The backbone of this document comprises of various implicit philosophical, mathematical, and scientific concepts. To explain some of what has been considered throughout, this section will list some relevant philosophical and scientific concepts which may come into play in the consideration of belief and disbelief from an exterior examination, with a brief description of how they are involved in The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality. This section can be taken as a supplement to simply aid and progress the reader’s considerations, and the main idea here is to maintain a grasp of the way our world presents itself to us, both abstractly and concretely.
—
Out of the various things discussed, one thing we should immediately address is The Burden of Proof, or Devil’s Proof when the burden of proof is fallaciously inverted.
Devil’s Proof is the concept of there being an inability to assert that something does not exist or is not real based on a lack of evidence to prove that it is not real. The concept of requiring proof to prove nonexistence or nonbeing is fallacious. This is an important concept to discuss because while Devil’s Proof appears empirically true, it is circular reasoning in the context of contextualized arguments whereby it becomes fallacious. Meaning, when collective evidences and inferences are mounted to suggest the improbability of a certain existence, Devil’s Proof does not substantiate a sound rejection of collective evidence by itself from within its inherent nature of being a logical barrier to the assertion of nonbeing. The collective evidences and inferences mounted against an assertion form a degree of certainty without being absolutely certain, although through continuously amassed theoretical and inferential evidences, we can asymptotically move towards accepting a rejection of the existence which we most certainly believe not to be true. We at least have broad contingencies under which we can supply an understanding of there being nonbeing of a thing or concept at least within those contingencies. This process involves weighing between such concepts as inductive reasoning, Black Swan Theory, the Raven Paradox, and Bayesian Probability. This is difficult for many to understand as it involves more abstract concepts delving into the nature of proof, but we can provide a relatively simple example to illustrate how to properly assert nonbeing: someone does not have any signs or symptoms of infection, and we took a white blood cell count of the person and determined their levels to be normal, not elevated per the diagnostic criteria of this infection we could have claimed they have. Therefore, we can safely assert that they do not have that infection. Proof can certainly be found to assert nonbeing, because all assertions require evidence. The only thing that does not require evidence is making no assertion at all. It is important to note that on religion, atheism, agnosticism, and belief are all assertions. Atheists assert that God does not exist. Agnostics assert that one cannot prove or disprove if God exists. Believers assert that God exists. All claims require evidence, and if there is no evidence, it is a false assertion or nothing should be asserted at all.
In relation to this document, one might incorrectly believe that we rely on Devil’s Proof in maintaining the supposed assertion that “there is no proof to prove the nonexistence of God, therefore God cannot be nonexistent, therefore God is existent.” Markedly, this is simply not our assertion and is never posited in any of our analyses. This association of Devil’s Proof in relation to our Deductive Proof is from within a false understanding of our premises and the way we have approached existence. The Raven Paradox actually reveals our answer in the way that addressing the paradox itself requires a reconsideration of what constitutes evidence and what we have assumed to be true as background knowledge (what was discussed as a priori knowledge). This also rectifies problems that may arise with the Black Swan Theory. Background knowledge and the invalidation of inappropriate assumptions relevant to the evaluated propositions are key. This is exactly what we have done in The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality by annulling false premises within our Ego in order to instead adopt what manifests itself as an inviolable truth through a fair consideration of reality by Pure Reason.
In the context of metaphysics and God, we all the more necessarily move to the conclusion that Devil’s Proof can never be a sound counterargument against the requirement of proof to reasonably, sufficiently assert that God exists or does not exist. This resolution is attained by our condition of being in Free Thought and requiring from The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality — and its entire point — that we separately supply evidence towards the existence or nonexistence of God, and therefore, never rely on a lack of evidence to make an assertion. However, our assertion can still be nonbeing, because evidence towards nonbeing is possible via amassed theoretical and inferential evidences within the proper context. What we uncovered in Part 1: Metaphysics and God as well as the various other sections is that all theoretical and inferential evidence that is about God in the context of true metaphysical consideration suggests that God exists. And through meta-analysis of reason, from which we weighed our amassed inferences on either side and provided a systematic review, we have supplied proof towards the existence of God and altogether fail to mount any proof to the contrary. Now if we want to get very technical with logical assertions, we can additionally state that because existence and nonexistence is binary, one being true and the other being false, as is a condition in Metaphysical Finality, we could then say that from proof of existence of God, we know that propositions on the nonexistence of God are false, and this is logically sound, especially since we are already aware that there are no such metaphysically viable propositions anyways (which we had gone out of our way to not simply accept in order to independently then analyze proof of existence of God, which was found). But, this would be an additional proposition only after the fact that we already know there is only evidence for God and that we find God exists.
What we then realize is that the inverse of what we might have expected concerning Devil’s Proof and the existence and nonexistence of God is true. Meaning, one who does not accept the evidences from reason and what reason entails provided in The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality (as well as the first section, Ethos of Islam) actually becomes the one who relies upon Devil’s Proof to maintain his position of rejection of God, requiring fallacious and circular reasoning from the requirement that what they believe must be proved absolutely unreal and impossible first then. Disbelievers want us to [prove] the [nonexistence of] [God’s nonexistence] — where [God’s nonexistence] is a first incorrectly assumed propositional state of being — to accept that [God exists], instead of understanding the [proof for] [God’s existence].
This is the single greatest logical contradiction which Disbelievers are not aware they commit. Disbelief’s proof is, a bit comically, only Devil’s Proof.
Disbelievers want proof of the nonbeing of their belief in God’s nonbeing, the literal definition of Devil’s Proof, instead of soundly evaluating proof and evidences towards God’s being or nonbeing directly. While believers are often mocked as liable to believe in ridiculous things with no evidence, such as unicorns, the disbelievers are actually the ones that believe in such things because they don’t understand what it means to properly reject the existence of something. Why disbelievers reason this way is exactly because they have nothing in the way to [prove] the [existence of] [God’s nonexistence], which would be logically sound, but impossible for them to substantiate because disbelievers do not have any metaphysically admissible inference or explicit evidence. It is exactly because metaphysical inference and the nature of Being suggests that God exists that Believers have due inference while Disbelievers do not have it and instead discredit it, alongside the further affirming explicit evidence, the Quran and Islam. Thus, Disbelievers incorrectly make God’s nonexistence a presumed reality first, and require everyone else to [prove] the [nonexistence of] [God’s nonexistence], which is a futile effort because it is impossible when the person asserting this proposition does not understand how to use logic and reasoning. This process also explains why the Arabic word kufr’s (disbelief’s) grammatical roots refers to “truth concealing” and that which covers up the truth with dirt due to ingratitude, stubborness, or not wanting to accept the implications of the truth (such as in needing to pray), when the actual sending of the Quran to confirm the Truth as discussed in Part 3: The Proof of Islam is an act of Mercy. This is why disbelievers are often discussed in the context of rejecting self-evident truth, because they do not reject with proof but from their own inclinations, and they do not know how to separate between the two or accept that they are incorrect – instead, focusing on other arguments that make them the center of their rejection, which is exactly what it is. This evaluation was also discussed in how incorrectly hypothesized premises have already created the conclusion in The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality Part 2, with questions on the nature of God’s existence. That is why we eliminated any hypothesized premises and used Pure Reason to evaluate all evidence soundly.
With Pure Reason, we discovered that Belief in God has both metaphysical inference to substantiate it in Part 1 and explicit metaphysical proof, the Quran, as discussed in Part 3, thereby creating whole Metaphysical Finality and Ultimate Truth. We purposefully denied metaphysical inference after establishing it in Part 1 as the sole means to verify that God exists simply to put ourselves on the same plane as disbelievers who were found to have absolutely no metaphysical inference due to the nature of Being which is in favor of Belief. Even so, the reality of there being the revealed Quran, which reestablishes and affirms Pure Reason from within the reality of God existing, establishes without doubt that there is overwhelming evidence and proof towards Islamic Belief, while arguments against Islamic Belief is entirely based on presumptions to contest that fact or circumvent it — in other words — there is the lack of sincerity to evaluate Islam properly or lack of willingness to accept it regardless of what they see.
Reiterating everything with some of the other terms used earlier to discuss Devil’s Proof, and to incorporate logical probability and mathematics, disbelievers incorrectly presume that [God’s nonexistence] has the higher probability of being real without any evidence to support that probability due to having no admissible inference, which is actually required in ordinary probabilistic thought — they have a flaw in the way they have created a premise in a skewed adaptation of Bayesian thinking as opposed to Frequentist thinking which evaluates things purely on the evidence without first asserting a hypotheses as true, or having an assigned probability, the mathematical equivalent of Pure Reason. Either we must adopt a Frequentist approach, or submit to the principle of indifference to assign equal probabilities to all possibilities within Bayesian thinking, which is the simple mathematical and logical requirement for sincerity in considering Belief as a fair and true possibility within Pure Reason. Why this is necessary is because of how the relationship between metaphysical hypotheses is outlined in the question: How does our consciousness relate to the existence or nonexistence of God? whereby we evaluated that we cannot have any deductive conclusion to this based on the premises already forming the conclusion, as God either is or is not the necessary prerequisite.
As a side note, one can also draw parallels from the metaphysical nature of Being and ontology as needing a creation outside of Being to Russell’s paradox in mathematics which is resolved by Zermelo set theory.
Thus, when making all prior knowledge level without biases, everything physical, philosophical, mathematical, materialist, immaterial, and moral leads to the ultimate picture: God exists.
Upon being informed of all of this, disbelievers are those who would simply say that they don’t agree that these evidences or reasoning process towards God as existing count as proof, an attempt to escape the reality that there is nothing that can convince them. Or, they argue against everything presented in the Proof of Islam since they don’t understand what proper reasoning is themselves. Or, they vie for any number of alternative excuses, as was discussed in the first section The Truth. The Quran. Islam.
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way” [17:48].
“And it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe. You can only warn one who follows the message and fears the Most Merciful unseen. So give him good tidings of forgiveness and noble reward. Indeed, it is We who bring the dead to life and record what they have put forth and what they left behind, and all things We have enumerated in a clear register” [36:10-12].
“And We have certainly diversified [the contents] in this Qur’an that mankind may be reminded, but it does not increase the disbelievers except in aversion” [17:41].
“But they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, and the disbelievers say, ‘This is an amazing thing. When we have died and have become dust, [we will return to life]? That is a distant return.'” [50:2-3].
But.
“When the Occurrence occurs, There is, at its occurrence, no denial” [56:1-2].
“And We have certainly diversified for the people in this Qur’an from every [kind] of example, but most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief. And they say, ‘We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring. Or [until] you have a garden of palm trees and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance] Or you make the heaven fall upon us in fragments as you have claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us] Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.’ Say, ‘Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?’ And what prevented the people from believing when guidance came to them except that they said, ‘Has Allah sent a human messenger?‘ Say, ‘If there were upon the earth angels walking securely, We would have sent down to them from the heaven an angel [as a] messenger.’ Say, ‘Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you. Indeed he is ever, concerning His servants, Acquainted and Seeing.’ And whoever Allah guides – he is [rightly] guided; and whoever He sends astray – you will never find for them protectors besides Him, and We will gather them on the Day of Resurrection [fallen] on their faces – blind, dumb and deaf. Their refuge is Hell; every time it subsides We increase them in blazing fire. That is their recompense because they disbelieved in Our verses and said, ‘When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected [in] a new creation?’ Do they not see that Allah, who created the heavens and earth, is [the one] Able to create the likes of them? And He appointed for them a term, about which there is no doubt. But the wrongdoers refuse [anything] except disbelief. ” [17:89-100]
What we can next discuss is what was briefly referred to in The Truth. The Quran. Islam. Occam’s Razor means that (a) we look at what is supplied by evidence, and (b) we avoid asserting details not suggested by the supplied evidence. This is not to be confused with abductive inference which for the purposes of distinction, we will define as asserting an unverifiable conclusion, or that which violates (b). In True Finality, we explicitly avoid abduction. Our conclusion is soundly verified due to the impossibility, or total negation, of all other possible conclusions on the state of sound being, as well as there being evidence supplied towards the singular conclusion itself — both points in congruent affirmation.
But to reiterate, Occam’s Razor is the concept of negating unreasonably founded ideas, and it reveals how logic fundamentally minimizes skepticism to make conclusions within finite possibilities instead of asserting illogical, infinite possibilities. It is not sufficient by itself as a proof or a reason to make valid the conclusion of an argument such as for the existence or nonexistence of God, but it comes into play by highlighting to what degree skepticism is from reason as opposed to from imaginarily inserted elements.
This is especially important when assessing competing explanations, and in our case, the scenarios if God exists or does not exist. But as an example to demonstrate the principle of Occam’s Razor, if we go to the doctor, our doctor does not listen to our complaint and then treat us for every possible malaise that the textbook says our symptoms might be from. Many presented symptoms can originate from a variety of disease states with different pathophysiologies that eventually progress and present to that symptom. Treating glaucoma is very different from treating diabetic retinopathy even though both involve a loss of vision. Their pathophysiologies are different and require different approaches. The only way to know what to do appropriately is for the doctor to conduct tests and have labs done to single out the specific disease state to treat, whereby the symptoms and underlying condition can be treated appropriately and as best as possible to address the symptoms. Doing less than that like providing glasses because one may think glasses = better vision is simply wrong; glasses neither help due to the nature of the vision loss nor stop the disease progression and worsening blindness. At the same time, doing more than addressing the disease and treating every possible issue does more harm than good. Getting surgery in your eye for glaucoma would be horrific if the actual issue was diabetic retinopathy, while not being treated appropriately can still lead to total loss of vision.
A balance must be struck between assessing what is and is not reality, and evidence is the key to making those distinctions. Without evidence, we fail to address what needs to be addressed and our condition worsens, or we scramble for a solution and only harm ourselves in the process. Analyzing God and making any conclusion upon reality is just the same. Does the evidence supply reason to believe or disbelieve? This is what was analyzed in The Deductive Proof of Islam by Metaphysical Finality in a systematic review and we have simply found that upon analysis of available evidence and analyzing reason, reason supplies more than sufficient evidence to believe.
In general, one should understand how disbelief has no argument against belief in any way whatsoever, in reason, morality, science, or philosophy.
To argue for disbelief from reason is to be defeated by having no proof to substantiate one’s claim that God does not exist, or to be defeated by not fairly evaluating God based on the Quran and Islam, whereby one is provided sufficient evidence to fully believe if he were sincere (Part 3: The Proof of Islam).
To argue for disbelief from morality is to be defeated already by first supposing that there is no true morality, not only making this a contradictorily bankrupt approach, but a hypocritical one in presuming heinous crimes are equal to good deeds in the moral cosmology of the universe without God. Those that argue for disbelief from morality tend to have a bias against God, or a misunderstanding about God, such as in saying that if God were All Merciful, He would never allow suffering to exist. They fail to see how God’s law through the Quran and Islam would indeed make the world a perfectly just place if all people were to sincerely believe and follow what has been sent. Their argument is in fact against free will, and even within free will, against the actions of those very people who themselves do not follow God’s ordained way. They do not see that they are either blaming God for humans having free will or are blaming God despite God actively discouraging immorality through the commandments in the religion. Their arguments is because of their own people being allowed to exist. Meanwhile, God in the hereafter will grant more ease and reward as compensation to those who have suffered and punishment to those who did evil. This retribution and balancing is such that the person who experienced the worst suffering will entirely dismiss it once he has reached Paradise because of how vast the difference is between worldly suffering and the joy of the hereafter. In comparison, the one who was evil and enjoyed the greatest luxuries to be had in this world will find it to have been nothing, especially compared to the ultimate punishment.
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said that one amongst the denizens of Hell who had led a life of ease and plenty amongst the people of the world would be made to be dipped into the Fire only once on the Day of Resurrection and then it would be said to him: O, son of Adam, did you find any comfort, did you happen to get any material blessing? He would say: By Allah, no, my Lord. And then that person from amongst the persons of the world be brought who had led the most miserable life (in the world) from amongst the inmates of Paradise. And he would be made to be dipped once in Paradise and it would be said to him. O, son of Adam, did you face, any hardship? Or had any distress fallen to your lot? And he would say: By Allah, no, O my Lord, never did I face any hardship or experience any distress.
Muslim Lad 