Author: askttravellers@gmail.com

“Seeing God.” It’s one of the most human desires we carry: to see, to know, to be certain. We long to look beyond the veil of this world and glimpse the One who created it. The question quietly rises within us: Can I see You? This longing isn’t rebellion but it’s relationship. It’s the heart reaching toward the Infinite, seeing God.

Blog Summary:

1. The Story of Hazrat Musa when he wanted to see God
2. The Closest People to see God failed to see Him physically
3. Direct Observation and Inferential Observation
4. Observable and Non Observable
5. If God exists, why can’t we see Him?
6. What Is Epistemic Limitation?
7. Gorakh Ganga: When Poetry Explains Philosophy
8. Atheism vs Theism: God’s presence surrounds all things, but not physically
9. Allegory of the Cave by Plato
10. The Illusion of Complete Knowledge
11. Having the Right Eyes
    

---

How we should see God? (Urdu/Hindi Video – Part 1 and 2)

When Musa Asked to See God

Imagine the scene.

Moses is on the mountain. It is quiet. It is powerful. It is a moment of closeness between a servant and his Lord. Musa speaks. He asks Allah if he can see Him.

Now think about this. Musa is not a random person. He is a prophet. He speaks to God. There is love. There is friendship. There is closeness. So you can almost imagine the conversation.

Musa asks with longing. Allah responds with wisdom.

Allah tells him that he cannot see Him directly. Then Allah says, look at the mountain. If the mountain stays in its place, then you will see Me.

“And when Musa came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: ‘My Lord, show Yourself to me that I may look at You.’
[Allah] said: ‘You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it remains in place, then you will see Me.’
But when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He made it crumble to dust, and Musa fell unconscious…”¹

The mountain shatters. And Musa falls unconscious.The message is simple. If a mountain cannot handle even a glimpse, how can human eyes handle the full reality? If a prophet like Musa could not see God with his naked eyes, then what about us?

The Closest People to see God

In every religion, there are people at the top.

In Islam, prophets.
In Christianity, people speak of the Father and divine revelation.
In Judaism, great prophets.
In Buddhism, masters.

These are the highest of the high. The closest to the Divine. The most pure. The most prepared. And even they were not seeing God like we see a tree or a chair. So when someone says, If I cannot see God, I will not believe, that is a weak argument.

It is like saying, I cannot see my thoughts, so I must not have any. Try telling that to your exam results.

Direct Observation and Inferential Observation

Now let us make something clear. There are two ways of knowing things.

The first is direct observation. You see it. You touch it. You hear it. That is simple.

The second is inferential observation. You do not see the thing itself. You see its effects. Then you use your mind.

This is how most of science works. You do not see gravity. You see an apple fall. You do not see air. You see trees moving. You do not see electricity. You see the light turn on. You do not see your WiFi signal. But when the internet stops working, suddenly you believe in it very strongly.

Inferential observation means you look at the signs and you conclude there is a cause behind them.

Observable and Non Observable

Some things are observable.
Some things are non observable.

Non observable does not mean non existent.

We cannot see atoms with our eyes.
We cannot see viruses without special tools.
We cannot see black holes directly.

Yet we accept them. Why?

Because we see their effects.

Scientists did not see viruses at first. They saw disease spreading. They used logic. Something smaller than bacteria must exist. Later, tools improved and they confirmed it.

First came inference. Then came sight.

So How Do We See God

Now we return to the main question.

If we cannot see God with our five senses, then how do we see Him?

We see Him through signs.

Through order in the universe.
Through the fine balance of nature.
Through the design in life.
Through the laws that hold everything together.

This is not direct observation. This is inferential observation.

You look at the effect. You think about the cause.

When you see a building, you do not see the builder standing there. But you know someone built it.

When you see a painting, you do not say the colors threw themselves on the canvas out of boredom.

When you see a universe full of laws, balance, math, and beauty, it is not strange to ask if there is a Designer.

If God exists, why can’t we see Him?

At some point, almost everyone asks: “If God exists… why can’t we see Him?”

It’s a fair question. We see mountains. We see oceans. We see each other. So why not God?

Sometimes people ask this aggressively. Sometimes quietly. But deep down, it’s a human question, not just an atheist question.

And to answer it properly, we need to understand something called epistemic limitation.

Don’t worry. It sounds complicated. It’s not.

What Is Epistemic Limitation?

“Epistemic” simply relates to knowledge. So epistemic limitation means: There are limits to what human beings can know or perceive.

That’s it. You already accept this in daily life. You can’t see:

• Wi-Fi signals
• Gravity
• Dark matter
• Your own thoughts

But you don’t say they don’t exist. You accept that your senses are limited. If we can’t see Wi-Fi but still believe in it (because your YouTube works 😄), then maybe visibility is not the ultimate test of existence.

Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Kind of Question

When someone says, “Why can’t we see God?” they assume something important:

That God would be a physical object inside the universe. But classical theism says God is:

• Not material
• Not made of atoms
• Not inside space and time

So asking to see God might be like asking: “What does justice taste like?” It’s the wrong category.

If God is the creator of space, He wouldn’t be a visible object inside space.That would be like a video game character trying to find the programmer inside the screen.

Divine Hiddenness: A Serious Objection

Now let’s be fair. Philosophers talk about something called the “problem of divine hiddenness.”

It goes like this: “If God wants a relationship with us, why isn’t His existence obvious?”

That’s not a stupid question. But here’s where epistemic limitation becomes important. Just because we don’t see a reason for hiddenness doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

A child might not understand why a parent allows struggle. That doesn’t mean the parent has no reason. It means the child’s understanding is limited.

Gorakh Ganga: When Poetry Explains Philosophy

There’s a famous Qawwali, Gorakh Ganga, performed beautifully by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

The word “Gorakh” refers to something mysterious, puzzling, beyond easy understanding.

“Ganga” refers to a river, deep, flowing, vast.

Together, it points toward something like: A mysterious, unfathomable depth. That’s not a dictionary definition of epistemic limitation.

But spiritually? It captures it perfectly. Reality may be like a vast river. We are standing on the shore.

We see part of it.
We don’t see its source.
We don’t see where it ends.

That doesn’t mean the river isn’t real. It means we are limited. And sometimes music expresses this better than philosophy ever could.

The Joke We Need 😄

If everything that exists must be visible, then:

• Air doesn’t exist.
• Wi-Fi doesn’t exist.
• Your intelligence (depending on the day) might not exist either.

Clearly, visibility is not the standard of reality.

Maybe Hiddenness Has a Purpose

Think about this carefully.

If God were overwhelmingly visible, undeniable, constantly obvious, would belief be free? Or would it be forced?

If every time you lied, the sky lit up with divine lightning and a loud voice said, “I SAW THAT,” moral choice would be… easier 😅

But would it be meaningful? Some philosophers argue that a certain “epistemic distance” allows:

• Freedom
• Sincerity
• Genuine seeking

Hiddenness may not be absence. It may be space.

Atheism vs Theism: God’s presence surrounds all things, but not physically.

Think about a ball. It has a size, shape, and weight. You can hold it, measure it, or even change it. That’s what we mean when we say everything in the world has limits, it can be described, shaped, or altered. Even stars, time, and space are like that. They exist, they change, and they have boundaries.

Now think about God. In discussions about Atheism vs Theism, understanding God’s infinite nature is essential. God has no limits, He doesn’t grow or shrink, change or evolve, and He has no parts or pieces. He doesn’t depend on anything because He simply exists infinitely. Imagine presence like light filling a room. The light touches everything, but it isn’t a physical object you can hold. Similarly, God’s presence surrounds all things, but not physically. It is complete, infinite, and perfect, beyond any human measure.

Allegory of the Cave by Plato

Imagine you were born in a small room.

No windows. No doors.
Just one wall in front of you, covered with moving shadows. That’s all you have ever known.

You grow up there.
You laugh there.
You argue there.
You build your beliefs there.

And if someone whispers, “There’s a whole world outside,”
you smile and say, “This is the world.”

That’s the heart of the Allegory of the Cave by Plato.

Not to mock us. But to humble us. Because we are like that. We see a little, and conclude a lot.

One bad person, and we say humanity is bad. One heartbreak, and we say love is fake. One tragedy, and we say there is no higher wisdom.

But what if we are only seeing shadows? What if reality is wider than our angle? We live inside time. Inside space. Inside fragile bodies. And then we say,
“If I can’t see God, how can He exist?”

But a fish doesn’t see the sky, and the sky still exists. A child in the womb doesn’t see the world, and the world still exists. Maybe the problem is not absence. Maybe it is limitation.

We are small, not in worth, but in perception. The cave is not calling us foolish. It is reminding us we are finite. And maybe God is not another object inside our frame. Maybe He is the reason there is a frame at all. Not a shadow on the wall, but the light that makes seeing possible.

So be gentle with your conclusions. Maybe what you call “everything” is only your wall. And maybe faith is not blindness, it is the courage to say,

“I might not be seeing the whole picture.” That’s human.

The Illusion of Complete Knowledge

Imagine a person who has lived his entire life inside that room of shadows. For him, shadows are not symbols, they are reality. He can describe them, classify them, even build theories about them. He might say, “Living beings look flat and dark. This is how life appears.”

From his perspective, he possesses knowledge. He can explain what he sees. He feels informed and certain. But the question is: informed about what? About reality, or about reflections of reality?

Inside the cave, his knowledge works. It helps him survive. It helps him interpret movement and sound. In that limited environment, it is functional. But the moment he steps outside, everything changes. He realizes that what he called “complete knowledge” was only a narrow slice of truth shaped by his limited view.

When Limited Knowledge Becomes Dangerous

Knowledge is not just about having explanations. It is about whether those explanations connect to the whole of reality. The man in the cave is not foolish, he is limited. His certainty is sincere, but it is confined.

The real danger begins when limited knowledge is treated as absolute knowledge. Imagine if everyone in that society is taught that shadows are the highest form of reality. Children grow up believing humans are flat shapes. Anyone who questions this idea is mocked or rejected. Over time, the society becomes intellectually trapped, not because it lacks intelligence, but because it lacks perspective.

Partial truth, when declared final truth, can misguide an entire culture.

The Humble Conclusion

The man in the cave does have knowledge, but it is contextual knowledge. It serves him within his boundaries. The problem arises when he assumes there is nothing beyond those boundaries.

The deeper lesson is not that humans are ignorant. It is that humans are limited. And wisdom begins the moment we admit that what we call “everything” might simply be the wall in front of us.

Having the Right Eyes

When people say they want to see God, they usually mean with physical eyes.

But maybe that is the wrong tool.

You do not use your ears to see color.
You do not use your nose to solve math.
And maybe you do not use your physical eyes to see the Creator of space and time.

You use reflection.
You use reason.
You use the heart.

Seeing God is not about eyeballs. It is about insight.

Even Musa learned that the human body cannot carry that sight in this world.

So the question is not, Why can I not see God

The real question is, Am I looking in the right way

Because sometimes the greatest realities are not the ones you stare at.

They are the ones you understand.

---

1. Chapter 7 (Surah Al-A‘raf), Verse 143 ↩︎

Whenever I try to study religion, I feel the first and most important step is not to study rituals, rules, or scriptures, but to study the creator Himself. Before asking what a religion teaches, it makes more sense to ask who the religion is talking about. And the moment I start thinking about the idea of God, a being who is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and the sustainer of everything, one unavoidable question comes to my mind: if such a God exists, then why is there so much pain, suffering, and injustice in the world?

Blog Summary:

1. Eternity vs Conscious Eternity.
2. Why Is Believing in God Necessary?
3. Contingent vs Necessary Being
4. Are Our Emotions Real, or Just Atoms in Motion?
5. We have three options
6. Why do we need God?
7. Without God, our existence itself becomes irrational
8. If God exists, why can’t we see Him?
9. Atheism vs Theism: The Omnipotence Paradox
10. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him
11. Argument of Christopher Hitchens
12. Cognitive Defect

This question is not meant to attack faith, nor is it meant to defend atheism. It is simply an honest human doubt. If God is truly present or not?

In this blog, I am not trying to preach or convert anyone. My goal is to explore this question as neutrally and honestly as possible.

---

Eternity vs Conscious Eternity

Let me say this in a simple way.

The question “Why do we need God?” is not really a debate question. It’s a human question. It’s the kind of question that comes to you at 2 a.m. when everything is quiet and you’re staring at the ceiling.

Why am I here?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Does any of this mean anything?

Now when people talk about atheism and theism, they often act like they’re on opposite planets. But honestly? The difference is smaller than people think.

Both sides believe something has no beginning.

Atheists might say the universe is eternal.
Theists say God is eternal.

So the real issue isn’t “something without a beginning.” The real issue is: what do you believe that something is?

Because think about it. If you say the universe just exists by itself, without a cause, without intention, without awareness, then you’re still accepting something that didn’t begin. You are making universe the supreme. You’ve just given that role to matter instead of God.

So the argument isn’t “beginning vs no beginning.” It’s mindless eternity vs conscious eternity. And that changes everything.

Why Is Believing in God Necessary?

Now let’s slow it down.

Look around you.

You didn’t choose to exist. I didn’t choose to exist. We depend on oxygen, food, gravity, parents, time, biology, everything about us is dependent. We are fragile. We could have not existed.

That’s what philosophers call “contingent.”

Contingent vs Necessary Being

If everything is like that, dependent, then at some point you have to ask:

Dependent on what?

If everything depends on something else, and that thing depends on something else, and that thing depends on something else… at some point you either have an endless chain (which never really explains anything), or you reach something that just is.

Something that doesn’t depend on anything. Something that cannot not exist. Call it a necessary being. Call it ultimate reality. Call it God. But logically, something like that must exist, otherwise nothing would.

And here’s the part people don’t talk about enough:

Even atheists, when they say “the universe just is,” are giving the universe the qualities of a necessary being.

So the disagreement isn’t about logic as much as people think.

It’s about identity.

Is the ultimate reality conscious?
Or unconscious?

Is it aware?
Or blind?

Are Our Emotions Real, or Just Atoms in Motion?

Now let me be human for a second.

If the universe is just matter and energy moving randomly, then your love, your pain, your hope, your fear, all of it is just chemical reactions pretending to matter.

That’s a heavy thing to accept.

But if there is a Creator, not just a force, but a conscious source, then your existence isn’t random. Your longing for meaning isn’t stupid. Your sense of right and wrong isn’t an evolutionary glitch.

It points somewhere. And honestly? Every human being lives as if meaning is real. Even the person who says “nothing matters” still gets upset when treated unfairly. That’s not chemistry talking. That’s something deeper.

We have three options

Let me put it simply. If something exists, and clearly it does, then either:

1. It came from absolute nothing (which makes no sense, because nothing has no power),
2. It came from an infinite chain of dependent things (which never actually explains the origin),
3. Or it came from something that doesn’t need a cause.

That third option is what theists call God.

Not an old man in the sky.
Not a cartoon figure.
But a necessary, uncaused, independent reality.

Why do we need God?

Now here’s the real heart of it. We need God because without a necessary foundation, existence itself becomes irrational.

And without a conscious foundation, meaning becomes an illusion. You can live without believing in God. Many people do. But the question isn’t survival. The question is coherence.

Does your worldview explain why there is something rather than nothing?
Does it explain why truth matters?
Why logic works?
Why morality feels binding?

Without God, our existence itself becomes irrational

Saying “the universe created itself from nothing” is like saying,
“My bank account created money by believing in itself.”

If that worked, we’d all be rich. The debate isn’t about winning. It’s about being honest with the deepest question of all: Why is there anything at all?

And once you sit with that question long enough… the idea of a necessary, eternal, conscious source doesn’t sound childish.

It sounds unavoidable.

If God exists, why can’t we see Him?

At some point, almost everyone asks: “If God exists… why can’t we see Him?”

It’s a fair question. We see mountains. We see oceans. We see each other. So why not God?

Sometimes people ask this aggressively. Sometimes quietly. But deep down, it’s a human question, not just an atheist question.

And to answer it properly, we need to understand something called epistemic limitation.

Don’t worry. It sounds complicated. It’s not.

What Is Epistemic Limitation?

“Epistemic” simply relates to knowledge. So epistemic limitation means: There are limits to what human beings can know or perceive.

That’s it. You already accept this in daily life. You can’t see:

• Wi-Fi signals
• Gravity
• Dark matter
• Your own thoughts

But you don’t say they don’t exist. You accept that your senses are limited. If we can’t see Wi-Fi but still believe in it (because your YouTube works 😄), then maybe visibility is not the ultimate test of existence.

Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Kind of Question

When someone says, “Why can’t we see God?” they assume something important:

That God would be a physical object inside the universe. But classical theism says God is:

• Not material
• Not made of atoms
• Not inside space and time

So asking to see God might be like asking: “What does justice taste like?” It’s the wrong category.

If God is the creator of space, He wouldn’t be a visible object inside space.That would be like a video game character trying to find the programmer inside the screen.

Divine Hiddenness: A Serious Objection

Now let’s be fair. Philosophers talk about something called the “problem of divine hiddenness.”

It goes like this: “If God wants a relationship with us, why isn’t His existence obvious?”

That’s not a stupid question. But here’s where epistemic limitation becomes important. Just because we don’t see a reason for hiddenness doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

A child might not understand why a parent allows struggle. That doesn’t mean the parent has no reason. It means the child’s understanding is limited.

Gorakh Ganga: When Poetry Explains Philosophy

There’s a famous Qawwali, Gorakh Ganga, performed beautifully by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

The word “Gorakh” refers to something mysterious, puzzling, beyond easy understanding.

“Ganga” refers to a river, deep, flowing, vast.

Together, it points toward something like: A mysterious, unfathomable depth. That’s not a dictionary definition of epistemic limitation.

But spiritually? It captures it perfectly. Reality may be like a vast river. We are standing on the shore.

We see part of it.
We don’t see its source.
We don’t see where it ends.

That doesn’t mean the river isn’t real. It means we are limited. And sometimes music expresses this better than philosophy ever could.

The Joke We Need 😄

If everything that exists must be visible, then:

• Air doesn’t exist.
• Wi-Fi doesn’t exist.
• Your intelligence (depending on the day) might not exist either.

Clearly, visibility is not the standard of reality.

Maybe Hiddenness Has a Purpose

Think about this carefully.

If God were overwhelmingly visible, undeniable, constantly obvious, would belief be free? Or would it be forced?

If every time you lied, the sky lit up with divine lightning and a loud voice said, “I SAW THAT,” moral choice would be… easier 😅

But would it be meaningful? Some philosophers argue that a certain “epistemic distance” allows:

• Freedom
• Sincerity
• Genuine seeking

Hiddenness may not be absence. It may be space.

Atheism vs Theism: God’s presence surrounds all things, but not physically.

Think about a ball. It has a size, shape, and weight. You can hold it, measure it, or even change it. That’s what we mean when we say everything in the world has limits, it can be described, shaped, or altered. Even stars, time, and space are like that. They exist, they change, and they have boundaries.

Now think about God. In discussions about Atheism vs Theism, understanding God’s infinite nature is essential. God has no limits, He doesn’t grow or shrink, change or evolve, and He has no parts or pieces. He doesn’t depend on anything because He simply exists infinitely. Imagine presence like light filling a room. The light touches everything, but it isn’t a physical object you can hold. Similarly, God’s presence surrounds all things, but not physically. It is complete, infinite, and perfect, beyond any human measure.

Maybe we are visualizing God wrong

Here you go: When Love Seeks a Glimpse of the Infinite – Seeing God

Atheism vs Theism: The Omnipotence Paradox

A classic question in the debate of Atheism vs Theism is: Can God create something stronger than Himself? Can we create a rock that even He can’t lift? At first, it seems confusing. But logically, it’s actually an impossible question.

1. When we call God “omnipotent,” we mean He is all-powerful, literally, nothing can be more powerful than Him. Psychologically and logically, omnipotence means absolute, unlimited power. So asking, “Can God create something stronger than Himself?” is actually an illogical question. If He could, it would contradict the very definition of omnipotence, because nothing can surpass an all-powerful being. In other words, the question breaks the rules of logic before it even begins. So, can God create a rock that even He can’t lift? It is a logical impossibility.
2. Let’s consider this hypothetically. Suppose God could create a being even more powerful than Himself. That being, however, would still be a creation, not a creator. As a created entity, it would have a beginning and would be limited in ways that God is not. Anything with a beginning cannot be absolute, eternal, all-knowing, or ever-present, qualities that define God. Therefore, this being could never be called God.
3. Moreover, God’s power is not fixed. Even if such a being existed, God could increase His own power to remain supreme, always surpassing any creation. In other words, the idea of something stronger than God is logically impossible, because God, by definition, is already infinitely powerful.

So, the Omnipotence Paradox is not really a problem with God’s power. Instead, it shows how our human minds sometimes misunderstand infinite concepts. In the debate of Atheism vs Theism, this paradox reminds us that logic supports the idea of an all-powerful Creator, not the opposite.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him

Voltaire, the keen observer of human nature, once said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” He meant that we humans, fragile and prone to mischief, need a moral compass. A God who rewards the good and punishes the wrong gives our hearts a map, a gentle reminder that even in the shadows of our choices, there is a light guiding us toward what is right.

Argument of Christopher Hitchens

One of the strongest arguments against the idea that religion makes people morally superior comes from a simple challenge: name one genuinely good action that only religious people do and that atheists cannot do. Likewise, name one truly immoral act that atheists commit but religious people never commit. In reality, no such examples exist. Religious and non-religious people alike are capable of compassion, generosity, and self-sacrifice. And both groups are also capable of violence, hatred, and cruelty. History shows mass shootings, suicide bombings, rape, and war committed in the name of religion and also without religion. If belief in God does not reliably make people more moral, then religion cannot claim moral superiority over atheism.

My answer

People often criticize religion by pointing to how religious people behave, but I think this is a mistake. You are judging religion by the actions of believers instead of asking whether God exists or not.That’s like saying doctors sometimes kill people, therefore medicine is fake. Obviously, that would be a very stupid conclusion. Bad behavior by followers does not automatically mean the system itself is false.

Secondly, religion is not supposed to create perfect people. Most religions actually teach that humans are sinful and flawed. That’s why God is described as all-forgiving. God is there to guide people, not to turn them into robots who never do anything wrong. So when religious people fail morally, it doesn’t disprove religion. In a way, it confirms what religion already says about human nature.The existence of immoral believers therefore does not undermine religion; it is exactly what religion predicts about human nature.

Religion, on the other hand, says that if you do good, you will be rewarded in the hereafter. Even if it’s not perfect to be motivated by reward, you should love unconditionally, at least this belief gives people a reason to try to be better. It gives them a sense of accountability and meaning. Atheism doesn’t really offer that kind of ultimate motivation. It may offer personal reasons, but nothing beyond this life.

And finally, this whole argument is actually missing the main point. The real question is not whether religion makes people good or bad. The real question is whether God exists. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that he raised a very good argument: if religion does not make people any better, then what is the meaning of following religion? However, the real question in our debate is not whether religion improves human behavior, but whether God actually exists or not. That is the core issue.

Cognitive Limitation and Atheism vs Theism

Why we can’t grasp God? Why we can’t visualize Him? How much powerful is God? What is His age? How big is universe? How fast we can go? Humans naturally try to understand everything in finite terms, we compare, measure, and reason based on what we experience. In debates about Atheism vs Theism, this limitation becomes clear when we consider questions about God’s power. Fadilali (1995) explains this as a kind of cognitive limitation: our reasoning struggles to process something that has no boundaries. Questions like, “Can God create something stronger than Himself?” feel paradoxical not because of God, but because the human mind is designed for the finite, not the infinite.

A simple way to see this is with numbers. We can imagine bigger and bigger numbers, but the idea of infinity is impossible to truly grasp. Trying to compare infinity to something else, like asking if something could be more powerful than an all-powerful being, is like asking, “What comes after infinity?” In the context of Atheism vs Theism, this shows how human reasoning has natural limits when confronting the absolute or infinite, and why such paradoxes often arise in philosophical debates.

Ibn Rushd: Using Intellect to Understand God and Truth

The great philosopher Ibn Rushd said something truly beautiful: if the truth is absolute, then whatever we discover about it must also be absolute. This idea naturally raises some of the deepest questions we humans ask:

• Is there a God?
• Why is there so much suffering?
• If God exists, is He truly good?

Often, society tells us not to ask these questions, warning, “If you question, you will become an atheist.” But Ibn Rushd argued that this is a wrong perspective.

He explained that philosophy is obligatory for anyone with intellect. Thinking, questioning, and reasoning are not dangerous, they are necessary. The fear of “going astray” comes from a misunderstanding, influenced in part by Western philosophers who tried to prove God’s existence. But God is not something you can prove like a physical object, He does not appear in matter. God is something to understand, not something to measure or physically capture.

Ibn Rushd emphasized that humans are blessed with two gifts: intellect and revelation.With these, we have the tools to explore the deepest truths of existence. Using them, we can attempt to unveil answers to life’s greatest mysteries, not blindly, but with thoughtful understanding.

---

Wanna know more about me? Here is the link of my official social media accounts:

https://www.instagram.com/ayhianali

https://youtube.com/@ayhian?si=j79tW8ppvqbhBmd

Categories that will win your heart

• Answers of some big questions
• Decoding the verses of the Holy Quran
• God is a Lover
• Love stories
• Motivation
• My Lectures
• Some random blogs
• Uncategorized