’ cannot serve as the subject. However, the truth is that in the proposition ‘God exists,’ the subject ‘the Divine Presence’ is clear, at least in general terms, and even in specific conceptual terms. Based on this, it must be said that the one making this argument has confused real knowledge with conceptual titles.

In fact, the one thing beyond the grasp of knowledge, that lacks a universal foundation, and which even the chosen friends of God are perplexed by, is the essence of the Divine. This concept transcends mere conceptual discussion and pertains to the true, existential reality, which is known to God alone. This reality is not within the scope of universal understanding, whether by people of faith or those of denial.

Thus, what perplexes everyone is something other than what is universally acknowledged, and the confusion between these two causes much falsehood from the deniers.

Based on the above, the claim that:

“For the verification of any proposition, an overall conceptualization, even less than that, is sufficient, but in the case of God, there is no general conception or less; because we have no true concept of God, and whatever we conceive under this title is, apart from differing among individuals, merely a presupposition that is contingent on a subject principle that is absolutely ungraspable or provable.”

…stems from a confusion between conceptual and existential titles. When it is said, “For the verification of any proposition, a general conception, even less, is sufficient,” it becomes clear that the directions and aspects of the discussion have not been carefully considered, and the subject of the proposition is unclear to them. The conceptualization of the Divine Presence—whether in general terms or in detailed terms, even for those in opposition or disbelief—exists. In fact, all deniers recognize, albeit ignorantly, the Divine attributes and titles, even if they deny them. This issue is a matter of proof and not of conceptualization.

The crux of this issue lies in the failure to recognize the distinction between ‘title’ (as in concept) and ‘reality’ (as in existential truth). As when it is said, ‘For the verification of any proposition, a general conceptualization is sufficient,’ it overlooks the essential distinction that even deniers, despite their rejection, are aware of the general concept of God, even if they deny it.

Moreover, the reality of ‘existential arrival’ and ‘divine presence’ is something that is beyond the grasp of all but the elite of God’s friends, and these are truths that cannot be addressed by conceptual or general discussions.

Therefore, the attributes that have a conceptual title and are acknowledged by the ordinary minds can be conceived and affirmed as the ‘concept of God.’ These are subsidiary to the existential truth, and they can be conceived even without demonstrative proof. Just as titles describing God or Divine attributes are conceptually grasped by both believers and deniers alike, what is subsidiary to existence and proof concerns the truth of these attributes.

The Divine Reality and the Possibility of Denial

In conclusion, those who deny the truth have confused between the title (as conceptual) and the essence of Divine truth. In fact, conceptualizing the Divine reality does not equate to its actual existence, as the proposition ‘God exists’ remains a valid claim.

This misunderstanding arises from the failure to differentiate between ‘title’ and ‘reality,’ as the latter cannot be grasped through common intellectual means or mental constructs. The claim that one cannot ‘conceive’ God does not negate the existence of the Divine Being but merely reflects a limitation in human intellectual capacity.

The Final Goal of Creation and the Problem of Denial

Finally, when considering the final cause and the overall goal of creation, we face significant challenges and critiques from the proponents of denial. Although human beings and natural phenomena have specific relative goals, the general aim and ultimate purpose of creation, as governed by a higher Divine order, remains contested.

For instance, if we consider the problem of eternal damnation and perpetual suffering, the question arises: can such an outcome be justified under the governance of a wise, all-knowing, and good Creator? This question becomes central to the philosophical and theological debate regarding the nature of God’s justice and the moral order of the universe.

The difficulties inherent in reconciling these notions with the visible imperfections and suffering of the world continue to fuel skepticism and disbelief. However, it is only by recognizing the role of divine wisdom and the ultimate purpose of creation that the full meaning of existence can be comprehended. The debate between creationist perspectives and those of denial hinges on this complex issue.

What Should Have Happened?

At this point, it is appropriate to examine the matter from another angle and consider what God has done and what He should have done. God has created various realms, one of which is called the “Nasut,” “the realm of matter,” and “nature.” This is the realm where evils, afflictions, pain, death, impurity, degradation, misfortune, and deprivation surround or at least threaten humanity.

If God had not placed evils, afflictions, death, and impurity within the realm of nature, a situation of “much good being left undone” would have occurred. This is because the absence of much good would inevitably lead to “much evil.” The existence of good, therefore, leads to the emergence of evils and afflictions, some of which God’s powerless servants will inevitably face. Thus, the creation of the realm of nature is not without its challenges; its existence is difficult but more acceptable than its absence. Its deficiencies cannot be removed, and its existence brings its own shortcomings.

The real question is: What should have happened? Could nature have not been created? Certainly not, because this would have resulted in much good being left undone. Therefore, nature must exist as it is. But in light of this, how do we justify the eternal deprivation faced by some individuals, a deprivation that is neither temporary, limited, nor uncertain?

Why must some human beings suffer such a grim fate, and how can their loss be compensated? How can they be satisfied, and is it possible to consider them fully responsible for their own fate? Did they have any prior knowledge of their own creation or death? Did they know who they were and what their true nature was?

These individuals who suffer eternal deprivation—how did they acquire such a nature without any prior action or effort? How can one explain the inherent suffering of certain souls if they themselves did not bring it upon themselves?

In general, it must be said that the system of creation, with humanity at its pinnacle, follows its natural course without any conflict or deviation, operating according to a specific order. Every individual sees the results of their good or bad deeds, as the saying goes, “What comes out of a jug is what is in it.” It is not the case that a dry perfume bottle produces fragrance or that a pitcher without water brings moisture.

All phenomena of existence, including inanimate objects, animals, humans, and others—everything follows its natural course and harmonious progression, without endangering the inherent balance and true order of their structure.

Humanity and Thought

To properly perceive the natural order, one must possess sound reasoning, recognize the subtleties of nature, and not mistake one’s illusions and ignorance for the truth. A person must look at the grandeur of existence and its Lordship with a specific reverence, so that they may, to the extent of their intellect and ability, make sense of it.

One must not be hasty, uncertain, or frivolous in the face of this wondrous order, nor should they recklessly engage with illusions. Instead, they should resolve their issues regarding knowledge and the ultimate matters with clear thinking and a calm mind.

Given this, two criticisms are raised against the claimant’s argument—one supporting and one negating the claim:

The claimant argues that the movement of humans, animals, and other earthly and heavenly phenomena has relative and partial goals. They follow a limited and specific course, and in this movement, there is neither chaos nor negligence nor aimlessness. This statement raises the question: how can such an order, which is so precise and devoid of any deviation, be confined to a relative and partial domain without a universal end goal or a necessary agent?

This relative and partial order, beyond indicating a general purpose, points to the existence of a necessary cause and agent. This argument aligns with the teachings of monotheism and religion, as it cannot be denied that such an order exists, nor can we ignore the teleological nature of phenomena and their desire for a cause and end.

The claimant then continues, acknowledging that there are many obvious disorders and irregularities that bring with them numerous problems and deficiencies. In response, it must be stated that these disorders and irregularities can be classified into two categories:

The first category includes deficiencies that arise from external coercive factors and harmful influences, each having its own specific rules, yet still indicating the natural law and maintaining its inherent order in all instances.

The second category involves problems that appear to us as such but are the result of our own mental deficiencies, which must be corrected with increasing attention and care.

In general, not all deficiencies should be considered as deficiencies in the true sense, for they too follow the law of natural order. It is the human mind that must recognize and correct these anomalies, placing itself on the path of proper understanding and appreciating the beautiful face of nature and its Lordship.

All the previous discussions and the critique of the arguments can be summarized in this short passage: the whole natural world is pervaded by a harmonious order, and even the specific irregularities have their own specific laws, which are understandable and traceable. It is only humans who must correct the chaotic patterns of their own minds and rediscover their own nature to find appropriate answers to the deficiencies in nature and the existing questions.

True Goals and Divine Progression

Skeptics, in one of their arguments, doubt and deny that all phenomena in existence have overarching, real, and divine goals and processes. They claim that the scientific and philosophical arguments for proving the existence of an efficient cause and final purpose are incomplete and based on unfounded assumptions.

However, the key focus for the religious and monotheistic worldview is the divine progression and overarching, true, and final goals that can be understood through close observation and specific attention to the nature of each phenomenon. This allows one to transform doubt into certainty and assurance, without being entangled in atheistic assumptions or mental distortions and anxieties.

The assertion that “the existing scientific and philosophical arguments for proving the efficient cause and final purpose do not actually substantiate these directions and are entangled in contradictions and baseless assumptions, making them scientifically and philosophically invalid” is not a logical or scientific statement. It is not in line with sound reasoning or fair thinking. A rational person, with evidence or criteria, would never dismiss an argument or a belief merely because of baseless assumptions. Instead, each of these beliefs and arguments must be critically examined and either rejected or confirmed based on their merits. A person must explore these issues sufficiently to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

To accept or reject any matter with an oversimplified or negligent approach is not a rational or reliable method and does not yield sound outcomes. It is important to analyze and study all aspects of a subject thoroughly, with full commitment and focus, rather than following the claimant’s approach, which simply aligns with their baseless assumptions, treating both the final cause—whose discussion is forthcoming—and the efficient cause as the same. This approach deviates from fair thinking and correct logical reasoning.

The claim that “the relative and partial order of nature, alongside numerous irregularities, would require very strong evidence to prove the existence of an external, knowledgeable, and powerful organizer and creator” is a reasonable and appropriate observation that must be carefully considered. Proving this matter is of high importance, and great attention must be given to it, as it should not be considered a simple or easy task. However, the assertion that “such evidence does not exist” is a hasty judgment and should not be made recklessly without proper thought and evidence. Further discussion will address all aspects of this issue in detail.

External Agent and Partial Order

The claimant’s statement that “the material world has a relative order and a specific course within its own limited domain” is a true reflection of its actual, external existence and is undeniable. This statement is commendable. However, the relative and specific order of material phenomena within their particular domain cannot be disconnected from the overall design of the creation or the true nature of existence. When the claimant fails to provide an argument against the possibility of a divine organizer, and when, in contrast, proponents of theistic views present numerous objective arguments for the necessity of a divine cause, it is no longer possible to separate the relative order of the phenomena of the world from the overall system of existence. The relative and partial order of material phenomena is itself an expression of the inherent existence and reality of the world.

In truth, it is existence itself that is not devoid of order. Whether general or specific, possible or necessary, order determines the true status of all phenomena. Just as phenomena, in their appearance, are expressions of the necessity of divine Lordship, their order is also a manifestation of the divine will. Thus, it is incorrect to suggest that any phenomenon is unrelated to the overall system of existence.

It is also not accurate to say that the specific order of material phenomena is solely the result of their natural and material arrangement. When the appearance of material phenomena is a manifestation of divine existence, their order is also a reflection of that ultimate reality and divine will. All inherent qualities of existence share a common nature, and it is impossible to claim that the specific order of phenomena is merely an internal characteristic of these phenomena. The specific order itself speaks to the nature of order, and this nature, when it is universal, cannot be confined to a particular individual or class of phenomena.

Just as we accept that all phenomena, through their natural relationships, follow their own specific and natural order, we must accept that this order and connection is not unrelated to the specific order of the phenomena of existence and the divine will. Order, in its essence, is the determining factor for the true nature of all phenomena. Therefore, the specific order of phenomena reveals the overall order of existence, and this specific nature, when it encompasses all, is not limited to individual characteristics.

Thus, the claimant’s argument, which confines order to material phenomena and disconnects it from the overall order of existence, lacks any evidential foundation. There are no credible arguments to support it, and the reasoning against it has already been briefly outlined.

How can order be considered confined to a specific domain and not related to the whole of existence, when the material world and the natural realm represent the lowest level of perception and consciousness? Since order is formed by perception and consciousness, it must be said that every phenomenon, to the extent of its perception and consciousness, possesses a superior form of order, and the phenomena of immaterial and higher levels of existence possess a greater order than those of the natural world. Although the inherent and visible connection of all these phenomena remains tied to the necessary existence of the divine, the phenomena of existence are in a state of progression and manifestation that reveals their essential nature.

Ultimate and Final Goal

Skeptics have argued against the teleological nature and final purpose of phenomena, stating that:

“The phenomena of the world would only have a final, ultimate, or divine goal if they were moving toward their own happiness and well-being. However, some humans do not reach such a final good, but rather, according to religious teachings, face the worst consequences—the eternal fire and eternal damnation of hell.

Moreover, some phenomena, especially many humans, are deprived of their fundamental rights, even in this world. They are born into the worst conditions, live in the harshest circumstances, and face the most tragic ends. This bitter reality can be observed in many natural phenomena as well. This reality is not limited to animals or humans, but is apparent in many other instances, providing ample evidence for the argument.”

From the above, it becomes clear that, according to religious principles, it is not possible to accept ultimate and eternal happiness for all people, and this leads to numerous questions, which can be summarized as follows:

What kind of divine goal and progression is it that causes some of the created beings to fall into eternal deprivation and enter the eternal hell?

The Concept of Good and Evil in the Divine System and the Mystical View of Ibn Arabi on the Nature of Punishment

Just as Rahman (Merciful), Rahim (Compassionate), ‘Atoof (Gentle), and Lateef (Kind) are divine attributes, so too are Jabbār (Compeller), Qāṭiʿ (Decisive), Bāṭish (Punishing), Mākir (Schemer), and Ghayyūr (Zealous) also attributes of the Divine essence. Just as Hādī (Guide) has manifestations and appearances, so does Muddil (Misleader). Similarly, just as Hādī is an essence, Muddil too is an essence.

With this explanation, evil, in terms of its causal origin, faces no objection, for the Divine essence is not numerically singular, and unity—an aspect of the emergent manifestation of the Divine names and attributes—embraces both the cause of good and evil, without diminishing the direction of pure goodness or invoking the adversary. The adversary (Ahriman) is also a manifestation of the Divine attributes of majesty (Jalāl) as Satan, the soul, idolatry, disbelief, and the tyrants each represent an aspect of the wrath of the Divine essence. It is not the case that we consider the attributes of Divine beauty as real and the attributes of majesty as non-existent, nor that we view the manifestations of majesty as non-being, or engage in critiques when attributing them to the Divine.

Thus, without embracing philosophical contradictions or smoothing the argument with examples, we assert: the good and evil in the material world are manifestations of the Divine names and attributes. Just like their originators and revealers, they are all existent, and the material world contains such multiplicities. Although these manifestations have been realized through the eternal grace and the outward expression of the Divine, this text will now enter into the discussion of final causes, addressing critiques from those who deny this notion.

The Mystical System of Ibn Arabi and the Sweetness of Punishment

The second discussion that needs to be raised is that, in the culture of the Holy Qur’an and the Divine religion of Islam, punishment, hell, eternal deprivation, and everlasting damnation are firmly accepted for a group of people. “Eternal” does not refer to a long duration, but rather to an everlasting and unending meaning. Punishment has no meaning other than pain, and hell has no meaning other than fire and deprivation.

Here, it is important to briefly mention the views of Ibn Arabi and some of his followers who argue that hell and its eternal fire are not permanent and, if they were, the punishment would eventually become sweet and lose its painful nature.

Ibn Arabi asserts that punishment is derived from the root meaning of sweetness (ʿadhb), and it is not the case that punishment is eternal, nor that hell and fire remain forever. This assertion is one of the unfounded interpretations of the great mystic, which is never accepted by the author of this text nor by the generality of religious scholars. This idea contradicts the Qur’anic and prophetic traditions and has no reliable textual or intellectual evidence to support it.

It seems that their compassion and the softness of their hearts have led them to hold such a belief, which they have pursued through weak interpretations and baseless narrations. However, eternal punishment, hell, fire, and deprivation in the afterlife are firmly accepted only for a specific group and are considered one of the certainties of the religion. But punishment is never sweet, nor does hell transform into paradise, and eternal deprivation is not removed for the special individuals in the afterlife.

The material and natural world is filled with good and evil, and calamities and misfortunes are inevitable. Whether the calamities are caused by human actions, either directly or indirectly, or whether they are caused by factors unrelated to human actions, in all these cases, these truths exist in both the natural and supernatural worlds, and whether through negligence, omission, potential, or actuality, they all come to pass.

Critiques from Finalism

After presenting the necessary assumptions and foundational points, we now explore the critiques of the deniers, which arise in stages, and offer responses to each.

A) The Argument of Finalism
When it is said that the phenomena of the world have a final and ultimate goal or that they follow a divine course, what is meant by this ultimate goal and divine course is the actualization and realization of each phenomenon, transitioning from the realm of potential to actuality. There is no phenomenon in the universe that faces any difficulty in achieving this. All particles of the universe, whether they be inanimate, plant, animal, or human, pass through the stages of potentiality and move toward actuality. This process, which applies equally to the righteous and the wicked, is called the “ultimate goal” and “divine course.”

The overlooked point in this argument, according to the deniers, is that while the course is the same for everyone, what differs among individuals is the outcome and the result of this course. Each particle and phenomenon—whether voluntary or involuntary—has its own distinct position and quality along its specific course, determining its fate in the afterlife, its eternal destiny, and its happiness or misery.

The next passage claims that the ultimate goal refers to the desired good and happiness. This is where the distinction between good and evil becomes evident, and the division of people into the blessed (saʿīd) and the wretched (shaqī) occurs. Every natural phenomenon, according to its inherent qualities, moves toward its ultimate destination. But it is only humans who possess thought and will, and they are responsible for their choices. If a person uses their thought and will in the right way, they will attain happiness and success, but if not, they will face deprivation and punishment.

All the evil and misfortunes that people face in this world, if caused by their own negligence, will be met with punishment and recompense, but if these misfortunes are due to their inability or shortcomings, they will be forgiven. If these misfortunes occur due to no fault of theirs, they will be rewarded. After divine mercy, which plays a significant role in recompense and punishment, all these matters are decided.

Conclusion on the Nature of the World and Human Agency
Thus, the world of nature is not one of futility, negligence, and destruction. Good and evil are not the same, and everyone is responsible for their own actions. The fate of all beings is shaped by their own will and deeds, and divine mercy plays a central role in determining who ultimately reaches salvation. The pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of misery are not hereditary; they depend on one’s actions and the mercy of the Divine.

Theories of Creation and the Problem of Evil

The argument presented by the claimant suggests that the issues within the system of creation and humanity, based on the principle of monotheism and the necessity of a causal origin, can be traced back to three main factors. First, either all the corruption and problems stem from the manifestation and causal origin of phenomena themselves, which the claimant views as evidence against the existence of a causal origin; or, second, all these consequences are the result of the created beings, which again trace back to the causal origin, as the manifestations of existence themselves derive nothing from their own essence and their existence is from the truth. Therefore, all criticisms in some way revert to the truth.

In the third case, if we do not trace the evils that created beings face back to the phenomenon and the causal origin of necessity, and instead attribute all the defects and evils to Satan, the issue would not be resolved by dismissing the causal origin. This is because duality in the origin of power, in any form, contradicts the necessary goodness of the causal origin. The knowledge and power of the truth are absolute and free from any opposition, counterpart, or partner.

Thus, whatever path we follow to examine the causes of creation’s problems, the result remains the same: all evil returns to the truth, whether it stems from appearances, from Satan, or from the truth itself. This is because accepting imperfection in the system of creation and dismissing the necessary causal origin confirms the claimant’s argument.

Equality of Negation and Imperfection

If it is claimed:

“With the imperfection of nature, imperfection is ascribed to the causal origin, not negation, and the claimant’s argument only proves imperfection but not the negation of the causal origin,”

the response should be: the result of imperfection and negation is the same, and there is no difference between the monotheist and the atheist in this regard. A monotheist does not claim a defective god, and by proving imperfection in the causal origin, in fact, the negation is substantiated. This is because the monotheist sees the causal origin as the absolute necessary existence, praising it as the sole creator, all-knowing, all-powerful, and wise.

The denier, by asserting the imperfections of creation, seeks to negate the very notion of a causal origin, and for the monotheist, any imperfection in the causal origin equals its negation. Hence, the monotheist seeks to remove all imperfections from the causal origin, adhering to the view that “the good is abundant, and the evil is scarce.”

Principles of Human Action

In response to the question, the various forms and directions of human action must be considered together, even if briefly, so that the primary and derivative causal grounds can be clearly distinguished, and the role of each can be identified.

While one must accept the divine, creative, and even satanic influences in the realization of human deeds, one should not ignore the relative and numerical aspects. All must be considered together, and no single factor should be considered in isolation or absolutely, even though the original causal origin is the creator of all manifestations of existence.

We accept the existence of Satan, and recognize it as the accursed devil (according to the Qur’anic term), although Satan is neither the agent nor the creator of mankind’s evil deeds. Satan, or the devils of both jinn and mankind, alongside the impurities and psychological weaknesses of individuals and their predispositions, all play numerical roles in the unfolding of evil actions. None of the aforementioned causes plays an independent or original causal role. The Qur’an’s phrase, “And Allah is surrounding them” (Quran 86:9), refers to these numerical considerations.

Only the truth, in the form of divine attributes of majesty, impresses its existence upon all numerical and creative aspects, making them manifest. Although the Qur’an declares, “Say, ‘All is from Allah’” (Quran 4:78), numerical considerations are retained in the expression and manifestation of deeds.

To understand the true nature of human action – which is the central issue in our discussion – we must realize that humans are never disconnected from their actions, nor can the influences of Satan, their soul, or their predispositions be ignored. Likewise, we must not exclude God from any action or attribute everything to the numerical and original causes as being solely attributed to God. There is no logical or reasonable basis for absolute attribution in this matter. Only with this framework can the present discussion be fully clarified.

The Shared Creative Aspect and Communal Law

The creative direction of phenomena and human actions materializes in a collective and shared manner, and the effects, consequences, rewards, and punishments are likewise assessed and considered in a collective fashion.

This means it is not accurate for an individual to claim, “I am the sole agent of my actions,” even if the action outwardly appears to be individual. Human beings are the products of all external and internal causes, including divine, familial, environmental, spatial, temporal, and social influences. Each individual is a manifestation of all these influences, and the potentialities within them are revealed in their present actions.

It is not the case that humans are independently the doers and creators of their good and bad actions. Nor is it the case that the divine acts without any intermediary causes or numerical factors, as though God were breathing life into humans and taking care of their needs. Similarly, it is not the case that Satan and the devils are the sole agents of evil. All prior causes, in various ways, play a role in the manifestation of events and actions. The divine is the origin of the creation, while other entities, including Satan, play numerical roles, both close and distant.

Although God, in His divine mercy, introduces the path to salvation for everyone, as mentioned in the verse, “Indeed, We have guided him to the way” (Quran 76:3), He also alerts us to the prevalence of creative influences in our actions: “So, whether grateful or ungrateful…” (Quran 76:3). In this context, the divine is the dominant force, and at no point can an absolute attribution be logically applied. The collective consideration of all causes is paramount, and individuality does not manifest in that context.

The Nature of Reward

A natural question arises: If all numerical and causal factors contribute to the realization of human actions, and no human action or individual can be seen as an independent, unmediated act, how can the reward for human actions be calculated individually and independently, as illustrated by the verse, “Read your book; today your soul is sufficient as a reckoner against you” (Quran 17:14)?

In response, it must be clarified that no act is ever independent of mediation. The phrase “Read your book” does not contradict this understanding, and individuality in this context does not negate the collective causality involved. Each individual’s actions are calculated in a relative, derivative, and general manner, just as Allah states in the verse: “On that Day, people will be separated into groups to be shown their deeds” (Quran 99:6).

These groupings are related to the interconnectedness of phenomena and their causal interplay. Divine justice assesses both the direct actions and the collective causes contributing to each deed. The notion of independent or isolated actions does not exist in the real world, as human actions are deeply influenced by inherited traits, the environment, and other factors that make the idea of independent action incoherent.

Put simply, in this world, human actions appear to be primarily direct, but in the afterlife and from the perspective of true justice, actions manifest as more mediated, involving both direct and collective causes. Consequently, the true and complete reckoning will only take place in the Hereafter, where every cause, whether primary or secondary, is considered.

They perceive existence in this way from their own perspective, and all individuals tend to view phenomena as extensions of themselves. As the saying goes, “When an ant is carried away by water, it seems as though the entire world has been swept away by it.” They remain unaware that the world persists, and it is they themselves who are adrift in the waters, lost in their own future, while the water, along with all the paths and the sea, follows its natural course.

A believer, however, is never troubled by the fear of non-existence, nor does he nurture thoughts of the absence of being. With tranquillity of heart, he embraces existence, not viewing the material world and life as the final end of his journey. Without hesitation or confusion, he strives for the eternal manifestation of his being, placing his heart and trust in that which transcends the world.

The believer experiences life and existence as sweet, and even sorrow, pain, and separation are found to possess a sweetness born of goodness. In all circumstances, his heart is bound to the Truth, who is both his object of worship and his ultimate goal.

The anguish of dissolution and thoughts of ruin are what ultimately wear down the disbeliever and the denier, rendering their earthly existence bitter. In contrast, the believer, free from all expressions of cruelty, keeps alive within himself the yearning and love for the eternal, renewing and refreshing his soul, finding joy in the eternal essence of being.

Thus, the true nature of existence, the world, the afterlife, eternity, happiness, and the goods of existence are one reality, while the baseless interpretations of the opposers and deniers are another. These two should not be confused or intermingled, for it is crucial to distinguish between what is true and what is distorted, dedicating oneself to the former without letting one’s soul become tainted or clouded by the latter.

The Continuance of the Weak and the End of the Fragile

“Death and destruction — in their absolute sense — only afflict the weak and deprived. While the capacity for existence and the endurance of the strong and the powerful are also limited, pain, suffering, death, corruption, and many other forms of disorderly conduct primarily affect the powerless and the forsaken. The treacherous nature, like a ruthless oppressor, relentlessly attacks the helpless, dragging millions of innocent and deprived individuals into annihilation, tormenting them with no concern or mercy.

It is as if all the tyrants and powerful beings in the universe are the ugly faces of nature, cutting off creations with ruthless precision using the seven swords of deception, arrogance, wickedness, cruelty, conceit, vileness, and, ultimately, selfishness. They throw these creations into water, fire, smoke, pain, regret, death, and deprivation without hesitation, passing on untroubled. It seems as if this treacherous nature, like the professional oppressors, treats all forms of destruction as commonplace. After the annihilation, nature stands in devotion to itself, joyfully composing a song of love, sewing a fresh garment, and sitting comfortably in the abyss of nothingness.”

The Necessity of Power and the Fragility of Weakness

Power and ability, in themselves, are desirable and form the basis of the existence of every phenomenon, preserving it against adversity. Thus, the continuation of every phenomenon depends on its strength and abilities, while death and annihilation primarily afflict the weak and the deprived. This reveals the beauty and the virtue of this system of existence.

In this context, two important points must not be overlooked:

a) The end of worldly life does not signify the end of the existence of phenomena, as the good and bad that they have contributed continue to accompany them.

b) The fact that strength and weakness determine the persistence or death of phenomena is distinct from the moral judgment in this world and the afterlife, where each phenomenon, especially in the case of humans, faces judgment and consequences for its deeds.

Thus, the saying “pain, suffering, death, and corruption only afflict the weak and the forsaken” should serve as a source of hope, urging every phenomenon, particularly human beings, to strive to organise their natural lives with effort and wisdom. It encourages individuals to distance themselves from weakness, decay, and destruction and to pursue the continuous renewal of their existence. This will prevent them from falling into neglect, indifference, or aimlessness, keeping them ever in search of the renewal of their own lives.

The Beauty of Nature and Its Eternal Process

We must not call the beauty of nature — which continually renews itself and fosters the eternal — treacherous, nor must we regard it as an oppressor that ruthlessly attacks phenomena. Rather, this beauty and goodness of nature keeps phenomena away from the corruption and decay of old age, encouraging the flourishing of all forms of life in this world. The end is not the annihilation of all, but a harmonious continuation that leads to the eternal essence.

Even though harshness, violence, and destruction are part of nature, they should not obscure the inherent beauty of existence. In the grand design, the combination of goodness and the occasional appearance of evil — which serves as a necessary aspect of the balance of nature — ensures the continuation of the ultimate good.

The Problem of Evil and the Existence of Adversity

The nature of evil and affliction in the world cannot be easily ignored or explained away. Evil is a tangible reality, just as goodness is. Afflictions are not mere absences or illusions, but real and tangible. Although evil causes pain and distress, it is part of the larger order, providing the context within which the virtues of goodness are manifested.

In the divine system, both the beneficial and harmful elements reflect the names and attributes of God. Just as God is merciful, compassionate, and loving, He is also capable of wrath and punishment, and both mercy and wrath are real and active aspects of the divine nature.

Divine Names and the Manifestation of Phenomena

The question of why evil exists in nature is rooted in the principle of “much good with a little evil,” which underscores the beauty of nature. All phenomena, both good and bad, are manifestations of the divine names and attributes, and it is through their interaction that the fullness of divine beauty is revealed.

As a result, every phenomenon — whether good or evil — is a true existence, intertwined with the reality of nature. This truth guides us in understanding the causes and consequences of all phenomena, including evil, and their place within the grand scheme of divine wisdom.

The Authoritative Will of the Divine in the Existence of Evil

The question of who is responsible for evil and adversity is clarified when we consider that all phenomena are manifestations of God’s divine attributes. Though human beings and natural causes play a role in the realization of these phenomena, the ultimate cause of all existence is God. His will is the determining factor in everything, whether it pertains to good or evil.

Conclusion: The Question of Free Will and Divine Wisdom

In response to the theological critique of reconciling God’s will with human freedom, it is essential to clarify the distinction between causality and necessity in the world. While God is the ultimate cause of all phenomena, human beings possess free will and responsibility within the framework of divine wisdom.

Thus, the existence of both good and evil serves a higher purpose, allowing for the full manifestation of divine attributes and wisdom in the world.

Nature does not seek the annihilation of all beings, but rather aims to facilitate their ascent toward perfection and eternal truth. While death and destruction may appear as violence and plundering, their inherent wisdom points to the refinement, clarity, and resilience of existence. The perceived evils, calamities, and agonizing cries in this world serve to manifest and reveal phenomena, without being considered evil in themselves or beyond the scope of the power of the divine. In all events, nature does not act as the sole, true agent.

Denialists, operating under the assumption that their claims are correct and the existence of God is unfounded, have posited the origin of the myth of gods and put forth numerous conjectures regarding its emergence. They have raised the question: What factors led to the institutionalization of the grand myth of gods, and likewise, the proliferation of religions and religious practices among the masses?

They identify the following key factors as the origins of religious beliefs and doctrines:

1. The Ruling Deities
2. The Interests of Exploiters
3. The Ignorance of the Masses
4. The Weakness of People
5. Superficial Consolation
6. The Suppression of the Uprising of the Oppressed
7. Exoneration of the Oppressors

The Ruling Deities:
The first factor in the emergence of belief in God was the numerous agents, rulers, and claimants to prophethood. These individuals, with their declarations of divine authority, were endowed with special positions, powers, and privileges. This naturally created complex, deep, and vigorous motivations that led to the realization and expansion of the very idea of divinity.

The Interests of Exploiters:
Another significant factor was the diverse benefits and immense profits that the ruling authorities and their subordinates gained through the establishment and maintenance of religious beliefs. Such gains made their claims more successful and ensured the continued support of gods for the realization of their interests.

The Ignorance of the Masses:
The ignorance and short-sightedness of the masses were major factors contributing to the propagation of such stories. The simplicity of common people allowed these myths to take root and grow with ease.

The Weakness of People:
A fourth factor to consider is the weakness and powerlessness of the lower classes of society, who were exploited by the tyrants and wealthy elites. This created a belief in the necessity of a powerful, divine protector who could challenge the oppression of the powerful and grant relief from their own suffering.

Superficial Consolation:
The fifth factor is the false sense of comfort that religious beliefs provided to the followers, especially among those who were ignorant. Through the worship of a divine power, they found solace, as they believed that their misfortunes were either justified or would be compensated by divine grace.

The Suppression of the Uprising of the Oppressed:
Another important factor to note is the manipulation of the oppressed by tyrants who used belief in gods to quell uprisings. Belief in a higher power and surrendering one’s will to God provided a psychological tool for suppressing revolutionary feelings among the downtrodden.

Exoneration of the Oppressors:
The belief in a divine force also served to absolve tyrants of their guilt. When one believes that God is responsible for all actions, it becomes easier to absolve the powerful of their wrongdoing and view them merely as instruments of divine will.

Historical Testimony:
Historical evidence clearly supports these claims. Most of the adherents to divine beliefs, particularly those who followed deities, were from weak, oppressed, or simple-minded backgrounds. It is rare to find intellectuals, strong, or capable individuals among them.

The Myth of Godhood:
From the previous discussion, it is evident that the myth of gods does not prove any reality, and no compelling argument exists to substantiate its truth. After the failure to prove the existence of God, one can logically conclude the absence of a divine being. The failure to prove something is essentially equivalent to proving its non-existence. Therefore, the myth of gods can be considered a product of wishful thinking rather than a reflection of reality.

Religions and the Growth of Belief Systems:
Religions, despite their many variations and developmental stages, fundamentally stem from the same core belief in a singular divine force. The differentiation among religions often arises from cultural misunderstandings, ignorance, or deliberate misdirection by oppressors, not from any inherent diversity in the nature of divinity itself.

Religions throughout history have reflected the evolutionary growth of human knowledge and understanding. The multiplicity of religions, while a natural consequence of different historical contexts, does not negate the unified truth of divinity and the divine essence that underpins all spiritual growth.

1) The Leaders of Belief in God

Skeptics regard the primary origin of religion as the “emergence of leaders of belief in God.” In this claim, several terms such as “leaders of belief in God,” “expansive divinity,” “divine agents and causes,” “specific positions and titles,” “high motives,” and “the conditions that lead to the realisation and growth of the original source” are used. All of these terms indicate prejudice, ignorance, and fallacy in the thought and discourse of the skeptics. The distortion of ideas and the extent of prejudice and ignorance towards the nature of faith have led to such statements, which we will address here.

If by the appearance of the “leaders of belief in God,” one refers to the noble prophets, the infallible saints, and other legitimate custodians of religion and faith, this is a sound and appropriate statement. These individuals, under the guidance of the Almighty, embark upon this path and become the true leaders and guides of religion, obtaining titles such as Prophet, Messenger, and Imam. These legitimate positions are bestowed upon such righteous servants by the Divine Lord, and their high motivations aim at the growth, development, happiness, and salvation of people and the faithful.

Prophets, by their nature, provide guidance and ensure the happiness of the community and people. Contrary to what is perceived by the skeptic regarding these titles, what they do not seek from these roles and divine motivations is the pursuit of worldly gain, comfort, exploitation, selfishness, or material success.

If the skeptic refers to the ambition, selfishness, and profiteering of those who falsely claim religious titles and affiliations throughout history, although such issues cannot be denied in the historical record, this has no connection to the essence of religion and is far removed from the pure realm of true religion. It must be acknowledged that many agents of Satan and false claimants of faith, who cloak themselves in religious garb and use various divine appellations, have caused great harm to the human community, even causing conflicts and wars, while hypocrisy and idolatry have been further spread through their actions.

However, these impious and irreligious individuals are in fact the true agents and causes of Satan, disbelief, and idolatry, who disguise themselves with religious appearances to gain public approval and pursue their base desires and wicked goals.

Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between the false claimants of faith and the true divine saints, and to never consider claims or appearances as the sole criteria for the validity of any title or position, striving instead to differentiate truth from the falsehoods so that the tarnish of such accusations can be wiped away from the faces of the true servants of God.

2) The Profiteering of Opportunists

If by “subsequent leaders and agents of the prophets” one refers to the true followers and legitimate successors of divine figures—those who are indeed worthy of the trust and responsibility of such positions—then their success is directed towards the realisation of religion. Throughout their lives, they invest their own existence in this path and do not, in any way, seek material gain or personal worldly desires. Just as the divine figures of religion and the prophets devote themselves to achieving religious goals, their followers similarly sacrifice their existence for the cause of faith, without any interest in personal profit or selfish motives. However, if by agents, the skeptic refers to the false claimants of religion who, through opportunism, deceit, and the use of wealth and power, take positions of influence and use these positions as a means to fulfil their own satanic ambitions, then this is an accurate description. These individuals, though they may claim religious titles, should not be equated with true representatives of faith.

Opportunists who, under the guise of religious devotion, seek material profits must not be confused with the sincere believers who dedicate themselves to the happiness and welfare of the community and humanity. Failure to distinguish between the two arises either from prejudice or ignorance, both of which can lead to confusion between truth and falsehood and result in eternal loss, the rectification of which can only occur through the abandonment of prejudice and ignorance.

The claim that the interests of these agents facilitate further support for the gods in order to achieve their own interests is inadequate and vague. If the agents in question are the virtuous and rightful representatives of faith, then, of course, their support strengthens and solidifies the position of the divine. However, they do not pursue personal gains. If, on the other hand, these agents refer to the false claimants who are in fact exploiting religion for personal gain, then their support, though it may not necessarily harm the religion, will not benefit it either. Their actions often breed public aversion to religion, especially among those who are ignorant and uninformed.

Naturally, wise people can distinguish between false claimants and true believers and will not be misled by such anomalies. Those who genuinely support true faith possess qualities that set them apart from fabricated agents, and as a result, there is no room for doubt or confusion.

3) The Ignorance of the Masses

While it is true that the masses have often been involved in numerous deviations and intellectual and practical missteps, it is also inaccurate to suggest that the ignorance and lack of knowledge of people are the primary reasons for the emergence of the belief in God or the promotion of it.

In general, the argument put forth in the text is flawed, as it attempts to negate or affirm the matter without addressing some of its critical aspects. Here are some points of critique:

The Reason for Affirmation and Denial

It is necessary to examine why people affirm or deny something. Just as one might say, “The reason for people’s affirmation is their ignorance,” one might equally say, “The reason for their denial is their arrogance and ignorance.” Thus, affirmation or denial should not be attributed solely to knowledge or ignorance. Simply affirming or denying something does not automatically make someone knowledgeable or ignorant.

To put it more clearly, ignorance occurs when someone makes an affirmation or denial without evidence or reasoning. If one affirms the belief in the Oneness of God (Tawhid) or any other matter without proper evidence or understanding, or if someone denies the Oneness of God or any other matter without reflection or reason, they have fallen into the trap of ignorance—not simply because they affirm or deny something. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reason for the faith of ordinary people is ignorance, just as it would be inaccurate to claim that the existence of God or the spread of faith is due to the ignorance of the people.

As established earlier, the existence of God and all phenomena are the result of the Divine Will, which requires no external cause or reason for its existence. Faith based on knowledge and understanding alone leads to the eternal salvation and flourishing of individuals and religion.

On the other hand, the reason behind the denial of the Oneness of God and religion throughout history is that religion and the foundation of monotheism have threatened the illegitimate interests of the arrogant and the positions and incorrect behaviours of those who wield power. This has resulted in the promotion of disbelief and hostility towards the truth. Those who deny faith often do so to preserve their established beliefs and the continuation of their corrupt systems of power. Ordinary people, far removed from the manifestations of tyranny, idolatry, and disbelief, naturally and effortlessly gravitate towards faith when the religion is presented to them, and they enthusiastically support and affirm it without ulterior motives or personal gain.

The simplicity and ignorance of the masses, when free from the influence of arrogance and tyranny, enables them to quickly embrace the truth. Meanwhile, arrogant opponents, gripped by public fear, forget their own position and choose to confront and resist the faith.

4) The Weakness of the Masses

Several issues are mentioned in this factor, and although all of them are true, they do not support the incorrect conclusion of the skeptic.

The oppression and aggression of tyrannical and arrogant rulers against the weak and oppressed is a historical reality and an inherent problem in human societies. This issue persists, and it serves as a clear indication of the ugly nature of disbelief, arrogance, and oppression.

It is true that when individuals are weak and oppressed, they seek refuge in a powerful and capable deity. In times of hardship, people naturally turn towards God to seek assistance and deliverance from the oppressive forces. However, it is important to note that none of these circumstances directly cause the creation of the concept of God; rather, they merely remove the internal barriers within God’s servants that hinder their ability to reach Him. The removal of these barriers brings them closer to divine knowledge and proximity, but it is not the cause of God’s existence. God is the ultimate cause of all phenomena, including these occurrences, and as such, the presence of the prophets can guide people to the truth, while the oppression of the wicked can lead them to seek God.

Therefore, while these difficulties may help foster faith in God and reliance upon Him, they are not the primary cause of God’s existence or the belief in Him. The belief in God and the subsequent support for religion are based on evidence and the inherent nature of the Divine, not merely on external circumstances like oppression or suffering.

5) False Reassurance

Skeptics argue that belief in God provides only a false sense of reassurance to the ignorant followers of fabricated deities, who feel comforted by their beliefs and seek to justify their misfortunes through worship. In critique of this, it should be noted that seeking refuge in God or the manifestation of divine guidance is not merely a superficial or comforting act. The support provided to the faithful is real, and it strengthens their resolve, making them more capable of withstanding hardships. The belief in God is not an illusory or comforting idea, but rather a genuine source of strength, empowerment, and resilience in the face of adversity.

The comfort and assurance provided by belief in God is not an illusory or comforting idea, but rather a genuine source of strength, empowerment, and resilience in the face of adversity.

The comfort and assurance provided by belief in God are rooted in a deeper understanding of the Divine’s guidance, a connection that transcends mere psychological reassurance. Thus, far from being an empty or misguided pursuit, belief in God is a vital part of the human experience and a source of genuine solace.

The Author’s Shared-Response Perspective

The author offers a specific response to this inquiry, stating that the servant is a manifestation of the Divine Truth, and the Truth is the effective cause and expression of the servant. In the true agent (the Divine), there is no separation or distinction from the action itself. In exercises of power, the servant’s action is the manifestation of the Divine action, and the Divine action pertains to the servant’s capacity.

In other words, the servant’s action and the Divine Truth are not related as ‘ruler and subject,’ nor as ‘accidental and essential,’ nor as ‘longitudinal and transversal,’ but rather, they are united without separation or mixture, devoid of duality or difference.

Historically, various perspectives have been employed to address this significant matter; none, however, have been successful. To elucidate this complex issue by Divine grace, the author employs a metaphor:

A Grain of Wheat from a Sheaf

If a person owns a sheaf of wheat, and a portion of it is jointly owned by another person—perhaps by gift or grant—such that the entire sheaf belongs to the first person, but a single grain or kilogram or even one grain of wheat belongs to the second, this ownership is shared rather than divided. Should the second person touch any grain of wheat, that grain belongs to them. The original owner cannot object, as the ownership is shared (co-ownership), and both have rights over the sheaf. Each may consider themselves the owner of any particular grain and have the right to manage it without the other’s interference, notwithstanding the proportional difference in ownership.

Similarly, if two individuals co-own a house where one owns a larger share and the other a smaller one, they are both owners throughout the property. The larger shareholder cannot prevent the other from reasonable use. However, if ownership is divided by partition—where one owns only a specific room—then the other may prevent entry to that section.

Thus, shared ownership creates a unity such that the property maintains its oneness despite multiple owners, without ownership or control being longitudinal or transversal, or essential and accidental. Conversely, division does not confer such unity.

In a shared context, although the entire property is not owned by one individual, the ownership by another over a grain or section does not prevent the other’s use of the whole. Even if the shares differ (half and half, more or less), the difference does not affect the principle that each owner can claim ownership over any grain or part as if they owned the entire sheaf or house.

The Divine Truth and Its Actual Manifestations

Regarding the relationship between the Divine action and the servant’s duties, the servant is nothing but the actual manifestation of the Divine Truth, whose action mirrors His essence. All acts and phenomena are facets of Divine knowledge and power, which are placed under the servant’s knowledge, power, will, and purpose, without separation, duality, compulsion, or delegation.

It is thus not the case that the servant is devoid of Divine knowledge and power or that the Divine Truth is distant from the servant’s action. The Divine, in the system of the Best Possible Order (al-nizām al-ahsan), subjects human deeds to knowledge and granted free will and imposes duty, reward, and punishment, without attributing the action entirely to the servant. Every action involves numerous causative and immediate factors; for instance, no one can commit murder with every factor fully emanating from themselves, since their deed depends on many elements that culminate in their direct agency.

Collective Acts and Universal Resurrection

Upon closer examination, no one entirely owns any of their actions; each act depends on multiple causal factors, direct or indirect.

Every act’s occurrence requires numerous factors—divine obligation, creation, human agency, natural and coercive causes—and only the immediate act is normally attributed to the direct agent, while the ultimate cause involves prior determinants enabling agency.

Parents, environment, time, natural causes, society, community, ethnicity, up to the Divine Truth, all play roles in even a minor act.

Individual knowledge, will, character, past traits, soul, psyche, and countless evident and hidden factors contribute essentially to the act.

Therefore, the agent’s action entails the agency of all existential factors and causalities; no single individual is the sole actual agent, although, in the context of occurrence, the act is ascribed to that individual as its apparent cause.

One Act with Countless Agents

Can it be said that one act has countless agents? For example, if a person commits theft and is prosecuted and punished by law after the act’s attribution to them, the judge does not—and indeed cannot—trace all the causal factors underlying the crime. In the worldly courts, the judge treats the direct agent as the criminal, ignoring the multiple causalities.

Only in the Hereafter will all factors and causes be taken into account during the Divine judgment (“Indeed, God judges among the servants”). There, it becomes clear how one act may have innumerable agents; all natural, coercive, divine, and human causes are considered, and human actions are collectively appraised, with each receiving their due share. Thus, agency ranges from the immediate doer to all causative factors, from servant to Divine Truth.

God has placed potentialities and creation within the servant, and all hidden and apparent factors of every act are made manifest for divine judgment, reward, or punishment. Each individual must see their actions as shared (jointly caused), and others must see their own share as well. The Divine’s contribution is also considered in this best possible system.

This judgment is unlike worldly courts, which have limited capacity and are incomplete in accounting for causes. Only God fully knows and judges all actions with precision, as stated: “Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.”

The Religious Perspective and Common Deviations

This topic has long been subject to extremes and errors, especially in Islamic history. Due to ignorance or malicious intent, some have distorted the discussion into fatalism or complete delegation of all affairs to God or the servant. Evil political actors have used these distortions for nefarious ends. These deviations stray far from true faith.

While such errors have damaged the image of religion for ordinary believers, they must not be conflated with the essence of true religion, which firmly maintains the principle of “neither fatalism nor delegation, but a matter between the two.”

True theists and genuine followers have always stood firm against tyranny, injustice, and polytheism. They have never accepted excuses that absolve oppressors or promote passivity. These deviations, arising from ignorance and hostility, are obstacles to guidance and clear religion, and all believers should strive to remove them.

Summary of the Disbelievers’ Argument

Disbelievers argue that gods and the divine are myths unsupported by evidence and should not be taken seriously. They claim the lack of proof of God’s existence equals proof of His non-existence, since the existence of God requires demonstrable evidence.

The author replies that worldly weakness or deprivation of believers cannot prove spiritual weakness or the absence of God, as poverty and hardship have diverse causes unrelated to faith or disbelief.

True religion does not cause people’s weakness or hardship; rather, oppression, polytheism, and hostility have placed humans in such conditions. Religion offers refuge and hope to the oppressed, who in turn resist injustice and idolatry through faith and perseverance, as history demonstrates.

If it is neither proven that God exists nor proven that God does not exist, nor is a tangible concept of the notion of God presented, then practically, each of these scenarios leads to the same outcome: no concrete basis for external realization or knowledge of this term is attained. Likewise, historically, the followers of God have had limited understanding of this matter, with nothing but imagination and fabricated images involved for them.

This is while believers in God have held diverse and numerous disagreements in depicting God: from pure and abstract gods to material ones, from idols to the One God, from the lowliest (date palm) to the most precious (gold), from particular to universal, and in any form or type imaginable.

All these are fanciful thoughts, dreamlike interpretations, and the carnal desires of the followers of these various gods. Although ultimately, every sect has produced numerous arguments and proofs to defend their deity strongly, and devoted great lives and wealth in their path, all these indicate their simplicity and the superficial nature of such matters.

“The Myth of God” and the Reality of Theism

This passage can only be considered as psychological warfare by deniers and their sensational, contentious wordplays, devoid of reason and argument, which shall be addressed and analyzed point by point.

The claimant, while presenting the reality of divine lordship as the “myth of gods,” cannot ignore the fact that this itself clarifies the importance of lordship (rububiyyah). Despite being detached from religion and unfamiliar with lordship, the claimant does not distance themselves from it, reflecting the subconscious of every atheist and denier. As the claimant says: “The story of God is long.” This length reaches the depths of their soul and the soul of every particle and valley, and although they claim one should not be seriously involved or emotionally attached to it, they themselves cannot exist even for a moment without it. This atmosphere, despite all denials and atheism, demonstrates their inherent theism, which involuntarily unsettles atheism within.

Though the denier says the myth of God neither proves anything real nor provides proof, this does not bring them peace. They constantly struggle between denial and the inability to deny, yet reach no conclusion. This internal conflict clearly shows that the truth of anything establishes itself and every phenomenon points back to it; no illusion, no matter how unsettling to the human nature, results in complete denial or negation of God.

Non-Proof and Proof of Non-Existence

The claimant raises two principles here that warrant examination: first, the principle of “non-proof” and second, the “proof of non-existence.”

They state that after the principle of non-proof, the logical implication of “proof of non-existence” follows, or at least, the principle of non-proof practically entails the proof of non-existence. This logical connection requires clarification.

The principle of non-proof means the general principle of “absence of proof” before evidence is presented. If the proof is incomplete or defective, or the subject is unclear, this principle prevents acceptance of a claim without evidence.

Regarding the “proof of non-existence,” this principle is used by deniers and atheists as evidence that the concept of an eternal, absolute existence is irrational or impossible. However, if irrationality of a necessary origin is independently established, the principle of non-proof is unnecessary, since “proof of non-existence” itself is a positive proof of negation; whereas the principle of non-proof, being negative in nature, only prevents baseless claims and does not prove non-existence.

The claimant associates these two principles and, through the principle of non-proof—which prevents claims of God’s existence—logically legitimizes the proof of non-existence. Hence, their “proof” is simply the logical or practical linkage of these two principles. They argue that at least the principle of non-proof in practice entails proof of non-existence, meaning that without proof of God’s existence, the principle of non-proof acts as a barrier to unwarranted claims and practically equates to proof of God’s non-existence, whether or not the logical link is strict. Whether God’s non-existence is proven or His existence is not, the practical consequence remains the same: the individual feels no support beyond themselves and experiences doubt, confusion, and denial, resulting in anxiety and distress, which is neither true faith nor complete denial.

Critique of the Statement: General and Specific Principles

Although the principle of non-proof is general, its scope is limited to situations of doubt. For example, if we doubt the evidence for God’s existence, we can invoke the principle of non-proof; similarly, if we doubt the proof of God’s non-existence, we can also apply it. Thus, both in affirming and denying God, the principle of non-proof applies equally.

The only difference is that a denier may waive the need to prove non-existence and argue that the claimant for God’s existence must provide proof. However, the claimant cannot accept absence of proof as sufficient and must provide positive evidence.

Therefore, the distinction between the denier and the monotheist is that the latter must prove their claim, while the former may avoid producing proof. Nonetheless, the principle of non-proof does not logically entail proof of non-existence, since the latter requires positive proof while the former only prevents baseless claims. The principle of non-proof is common to both groups.

On the Principle of Precaution Rather Than Presumption of Innocence

In jurisprudential discussions, the presumption of innocence or non-proof is applicable where the subject lacks significant importance or urgency. But the matter of divine truth is of utmost importance, requiring caution and precaution, not presumption of innocence.

For example, a person in the dark, fearing danger, does not calm down by merely assuming “no harm.” Rather, caution prevails due to the potential risk. Similarly, matters of monotheism, lordship, faith, reward, punishment, and the afterlife require utmost caution and cannot be resolved by presumption of innocence alone.

Conclusion

It follows that the principle of “proof of non-existence” lacks intellectual support, and the entire universe testifies to the truth. In cases of doubt, the principle of caution should apply rather than presumption of innocence. Even if the principle of non-proof applies, it is overridden by evidence.

The heart and intellect, even if afflicted by doubt, must prioritize caution and not act on ignorance. Denial and affirmation are not symmetrical: with doubt, denial applies presumption of innocence, but affirmation requires caution.

Multiple principles interplay here, each demanding the negation of the other in certain contexts. The denier’s claim of proof of non-existence fails given the evidence for divine truth, and their mental turmoil impedes peaceful denial, leading instead to anxiety and indecision.

On Historical Periods and the Certainty of Faith in God

Throughout historical periods, it is often claimed that disbelief even prevailed among the devout, and that few individuals possessed a tangible and coherent certainty of God.

While this assertion may be justifiable in relation to the higher stages of perfection and actual proximity to the Divine, in the present context, such a claim is false and far from the truth. These attributes are rather characteristic of atheists, antagonists, polytheists, disbelievers, and oppressors. The people of truth have always held a palpable certainty, and their self-sacrifice, endurance, struggle, and martyrdom on the battlefield serve as the most compelling evidence of this fact.

However, if it is argued that believers do not have a clear conceptual understanding of their God, as previously noted, this statement requires careful analysis. If the meaning is that the ultimate reality of the Divine Being cannot be fully expressed in words or mentally represented, then this is true; it is indeed impossible to have a complete conceptual depiction of God. But if the implication is that believers do not truly know God and instead believe in a fanciful or imaginary existence, this is an unfounded assertion. Although believers vary in their levels of understanding of the Divine Lordship, all share a complete belief in the existence of the truth of God. The entire community of the faithful — from the common monotheist to the saints who have attained annihilation and subsistence in God — recognise God in such a manner that no further verbal explanation or description for others is required, and their conduct itself is a clear testament to this reality.

The Diversity of Gods and Religions

Following the previous discussion, a matter that merits attention and detailed analysis is the claim regarding multiple gods and the plurality of religions.

This reality, which cannot be denied by the thoughtful, is that there exist various gods and divergent interpretations thereof. Although all these gods refer to a general concept of deity, the multiplicity of instances and differing interpretations have resulted in a proliferation and fragmentation among religious communities and have alienated many followers of faith from one another. To the extent that numerous believers in the general notion of God are considered sectarian and estranged from religion itself.

Therefore, while this plurality arguably signifies a departure from the truth, it simultaneously conveys a unity. All this diversity may stem from a single unity of essence that ensures the stability of the fundamental concept of religion.

What is contested by critics is the general principle itself — that plurality of instances or errors in application do not undermine the principle. The real issue at hand is the multiplicity of instances, which in fact confirms the general principle and refutes the critic’s assumption. This is because such diversity is indicative of the reality of the Divine Lordship, although many instances may be distant from the actual truth, causing difficulties for their adherents.

The multiplicity and diversity of instances, which points to the unity of the general principle of religion, in fact prompts greater care and caution among those who harbour doubts and perplexities, preventing them from denying the principle or becoming hostile to believers.

The conclusion is that this fragmentation affirms the existence of God rather than undermining belief in God.

Causes of Diversity

It must be borne in mind that much of the diversity and fragmentation regarding religion and the reality of Divine Lordship stems from human ignorance and lack of knowledge, which has provided grounds for deviation from the truth. External obstacles, lateral impediments, the principle of free thought, and differences in human intellect have also contributed to the acceptance of these differences.

In any case, by eliminating ignorance, stabilising sound human reasoning, removing external and lateral barriers, and providing an accurate understanding of intellectual freedom, the conditions for a smaller number of religious groups, religious unity, and the strengthening of true Divine Lordship in human society can be better established. The sanctity of religion can thus be preserved from such diversity and fragmentation, and the mental and emotional space of humanity purified to the extent that the grounds for polytheism, disbelief, and atheism become minimal.

This is because all forms of multiplicity and images of disbelief, polytheism, and atheism are the product of these factors in human society, and through purification of the human mind and heart, and correct knowledge of the Divine Lordship, the proliferation of such phenomena diminishes.

The Divine Origin of Creation

What was required to be stated regarding the active origin of creation and the position of monotheism and religion in relation to atheism and denial has been accompanied by critique and examination.

It has become clear that not only is there no evidence or reason for denying religion and negating monotheism, but all the signs and epistemic grounds presented by phenomena and manifestations of existence point to the eternal Divine identity and attest to the truth of Divine Lordship, which necessitates dedication and submission to that exalted Being.

May it be so that, throughout the course of the human mind, this truth is increasingly recognised, and that the awakened human conscience removes the dense and multifaceted veils of heedlessness and deprivation from itself, thus calming its restless nature under the shade of that tranquil Entity, and attaining eternal felicity under the banner of monotheism and true religion.

Conclusion

The doubts and scepticisms expressed by deniers concerning the active origin of the world and its ultimate purpose have been the most significant points for discussion, and it is hoped that this text has provided a foundation for elucidating Divine truths and for enabling critical examination and responses within this intellectual domain.

From the entirety of this discourse, and from every page of the works authored by Ustad Azal, the evident truth shines forth that humanity must rediscover its true and eternal humanity and, ultimately, sing with love and joy this single couplet of the Divine poem:

“Allah witnesses that there is no god but He,
And the angels and those endowed with knowledge, standing firm in justice.
There is no god but He, the Almighty, the Wise.”