Proof - (3.Way)


3. Way: “Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it.  All this formation is just natural. Mother Nature creates everything” etc.

This statement contains many absurdities. We shall mention three of them by way of examples.


First Absurdity:

Being natural means something to be ordinary, as usual, pure and clear but not to be artificial. However, behind these meanings the nature is attributed to creativity. This way of thinking is tried to be imposed on even the faithful people with seemingly innocent sentences. Is there anybody who is not familiar with the following phrases? “The generous hands of mother nature”, “The angry face of mother nature”, “miracles of mother nature”, “Mother eath has blessed this place with its every creation”, “compassionate mother nature” etc. We adopted these phrases without even knowing by deliberately prepared documentaries, movies and various ads.

Ok, what is nature then? Nature is the name given to all living and nonliving beings, plus all of the rules and laws that affect growth, development and change. In this case, if the nature is defined as the whole living and non living beings, then as we attribute the creation job of any creature to the nature, we are again talking about creation by its own (2. way). In other words, everything in nature is created by nature itself. Then all of the evidence and the impossibilities of the 2. way (forming by its own) applies to the 3. way and refutes it at the same time.

If you didn't like the first part of my definition of nature and if you think the nature is the sum of the rules and laws in the universe, let's have a look at them closer. What are the rules and laws? Gravity of earth, buoyancy of water, law of attraction (opposite poles to attract each other),  kepler's laws, mendel's laws, the speed of light, atomic theories etc. We can count hundreds of them. If we look at a broader perspective we can see that all of these universal rules are already attributes of matter and they are the results of the caharacteristics of matter. Can you think of a law without matter? Now, if it is the nature who creates the universe and if the nature is the sum of the laws and rules in the universe then we are dealing with a really weird thing here: The attributes, features or characteristics of matter created the matter. How in the world could feature of something exist without or before that thing itself?  Is it possible to accept such a nonsense?

All this wise and artful work that appears in the universe can not be attributed to blind and deaf forces and unthinking nature. The sun’s manifestations and reflections appear in all small fragments of glass and droplets on the face of the earth. Either we say that there are little suns in every water droplet and we accept actual suns to the number of pieces of glass or we turn our heads up and see the single sun which is giving the light to those  water drops. Accept or not, the little shiny water drops all shout in unison that the existence of a single sun. Just like everything in the universe pointing the single creator. If beings and animate creatures are not attributed directly to the manifestation of the Pre-Eternal Sun’s Names, it becomes necessary to accept that in each being, and especially animate beings, there lies a nature, a force, or quite simply a god that will sustain an infinite power and will, and knowledge and wisdom. So, you are free to claim existence of a god in every single atom in the universe.  Because who refused to accept a single god, would be forced to accept billions of gods.


Second Absurdity:

If beings, which are most well-ordered and well-measured, wise and artistically fashioned, are not ascribed to One Who is infinitely powerful and wise and instead are attributed to Nature, it becomes necessary for there to be present in every bit of soil as many factories and printing-presses as there are in Europe so that each bit of soil can be the means for the growth and formation of innumerable flowers and fruits, of which it is the place of origin and workshop. The seeds of flowers are sown in turn in a bowl of soil, which performs the duty of a flower-pot for them. An ability is apparent in the bowl of soil that will give shapes and forms which differ greatly from one another to all the flowers sown in it. If that ability is not attributed to the All-Glorious and All-Powerful One, such a situation could not occur without there being in the bowlful of soil immaterial, different and natural machines for each flower.

This is because the matter of which seeds, like sperm and eggs for example, consist is the same. That is, they consist of an orderless, formless, paste-like mixture of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen. Together with this, since air, water, heat and light also are each simple, unconscious and flow against everything in floods, the fact that the all-different forms of those flowers emerge from the soil in a most well-ordered and artistic fashion self-evidently and necessarily requires that there are present in the soil in the bowl immaterial, miniature printing-presses and factories to the number of presses and factories in Europe so that they could weave this great number of living fabrics and thousands of various embroidered textiles.

Thus, you can see how far the unbelieving thought of the Naturalists has deviated from the realm of reason. And although brainless pretenders who imagine Nature to be creator claim to be “men of science and reason,” see just how distant from reason and science is their thought, so that they have taken a superstition that is in no way possible, that is impossible, as a way for themselves.

If you ask; If such extraordinary impossibilities and insurmountable difficulties occur when beings are attributed to Nature, how are those difficulties removed when they are attributed to the Single and Eternally Besought One? And how is the difficult impossibility transformed into that easy necessity?

We saw in the first Impossibility that the manifestation of the sun’s reflection displays its radiance and effect through miniature imaginary suns with complete ease and lack of trouble in everything from the minutest inanimate particle to the surface of the vastest ocean. If each particle’s relationship with the sun is severed, it then becomes necessary to accept that the external existence of an actual sun could subsist, with a difficulty at the level of impossibility, in each of those minute particles.

Similarly, if each being is ascribed directly to the Single and Eternally Besought One, everything necessary for each being can be conveyed to it through a connection and manifestation with an ease and facility that is at the level of necessity. If the connection is severed and each being reverts from its position as an official to being without duties, and is left to Nature and its own devices, it then becomes necessary to suppose that, with a hundred thousand difficulties and obstacles that reach the degree of impossibility, blind Nature possesses within it a power and wisdom with which to create and administer the universe so that it might bring into existence the wonderful machine of the being of an animate creature like a fly, which is a tiny index of the universe. This is impossible not just once but thousands of times over.

Let's give another example. If you were to see that a single person had come and had driven all the inhabitants of a town to a place by force and compelled them to work, you would be certain that he had not acted in his own name and through his own power, but that he was a soldier, acting in the name of the government and relying on the power of a king. If a man is connected to a king through being a soldier or an official, by reason of the strength of that connection, he may perform duties far exceeding his own individual strength. He may, on occasion, capture another king in the name of his own king. For he himself does not carry the equipment and sources of strength necessary to carry out the duties and work he performs, nor is he compelled to do so. By reason of the connection, the king’s treasuries, and the army, which is behind him and is his point of support, carry his equipment and sources of strength. That is to say, the duties he performs may be as grand as the business of a king, and as tremendous as the actions of an army. Otherwise we find ourselves in the middle of a nonsense which is ascribing the existence of a military force and the power of a state to a single person.

In exactly same way, we see with the naked eye that colorful and great variety of artistic flowers, beautiful fragrances and flavorful fruits are coming from  colorless, odorless, tasteless, unconscious, blind and deaf soil. How? Remember the example of the previous paragraph. There are two choices in front of us: Either we see the power of the king behind this tremendous work or we will continue to bury our head in the sand. Or should I say soil?


Third Absurdity:

The following two comparisons explain this absurdity:

1. A wild savage entered a palace which had been built in an empty desert, and completed and adorned with all the fruits of civilization. He cast an eye over its interior and saw thousands of well-ordered and artistically fashioned objects. Because of his boorishness and lack of intelligence, he said: “No one from outside had a hand in this, one of the objects from inside must have made this palace together with all of its contents,” and started to investigate. However, whatever he looked at, even his untaught intelligence could not fathom out how it had made those things.

Later, he saw a notebook in which had been written the plan and programme of the palace’s construction, an index of its contents and the rules of its administration. For sure, the notebook too, which was without hand, eye, or implement, like the rest of the objects in the palace, was completely lacking the ability to construct and decorate the palace. But, since he saw that, in comparison with all the other things, the notebook was related to the whole palace by reason of its including all its theoretical laws, he was obliged to say: “There, it is this notebook that has organized, ordered and adorned this palace, and has fashioned all these objects and set them in their places.” He transformed his uncouthness into ludicrous jabber.

 Thus, exactly like this comparison, a boor who subscribed to Naturalist thought, which denies God, entered the palace of the universe, which is infinitely more well-ordered, more perfect and everywhere full of miraculous instances of wisdom than the palace in the comparison. Not thinking that it was the work of art of the Necessarily Existent One, Who is outside the sphere of contingency, and shunning that idea, he saw a collection of the laws of Divine practice and an index of dominical art, which are like a slate for writing and erasing of Divine Determining in the sphere of contingency, and like a constantly changing notebook for the laws of the functioning of Divine power, and are extremely mistakenly and erroneously given the name “Nature’, and he said:

“These things require a cause and nothing else appears to have the relationship with everything like this notebook has. It is true that reason will in no way accept that this unseeing, unconscious and powerless notebook could carry out this creation, which is the work of an absolute dominicality and requires infinite power. But since I do not recognize the Eternal Maker, the most plausible explanation is to say the notebook made it, and makes it, so I shall say that.”

2.  A rustic bumpkin entered the bounds of a splendid palace and saw there the uniform actions of an extremely orderly army carrying out its drill. He observed a battalion, a regiment and a division stand to attention, stand at ease and march, and open fire when commanded as though they were a single private. Since his rude, uncultured mind could not comprehend, so denied, that a commander had been given command by the country’s laws and by royal decree, he imagined that the soldiers were attached to one another with strings. He thought of what wonderful string it must be, and was amazed.

Exactly like this comparison, an atheist who subscribed to materialist thought, which is denial and pure brutishness, entered the universe. He imagined the immaterial laws of the ordering of the universe, and supposed the theoretical laws of the sovereignty of dominicality.  But to set up in place of Divine power those laws, which proceed from the Divine attributes of knowledge and speech and only exist as knowledge, and to attribute creation to them; then to attach the name “Nature’ to them, and to deem force, which is merely a manifestation of dominical power, to be an independent almighty possessor of power, is a thousand times more low-fallen ignorance than the ignorance in the comparison.

In Short: The imaginary and insubstantial thing that Naturalists call Nature, if it has an external reality, can at the very most be work of art; it cannot be the Artist. It is an embroidery, and cannot be the Embroiderer. It is a set of decrees; it cannot be the Issuer of the decrees. It is a body of the laws of creation, and cannot be the Lawgiver. It is but a created screen to the dignity of God, and cannot be the Creator. It is passive and created, and cannot be a Creative Maker. It is a law, not a power, and cannot possess power. It is the recipient, and cannot be the source.




"There are two sorts of unbelief and misguidance. Non-acceptance is one thing and denial is something quite different. Non-acceptance is indifference, a closing of the eyes to something, an ignorant absence of judgement, an abdication, and the absence of acceptance. It may mask many completely impossible things and the mind does not concern itself with them.

As for denial, it is a judgement of the mind and pertains to belief. The mind is compelled to work. It does not only deny belief, but opens up a way that is the opposite of it. It is the acceptance of what is false and invalid, the proof of the reverse of truth. This is not only the denial and refutation of belief, it is its opposite. It is not non-acceptance, but the acceptance of non-being, and can only be accepted through proving non-existence. In accordance with the rule “Non-existence cannot be proved,” it is certainly not easy to prove it."







"It can be realized from this comparison how easy it is to make a positive affirmation and how difficult to make a denial and negation. If, for example, someone should say, "there exists somewhere on this earth a wondrous garden containing canned milk," and someone else should say, "there is not," the affirmer need only point to the place of that garden or show some of its fruits in order to prove his claim. The denier, by contrast, will have to inspect and display the whole world in order to justify his negation."