By A. Abdul Aziz.

Those who do not believe in the Existence of God,  primarily contend that they would believe in God if they could see Him. It always surprises since people perceive different types of physical properties through different senses; for example, [some properties are perceived through] sight, others through touch, or smell, or sound or taste. As a case in point, colour is recognised through sight rather than by smell, touch, or taste. Hence, if a person denied its existence on the grounds that they could not discern it by way of the faculty of sound, would they not be considered a fool? Similarly, sound itself is perceived through hearing. Again, would it not be ignorant for a person to insist they would only believe someone could speak once they had seen their voice? Likewise, fragrances are known through the sense of smell; yet, if someone were to claim they would only accept the truth of the aroma of a rose if they could taste it, could such a person be considered erudite and intelligent? In contrast, flavours such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty and so on are known by taste and can never be recognised through smell. Hence, it is not necessary to disbelieve in that which cannot be seen and accept only that which is visible to the naked eye. To do this would be to deny the existence of the fragrance of a rose, the sourness of a lime, the sweetness of honey, the bitterness of aloe, the hardness of iron and the beauty of the [human voice]; none of these phenomena are perceived through sight, rather through the faculties of smell, taste, touch and sound. Thus the assertion that one has to see God to believe in Him is gravely mistaken. Do such detractors recognise the fragrance of a rose or the sweetness of honey through their sight? If not, why do they insist on sight as the determining factor for belief in God?