1_ How did existence emerge out of no-space and no-time? How can an atheist assume that his atheism is valid when the moment of the start of existence is a stark proof on the creativity of the Creator and His ability to originate existence?

2_ How did no-life transform into life? How did matter mutate from lifelessness into living cell? With all our techniques and advancements we cannot (till this very moment) originate the simplest form of life, so how can we explain the origination of life in the dead matter? Wouldn’t we have been, at least, able to originate a form of life that supersedes the one the originated in the dead matter, by at least a million times?

3_ How can the atheist argue against the annihilation of all mankind? What is the rational, substantial and scientific evidence an atheist can present to prove that annihilation of all mankind is a mistake? 

The material world knows no right and wrong! So, annihilation of mankind must be equal to keeping them alive from their perspective!

4_ Atheism assumes that human beings are just animals who came into existence after a long and slow sequence of evolution from meaner beings; so what if a higher being came into existence? Will it have the right to put us all in cages and use us as lab rats? The Darwinist answer that we derive from matter is: Yes! So, what’s the purpose from protecting mankind or providing them with meaning or purpose when it comes to atheism? Atheism, here, is unable to explain the reality of man!

5_ What if, according to evolution, we proved that one race is higher than the other? Will the higher race be entitled to transform the lesser race into used matter; as we do with the lesser insects or animals? 

Again, the Darwinist answer is: Yes! This very argument is enough to obliterate atheism from any mind that utilizes common sense; since the only criteria to judge who is better than who is the criterion of God-fearingness, not by color or strength.

6_ Atheists argue that morals are relative (meaning: can be seen from more than one perspective). 

So, honesty can be better than betrayal or betrayal can be better in some cases. Yet when confronted with their own trials they claim outright that morality is objective and that things like honesty or betrayal are absolute.

 Because if morals are relative, then immorality makes no sense since we will never be able to set a line between morality and immorality.

 This is definitely a clear contradiction; because if morality was objective and absolute, then this law of morality must have had a law-giver (the will of Allah and divine accountability).

 If morality was relative, then no atheist must complain from immorality or even comprehend its concept.

7_ How did the amazing constants of physics emerge? 

All of these constants entail very intricate differences that must never vary even by the slightest or minutest fraction or the whole universe would collapse! For instance, the cosmological constant is fine tuned to 120 decimal places and if it was one decimal more or less the whole universe would collapse.

 This precision proves the accuracy of a great Maker; noting that the constants are numerous in physics and all of them are intricately precise.

8_ How did the Genome emerge within the living cells?

 A code must require a coder, and this Genome designates what each cell will be used for; doesn’t this prove that there is a unique Maker dictating very specific codes?

9_ Where did morality and values come from; when it comes to atheism? 

Atheism sees the universe as a tumultuous sea of atoms that make no sense and have no purpose, which was one of the driving motives to immorality and depravity. But since morality does exist then atheism is invalid.