Is it Possible to Prove or Disprove the Creator?

May the ears of those who say, “Scientifically, the existence or absence of the creator cannot be proven” burn! Let no one be left, who has not heard of the academic proof of the Creator!

Ediz Sözüer

The issues proved by the reviews and inferences in this article, which are both a refutation to those who say ” Scientifically, the existence or absence of the creator cannot be proven”, and reveal that the opposite is true more than ever, and the issues that have been clarified with the given source articles and books and which have been proved by a sound logical structure are listed below:

* What it means to prove, and the fact that even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it might have rational evidence and proof.

* The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of The Existence of A Creator.

* Proof of the existence of the creator in all its details, based on logic and science, with academic analysis and sound logical construct and evidence.

* Science Approach of Creation Model

First of all, the determination of a concept is needed and what we understand from proving and what it means to prove must be revealed. We will examine the subject with concrete examples in two main sections, and then give references and books. Here you go, please:

1. Section: We Need to Clarify Some Concepts. What do We Understand When We Say “Proving”? What Does “Proving” Mean? What Does it Mean if a Claim Has Hard/Conclusive Evidence?

What is the difference between the logical evidence and the concrete reality? First of all, even if something does not have a concrete and visual reality, it could still be possible to prove it with logical evidence.

“Proving” means showing crystal clear the trueness of a claim by giving evidence. Now, in matters related to faith, there is no such evidence that can be held in your hands and seen by your eyes.

Nevertheless, it would be a great injustice to reality and a wrong judgment to say that these matters are not rational and that there are no accurate logical evidence just because this is the case.

The example we will be giving here is a well-known one. However, it is very useful in understanding the essence of the matter and its basic logic. That’s why we think that it should be highlighted. Now imagine this:

A painter is working behind a curtain and we can just see his brush. How can we know that this painter has painted that picture?

Since the Painter is Out of Our Sight, Should We Think the Picture is Painted by the Paint and Brush?

However, if we examine carefully, we see that these paints and the brush do not have the capacity to process and make art.

Hence, this situation makes us look for a painter with an ability to make art and it makes us accept his existence as if we have seen him. Let us ask you this:

According to this example, is it possible to have a visual and material evidence of the existence of the painter? Of course, it is not and It can’t be.  

Because there is someone who is influencing/affecting and he is out of your area of observation and experimentation. But, just because this is the case, accepting that the work is done by objects which are visible but which do not have the capability to do that work is not more scientific than accepting that there is a dexterous painter behind the curtain, who is capable of doing artistic work.

We are asking: Why Would it be Unscientific to say that Computer is the Work of an Engineer?

Isn’t it necessary, due to respect to science and to the human mind, to admit sincerely the real meaning of the scientific data that has been obtained?

It is Said That: “Thinking of a God is not Serving the Scientific Purpose. Even Thinking of That Possibility does not Fit With Being Scientific.”

Then, why is this so?  For what reasons is it against being scientific to think that this computer we have here, is produced “by a computer engineer who we have never seen” or “by a factory whose detailed properties we never know”? Even when there is no scientist who can claim this; and even when         saying that “The parts of that computer came together and created it on their own” is not more in line with being scientific; then thinking that living things which are much more perfect, speaking, smiling,  being sad (to be more precise, machines working with the program of the spirit) or this orderly universe are created by a logical consciousness, that is, by a mindful creator or making an inference in that direction is “against being scientific”?. And claiming that such wonders of design come together and are formed on their own and accepting this claim without any discussion or trying to make others accept in that way… Do these all mean “being scientific”? We are asking:  What kind of logic is this, for Allah’s sake? Could anyone who respects science believe in such a thing?

Beginning Science with a Prejudgment That There is No Creator, How can This be Objectivity? 

Launched as a philosophy of science, “We act as if there is no God, Science is impartial” is so far away from being believable. It claims to be impartial but, there is no impartiality. In all situations and under all conditions, it is treated as if there is no creator. From the very beginning, all assumptions are based on the non-existence of God and everything is narrated accordingly. They say, “A flower does this” What kind of impartiality is this? They say, “Nature does that” And even they say, “Nature creates…”  Don’t we have to ask what kind of neutrality is this? In our opinion, this style of presentation is not real impartiality. Certainly, it is not even science at all.  We think that it is nothing but promoting as science what you fictionalize in your mind.

Indeed, the reason that leads many people to such a mistake, is the feeling of being obliged to reject the idea of a non-material creator who creates and manages this universe and even if it is forceful, to try to find out another answer except this one.  As you know, rejecting from the very beginning is called prejudice. In fact, this is also contrary to scientific thinking technique. These are all shameful attitudes in the name of science: to make the scientific thinking an instrument of this erroneous thinking in order to impose personal preferences and conditioning in the name of scientific thinking; to present this conditioning as a necessity of scientific thinking; and to establish restrictive rules in this area by claiming that assuming the existence of a creator or assuming his existence as probability are all against scientific thinking.

Nobody, who claims that he is doing science, could dare to impose such a rule. He simply cannot. In the face of the probability of a creator, such rule is incredible. How can one call this as “scientific thinking technique”? In fact, this is an unscientific thinking technique. The attitude which is really against scientific thinking is, in the face of the probability of the existence of the creator, behaving as if there is no such probability, basing all principles and rules upon this wrong assumption and narrating and interpreting the working of the universe as if there is no creator, and being disturbed even by the idea of the existence of a creator. Yes, this disturbance is pronounced by some advocates of atheism and they say they don’t see thinking the plausibility of the existence of a creator as consistent with science and scientific thinking. 

But, Why Shouldn’t the Idea of the Existence of a Creator be Consistent With Science?

To the contrary, it can be even more consistent with science. Now let us go on with the same example: which one is more logical and scientific: thinking that the computer before us came into existence on its own or making a research over the probability that it could be created by an engineer and by a factory?

Which one could be considered as more consistent with the scientific thinking technique? Even if we do not have any idea about this computer at the beginning, isn’t the second option more healthy approach in terms of scientific thinking?

Therefore, trying to explain these visible objects with the laws of nature, which are nothing more than the rules of invention and operation of these objects; is a meaningless effort and it is not different from trying to explain the making of a computer, its built-up and working just with its operating system without taking into account its designing engineer and producing factory. It is storytelling, a baseless science-fiction, and nonsense. It is not being scientific.

We have to make a clear determination that explaining the formation of the mater/objects with a creator is more compatible with scientific thought and more logical; a reasonable and acceptable way, an alternative possibility comprising many facilities, almost at the level of certainty, if there is a model worth being accepted as scientific, this model deserves more being accepted as scientific than any other.

The art over the matter/objects is a nonmaterial abstract reality, which is invisible to the eye but can only be known and appreciated by the heart.

Even though we do not have material and visual evidence, the existence of the piece of art seen by our material eye is a strong and definite enough evidence for the existence of the painter. And seeing the existence of the work, that is, the piece of art, as a “scientific evidence” for the trueness of the existence of the painter and using that in evidencing the existence of the painter are acceptable logical evidence whose truth can be seen by the eye of the mind.

As you see, the rational evidence about the existence of a creator, which is formed on the basis of “the transition (making an inference) from the piece of art to the existence of its Artist/Master” have the same characteristics. They are both very strong and their consistency with mind and logic is absolute; they also have the quality of proving at the level of certainty. This is what we say and claim.

The truths of religion are basically theoretical, but in terms of their results, they are conclusive realities, which have logical and theoretical evidence, giving support to each other and with their soundness not giving any possibility to opposite ideas.

In our opinion, the appropriateness of inductive logical inferences related to the existence of a creator with scientific thinking and their inclination to scientific evidencing are beyond any doubt.

2. Section: Now if you can afford to read one more piece of long but enjoyable text, let’s embody the matter from another perspective thoroughly.

The probability of the formation of a universe which could enable us to live was calculated by famous British physician Roger Penrose. The probability for the formation of an environment suitable for living beings, that was found by Penrose, taking into account all physical variables, different permutations of their sequences and all other possible outcomes of Bing Bang was:

10 to the 10th power to 123rd power. It is difficult to even think what this number means. For example, 10 to 3rd power means 1000. For, 10 to 10th power to 3rd power, there are 1000 zeros on the right side of “1”.

But here, we are putting 10123 zeros and there is even no description of or name given to this number in math.  10123 is a bigger number than the total number of atoms in all over the universe, which is 1078.

And the number found by Penrose is much higher than that. I wonder: what did Penrose think about this number that he found? Penrose makes the following comment on this mind-blowing number: “This number, that is the probability of 1 divided by 10 powered by 10 powered by 123, shows us how precise and definite the purpose of the creator is. This is really an extraordinary number. If someone wants to write this number down, this is not possible to write by using natural numbers, because, he has to write so many zeros next to 1 that even if he or she puts a zero on every proton and neutron in the universe, still he will be much behind his purpose”. (Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9)

As it is clearly manifested, there is no possibility for the creation of the universe by coincidence. Karl Stern, a psychiatrist at Montreal University, makes the following evaluation on those who want to ignore this reality: “Thinking that the existing structure of the universe is the result of coincidence is totally an insane thought. I do not use the term insane not in any slang form but just as a technical term. In reality, there are similarities between such a thought and the way of schizophrenic thinking.” (Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, Newyork: The Viking Press, 1983, p.114)

(Schizophrenia is a disorder of thinking where the patient has weird ideas and conclusions which are indeed irrelevant to thinking.)

Insisting on the alternative of evolution and nature, resembles insisting that the Shakespeare’s pieces are written by one billion monkeys, for one billion years, by typing on one billion typewriters.

And, we attempt to make a calculation of probability for that, we can find a number which is very close to zero, but not zero. On the other hand, everybody knows that any one of the works belonging to Shakespeare could never be written by monkeys.

This is the main point of our issue, mathematically there is a possibility, but there are no possibilities in practice, that is to say we can talk about hundred percent certainty of our issue in the theoretical sense, although not in the absolute certainty. The matter is to realize this.

Here, the point is to notice this fact. We reply to those who say “Yes, it is a small probability but still it is possible!” with the following words: “No, it is never possible! This can’t be called a probability”. Yes, it is true, there is a mathematical probability. And this probability is not zero.  But such small possibilities can be considered “zero” in practice. Because, in practice, such a thing will not have the conditions to be formed in real life.

In current conditions, in order to create life by chance, it is necessary to go to another universe. Because the calculations of probability we make in this world exceed the limits of this universe. A protein cannot come into being by chance. The number of particles in this universe and all the seconds passed away during its lifetime are not enough to make these trials in a successful way and to create that protein. As a matter of fact, it is seen that there is a need for a large number of universes in order for life to come into being by chance, without any external intervention with the calculations of possibilities, and the idea of “multiple universes” which is accepted that those experiments are being done in each of them and which is a current popular science subject is a different version of the thought that tries to deny the creation of the universe.

The main purpose of this thesis is to increase the number of possible trials and the time period available to form a universe which hosts living beings, therefore, to increase the probability of formation of the universe through so-called chances and find the opportunity to say the following sentence: “There are multiple universes in infinite numbers. Once this is the case, then, it is possible to have the life initiated in one universe or in the other.” We will present you with what Steven Weinberg, a Nobel winning physicist said in an interview, made by the proponent of atheism Richard Dawkins. Weinberg says: “In order to make human life possible, the numbers of multi-universes should be so high. In fact, it should be 1056 at least.

If you think you have some information about fluctuation, you should say 10120 at least. In fact, this is somewhat confusing.” The words of Weinberger are remarkable.

But, why should it be confusing to make conclusions from this data? In fact, it is not confusing at all. What does it mean to accept the existing of 10120 universes in addition to the existing one instead of accepting the existence of the Creator? This number means this: in the universe, the total number of atoms is 1078. If we put 1 trillion, that is 1012, zeros next to it; this makes up: 1078*1012=1090. Still this is an unbelievably smaller number than 10120. In other words, by accepting this, you have to accept without any evidence the existence of such a big number of universes, which is much bigger than the number you reach when you add 1 trillion zeros over each atom in the universe. If you feel that you have to reject the existence of a creator or if you condition yourself in this direction, then you find yourself blocked in a dead street.

However, there are just two options to explain the stable/constant laws and the delicate balance apparent in nature. Either the existence of the creator, which Richard Dawkins and other atheists are disturbed even thinking of, will be accepted. Or, the existence of 10120 universes, for whose existence there is not any evidence, or even if there is¸ there is confusing evidence. For Allah’s sake! Why making such a decision is difficult?

Is the difficulty only related to the being logical to the undesired option which is the existence of a creator? Is it more appropriate and more suitable with scientific thinking?

Or is this difficulty related with that the probability of the desired option, that is creation based on coincidence, is low, almost impossible, and that even the advocates of this thinking, who advocate it feverishly, have difficulty in obtaining the approval of their logic for the realization of such a probability?

In conclusion, at this point we can easily say that the insistence of the scientists, who are proponents of the atheistic thinking, in believing in this superstition, makes the idea of the existence of a single creator even stronger.

Yes, trying to explain the origin of life with such a fictional approach should not be seen as scientific. Because it is essential to make inferences according to the data and conditions of the apparent universe and to call these inferences as science.

The rational evidences on the existence of a creator, formed on the basis of “devolving from the work to the existence of owner of the work” is consistent with this basis and must be seen in scientific nature. We have elaborated this opinion in our article’s first section.

In the face of the ruthless criticism of the ideas of those who accept a creator and being considered unscientific; we believe that such impossible scenarios and purely fictional approaches, which are compulsory only as a result of insisting on not accepting a creator, will give those who accept a creator the right to see these approaches as unscientific.

Besides, in a universe which is continuously renewed, this possibility is never probable. These calculations of probability are based on fixed forms. But the universe if being renewed continuously, so the color of the work changes much more. Because the impossible possibilities in countless places and numbers will continue to occur consistently and it is clear that the possibility of such a thing must be rejected directly and without calculation.

Source Articles and Books

1- The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of the Existence of a Creator and the Laws Of Nature

(1. International Congress of Creation in the Light of Sciences Presentation)

To place the acceptance of the fact that things were created and operated by a creator on a solid footing, in the presentation, the suitability of the idea of the existence of a creator to scientificness and the incompatibility of atheism with the scientific approach is demonstrated clearly.

You can refer to the title ” The Scientific Compliance of the Thought of The Existence of A Creator ” in the paper.

Article Address:

2- Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Version (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)

(An Imaginary and Mental Journey of Discovery in the Depths of Divine Technology)

We strongly recommend that you finish the entire “Academic Proof of the Creator (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” by watching stunning videos in the visual/interactive book.

Academic Proof of the Creator Book Pages:

Visual/Interactive Version:

Text Version:

3- If you have the opportunity, please check out our four-part series titled “Scientific Approach of Creation Model Articles.”

In this way, you will be informed about what kind of academic articles are published and what works are being done on this subject. When you read this remarkable and striking series of articles, the door to a completely different approach to science will be opened to you. The following is the address of Section 1. In the article, you can find addresses for the other three.

Article Series of “Science Approach of Creation Model”-1

Article Address:

4- The Concept of the Universe Questioning Existence (An Scientific Approach Which Accepts the Existence of a Creator)

Üsküdar University Special Seminar Program

Visual/Interactive Article Address:

This presentation is a turning point in the academic community. In this very special seminar presentation, which will appeal to all those who question existence and especially attract the attention of the academic community, first of all,  we will to share some of our conclusions on the value, for the humanity, of the scientific works and approaches which search for evidence for the acceptance of a creator and which make their conclusions in this regard. Name of this presentation is: “Questioning the Factors That Determine the Value of Scientific Information”

Our seminar aims to provide serious analysis and studies, as a philosophical basis, in terms of introduction to the Scientific World  of such an educational approach which accepts the existence of a Creator, by developing scientific models, and interpretations which can prove to be alternatives to scientific approaches to the existence of the Creator, by developing alternative scientific approaches  that can be accepted.

Some interesting topics:

Why Can the Logic not Find Truth On Its Own? What do We Understand When We Say Proving? What does Proving Mean? The Comprehensible of the Universe is not an Incomprehensible Thing (Criticism of Agnostic Philosophy) Investigation of “The Essence of the Issue is Faith and Evidences is a Supporting Factor”.