The bottom line is that questions and objections to God's existence are not the product of a "modern" mind. These are the ancient questions that were raised at a time when modern science and the modern mind could not even imagine. To say that science has posed a great challenge to religion may be partially correct, but I think that the real rival of religion is religion itself, that is, the thinkers who have raised questions on the fundamental issues of religion are religious. Books were read and picked up, not a science book! In the Islamic tradition, for example, high-minded people like Ibn Sina, Farabi and Ibn Rushd were born who did not accept the basic premise of the Qur'an that God is the Creator of the universe. He said that the universe is ancient. He borrowed this idea from Aristotle, and Aristotle himself derived this idea from the Greek materialist tradition. Similarly, another basic claim of the Qur'an is that after death there is a day of reckoning, there is life, there is punishment and so on. These basic questions are not the result of scientific influence on any modern mind but have been denied by thinkers like Ibn Sina, Farabi, Ibn Rushd and Iqbal in our century. Wahdat-ul-Wujud was not called atheism by any scientist, but it was the claim of the followers of religious books.
The object of science is the universe, and science does not need a god to explain the universe. Therefore, what is important to keep in mind while researching the science of the universe is the doctrinal mind of a scientist, whose weak minds mistakenly understand science. Science is researching the sources of matter. However, as far as metaphysics is concerned, as soon as science has tried to go beyond its scope, it has fallen on deaf ears, and allegations of science fiction have been leveled at it, thus giving it no reasonable answer. Just look at the problem of creation. So far, all scientific endeavors have stalled until the Big Bang. The same point is now being made by Christian theologians that the whole story of the Big Bang is told in the first thirty-one verses of the book of Genesis. My point is that the concept of God and the universe presented in religious books is so contradictory that it has not been accepted by its followers. Therefore, proving the Qur'an by science is a futile act. The cases of the Qur'an are not proved by the Qur'an itself. That is why Mu'tazilah and others called the Qur'an a man-written book. He had not read Richard Dawkins. Now, to raise the question, "Where did the matter come from?" There is not a single point in the whole Qur'an which is not borrowed from the book of Genesis of the Old Testament. And if you look closely, there is no evidence that God Himself has any claim that He created the universe, and that there is no evidence to support His claim. Religion, therefore, creates a heap of assumptions, myths, stories, which even its adherents do not accept. The difference between science, philosophy, and religion, however, is that science provides empirical evidence, philosophy discovers and constructs logical connections, and religion only makes assumptions, and gives no answer. At one point in the Qur'an, Allah says that these people ask you about the soul. Now the principle was that Allah would offer a comprehensible answer to this question. Obviously, God's argument must be more convincing than that of Aristotle and Hegel, but God could not say a word beyond that, "Say that this spirit comes from your Lord." The answers may be persuasive to those who are mentally handicapped, but those who are rational thinkers are not satisfied with it. My objection to this verse is that if Allah knew the answer to this question, that is, He knows what the soul is, then what is the reason for such reluctance to answer? He should have given such an answer that people would have forgotten Aristotle. Can any reader of the Qur'an claim with certainty that God is a soul or an entity? no way. Because there are problems in this book. In the same way, people asked about the Hour, when it will come. In response, the signs of the Hour that he has described are the result of such vague thinking that man is amazed. So if God has given the answer to the question that He created the universe, then He has also given the answer to this question, how? Otherwise, science has no such claim. I do not think that the issue of denial of religion to science should be part of any serious philosophical debate. The effects of science on society, however, are a separate issue from which religion becomes irrelevant in its unnecessary claims.
