A sea that splits. A baby born without a father. A prophet taken up to God. Nobody alive today saw these things.
Can a thinking person believe them?
This page looks at the question in seven ways. We call them “angles”. For each one, you get the reasons to believe, the doubts, and the answers to the doubts. Islam's own answer to “nobody saw it” is in Angle 5.
If miracles are hard for you to believe, you are not the first. In the Quran, the prophet Abraham asks God to show him something:
And [mention] when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." [Allāh] said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied." [Allāh] said, "Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then [after slaughtering them] put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allāh is Exalted in Might and Wise."
In simple words: Abraham already believed (“Yes”). He asked so that his heart could be at peace.
Ibn Kathir was a well-known Muslim scholar (about 1300–1373, Wikipedia). He reports one explanation: “he wanted to solidify his knowledge about resurrection by actually witnessing it with his eyes” (Ibn Kathir on 2:260).
In simple words: he wanted to see it with his own eyes, to make his knowledge stronger.
The Prophet Muhammad said: “We are more liable to be in doubt than Abraham” (Bukhari 3372). (“More liable” means “more likely”.) Ibn Kathir explains that this means “We are more liable to seek certainty” (Ibn Kathir on 2:260). (“Seek certainty” means “want to be sure”.)
Some of the Prophet's companions also had troubling thoughts. They told him about them. This was his answer:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that some people from amongst the Companions of the Apostle (ﷺ) came to him and said:Verily we perceive in our minds that which every one of us considers it too grave to express. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Do you really perceive it? They said: Yes. Upon this he remarked: That is the faith manifest
In simple words: they had thoughts that seemed too bad to say. He said: that is clear faith. (“Manifest” means clear.)
The famous Muslim scholar al-Ghazali (1058–1111) also had a time of deep doubt. For almost two months, he doubted whether even reason could be trusted. He wrote:
The disease was baffling, and lasted almost two months, during which I was a sceptic in fact though not in theory nor in outward expression.
In simple words: for almost two months he doubted, but he did not show it to others. (A “sceptic”, also spelled skeptic, is a person who doubts.) How his doubt ended is in Angle 7.
Abraham asked to see. Some companions had troubling thoughts. Al-Ghazali doubted for almost two months. Questions are not new.
Pick the sentence that sounds most like you. The page will suggest an order for reading. You can also read everything from top to bottom.
Every miracle depends on this question.
The Quran uses the same idea. Someone asks: who can give life to old, broken bones? The Quran answers:
78And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" 79Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing."
In simple words: the One who made you the first time can make you again.
So we start here. Below are three reasons people give for believing in God. After each one, you will find the main doubt, and the answer to it.
Insofar as the definition of “miracle” in question is one that involves divine agency, any argument that demonstrated the non-existence of God would be eo ipso a demonstration that miracles do not take place
In simple words: if God does not exist, miracles cannot happen. (Eo ipso is Latin for “by that very fact”.)
You see a house in the desert. You do not think it appeared by itself. You think: someone built it.
Muslim thinkers developed this argument many centuries ago. One of them was the scholar al-Ghazali. Today it is called the kalām argument. (Kalām is the Arabic name for using reason to support Muslim beliefs about God.)
The Quran asks the same question:
35Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? 36Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
Ibn Kathir, a famous Muslim scholar, explains it simply: “Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true.” (Ibn Kathir on 52:35)
A man named Jubayr bin Mutʿim (also spelled Jubair) heard the Prophet read these verses in the sunset prayer. He said that at that time “belief was first planted in my heart” (Bukhari 4023). He described the moment:
I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) reciting Surat at-Tur in the Maghrib prayer, and when he reached the Verse: 'Were they created by nothing, Or were they themselves the creators, Or did they create the Heavens and the Earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief Or do they own the treasures of Your Lord? Or have they been given the authority to do as they like...' (52.35-37) my heart was about to fly (when I realized this firm argument)
In simple words: when he heard this argument, he felt his heart was about to fly.
“Did the universe really begin?” The Big Bang is the start of the universe, as scientists describe it. Some thinkers say the Big Bang was not an event in time, because there was no time before it. So, they say, it cannot have a cause.
Where the debate is nowSome philosophers answer that we can use wider meanings of “event” and “cause”. The science of how the universe began also keeps changing, so the debate goes on.
Another doubt“If everything needs a cause, who made God?”
The answerLook at step 1 again. It does not say “everything needs a cause”. It says “everything that begins needs a cause”. Defenders of the argument usually say that God did not begin to exist, so He needs no cause.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
The SEP says the Muslim scholars of kalām were “theologians who used reason and argumentation to support their revealed Islamic beliefs” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”). It gives an example: “For example, al-Ghāzāli (1058–1111) argued that everything that begins to exist requires a cause of its beginning.” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
One critical response to the kalām argument from the Big Bang is that, given the General Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang is not an event at all. An event takes place within a space-time context. However, the Big Bang has no space-time context; there is neither time prior to the Big Bang nor a space in which the Big Bang occurs.
One response to Grünbaum’s objection is to opt for broader notions of “event” and “cause”.
On the debate: “changes in and development of these theories and the inevitable development of others make for unending point-counterpoint.” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
A version of this objection is sometimes stated in the form of a question: “What caused God?” Defenders of cosmological arguments typically argue that God, unlike the events in the universe, does not need a cause after all, perhaps because he is a necessary being, or did not begin to exist.
A cup stands on a table. The table stands on the floor. The floor stands on the building. Each thing is held up by the next one. Something at the bottom must hold everything up.
You did not have to exist. The stars did not have to exist. Each of them depends on something else. The Muslim philosopher Ibn Sina (known in Europe as Avicenna) said: a chain like this cannot explain itself. It must end in something that depends on nothing. For believers, that is God.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell said: the universe is simply there. It needs no explanation. His reason: we learn about causes by looking at single things. We cannot experience the universe as a whole.
The answerAnother philosopher, Robert Koons, replied: you do not need to see every case to know a rule. If something might not have existed, it needs a cause. Koons says this is true for the universe too.
The reply to the answerAnother philosopher, Wes Morriston, answered Koons: the universe is very different from the things we see every day. So the rule may not apply to it.
“Arabic philosophers (falasifa), such as Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), developed the argument from contingency, which was taken up by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) in his Summa Theologica (I,q.2,a.3) and in his Summa Contra Gentiles (I, 13).” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
Contingent existence cannot arise unless it is made necessary by a cause.
Therefore, the chain of contingent existents must culminate in and find its causal principle in a sole, self-subsistent existent that is Necessary.
“Russell, following Hume (1779), contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience.” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
The universe needs no explanation; it is “just there, and that’s all”
We do not need to experience every possible referent of the class of contingent things to be able to conclude that a contingent thing needs a cause or explanation.
“Morriston (2002a: 235) responds that although it is true that we do not need to experience every instance to derive a general principle, the universe is a very different thing from what we experientially reference when we say that things cannot come into existence without a cause.” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
Think of a safe with many dials. It opens only if every dial is on exactly the right number.
Physicists are scientists who study matter and energy. Many of them say life is possible only because some basic things in nature are just right. These are: the laws of nature, some basic numbers in physics, and the conditions at the very start of the universe. They say small changes could make life impossible. This is called “fine-tuning”.
The Quran asks us to look at the order in the sky:
3[And] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? 4Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.
In simple words: look at the sky again and again. You will not find any break.
“Maybe there are many universes, all different. With so many, at least one would surely be right for life, just by chance. We live in that one.” This idea is called the multiverse.
Where the debate is nowMany researchers think fine-tuning points to one of two things: a designer, or many universes. Others say it needs no special explanation. The debate is open.
according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.
The idea that underlies it is that, if there is a sufficiently diverse multiverse in which the conditions differ between universes, it is only to be expected that there is at least one where they are right for life.
“Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions (see Section 4).” (SEP, “Fine-Tuning”) (Boundary conditions are the conditions at the very start of the universe.)
“The inference to a divine designer or a multiverse typically rests on the idea that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendly conditions are in some sense highly improbable if there is only one, un-designed, universe. It is controversial, however, whether this idea can coherently be fleshed out in terms of any philosophical account of probability.” (SEP, “Fine-Tuning”)
The SEP on the philosopher Cory Juhl: “According to him, fine-tuning for life therefore does not require “exotic explanations involving super-Beings or super-universes” (2006: 273).” (SEP, “Fine-Tuning”)
None of these reasons convinces everyone. Many philosophers, for example J. L. Mackie, say that no version of Reasons 1 and 2 works. Others disagree. There is also another big question: why is there suffering and evil in the world? Some philosophers argue that it makes belief in God unreasonable. That needs its own page.
The SEP names Michael Martin, John Mackie and others, who “reason that no current version of the cosmological argument is sound or provides probabilistic evidence. Yet dissenting voices can be heard.” (SEP, “Cosmological Argument”)
“The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.” (SEP, “The Problem of Evil”)
First ask: is there a God? Your answer to every miracle depends on it.
We say nature has “laws”. This word can make nature sound like a book of rules.
The philosopher David Hume (1748) said that a miracle breaks the laws of nature. He said our steady experience of nature gives a very strong proof against any miracle.
Fire touches cotton. The cotton burns. You have seen this many times. So you are sure it will always happen.
About 600 years before Hume, al-Ghazali asked a different question: when fire burns cotton, what do we really see?
Al-Ghazali said: we see one thing come after another. We do not see that the first thing must cause the second.
The IEP calls this “the standard reading” of al-Ghazali: fire has no power of its own, and God creates the burning each time (IEP).
So why are we so sure that fire burns? Because we have seen it again and again. Al-Ghazali said this repeated habit is what makes us sure.
Hume said something similar more than 600 years later. The IEP says that here al-Ghazali “anticipates” Hume, which means he said it first. The IEP also points to a study about the differences between them.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.
The connection (iqtirān) between what is habitually believed to be a cause and what is habitually believed to be an effect is not necessary (ḍarūrī), according to us.
The one who enacts the burning by creating blackness in the cotton, [causing] separation in its parts, and making it cinder or ashes is God, either through the mediation of His angels or without mediation. As for fire, which is inanimate, it has no action.
“But the continuous habit of their occurrence repeatedly, one time after another, fixes unshakably in our minds the belief in their occurrence according to past habit.” (al-Ghazali, via IEP)
The IEP: al-Ghazali “anticipates Hume’s theory of causation, according to which causation is nothing more than a constant conjunction between two events” (IEP, “Al-Ghazali”)
When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other.
“We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other.” (Hume, Enquiry VII)
For al-Ghazali, God acts in a usual way. He called this God's “habit”. A miracle is when God does not follow His habit, to support one of His prophets.
The Quran tells of this with Abraham. His people wanted to burn him:
68They said, "Burn him and support your gods - if you are to act." 69We [i.e., Allāh] said, "O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham." 70And they intended for him a plan [i.e., harm], but We made them the greatest losers.
In simple words: God told the fire to be cool and safe for Abraham.
Al-Ghazali also gave a second explanation. Maybe some miracles have natural causes that we do not know (SEP).
Muslim scholars call a miracle kharq al-ʿāda. It means a break in God's usual order of things. A prophet's miracle is called a muʿjiza: something that leaves the people who argued against the prophet helpless (Hermansen).
The Christian writer C. S. Lewis (1947) explained it differently. He said a miracle does not break the laws of nature. It puts a new event into the pattern of nature, and then nature continues as normal.
The philosopher J. L. Mackie (who argued that Reasons 1 and 2 in Angle 1 do not work) gave “law of nature” a new meaning: how the world works “when left to itself”. A miracle, for him, is when something from outside nature acts in it. Then the world is “not left to itself”. (This means: something else acts on it.)
When God wishes to perform a miracle and confirm the mission of one of His prophets, he suspends His habit and omits to create the effect He usually does according to His habit.
“It may well be the case that those miracles that the falāsifa deny have immanent natural causes that are unknown to us.” (SEP, “al-Ghazali”) (Falāsifa means “the philosophers”.)
Hermansen: kharq al-ʿāda is “a break in God's customary order of things” (Hermansen); prophets' miracles are called muʿjizāt, “things which render the detractors or opponents incapable or overwhelmed” (Hermansen).
The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern.
“It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature.” (Lewis, Miracles) “A miracle is emphatically not an event without cause or without results. Its cause is the activity of God: its results follow according to Natural law.” (Lewis, Miracles)
The SEP introduces Mackie this way: “One way to get around all of these problems and still retain the Humean formulation is simply to redefine the laws of nature.” (SEP, “Miracles”)
The laws of nature … describe the ways in which the world—including, of course, human beings—works when left to itself, when not interfered with. A miracle occurs when the world is not left to itself, when something distinct from the natural order as a whole intrudes into it.
Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126–1198) was also a Muslim; he wrote of “we, the Muslim community” (SEP). He disagreed with al-Ghazali. He said: if nothing really causes anything, then we cannot know anything.
Another doubtMaybe a “law” only describes what usually happens. Then a strange event would most likely show that our “law” was wrong.
The answersAl-Ghazali died before Ibn Rushd was born. But al-Ghazali had already raised a worry like this himself, and answered it. He said God acts in the same way again and again. So, as the IEP explains, we can still trust what we normally expect from nature.
To the second doubt: Lewis says a miracle does not break a law. Mackie defines a law as how the world works “when left to itself”. On both views, the question is not whether a law is broken. The question is Angle 1: is there anyone outside nature who can act?
Denial of cause implies the denial of knowledge, and denial of knowledge implies that nothing in this world can be really known, and that what is supposed to be known is nothing but opinion, that neither proof nor definition exist, and that the essential attributes which compose definitions are void.
If the natural laws are simply compendious statements of natural regularities, an apparent “violation” would most naturally be an indication, not that a supernatural intervention in the course of nature had occurred, but rather that what we had thought was a natural law was, in fact, not one.
The IEP on al-Ghazali: “On behalf of the philosophers, al-Ghazālī raise a unique objection against his theory of causality, namely, that it entails a type of radical skepticism” (IEP, “Al-Ghazali”). “The idea is that although God is free to bring about whatever he desires in any order at all, the actual sequence of events that he creates in the world is regular” (IEP, “Al-Ghazali”). “As such, we can rely on our normal inferences about how events unfold in the world.” (IEP, “Al-Ghazali”)
On Mackie's view, a law of nature tells us what happens when nothing from outside acts. A miracle claim says that something did act.
“Nobody alive saw it.” That sounds like the end of the discussion. But think about how much you believe because other people told you.
Tick the ones you believe.
A “claim” is something a person says is true. These are normal claims, and many of them can be checked again. A miracle goes against what we normally see. That is Hume's point, below.
The SEP says that much of what we know comes from what other people tell us: history, science, and more. This is called testimony.
So the real question is: when is testimony good enough? Here is Hume's famous answer.
Someone tells Hume that a dead man came back to life. Hume asks himself: which is more likely? That this person is lying or mistaken? Or that the miracle really happened?
Hume's rule: ask which is more amazing: the witness being wrong, or the miracle. Believe the witness only if the witness being wrong would be more amazing. He also said that a wise person makes their belief match the evidence.
So much of what we know about the world, e.g., history, science, politics, one another, etc., comes from the testimony of others.
When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.
That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish
“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” (Hume, Enquiry X)
Hume's argument has many critics. The SEP says it has “come under heavy fire” (been strongly attacked). One critic, the philosopher John Earman, wrote a whole book about it. He calls Hume's essay “an abject failure”, which means a complete failure.
Earman is not defending Christianity. He says he finds “nothing attractive” in the teachings of Christianity about God. Other philosophers, such as Fogelin and Millican, defend Hume against Earman.
The authors of the SEP article conclude: your other beliefs matter a great deal when you judge a miracle report. And you cannot decide whether God exists from miracle reports alone.
“Hume’s critique of reported miracles has itself come under heavy fire and is now viewed in some quarters as requiring defense.” (SEP, “Miracles”)
I contend that “Of Miracles” is an abject failure. It is not simply that Hume's essay does not achieve its goals, but that his goals are ambiguous and confused.
“I find much that is valuable in the Judeo-Christian heritage, but I find nothing attractive, either intellectually or emotionally, in the theological doctrines of Christianity.” (Earman, Hume's Abject Failure)
On Fogelin and Millican: SEP, “Miracles”.
In the final analysis, the relevance of background beliefs looms large. To say this is not to endorse a lazy and unprincipled relativism; rather, the point is that one’s considered rational judgment regarding the existence and nature of God must take into account far more than the evidence for miracle claims.
Hume also said: every religion reports miracles. So the reports of one religion fight against the reports of the others. In the same paragraph, he writes about “any miracle of Mahomet” (an old English spelling of Muhammad).
Part of an answerIslam does say that some beliefs of other religions are wrong. For example, the Quran says Jesus was not killed (4:157). But Islam accepts the miracles of Moses and Jesus. The Quran confirms them: “We parted the sea for you” (2:50), and Jesus says, “I give life to the dead - by permission of Allāh” (3:49). Also, Islam's main proof is a book you can read today (Angle 5). Philosophers still debate Hume's question about the reports themselves (SEP). Each reader has to think about it and decide.
in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation.
From the same paragraph: “any miracle of Mahomet or his successors” (Hume, Enquiry X)
Philosophers use probability (the math of chance) to think about Hume's question. Move the sliders. See which one changes the answer most.
Try a starting point:
This tool shows how the reasoning works. It does not prove anything, and you choose the numbers. The math is called Bayes' theorem. It is a standard rule for changing a belief when new evidence comes. Before = slider 1 × slider 2. After = (slider 3 × before) ÷ (slider 3 × before + slider 4 × (1 − before)).
Two things to notice. First: when slider 1 is at zero, nothing else matters. Second: in this tool, weak witnesses do not convince even a believer (try “Believer, weak witnesses”). Skeptics, following Hume, put slider 4 high, because they think false reports of miracles are common.
In the study of hadith, each report comes with a chain of narrators, called an isnād: the list of people who passed it on, one to the next (Wikipedia). Muslim scholars also asked when reports give certainty. One idea is called tawātur: information gives certainty if it comes through enough separate chains (Edinburgh University Press).
“In the Islamic study of hadith, an isnād (chain of transmitters, or literally "supporting"; Arabic: اِسْناد) is a list of people who passed on a tradition, from the original authority to whom the tradition is attributed to, to the present person reciting or compiling that tradition.” (Wikipedia, “Isnad”)
“Tawātur is the concept that information yields certainty if acquired through a sufficient number of independent channels.” (Edinburgh University Press)
We trust witnesses every day. Philosophers still debate Hume's question. In the witness scale, the answer depends on what you think about God, and on how good the witnesses are.
Has science proved that miracles are impossible? The US National Academy of Sciences says:
Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.
“Supernatural” means above or outside nature. “Neutral” means it does not take a side.
Some philosophers call this “methodological naturalism”: the view that religious beliefs play no part inside science. On this view, religious people can do science just as well as atheists (SEP).
Scientists do not agree about God. In a 2009 Pew Research Center survey of American scientists (members of the AAAS, a large US science organization):
In a 2006 survey of the US public, the numbers were 83%, 12% and 4%. So these scientists are much less religious than the US public. Pew also warns that the survey may not show the views of all US scientists.
One believing scientist is Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project:
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection? Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
In simple words: Collins sees no conflict between science and miracles.
Collins does not say where his 40% comes from. The Pew survey above found 33% believe in God, and 51% in God or a higher power. Also, the resurrection (coming back to life after death) that Collins mentions is a Christian belief about Jesus. The Quran says Jesus was not killed (4:157).
The SEP: science “can be practised just as well by adherents of religious faiths as by atheists or agnostics” (SEP, “Naturalism”).
“According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” (Pew 2009)
“By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” (Pew 2009)
“Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.” (Pew 2009)
Pew calls the scientists “much less religious than the general public” (Pew 2009), and cautions: “However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the U.S.” (Pew 2009)
61And when the two companies saw one another, the companions of Moses said, "Indeed, we are to be overtaken!" 62[Moses] said, "No! Indeed, with me is my Lord; He will guide me." 63Then We inspired to Moses, "Strike with your staff the sea," and it parted, and each portion was like a great towering mountain.
In simple words: God told Moses to strike the sea with his staff (stick), and it opened. Each part stood like a huge mountain.
The Quran also calls it “a dry path through the sea” (20:77).
In 2010, the scientists Carl Drews and Weiqing Han asked: could wind push water back and open a path? Their computer model says: a strong east wind (about 100 km/h) blowing for 12 hours could push back water about 2 meters deep. A dry path would then stay open for 4 hours. It would be about 3–4 km long and 5 km wide.
The study starts from the Bible's story, in the book of Exodus. It suggests a different place for the crossing. This place is a lagoon (a shallow lake by the sea) in the Nile Delta, where the Nile river meets the sea. It is about 120 km (75 miles) north of the Suez reef. (A reef is a line of rocks just under the sea.) A news report from NCAR, a US research center, says we cannot be sure about the waterways of that time. It also says experts are not sure the events really happened.
How can a believer read this? There are two ways:
Al-Ghazali himself said that some miracles may have natural causes we do not know (Angle 2). A skeptic adds a third possible answer: maybe the event did not happen.
Previous researchers have suggested wind setdown as a possible hydrodynamic explanation for Moses crossing the Red Sea, as described in Exodus 14.
(Wind setdown means water pushed back by a strong, steady wind.)
The computer simulations show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea.
Under a uniform 28 m/s easterly wind forcing in the reconstructed model basin, the ocean model produces an area of exposed mud flats where the river mouth opens into the lake. This land bridge is 3–4 km long and 5 km wide, and it remains open for 4 hours.
They found that a wind of 63 miles an hour, lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be six feet deep. This would have exposed mud flats for four hours, creating a dry passage about 2 to 2.5 miles long and 3 miles wide.
Carl Drews: “The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that’s in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in.” (NCAR, 2010)
“the researchers found an alternative site for the crossing about 75 miles north of the Suez reef and just south of the Mediterranean Sea.” (NCAR, 2010) The release adds that “there are uncertainties about the waterways of the time” (NCAR, 2010). “The study is intended to present a possible scenario of events that are said to have taken place more than 3,000 years ago, although experts are uncertain whether they actually occurred.” (NCAR, 2010)
20She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?" 21He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.'"
In simple words: Mary asked how she could have a child, because no man had touched her. The answer came: your Lord says it is easy for Him.
Can this happen in nature? Some animals can have babies without a father. Scientists call this parthenogenesis. In 2006, scientists found it in two female Komodo dragons that were kept away from males. The Komodo dragon is “the largest of the world's lizards” (Harvard SITN).
But their babies are always male. Sex chromosomes are tiny parts of each cell that help decide if a body is male or female. In Komodo dragons, the male has two matching sex chromosomes (ZZ), and the female has two different ones (WZ). Each baby comes from one egg with one sex chromosome, which is doubled. So it can only be ZZ (male) or WW (which does not live).
Mammals are animals that feed their babies milk, like humans and mice. No mammals are known to have babies this way. In 2004, scientists made a mouse with no father, but only in a lab, by joining two eggs, one of them from a genetically changed mouse. The scientists think the reason is this: in mammals, some genes only work properly when they come from the father.
And in humans, males have an X and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. A son made only from his mother would have no Y chromosome.
So biology does not explain Mary's son, and the Quran does not say it does. It compares Jesus to Adam: “He created him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was” (3:59). It calls Jesus “a sign to the people” (19:21).
Parthenogenesis, the production of offspring without fertilization by a male, is rare in vertebrate species, which usually reproduce after fusion of male and female gametes.
(Gametes are egg and sperm cells.) “The parthenogenesis seems to be triggered by absence of a mate, which presents a problem for breeding this endangered species in captivity as viable offspring are always male and genetic diversity would suffer.” (Nature, 2006)
“In contrast to humans, in which females have a matching pair of sex chromosomes (designated XX), and males have a mismatched pair (designated XY), it is the male Komodo dragon who has a matched pair (designated ZZ) and the female who has the mismatched pair (designated WZ).” (Harvard SITN, 2007)
“Because each of the offspring produced as a result of parthenogenesis will be the product of one egg (which contained just one sex chromosome), the doubling of the egg’s genetic material to achieve a full complement of chromosomes can result only in progeny of ZZ (male) or WW (unviable) but never WZ (female)” (Harvard SITN)
“Although 0.1% of vertebrate species are known to be capable of reproducing by parthenogenesis, no mammals are known to reproduce in this way.” (Harvard SITN, 2007)
Only mammals have relinquished parthenogenesis, a means of producing descendants solely from maternal germ cells. Mouse parthenogenetic embryos die by day 10 of gestation.
Here we show the development of a viable parthenogenetic mouse individual from a reconstructed oocyte containing two haploid sets of maternal genome, derived from non-growing and fully grown oocytes.
(An oocyte is an egg cell; “haploid” means a single set of chromosomes.) “This development was made possible by the appropriate expression of the Igf2 and H19 genes with other imprinted genes, using mutant mice with a 13-kilobase deletion in the H19 gene as non-growing oocytes donors.” (Nature, 2004) “These results suggest that paternal imprinting prevents parthenogenesis, ensuring that the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant.” (Nature, 2004)
Science explains how nature usually works. In the words of the US National Academy of Sciences: “Science can say nothing about the supernatural.” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998)
So how do Muslims know about the sea, or the virgin birth (Jesus born without a father)? They believe it because the Quran tells them. So the real question becomes: is the Quran from God? That is a question you can examine yourself.
Islam does not mainly ask you to believe old miracles. The Prophet Muhammad said:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets on the Day of Resurrection
In simple words: other prophets were given miracles, and people believed because of them. Muhammad was given a message from God. Muslims understand this to be the Quran.
When people asked for signs, the Quran answered: “is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book [i.e., the Qur’ān] which is recited to them?” (29:51). It also challenges everyone to make something like it:
Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’ān, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."
In simple words: even if all humans and jinn worked together, they could not make anything like the Quran. (Jinn are, in Islamic belief, unseen beings that God created.)
It repeats the challenge: “produce a sūrah the like thereof” (2:23), which means: make one chapter like it. A sūrah is a chapter of the Quran. Muslims call this iʿjāz: the belief that no one can match the Quran. In Islamic teaching, this is the proof that Muhammad was a true prophet (Wikipedia, “I'jaz”).
The Quran also says that even big miracles would not make some people believe:
And even if We had sent down to them the angels [with the message] and the dead spoke to them [of it] and We gathered together every [created] thing in front of them, they would not believe unless Allāh should will. But most of them, [of that], are ignorant.
In simple words: even if they saw angels and heard the dead speak, they would not believe, unless God willed.
The Quran says “the moon has split [in two]” (54:1). A hadith says the people of Mecca asked for a miracle, and the Prophet showed them the moon split:
That the Meccan people requested Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon
This is also a report from the past. The Quran says that when they see a sign, “they turn away and say, “Passing magic.”” (54:2). That means: a trick that will not last.
The Quran also says: “nothing has prevented Us from sending signs [i.e., miracles] except that the former peoples denied them” (17:59). When people asked Muhammad for many miracles, the Quran gave him this answer: “Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?” (17:93).
Some Muslims point to one passage as an example of a “scientific miracle”: knowledge in the Quran that, they say, people in the 600s could not have had. Wikipedia says this claim “has received widespread attention”. The passage describes how a human being is made, step by step:
12And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. 13Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging [i.e., the womb]. 14Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allāh, the best of creators.
In simple words: the Quran lists these steps: clay, a drop, a clinging thing, a lump, bones, flesh on the bones, and then “another creation”. Ibn Kathir explains that the man made from clay in verse 12 was Adam: “This was Adam, peace be upon him” (Ibn Kathir on 23:12).
Here are the steps next to what modern science describes. An embryo is the baby in its first weeks in the womb. (Textbooks count it a little differently: the first eight weeks, or weeks 3–8.) Tissue means a group of cells that work together. Cartilage is a soft, bendy material, like the tip of your nose.
“a sperm-drop in a firm lodging [i.e., the womb]” (23:13). In Arabic: nuṭfah.
The sperm and the egg join and make one cell. At the end of the first week, the early embryo sticks to the wall of the womb and goes into it.
“a clinging clot” (23:14). In Arabic: ʿalaqah. The word can mean something that clings or hangs, a leech, or a clot of blood. Translations differ: “a clot of congealed blood” (Yusuf Ali), “a clinging form” (Abdel Haleem).
The embryo is attached to the wall of the womb. The embryologist Keith Moore compared it to a leech that clings to skin, from day 7 to day 24.
“a lump [of flesh]” (23:14). In Arabic: muḍghah.
Blocks of tissue called somites form on both sides of the back. Moore wrote that muḍghah means “chewed lump”. By the end of week 4, he wrote, the embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump, because the somites look like teeth marks.
“bones” (23:14).
The skeleton first forms as soft cartilage. From about week 6 or 7, real bone starts to replace the cartilage.
“We covered the bones with flesh” (23:14).
Muscle and cartilage both come from the same kind of tissue. In the somites, the part that will make bone separates before the part that will make muscle. Moore wrote that the cartilage models of the bones form first, and then muscles form around them.
“then We developed him into another creation” (23:14).
From the ninth week, the embryo is called a fetus. Moore wrote that this part of the verse may mean the human-like embryo at the end of week 8.
Human embryonic development covers the first eight weeks of development
When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote.
At the end of the first week, the blastocyst comes in contact with the uterine wall and adheres to it, embedding itself in the uterine lining via the trophoblast cells.
Once the blastocyst reaches the uterus, it buries itself in the uterine wall. ... The blastocyst sticks tightly to the wall of the uterus and receives nourishment from the mother's blood.
Translations of 23:14: “Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood” (quran.com) · “then We made that drop into a clinging form, and We made that form into a lump of flesh” (quran.com)
The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin.
In humans, the first somite pair appears at day 20 and adds caudally at 1 somite pair/90 minutes until on average 44 pairs eventually form.
Block-like structures called somites form on either side of the tube, eventually differentiating into the axial skeleton, skeletal muscle, and dermis.
“The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump."” (Moore 1986)
Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks.
In a long bone, for example, at about 6 to 8 weeks after conception, some of the mesenchymal cells differentiate into chondrocytes (cartilage cells) that form the cartilaginous skeletal precursor of the bones
In the early stages of embryonic development, the embryo’s skeleton consists of fibrous membranes and hyaline cartilage. By the sixth or seventh week of embryonic life, the actual process of bone development, ossification (osteogenesis), begins.
“Cartilage does not become bone. Instead, cartilage serves as a template to be completely replaced by new bone.” (OpenStax)
Cartilage (some of which ultimately becomes bone) and muscle develop from the mesenchyme.
Because the sclerotome differentiates before the dermatome and the myotome, the term dermomyotome refers to the combined dermatome and myotome before they separate out.
Cells from the lateral plate mesoderm and the myotome migrate to the limb field and proliferate to the point that they cause the ectoderm above to bulge out, forming the limb bud. The lateral plate cells produce the cartilaginous and skeletal portions of the limb while the myotome cells produce the muscle components.
This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.
A developing human is referred to as an embryo during weeks 3–8, and a fetus from the ninth week of gestation until birth.
This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week.
Muslims who make this argument ask: how could a man in the 600s describe these steps? They give these reasons:
… The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read. …
In Islamic teaching, Muhammad's not being able to read or write is a sign that he could not have written the Quran himself. The 12th-century scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi explained: if Muhammad could read and write, people would have thought he studied older books. The Quran also answers people who said that he invented it, or that others helped him:
4And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur’ān] is not except a falsehood he invented, and another people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a lie. 5And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon." 6Say, [O Muḥammad], "It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful."
In simple words: some people said Muhammad copied old stories with help from others. The Quran answers: it comes from the One who knows every secret.
Keith Moore wrote a widely used textbook on embryology. He worked with a committee at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia on statements about how babies form in the Quran and the hadith, and also in the Jewish Kabbalah and Talmud. He wrote: “At first, I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established.”
As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance.
In Islamic theology, Muhammad's illiteracy is a way of emphasizing that he was a transparent medium for divine revelation and a sign of the genuineness of his prophethood since the illiterate prophet could not have composed the eloquent poetry and prose of the Quran.
“Fakhr Al-Razi, the 12th century Islamic theologian, has expressed his idea is his book Tafsir Al Razi” (Wikipedia, “I'jaz”): “If he had mastered writing and reading, people would have suspected that he had studied previous books but he brought this noble Qur'an without learning and education” (Wikipedia, “I'jaz”)
“his widely used textbook on embryology” (Wikipedia)
“helping them reinterpret the many statements in the Qur’an, Sunnah, Kabbalah and Talmud referring to human reproduction and prenatal development.” (Wikipedia)
At first, I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established.
The Greek thinker Aristotle described the stages of a chick growing inside an egg. The Greek doctor Galen, who wrote around 150–180 AD, described four stages of a human embryo. Wikipedia says the four stages in another verse (22:5) are similar to Galen's four stages. Galen even wrote that nature “caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones”.
In the early 500s, Sergius of Reshaina translated Greek medical books into Syriac (a language of the Middle East), including Galen's books on the embryo. Wikipedia says these translations, and a medical school in the city of Gundeshapur in southern Mesopotamia, helped Greek ideas about the embryo reach the Arabian world.
Doubt 2: bones do not really come firstThe skeleton starts as cartilage, not bone. Cartilage and muscle come from the same kind of tissue, and the cells for both move into the growing arm or leg. The best-known critic of Moore here is the biologist PZ Myers.
Doubt 3: the words are very generalWikipedia says the embryo may look like a leech, but it “resembles many things during the eight week course of its development—none for very long”. Translations of ʿalaqah differ, and Ibn Kathir explained it as “a red clot”. The physicist Taner Edis criticized Moore for reading modern medical details into general, unclear words in the Quran.
Doubt 4: about Keith MooreIn 1983, Moore published a special edition of his textbook together with Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a leader of the “scientific miracles” movement. In his 1986 paper, Moore wrote that the translations of the verses came from al-Zindani. In 2002 he said: “it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an.”
Doubt 5: what “unlettered” meansThe scholar al-Tabari (died 923) said the word has two meanings: not able to read or write, and not knowing the earlier scriptures. Some scholars, including the Muslim scholars Muhammad Hamidullah and Muhammad Shahrur, translate it as “gentile”: a person from a people without a scripture. Some hadith reports say Muhammad knew some reading and writing; others deny it.
Doubt 6: some Muslim scholars reject this method tooSome Muslim scholars say the Quran's purpose is religious guidance, not science. The method of finding “scientific miracles” in the Quran has not gained full approval among Islamic scholars.
The Muslim answersTo doubt 1, Moore answered that doctors in the 600s probably did not know that the human embryo grows in stages: he wrote that this was not discussed and illustrated until the 1400s. Without microscopes, he added, they would not have known that the early embryo looks like a leech. An article in a journal of Al-Mustafa International University (a Muslim religious university) says the Greek ideas about human creation “are inconsistent with divine revelations”, and that “it cannot be claimed that Qur’an has adapted from earlier texts”.
On the dates: Wikipedia's “Galen” article says the first translations of Galen into Arabic came after 750. It says the same for Syriac. But its “Embryology” article says Sergius translated Galen into Syriac in the early 500s. The two articles disagree.
To doubt 2: in the somites, the part that makes bone does separate first, and Moore wrote that the cartilage models of the bones form before the muscles around them (see the stages above).
To doubt 5: al-Razi's point is that people could not say Muhammad copied older books, because he could not read. The same journal article says that all four meanings of ʿalaqah fit embryology.
Where the debate is nowThe Quran describes a baby forming in stages. Modern embryology describes stages too, and so did ancient Greek medicine. Whether the Quran's words show knowledge only God could give is the part people disagree about. You now have both sides.
Aristotle then delineated the stages in the developing egg and provided a chronology of the developmental stages of the chick embryo. From his observations, he concluded that the developing chick inside the egg acquired its form over time.
Galen described embryological development in four stages. In the first stage, the semen predominates. In the second stage, the embryo is filled with blood. In the third stage, the main outlines of the organs have developed but various other parts remain undeveloped. In the fourth stage, formation is complete and has reached a stage where we can call it a child.
“Galen mainly wrote from 150 AD to 180 AD” (Embryo Project)
“A passing reference to embryological notions also appears in the Qur'an (22:5), where the development of the embryo proceeds in four stages from drop, to a clinging clot, to a partially developed stage, to a fully developed child.” (Wikipedia)
The four stages of development in the Qur'an are similar to the four stages of embryological development as described by Galen.
Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones
In the early 6th century, Sergius of Reshaina devoted himself to the translation of Greek medical texts into Syriac and became the most important figure in this process. Included in his translations were the relevant embryological texts of Galen.
“Anurshirvan founded a medical school in the southern Mesopotamian city of Gundeshapur, known as the Academy of Gondishapur, which also acted as a medium for the transmission, reception, and development of notions from Greek medicine.” (Wikipedia) “These factors helped the transmission of Greek notions on embryology, such as found in Galen, to enter into the Arabian milieu.” (Wikipedia)
“Cartilage does not become bone. Instead, cartilage serves as a template to be completely replaced by new bone.” (OpenStax) “Cartilage (some of which ultimately becomes bone) and muscle develop from the mesenchyme.” (Wikipedia)
“Moore's works have been used for religious purposes, which has not been without scientific criticism, with the most well-known coming from fellow developmental biologist PZ Myers” (Wikipedia)
The embryo may resemble a leech (ala "clinging clot" or "leech like structure" of al-3alaqa in Q23:13-14), but it resembles many things during the eight week course of its development—none for very long.
“Then it becomes a red clot, like an elongated clot.” (Ibn Kathir on 23:14) “Physicist Taner Edis criticized him and Maurice Bucaille for reading modern medical details into vague and general statements in the Qur'an.” (Wikipedia)
In 1983, an authority on embryology, Keith L. Moore, had a special edition published of his widely used textbook on embryology (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology), co-authored by a leader of the scientific miracles movement, Abdul Majeed al-Zindani.
“The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.” (Moore 1986)
“In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."” (Wikipedia)
The medieval exegete Al Tabari (d. 923 CE) maintained that the term induced two meanings: firstly, the inability to read or write in general and secondly, the inexperience or ignorance of the previous books or scriptures.
“Some Muslim scholars also agreed with this idea: a French translation of the Quran by Muhammad Hamidullah uses the expression 'gentile prophet' in Sura 7 verse 157–158.” (Wikipedia) “Muhammad Shahrur also believed that ummi prophet means gentile prophet in his book Al-Kitab wa-L-Quran (The Book and the Quran).” (Wikipedia) Rodwell's note says the word “was applied by Jews to those who did not know scripture” (Wikipedia).
“Collections of prophetic tradition occasionally mention Muhammad having basic knowledge of reading and writing, while others deny it.” (Wikipedia)
“This approach has been rejected by orthodox theologians who argue that the purpose of the Quran is religious guidance and not for proposing scientific theories.” (Wikipedia) “The methodology of scientific I'jaz has not gained full approval by Islamic scholars and is the subject of ongoing debate.” (Wikipedia)
In the Abbasid period (after 750) Arab Muslims began to be interested in Greek scientific and medical texts for the first time, and had some of Galen's texts translated into Arabic, often by Syrian Christian scholars
“After 750, these Syrian Christians made the first translations of Galen into Syriac and Arabic.” (Wikipedia)
It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.
“it cannot be claimed that Qur’an has adapted from earlier texts.” (Al-Mustafa journal)
The result of the debate is that Greek scientists put forward views on the stages of human creation that are inconsistent with divine revelations.
Wikipedia: “One claim that has received widespread attention and has even been the subject of a medical school textbook widely used in the Muslim world is that” (Wikipedia) …
“(hanging, resembling a leech, red, blood clots) and all of them are in accordance with the science of embryology” (Al-Mustafa journal)
Can anyone really make something like the Quran? Each reader decides. Muslims believe no one can. Not everyone who reads it agrees. Many arguments about this are about the Quran's Arabic language. If you read a translation, you cannot judge that part yourself. Wikipedia sums up the view of the scholar Oliver Leaman this way: being impressed by a text, and believing it comes from God, are two separate things. The point here is simple: Islam asks you to examine something you can see today, and not only to trust reports from the past.
“According to this doctrine, the Quran is a miracle and its inimitability is the proof granted to Muhammad in authentication of his prophetic status.” (Wikipedia, “I'jaz”)
Oliver Leaman, as summarised by Wikipedia: “it is possible to be impressed by something without thinking that it came about supernaturally and vice versa it is possible to believe in the divine origin of the Quran without agreeing to the aesthetic supremacy of the text.” (Wikipedia, “I'jaz”)
You cannot see the sea split. But you can read the book that tells about it. Judge what you can, and ask about the Arabic.
Remember the standard reading of al-Ghazali: God creates the burning every time fire touches cotton. If that is true, then ordinary things are God's work too. The Quran often points to ordinary things:
20And of His signs is that He created you from dust; then, suddenly you were human beings dispersing [throughout the earth]. 21And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. 22And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.
In simple words: the Quran lists how humans were made, the love and mercy between partners, the heavens and the earth, and our many languages and colors. It calls all of these signs.
“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves” (41:53). “And in yourselves. Then will you not see?” (51:21).
You have never seen a baby being born. Someone tells you: “One tiny cell will grow into a person who laughs, argues, and wonders about God.” Would you believe it? We believe it because we see it all the time.
The Quran describes the making of a human being step by step (23:12–14). You can read these verses, and compare them with modern science, in Angle 5: how a baby forms.
The Quran says: “And it is He who begins creation; then He repeats it, and that is [even] easier for Him” (30:27). In Angle 1 you saw the same idea: the One who made us “the first time” (36:79) can do it again.
A naturalist is a person who believes that only nature exists. (This is not the science rule from Angle 4.) A naturalist would answer like Russell: the universe is “just there, and that's all”. For them, order in nature is simply how nature is. It does not point to anything beyond it.
Where the debate is nowThis is the debate from Angle 1, Reason 2.
A miracle is rare. In the Quran's view, the normal order of nature is also a sign. Believers say we stop noticing it because we see it every day.
Remember al-Ghazali's two months of doubt? Here is how they ended. His trust in reason came back. He says it did not come back through a proof. It came as a light from God:
This did not come about by systematic demonstration or marshalled argument, but by a light which God most high cast into my breast. That light is the key to the greater part of knowledge.
In simple words: his doubt did not end because of an argument. He says God put a light in his heart.
He learned a lesson from this. He wrote that some people think we can understand God only through strict proofs (step-by-step logic). He said those people think God's mercy is smaller than it really is.
The scientist Francis Collins says something similar. He says reason alone cannot prove God. For him, faith is reason plus revelation (a message from God).
Al-Ghazali: “the necessary truths of the intellect became once more accepted, as I regained confidence in their certain and trustworthy character.” (al-Ghazali, Deliverance from Error)
“Whoever thinks that the understanding of things Divine rests upon strict proofs has in his thought narrowed down the wideness of God’s mercy.” (al-Ghazali, Deliverance from Error)
Francis Collins: “But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind.” (Collins, CNN 2007)
The Quran describes believers as people “Who believe in the unseen” (2:3). When people demand a sign, the Quran points to the heart:
27And those who disbelieved say, "Why has a sign not been sent down to him from his Lord?" Say, [O Muḥammad], "Indeed, Allāh leaves astray whom He wills and guides to Himself whoever turns back [to Him] - 28Those who have believed and whose hearts are assured by the remembrance of Allāh. Unquestionably, by the remembrance of Allāh hearts are assured."
In simple words: God guides those who turn to Him, and their hearts find peace when they remember Him.
No argument on this page can force anyone to believe. The Quran does not ask for that either: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (2:256). (“Compulsion” means forcing.)
A skeptic would answer with Hume: a wise person makes their belief match the evidence. In other words: an inner light cannot replace evidence.
Where the debate is nowBoth views are on this page. It gives you the evidence and the arguments. What you do with them is your choice.
For al-Ghazali, proofs were only part of the answer. He became sure through a light.