Short answer
Yes, in the way we know most things that matter. We do not need proof beyond every possible doubt, only reasons strong enough to leave no reasonable doubt. Thomas Huxley, the 19th-century English biologist who invented the word agnostic, set a rule in two parts. Follow your reason as far as it will take you, and do not claim a certainty that has not been shown. This page argues that reason, followed that far, reaches a Creator. Huxley himself stopped short of that. Three lines of reasoning all point the same way. They are the dependence of everything in the universe, the evidence that it had a beginning and the order our minds can read. Islam asks people to reflect on creation, and it holds that certainty grows out of that looking. The next step is to weigh the reasons yourself, starting with how we know God (﷾) exists.
Full explanation
Huxley's rule for the agnostic
Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word agnostic for himself. In 1889 he wrote that agnosticism is a method, not a creed, and that the method is one principle with two halves. The first half says to follow your reason as far as it will take you. The second says not to pretend that conclusions are certain when they have not been shown. This page takes the rule as its own. It does not say that Huxley reached a Creator, because he did not. Whether reason does go that far is the question.
“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle.”
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Knowing comes in degrees
Almost nothing we rely on is proved beyond every possible doubt. We trust that other people have minds, that the past happened, and that a medicine works. In many countries a court convicts when guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond every doubt that can be imagined. David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, put the rule for every reader: a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. In the same essay Hume applied the rule to reports of miracles, Islam's included. Islam's main sign is not a report but a book anyone can examine today. The page on the Qur'an's challenge sets this out. Huxley's second half bars false certainty. It does not bar a conclusion that is strong but short of certain. That is the standard this page offers to the outsider.
“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Where reason goes: a cause outside the universe
Three lines of reasoning are set out and tested on their own pages. The first starts from the fact that everything we see depends on something else. A chain of dependent things needs something that depends on nothing. The second starts from the evidence that the universe is expanding from a hot, dense early state, which many take as a beginning. The third starts from the order of nature, which a mind on one small planet can read in mathematics. Together they point to a cause outside the universe that depends on nothing. The linked pages argue that it must also have power and choose to create. The rival answers are an eternal universe, a brute fact (something that just is, with no reason) and countless unseen universes. The linked pages weigh each of them. Reason reaches a Maker. It does not tell us what the Maker wants from us, and that is a further question about guidance.
Reports that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us: the observation that became the evidence for an expanding universe.
Shows that a universe which has, on average, been expanding cannot have been expanding for ever: its expanding history must have a boundary in the past.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
Argues that the sufficient reason for the whole series of contingent things must lie outside that series, in a necessary substance, which Leibniz calls God.
Argues that the power of mathematics to state the laws of physics borders on the mysterious and has no rational explanation, and calls it a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.
Hume's test does not rule out a Creator in advance
One reply says knowledge stops at what we can count or observe, and that anything else is empty talk. Hume put it most sharply. Yet his own test keeps reasoning from experience about what exists, which he called reasoning about matter of fact and existence. The case for a Creator is that kind: it starts from observed things that depend on others, and asks for their cause. Whether such reasoning may reach beyond what is observed is the real question, and the test does not settle it in advance. Science also reasons from what is seen to what is not. No one has watched the early universe, and the case for it rests on galaxies that are receding now. Huxley is just as careful. He accepts only limits on knowledge that are demonstrated, and he keeps the mind open to conviction.
Ends the Enquiry by saying that a book which contains neither abstract reasoning about quantity or number, nor reasoning from experience about matters of fact and existence, can hold nothing but sophistry and illusion.
“The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.”
Reports that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us: the observation that became the evidence for an expanding universe.
Does reason end in a stalemate? Kant's challenge
The strongest philosophical case for holding back comes from Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher. He argued that when reason goes beyond experience, it produces equally strong proofs of opposite claims. Among them are that the world has a beginning and that it has none. Another is that there is a necessary being, one that cannot fail to exist, and that there is none. If that is so, Huxley's first half would run into his second. But Kant's proofs about a beginning came from reason alone, before there was evidence about the universe's past. That question can now also be weighed with evidence. And the argument from dependence does not rest on a beginning, so it would hold even if there were none. Kant allowed that a necessary being outside the world we experience is not ruled out. He held that it cannot be proved, because the idea of a cause cannot reach beyond experience. That is Hume's question again, met above. The argument starts from observed things that depend on others and asks for their cause. Science, too, reasons from what is seen to what is not.
Argues that when reason goes beyond possible experience it produces equally strong proofs of opposite claims, among them that the world has a beginning in time and that it has none, and that a necessary being exists and that none does. Kant read the clash as a sign of reason's limits. He allowed that a necessary being outside the series of appearances is not ruled out, but held that it cannot be proved. The cosmological argument, he said, wrongly carries the idea of cause beyond experience.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
Argues that the sufficient reason for the whole series of contingent things must lie outside that series, in a necessary substance, which Leibniz calls God.
Reports that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us: the observation that became the evidence for an expanding universe.
Ends the Enquiry by saying that a book which contains neither abstract reasoning about quantity or number, nor reasoning from experience about matters of fact and existence, can hold nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Fifty-fifty is a verdict, and it has to be earned
Another reply says the evidence for and against is level, so the honest course is to hold back. Even odds are a conclusion. They have to be reached by weighing the reasons, and the weighing has to come out level. Being unsure is a different thing. A juror who is not certain does not conclude that guilt and innocence are equally likely. The reasons from the beginning, from dependence and from order are on the table, and the rival answers are tested beside them. Anyone who says the scales are level has to show the weighing. Huxley's own text says what counts: a mind always open to conviction.
“The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.”
“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
Argues that the sufficient reason for the whole series of contingent things must lie outside that series, in a necessary substance, which Leibniz calls God.
Disagreement is a reason to look harder
A third reply says that careful, well-informed people disagree about God (﷾). So, it says, holding back is the reasonable thing to do. But such people also disagree about free will, and about what makes an act right. Yet everyone still lives by some answer. Huxley's rule asks each person to follow reason as far as it goes. Disagreement tells you to weigh the arguments yourself, and to weigh them well. It cannot excuse anyone from living by an answer. A person who prays and a person who does not are each acting on a view. Not choosing is a way of living too. And because so much is at stake, the question is a practical one.
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle.”
Islam's answer: reflect, and claim only what you know
The Qur'an calls on people to reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth (3:190-191). It forbids pursuing what one has no knowledge of (17:36), a rule this page applies to the believer and the doubter alike. It also asks where the universe came from: from nothing, from itself, or from a Maker (52:35-36). Those questions were put to people who denied the Prophet (ﷺ) in Mecca. Islam asks to be believed for reasons, and it gives them.
“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,- Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.”
“And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).”
“Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.”
Islam's answer: certainty is what faith grows into
This page asks the outsider for a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. For the believer, Islam asks for more. The Qur'an describes those who believed and have never since doubted (49:15). The 14th-century commentator Ibn Kathir reads these as the complete believers. Their faith deepens into yaqin, certainty. That is a description of where faith ends up, not an accusation against anyone who is still looking. The Qur'an ties certainty to looking at creation. God (﷾) showed Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might have certitude (6:75). That certainty is the fruit of the reasons and not a replacement for them. Knowing that a Maker exists is also only the first step. In Islam it leads to worship, character and a whole way of life.
“Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.”
“So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude.”
“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,- Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.”
The replies answered
Hume, Enquiry, Section XII, Part III
Ends the Enquiry by saying that a book which contains neither abstract reasoning about quantity or number, nor reasoning from experience about matters of fact and existence, can hold nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Cited for
Only reasoning about number or about observed fact gives knowledge. Anything else, including an argument about a Creator, is sophistry and illusion.
The response
Hume's own test keeps experimental reasoning about matter of fact and existence. The case for a Creator is that kind of reasoning: it starts from observed things that depend on others and asks for their cause. Whether it may reach beyond what is observed is the real question, and science also reasons from what is seen to what is not.
Where it lands — Hume's test does not rule out a Creator in advance, so the arguments have to be weighed on their merits.
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), the antinomies
Argues that when reason goes beyond possible experience it produces equally strong proofs of opposite claims, among them that the world has a beginning in time and that it has none, and that a necessary being exists and that none does. Kant read the clash as a sign of reason's limits. He allowed that a necessary being outside the series of appearances is not ruled out, but held that it cannot be proved. The cosmological argument, he said, wrongly carries the idea of cause beyond experience.
Cited for
Kant showed that reason, followed beyond experience, proves opposite answers about a first cause with equal force. So the honest course is to stop.
The response
Kant's proofs about a beginning came from reason alone, before there was evidence about the universe's past. The argument from dependence needs no beginning. Kant's deeper doubt is that the idea of cause cannot reach beyond experience, though he allowed a necessary being is not ruled out. That is Hume's question again. The argument starts from observed things that depend on others, and science also reasons from what is seen to what is not.
Where it lands — The argument from dependence needs no beginning and starts from what is observed, so Kant's stalemate does not settle the question against it.
T. H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', The Nineteenth Century, February 1889; reprinted in Collected Essays, vol. 5 (Macmillan, London, 1894), p. 246
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Cited for
Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated. No one has demonstrated that God exists, so hold back.
The response
This page claims no certainty. It asks for a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The first half of the same rule allows that: follow your reason as far as it will take you. Huxley also wrote that what is unproven today may be proven tomorrow.
Where it lands — Huxley's rule stops false certainty and leaves room for a reasoned conclusion that falls short of it.
T. H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', The Nineteenth Century, February 1889; reprinted in Collected Essays, vol. 5 (Macmillan, London, 1894), p. 246
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Cited for
The evidence is level, so the odds are fifty-fifty, and withholding judgement is the only honest course.
The response
Even odds are a verdict that must be reached by weighing the reasons. Three lines of reasoning point to a cause outside the universe, and the rival answers are tested on the linked pages. Not being certain does not make the scales level.
Where it lands — Uncertainty is not an even split, and whoever says the scales are level has to show the weighing.
T. H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', The Nineteenth Century, February 1889; reprinted in Collected Essays, vol. 5 (Macmillan, London, 1894), p. 246
“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Cited for
Informed, honest people disagree about God. When the experts cannot agree, the rational course is to withhold judgement.
The response
Informed people also disagree about free will and about ethics, and everyone still lives by an answer. Huxley called agnosticism a method of weighing, not a standing verdict that nothing can be known. Disagreement is a reason to look harder, and the stakes make it practical.
Where it lands — Disagreement among the informed is a reason to weigh the arguments oneself, and to do it now.
Perspectives
Agnostic: we cannot know, so hold back
Whether there is a God lies beyond what can be shown. The honest course, in Huxley's words, is not to "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable". Careful people have weighed the arguments and disagree, so holding back is the rational response.
Huxley's rule forbids claiming certainty about God, so the honest position is to suspend judgement.
Rebuttal
The rule has two halves, and the second bars only false certainty. This page asks for a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, which the first half allows.
The evidence for and against God is even. So the reasonable thing is to give each side fifty per cent, and not decide.
Rebuttal
Even odds are a verdict that has to be reached by weighing. Being unsure is not the same as the scales being level. The reasons from dependence, from a beginning and from order are on the table.
Careful, informed thinkers disagree about God, so suspending judgement is the rational response.
Rebuttal
Well-informed people also disagree about free will and about right and wrong. Yet everyone still lives by an answer. Disagreement is a reason to weigh the arguments yourself, as Huxley's rule says.
When reason goes beyond experience, it gives equally strong proofs for opposite answers: for and against a first beginning, and for and against a being that must exist. So reason cannot settle the question.
Rebuttal
Kant held that a being that must exist cannot be proved, because the idea of a cause cannot reach beyond experience. But the argument from dependence starts from things we observe, and asks for their cause, as science does. It does not need the universe to have a beginning. So Kant's deadlock about a beginning does not touch it.
Empiricist (knowledge comes only from experience): we cannot know
Knowledge comes from only two sources: reasoning about numbers and ideas, and experience of what exists. Hume held that an argument that fits neither can hold nothing but sophistry and illusion. So no argument about a Creator can give knowledge.
Reasoning that is about neither numbers nor observed facts, such as an argument about a Creator, can give no knowledge.
Rebuttal
Hume's own test keeps reasoning about matter of fact and existence. The case for a Creator is that kind: from observed things that depend, to their cause. Whether it may reach beyond experience is the question, and the test does not settle it in advance.
No one has experienced a Creator, so belief in one goes beyond what experience can support.
Rebuttal
No one has experienced the early universe either. Cosmologists reason from galaxies receding now to a hot, dense early state, so science reasons from what is seen to what is not.
Reason's standard: beyond reasonable doubt
Knowledge comes in degrees. Huxley's rule bars false certainty and allows a strong conclusion short of it. On that standard, three lines of reasoning together lead to a Maker.
Huxley's rule has two halves. Follow reason as far as it goes. And do not claim a certainty that has not been shown.
A wise person matches his belief to the evidence. So knowing comes in degrees. It is not all or nothing.
Huxley fixes no limit on knowledge in advance. He accepts only limits that are demonstrated and keeps the mind open to conviction.
Reasons from the dependence of things, from the evidence of a beginning and from order together point to a Maker. The rival answers are weighed on the linked pages.
The Islamic perspective
Islam asks people to think about creation, and to claim only what they know. And it gives its reasons. It teaches that faith grows into certainty. And it teaches that knowing the Maker is the first step of a whole way of life.
The Qur'an calls on people to reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth.
The Qur'an forbids pursuing what one has no knowledge of.
The Qur'an asks whether people were made from nothing, made themselves, or made the heavens and the earth.
The Qur'an says God (﷾) showed Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth. It was so that he might be certain.
The Qur'an describes the believers as those who believed and have never doubted since. Ibn Kathir explains that these are the believers whose faith is complete.
Islam teaches that certainty, yaqin, is the fruit of reflecting on the reasons and not a replacement for them. Knowing the Maker leads to worship and character.