Session 37 Notes
We will continue our discussion about the burden of proof between the materialistic view and the believer’s view. Who actually has this burden to prove their claims. For the believer says that the material or any being in the universe exists and thus must have an Existence Giver, who must not be of the nature of the being itself or anything in the universe. Whereas the materialist says that the things exist by themselves indicating the existence giver to be within the universe. To claim anything to be the source of existence within the universe must thus be proven to show any quality within matter that would give existence to a being.
For example, I am holding a book written by Dr. Necati, I am sure that there must be an author to this book. However, I cannot show that author within the book as the author must exist outside the book, not of the nature of the book and this book tells me that the author must be knowledgeable and conscious which is my human conclusion. Whereas, in this analogy where the book represents the universe, the materialists claim that the author is found within the book. Now, I have the right to ask to show me the author is in the book, that the book exists by itself, the quality of knowledge is in the paper or ink. The tricky language used by materialists confuses those who do not reason well with what they are saying. Their interpretation of how the universe is working is simply describing the event but is taken as an explanation of how the event is happening. No, it does not explain “how the event is happening” at all. They only describe what they see and measure it, weigh it but use a language as if they explained how the event comes into existence. It is like taking a picture of a scenery and claiming that they explained the existence of the scenery. They don’t mention how this scenery exists. Let alone to expect the materialist scientist to dare to question and ask what is the agent behind a thing’s existence because they cannot show that agent.
An example of science that explains the water boiling is “caused” by the heat. They explain heat as the agent that “caused” the boiling of water whereas the heat has no quality to give existence to the boiling of water. They say it is kinetic energy where the motion of molecules is responsible for the boiling of water. Is the power to give existence in the speed of the molecules? Speed is just a measurement of motion where the molecule as well as its motion need to be given existence. Is it in the collision of the molecules? A collision is a geometric event between particles which also needs an explanation on how that event exists. Is it in the energy transfer? Energy transfer is just a description of what changes between states and never explains its existence.
Reading the indicative meaning of every being
Reading the indicative meaning is like reading the traffic light which indicates that I should stop at a red light. When we eat a fruit, we should read its existence, beauty, shape, taste, smell, texture, etc . For example the material components of the apricot fruit does not have the qualities to give existence to itself, its beauty, smell, symmetry, etc. Does matter have any quality to produce sweetness? The apricot indicates that it is given existence by a One who creates, gives shapes, beautifies it with taste and nourishment. All the qualities found in a blind matter are nothing but the indications pointing to the origins of these qualities which must be totally at a categorically different order of existence. Like the knowledge of the author manifested itself in the book is categorically different order of existence than the knowledge I obtain when I read it.
The believer is not making the same type of claim as the materialists. The believer is reading the indicative meaning – observing that the qualities present in physical events cannot find their sufficient source within the material components of those events, and concluding that the source must be transcendent to the universe itself.
The Qur’an mentions that every being is created in pairs. For example, my hands, eyes, ears, teeth are all in pairs. The beings require precise knowledge, power, wisdom and many qualities to come into existence. Is there any quality within the material components of the body to know that the beings need to be in the way they are? Everything is created with precision and exists within the context of the whole universe. Biologists confirm that if there were no spiders in existence, there would be no life on earth as we experience it. There are currently over 53,000 types of spiders classified by biologists with each having their own life cycle, their own design, etc. Did the spiders decide to come into existence and be a part of this universe by themselves? How did the spider learn to produce such a sophisticated, finely crafted web? Which school did they learn it from? Does any kind of material element have any kind of ability to learn and choose accordingly to become perfect? The materialists’ stories are just dumbfounded. The Qur’an gives lots of examples of living beings, miracles of creation, by dedicating sections such as “The Spider”, “The Honeybee”, “The Cow”, “The Ant”, “The Human Being”, “The Women”, “The Moon”, “The Star”, “The Galaxies” etc. This shows how the Qur’an integrates the verbal message with the message manifested in the physical world we observe in creation encouraging the reader to see the indicative meaning in the way they are created..
The believers are expected to read the indicative meaning. This is not fundamentally different from any other act of reading meaning that points beyond its immediate medium.
Because the burden of proof lies on the materialist, they have no right to demand that the believer locate the transcendent source of the universe inside the universe. In fact, that demand misunderstands what the believer is claiming in the first place. The believer is precisely saying the source of existence is not inside the universe. The materialists try to escape this matter by saying they are scientists and you are talking about theology. Demanding physical proof of a transcendent being in the universe is like demanding the author exists physically inside their book to prove they exist. For example, knowledge, consciousness, intellect is not a part of the material brain.
Equally, the materialist has no right to demand that the qualities the believer reads in creation be shown to exist as material properties of the thing itself. The entire point is that these qualities – order, meaning, balance, harmony, information, intentionality – cannot be originating from mindless matter.
The materialist must explain everything from within the universe using concepts that are themselves ontologically ungrounded.– and they fail to do so. The materialist typically dismisses metaphysics as meaningless speculation — preferring to stick to what science can observe. Yet the moment they use words like “existence,” “causation,” or “law” — they are doing metaphysics whether they acknowledge it or not. No one can explain what “nature” is, what natural selection of a quality is, what the source of existence of beauty is within the universe. On the other hand, the believer reads the same physical reality as pointing beyond itself to a transcendent source – and is under no obligation to produce that source as a physical object inside the universe. This is like expecting the architect or a mason of a building to be present inside the building itself. The indicative meaning must point to a transcendent being, having a completely different order of existence than the thing itself, completely different from the created beings in the universe.
“Inherent Structure” vs “Indicative Meaning from a Source”
The human experience of meaning and the reading of the indicative meaning of existence is extremely important for those who are open minded to have a meaningful life. Obviously, reading the meaningful universe is perfectly reasonable and necessary for a conscious human being.
A transcendent source of existence is a serious conclusion which is drawn from a careful interpretation of the reading of the indicative meanings of existence. This is a rationally warranted conclusion that cannot be dismissed by simply asserting that these meanings are not empirically proven. Empirical methodology is simply the wrong tool for evaluating the indicative meaning of existence.
“Inherent structure” is not self explanatory. When the materialist says that matter behaves according to its own inherent structure, they are using “inherent” as if it were a transparent neutral term which can be observable. It is not. The word “inherent” means – built-in quality belonging to it necessarily, not derived from outside. It is like claiming that the piece of marble has in itself inherent qualities to produce the art of sculpture by itself in the course of a very long time period. They have to show the inherent quality of becoming another matter and becoming a sculpture. The sculpture is an art and matter has no quality to be the source of the existence of artistic talent.
For example, we know that life exists in a cell, but where did life come from? What is the source of life? The logical human conclusion is that it must be from a source not of the nature of, not a part of the material element of the cell. Life is a completely different category of existence from all the component elements of the cell and their chemical reactions. Chemical reactions cannot produce emergent properties such as life which has a different order of existence.
In fact, the materialists are describing what already exists; they are not explaining how it exists. It is like describing how a computer works, and then claiming that this explains how it exists. There is no reading the indicative meaning of the computer as to who arranged it to be a working machine. By reading the indicative signs, I can conclude that it must have been made by a conscious, knowledgeable being possessing advanced engineering know-how.
However,
-
- no one has observed inherent property in matter which has a completely different order of existence such as life.
- The emergence argument shows how complexity builds. It does not show why complexity produces a categorically different order of existence. It describes the process — it does not explain the leap.
- DNA carries specified, functional information. Information is not a material property. You cannot weigh it, measure it chemically, or derive it from the properties of the molecules that carry it. Where does this information come from? Chemistry produces molecules — not instructions.
- unintelligent, purposeless, uninformed matter cannot produce life which has intelligence, purpose, questions for the meaning of existence itself, life, and death…
- The claim that structure belongs to matter necessarily and from itself is a substantial metaphysical assertion based on no proof of its existence. It is a blind belief with no proof.
- It raises immediately the question: why does matter have this structure rather than another, or none at all? Why existence produces something that asks why it exists
- “Inherent” smuggles in a kind of self-sufficiency for matter being assumed, but not demonstrated.
The word “inherent” is doing an enormous philosophical work that is rarely examined. Scientists use it as “taken for granted truth” with no evidence. This is a language trick!
Reading the “indicative signs” is the most significant necessity of human consciousness. Human life is based on this. We always ask about whatever we see, hear, and experience: What does it mean? What does it indicate to me? Why do things exist rather than not existing?
The bottom line is this: The materialist observes it, measures it, uses it but does not hear what it says.
********************
We can use these terminologies in different contexts. Just for our attention.
NOTE: One of the AI models says ‘indicative meaning” reminds the readers in English linguistically referring to some other meaning, rather than ontological reading of existence. Instead it suggested these:
the logos of existence
Self-transcending meanings
Ontological pointers
Ontological Speech
The Testimony of Existence
Meanings are inherent in existence itself
indicative signs
indicative pointers
signs within existence
inherent clues
Example sentences: “A transcendent source of existence is a rationally warranted conclusion drawn from the ontological pointers within existence itself.”
“A transcendent source is a conclusion drawn from the logos of existence — from what existence itself communicates about its own ground.”
“A transcendent source is not speculation — it is a conclusion drawn from the testimony of existence itself.”