Existence of God Proof through Creation
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 63.27MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
Hey this middle manager him and handler here Bill Alameen wa Salatu was Salam ala Rasulillah while he was talking he edge Marian As Salam aleikum, we're here to learn about accountable everyone and welcome to the first lecture in the Sierra forums new series, the first pillar the proofs of God's existence. My name is Raja, I am the president of the Sierra forum, and will be the emcee for tonight. And we are just so excited to be able to bring the first of our lecture series to you today, by the mercy of Allah subhanaw taala. I pray that it is beneficial for all of us. As we begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands for which we are joining
me today. And I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging.
I'm going to firstly very quickly run through a few housekeeping notes. So to ensure the best online experience for yourself and for everyone else, we ask that you please keep yourself on mute throughout the lecture. Inshallah, we will have a q&a session at the end, so please submit your questions through the link, I'm pasting into the chat right now.
This lecture is also being recorded and will be made available to you all in the coming days in shuttler. But don't worry, your names and faces won't be shown in that. And also we will be having a 10 minute break for Melbourne Sala about halfway through the meeting. So we ask that you all stay logged in and just tune back in after that 10 minute break inshallah.
So, before I introduce our esteemed speaker for today's lecture, I'd like to give a very brief introduction to the series. The first pillar is a three week lecture series that aims to address the doubts regarding the existence of Allah subhanaw taala.
There is a recognizable need to reconnect and to redevelop our faith and our conviction in the truth of Islam. Particularly in a time where distractions are abundant and misinformation is so easily spread. It's only natural that many in the Muslim community, particularly the viewers are questioning the existence of Allah subhanaw taala.
So in this lecture series, we aim to prove the existence of God by discussing the creation of the universe and the perfection and precision of natural phenomena. There is an innate human need to believe in a higher power, one that we will never fully understand but cannot dispute and that is our fracas. Inshallah, over the next three weeks, we hope to create a safe space where doubts are welcomed, as we provide comprehensive evidence for the existence of one fruit but in today's lecture, we will hear from a very special speaker to discuss the existence of God proof through creation, as we aim to explain the arguments that prove only a being could create the universe. It
is my pleasure to introduce Orsted Abdullah Andalusi, an international speaker and intellectual activist for Islam and Muslim Affairs, who is joining us today all the way from the UK.
We'll start Abdullah is an instructor at the Quran Institute and co founder of the Muslim debate initiative. He has many years experience explaining and demonstrating the intellectual proofs of the existence of Allah so that makes him an expert on today's topic in sha Allah. With that being said, I will hand over to
just go ahead I'm missing out on the Rahim Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam, the Vickery Muhammad Ali Taiping sat beside him.
I'd like to thank the organizers at the Sierra Forum and the share for inviting me to talk about this much needed topic which is establishing a kind of firm pillar for our beliefs and our creed in mainly the belief in one God.
So Inshallah, I'll kind of go into some of this discussion.
The, the Quran offers has a number of different discussions on on God's existence.
There are a kind of two angles that the Quran approaches the discussion of God full stop. One of them is the verses which we see in the Quran that talk about the heaven, heavens and the earth. We see that a big kind of angle that it's approaching that those these topics with is to discuss to a polytheist audience. How the universe can only have one creator behind it not multiple creators, or there can't be more than one, deities that are controlling the errific and universal that caused it to exist otherwise there would be much
Some kind of fraction and that be much kind of contradiction within the universe itself, as the laws of physics will start will be changing constantly and there'll be a kind of a competition between two wheels that are behind everything which can't be the case.
But also the Quran which has many layered meanings, and has is always relevant in any day and age to any audience. In this day and age, we see that the one of the main challenges to theism is not polytheism monotheism is not polytheism, but is rather a type of atheism. Some would say that atheism and polytheism share similar characteristics in that the polytheists would attribute to the Divinity finitude or would attribute to finite things, divine qualities. So,
in essence, this things haven't really moved on or changed since the past, because, ultimately speaking, humans always attempt to attribute to the Creator
finite attributes or the attribute to finite things, something the attributes of the Creator like eternality.
So in this case, we're going to go into discussing the the current out so called Alternative theories to God's existence, and alternative explanations behind the universe. So one of the particulars that many people get confused with regards to theoretical physics,
because they, they believe that
if a person is a physicist, and they have they present, a spec is really a speculation on their part.
And they dress it up with scientific versus scientific language. But more than they dress it up with jargon from theoretical physics. And it sounds very complicated and almost mysterious. They think, Well, this must be a viable argument made by this physicist, because they are physicists there, they are renowned, and they are atheist, and they're making argument of how the whole universe comes into being without a creator.
The issue is that
it's a reason why it's called theoretical physics or not actual physics is because this is in the realm of speculation. And kind of a lot of what I tried to do is I try to show that if you examine these theories in the scientific theories, you'll see that they are speculative. Whereas when we kind of look through and understand the possible causes behind the universe, what we do is we're not like postulating something that exists that we need to verify empirically, like there's a teapot orbiting the sun, you have to verify that empirically, you can make the claim. But if there's no actual, you're making a claim about something inside the universe, which we haven't seen, so that
requires to be justified. But we're not discussing about whether God exists inside the universe, or not. We're discussing, what are the only possible explanations for the existence of the universe itself? IE?
What is the cause of the universe? Does the universe have a cause? Does it need a cause? These are the most fundamental questions, much more fundamental questions that we can have we look into. And in essence, we, as human beings with rational minds,
ask these much more fundamental questions, then, someone who's made exploring the universe to find out what's inside the universe. And of course, to find out what's inside a box, you have to open the box, but we're not talking about what's inside the box, we're talking about where's the box come from? And, and so it's a different question entirely. So, an empiricist is very valid, to be empirical, as into deduce things or to search for things that are apparent to the empiricist by observation, inside the, the this box of a universe so to speak. But we are talking about the box itself, a different subject matter entirely. And some atheist, empiricists, they kind of miss apply
empiricism to that which is beyond the empirical, but it exists nevertheless. So the origin of this universe we will never be able to observe it directly. We can we can never observe it directly. And also fundamentally, the existence and being inside this universe will actually what what is the smallest thing let's say made out of let's just say, an empiricist could never fathom or would never be able to even verify or know because you
In order to understand what things are made of when these things need to be made of something smaller, and if this there, if there is a smallest thing,
then we would never be able to understand what that thing is even made out of, because it's not made up, we can't break it down to anything further. And so, empiricism is very limited in as a, as a tool in what it can do, it can only look at things which are composites, and, and basically analyze how much of a of a smaller thing that a thing is made out of, let's say, and it can't is limited by time, empiricism can go to the origins of all things, or to make a direct observation of the origins whole thing. So let's start with something basic. And then we'll go to a bit more kind of, you could say, more advanced, theoretical, physical models, which are speculated to be an explanation behind
the universe. So let's look at the Big Bang. So people say, Now, interestingly enough, as many atheists were against the idea of the Big Bang, because they, many atheists were for the idea of a kind of, you could say,
unchanging, eternal universe. So the universe has always looked the way it has been, and it's looked at, and it's always been around forever in the past. Now, this theory, or this idea,
was something that didn't require, from their view, the existence of God to explain, because if the universe has always been the way it was, its eternal, it doesn't need a creator. However, when it was noticed, when there was obviously redshift, in kind of like a spectrum of LightWave, reaching us, it was seen that things are moving away from us, ourself, and they're moving away in every direction, it became undeniable to postulate that the universe is expanding. So either we are right at the very, even if we are at the very middle of the universe, and everything's moving away from us. That would be a demonstration of expansion. But obviously, we're, it's most unlikely we're right
in the middle of the universe. But still, everything is moving away from us, in all directions, and so the universe is basically is expanding space and time itself is expanding. So if it's expanding, then it must, it must have come from a from an origin point, to space and time.
And that's basically as far as we've got in terms of what we can demonstrate physically, for what is an explanation for the physical data we can observe. Now, that's where then the physicists have too many physicists. Because there are many, there are a large majority of physicists to a theist, and there are also a large proportion of them who are atheist. Science doesn't really back up one way or the other, in terms of direct observation.
But it's the explanations behind what we observe, which cause the physicists to diverge into being theist or monotheism, theist or atheist. So while we can show that the universe was, has been expanding, the you can't say I suppose, empirically, that you know, what happened that caused it? What caused it to expand? Or did it come from a singularity, like a small, tiny point? Or was it just a small ball and then expanded to a ball of certain size and then expanded? There's a number of things that inflation can't really explain, empirically. And now the question is, now the speculation comes in by the physicist, they try to now fill in the gap of what could cause a
inflating universe. So I'm about using more complicated jargon, I'll keep it nice and simple. There are a few basic models which are positive. So one, you could say is a, let's say, a cyclical model. So one model says states that
maybe the Universe has been expanding and contracting and expanding and contracting in the eternally in the past. And when that we're now just currently in a in a particular expansion, and then it will go into a type of contraction. Now, that was a type of circle model. But the problem with that model is that
it brings in infinity into the finite and that insensitive infinity in time, that means that the past, there was an infinite amount of universes in the past,
expanding and then contracting to get to this point. The problem with that is that infinity is not completable. You can't complete infinity. If you can complete it, it's finite to if you can complete counting infinity. It's actually then finite.
What that means is that our past has to be uncompleted.
To get to this point in time,
but that doesn't make any sense. Because if the past is uncompleted, and we know that to arrive at a particular point in a, let's say, a dependent chain of, let's say causes, you'd have to complete infinity, we'd never arrive at this point. It's like me saying that this lecture will end after I finished an infinitely long presentation, would it ever? Will it ever end up? Or if before this lecture was to begin, the host, was to announce that I'll be speaking in an infinite amount of time, we would never start the presentation, I never get to start the presentation. And that's a problem, which, again, physicists that in the models, they many of the atheists to speculate this kind of
model, really don't really want to kind of address. And instead, they'll try to make arguments like, oh, well, maybe you can't have infinities in mathematics, they try to make this argument. And so maybe there is an infinity in the finite in our paths.
even though George Cantor talked about things like infinite sets, it was not really infinite set of numbers, the numbers cannot be infinite. Many people tell me made some atheists have Tom told me, the the number line is infinite. And I said, but there is no number line. And they say, well, but there's, you know, there's an infinite amount of numbers. And I say, Well, no, in the decimal system, there's only 10 numbers, you know, one to nine, and then zero, what we do is mathematics uses accounting rule, which is that any any number we can conceive of we can think of, or we can represent with our computation machines,
we can represent by using decimal system. That's it. That's, that's, that's all it is. And George Cantor never really proved that infinity exists in mathematics, but rather, he basically, in essence,
you could say, imagine the number line as a set, and just call it a set in a way. And then, and then it's like me saying that I have a bag, and the bag contains infinite bags, right, or a bag contains infinite things.
The bag is finite, but I'm going to tell you to think of the contents of the bag as being infinite, or having infinite number of certain things. And that's it. And then you know, if I get that bag, and I get a second bag that also has infinite infinite number of things, I have two bags of two infinities.
But in practice, in physics, there is no infinity in physics. And of course, whenever
in the in the universe, there's no infinity in mathematics, there's no infinity, there's just it's like me saying I can prove infinity is in mathematics by drawing the, the kind of infinity symbol, you know, so it looks like a n number eight, turn sideways. Yeah, that doesn't prove infinity exists in mathematics. And whenever an infinity is predicted by a physical model, ie a mathematical model to represent some things, it's not something that's observed in the physical world. Whenever an infinity is predicted by the equation, this physicist will tell you that we know the equations incorrect. So whenever the equation ever gets to, let's say, a one divided by zero, basically,
then it's going to which equals infinity and will cause an error and your calculators. They know that the equation breaks down. They they say they call it the equation breaks down. It doesn't explain
this particular gravity. And of course, quantum mechanics was discovered, because a previous equation broke down, imagined energy to be infinitely divisible. And energy actually is discrete in quanta. Right? It's actually in discrete packets. And that's how they discovered quantum mechanics it was because the previous model which assumed energy could be divided infinitely produced errors that didn't match the expert, the experimentation and predicted infinity. And then they discovered that well, this can't be right. And then they, they, to their surprise, discovered the energy is not infinitely divisible, but is broken can be broken down into quantum quantum packets, more packets of
energy, the smallest packets of energy. So there is no if infinity in, in physics, and any thing that predicts infinity ie any equation whereby if you put the numbers in, in an equation that is meant to model something we can observe, and ends up with a one divided by zero at some point.
That That means the equation is incorrect or doesn't care doesn't deal with every situation. In essence, and there's many physicists would best explain to you with if a singularity is predicted ie infinity
There's a problem with the equation itself and they have to use renormalization. renormalization is when they try to reject the equation to reject the question to, to come to a result closer to what they can observe empirically.
See, mathematical models
are based upon,
you could say, very simplified assumed assumptions. So, if I see a ball that's bouncing on the ground, and the ball, it bounces and, and every time it bounces, it bounces to half that the height of what it bounced before, and it gets smaller and smaller and smaller mathematics would predict that the ball would, would continue bouncing forever, infinitely for infinite amount of time, because it will never reach zero. But the mathematical equations assume that the ball has zero point, point mass. So it's the mass is centered in a small point of it, there is no energy loss in gravity. And there's no definition of the ball, which also involves energy loss, as the ball
bounces, all the things that exist in the physical world. And so it's basically a mathematical models are simplified models of the world, which don't represent the world itself.
But are useful for rough approximations, rough approximation, but they are useful. But if but sometimes these models break down when you go into the details, because they don't match reality 100% And especially when they produce predictions of,
of singularities or infinite infinities in these models. So that's anyway, that's, that's, that's the first part of my presentation is to show
that people shouldn't get confused with with theoretical physics,
speculations dressed up as valid scientific theories,
the speculations can still be irrational and still contained contradictions. But because many theoretical physics are willing to, let's say, live with those contradictions, or, in a way, hope that you don't mind those contradictions. You don't notice those contradictions, they get away with making certain getting moved, make certain claims. And I think before well, I'll give you one final example. And then we'll break up for the market of prayer in the where you are at, of course, here, it's early in the morning. It's 930 in the morning, of course.
So, Alexander Vilenkin, is a theoretical physicist, and he posited an idea that the universe could come from nothing by itself. And what he did is he said that
quantum nucleation occurs. So something it has a nonzero probability, he said, which means he says that there basically, there could be a quantum fluctuation, let's say, just appearing out of nothing, out of nothing. And that possibility is not zero, it's very small, but not zero. And then once we start with that premise, eventually, you can explain that once a quantum fluctuation happens and reaches a certain threshold, we now then have once it reaches a certain threshold, that threshold from that as a starting point, we have the physical models, to at least make a possible possible claim that once a quantum fluctuation at a certain threshold will cause the universe to
come into existence and expansion to occur. Now, while the mathematical models
or the modeling the the models which are produced, which show that there's when there is a kind of quantum nucleation, that reaches a certain level for a certain threshold, in order to generate kind of negative gravity, the thing that kinds of that causes an expansionist kind of force.
While that model could be a possibility, as to once there is a quantum nucleation, the causal quantum nucleation itself, he just hoped that you wouldn't ask too many questions about why he said that was not zero and Why could it come to existence?
The best way to explain this to give you an analogy, Naka, please, I want to keep this as simple as possible, is, it's like me saying,
if I was to inspect every oven, in the country, I'm in every oven, there is a I mean, the majority of ovens are gonna probably not have a cake in it. But there is a nonzero probability that there'll be an oven somewhere that has a you know, like a piece of dough with yeast in it or what have you, let's say let's say bread or cake or whatever. And that produces a cake or a loaf of bread or
Something like that. So and we can explain from from we have a mathematical model to show that from a dough that has yeast, the dough of yeast will expand and produce a loaf of bread. And you say, that's all very great. That might be, you know, the case that is the case, most likely is the case. But where did the dough come from with the yeast, you just said, we could find it, there's a nonzero probability that it can be we can find it in. In any particular oven, we look at randomly before the ovens exits in the country. And now we and then once it exists, we have a model to explain how it could expand. Well, that's all great about how you explain it expanded from initial condition. But
what caused that initial condition? You didn't explain that you're just hoping that people don't ask that question. And that's the kind of fallibility behind their speculation. It is a speculation, which starts off with an irrational postulate just, it's just making a claim, and then hoping that you don't investigate it further. And then saying, right, well, once we've made this claim that this exists, we can now explain how it could have expanded Well, that's great how it could have expanded might have been your your models might predict exactly how expanded from that initial point or piece. But you didn't explain where that piece comes from. You're just saying that something in
essence comes from nothing. And you're hoping that people don't notice you're saying that, because you're dressing it up with, with with hiding it behind, let's say probability. But probability is it doesn't really explain anything, it just probability is basically our way of measuring things that we don't know, we can't decisively predict from its cause, or we can't guarantee that it will, it will always come into combat. So we have something to measure that called probability. So if I flip a coin, I can't guarantee myself to generate a heads or tails. But I can say, well, if I flip it twice,
you know, then there's a high probability of getting a heads than if I just flipped it once, for example, that will that means that all the possible outcomes, you know that the probability of heads and tails are equal, they're equal to each other. And the probability is, you get a probability of, of, let's say, one in two, let's say. But that's not guarantee right, you could flip it four times and not get heads, let's say, but that's a small probability.
That's what probability measures probability doesn't tell you what causes something. It's just a measure of the effects. What is the likelihood of the effect being a particular effect? That's it. And so that's where some theoretical physics physicists who want to not involve God in the equation they try to hide
hide the the lack of a cause, by dressing it up in something to distract you with by saying, Oh, it's probability randomness. As if randomness is a God that can create randomness is again, what we, what we something we give to effects affects our random as in what we can't determine, or we see no order in effect. But that doesn't explain the course still doesn't explain the cause of those things. Anyway, so before we go to the second part, and I shall I will break up for markup. And then we'll discuss rationally what can we what can we exclusively to deduce?
Behind the Ortler say, infer behind the cause of the universe and Sharla
said, a very interesting point to leave us on. So yes, we will be having a short break now. For Mohammed Salah as Salaam Alaikum everyone and welcome back to the second half of our lecture. Without any further ado, I'm going to hand it straight back to Mr. Abdullah to continue
now we've got all of the physics out of the way, we can start using our, our rational minds to see what we can infer from what we can observe. The whole point of the intellect is to basically make inferences beyond what we can see.
Many animals react simply to what they see, although some possess instinctual you could say a type of instinctual knowledge in that day prepare for things that they don't see like storing away food for for the winter or for hibernation, or bees designing hex, hex, hexagonal, hexagonal kind of storage, plays for for the honey at different parts of of the hive in the end up perfectly, you know, meeting together in the middle and it's perfect
perfectly fitting structure.
So if we don't really use our intellects, and we just say, well, I will only believe what we see. And I'll only we'll only discuss what we can. But only, we won't go beyond what we can see, then there's no point having the intellect because the intellect, the whole point of it is to make deductions and inferences for from what we can see to what we can't see.
So let's kind of start with two, you could say two basic approaches. And as I will show, these approaches are actually are in the Quran, they're all in the URL from the Quran.
The first point will be, let's look at what we can see. So we know let's look at time as one example. Now time to know what is what is time, how do you measure time, a time can only be measured by looking at something that has a
emotion of something that returns to its same position at a regular uniform amount of time. So for example, the orbit of the sun, or clock, for example, are examples of things which they return to a state, which they were before. And they will constant, they're in motion, but they'll constantly return back to the same state at regular intervals, and equal equidistant intervals.
So that's, that's in a way, the only way you can ever measure time at all whatsoever. And I just want to I want to make that point, because we'll see later on how how interesting, it matches up to what the Quran says.
So okay, we have, we have the earth rotating around that sort of moving around the Sun orbiting the sun, we have the sun orbiting the center of the, of the galaxy. And of course, we have the earth rotating on its axis.
So we have a lot of rotational things to look at that to measure time.
Now if we look at because things are changing, and things have been changing, for some time, the question is how things been rotating and changing, so to speak, for an eternity past, or was there a beginning? Well, as I said before, if time in the past was infinite, then we would take an infinite amount of time to get to this point. But infinity doesn't complete itself, you can't be infinity can't be completed. And therefore we would have reached this point in time.
Therefore, there was a start point to time itself, time readers being void will be called change, time being the regular the regularities of what we see behind change.
And so if there wasn't infinite change in the past, then there has to be a first change, you know, first beginning change of some kind. But now the question is, well, before change, what was there? Well, there was non change. And non change, by definition can't go into change by itself.
There has to be something that initiated, the change has to be an initiating factor to something which doesn't change, to then initiate change to happen.
So what could be that, that cause that initiates change, you know, initiates time itself? Well, either it's basically it, let's look at the possibilities. So either
it was happened by, let's say, randomness. But randomness doesn't it's not really an explanation. Randomness just says that the effect happens, and it's unpredictable. But it doesn't tell us anything about the course nothing at all. So that's not really an explanation. It's rather in need of an explanation. So then what's left? Well, the only possibility left is since change isn't can't come spontaneously from absolutely a state of absolute non change.
And there can't be infinite change in the past, then the only thing you're left is that there is something that initiated change. But what are the what is the attribute of something that can initiate change? Well, if it was an automated mechanism, it's like maybe, you know, a big massive clock or cosmic clock of some kind. And it was programmed to initiate create universes, let's just say the question would arise what makes the clock make universe what makes this cosmic cause make universes or this cosmic factory make universes? Well, if you were to say well, it has an internal mechanism that is that that is moving and it makes it make universes say okay, but then, what's this
movement of this eternal of this so called Eternal let's say factory or eternal?
it has, it has always been moving in the past inside itself, its mechanism has always been moving or what have you, if you say yes, then we're right back to where we started, which is you'll have a an eternity past of change, which in this case inside this factory, or this universal, this cosmic factory, or this cosmic clock, and you still haven't explained anything. So there has to be there has to be an absolute beginning to change that is not something that's automatic or mechanistic, but has to be initiated. Now, if it's not automatic or mechanistic, if it's not coming from nothing, so must come because nothing doesn't, from nothing, nothing comes
this something is an existence something because it has to exist. And initiates,
initiates change. And if the only way you can initiate change, if there's nothing, there's no mechanism that is making it initiate change
is that it has to choose it, it has to, in essence, initiate it by choice,
by will. And
in a way, the Free Will the only free will if you actually if you truly think about it, though the only real real free free will. And this is something that has will and can initiate change from nothing if someone can initiate change from nothing,
then it can add energy, it can create energy or create movement from from nothing. And if it can create movement or change or energy from nothing, then it is inexhaustible. Its power, power, power means your ability to cause an effect is then unlimited. Because if you can create from nothing, a state of nothing can no change, change or adding something to reality, this thing can add to reality. And therefore, if it can add to reality itself, it has, it is unlimited and Omni potent in power, because to be able to add to reality itself means that you're inexhaustible, because you're not if you had a store of energy, and you just use a store of energy that the store could run out,
then you might say, Well, how do you know that this creator doesn't have a store of energy, and then just a size to take from that store and make things out of it. But to move, let's say to move energy from a store, to actually doing something when that energy wasn't doing anything before still requires energy itself in a way. So to even move the move something from a storage to being used requires energy and if it you have to beg to move that stored energy, so to speak. And to do that you need to add energy into where it was no, none before. So anyway, you look at it, this omnipotent being is concrete energy from nothing can create movement from nothing will change from nothing. It
can add to reality. And it does so by choice because anything else produces a contradiction, to say it has an internal mechanism, then that mechanism needs to be explained as in what is the infinite, an infinite change that's happening inside there's an internal mechanism from the past. How can it do anything, if it requires an infinite past to be completed in order for it to create a universe like if I had a factory, and the factory was making universes, and to make our universe this factory had to produce infinite universes in the past, or infinite infinite products to get to our US, it wouldn't be able to, we would never reach this point in the creation cycle of this factory. And
again, the infinite infinite past, an infinite past of change is basically an infinite past of dependent changes. Each one depends on the one before it really can't explain come exist and will produce a contradiction in that you're waiting to complete something on completable.
So, the time itself demonstrates the existence the necessary requirement to have there being a creator that caused changed from no change. And to be able to do so demonstrated that he is of infinite power and infinite potential. And of course, down then the question is the next question is, of course is that well, why this specific universe? Why not a different universe of some kind? Now, some might say well, and some atheists have tried to get around this by saying maybe there are infinite universes of every particular variety you can imagine.
which I find quite obviously funny because many some atheist using it
rhetoric they use a particular rhetoric. They say we don't believe in God like we don't we don't believe in fairies, goblins and unicorns. And I say, Well, if you have, if you have infinite universes,
you do believe in fairies, goblins and unicorns. And I say, Well, how so? I say, well, because if there was an infinite universes with every possible thing that could exist, would would exist in one of these universes. That out there somewhere in this multiverse, there is goblins, unicorns, and fairies. And that would mean that they exist. God bless you, because you insist that there are infinite universes out there of every particular variety, you have to exist, you have to believe in fairies, goblins and unicorns, whereas we wouldn't believe so because we don't have any evidence for that.
And that I find that quite ironic, however,
even to posit that there are infinite universes with every possible kind of universe of different even with different laws of physics still needs to explain why any one particular universe and not a lot, not another. So it's like if, let's say I had an infinite factory, and the factory produced infinite things like it produced two cars, they produced mobile phones, they produced beach balls. And that one in any one moment, let's say one moment, it produces a type of one type of
Android phone, let's say, and then another moment, it produces a flat screen TV. The question is why that one moment, it produced a flat screen TV and not a car, let's say even though it makes cars as well, and it does so. But why not? That particular thing being was a flat screen TV and not a car, let's say a particular car. And, and let's say when it produces a car produces, let's say a type of BMW, why not a type of LD,
there still needs to be an explanation for why
there is something is made in one particular way and not another particular way for that for its own instance, for its own instance of existence. Why is this universe have certain constants, certain rules of physics and not a different law of physics? They say, I'll ask because what there are other universes out there? They have different laws of physics? No, no, I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about this universe, why this particular law of physics for this universe, the specificity of this particular universe needs to be explained. And if they say, well, it was done by randomness. Again, that's not an explanation. You're not talking about causes. You're talking about effects.
Anyone mentioned the word random, you're talking about the effects, you're not talking about causes. You need to explain why this particular universe having the particular attributes, it does have a not different attributes. positing that there are other other universes that have different attributes, doesn't explain anything, you're just saying that there are other things up also need explanation, you're increasing the burden of explanation, not decreasing it by positing that there are other universes, so that this particular universe, how it is made, the specific things that occur in this universe, the specific laws of physics that that govern, and are behind the
regularities we see in this universe that needs to be explained to what why those particular laws when all the laws can be conceived of. And that is something again, that even theoretical physicists, they argue that they don't have an explanation for why a particular set of physics itself why that particular set of laws.
There's also now a third argument I bring, which is
everything in the universe is dependent, and or contingent, as some people like to say they call it a contingency argument. But I want to I kind of want to use something don't use more plain English, I'll just say, let's say everything in this universe is dependent. Now, the argument that if you have an African universe is dependent, the sum total of dependent things is dependent. And you can't have existence only of dependent things, and nothing or no independent thing to be the basis the anchor for all things which are dependent. Now dependent thing is basically something whose existence depends on something else, and not enough itself. And you can't have a universe or have
everything which its existence depends on something external to itself. Let me give you an analogy to understand this. So let's say
I use this example quite typically. So let's say there's a food vending machine that has a chocolate bar. And there are people that want that chocolate bar
but they have no money. There's one person that wants it but has no money. But once that chocolate bar so they asked, they asked their friend, do you have some money to to use on that token, can you lend me some money I want because I want to go get that chocolate bar out of the machine. But his friend doesn't have any money, then he asked his friend and his friend also doesn't have any money in the house that his friend and his friend saw, and so on, so forth. Even if you're an infinite amount of people who asked to really be lend money, to get that chocolate bar out of that machine, if they were all poor, poor support, and they don't have any money at all whatsoever, then, even if
you ask the infinite amount of, let's say, these hypothetical poor people, you wouldn't get that you wouldn't have any money to get that chocolate bar out of the machine, there has to be someone who has money and initiates the lending process. So he even says, I'll lend it to you. And you can lend it to him and lend it to him and her and him and her whatever, and all the way down to the all the way down the chain to someone that actually wants to get the chocolate bite out of the machine. So a universal, which only has dependent things in it.
And then if there is no nothing else that exists outside it, or whatever, there's just as universe dependent things would not explain how this universe comes into why everything is the way it is, and and where it comes from. And in essence, why and the origin of these dependent things who their existence depends on something else. Now, someone says, Well, ah, but how do you know everything in universe is dependent? Right? How do you know this? Right? Maybe they just they all are independent? Well, let's look at let's understand that, shall we? Well, by looking at the opposite, so what would what is a independent thing, an independent thing is something which their existence is not
dependent on anything outside itself, it exists due to its own sustaining property or sustains itself. And it it has no, it can't have any connection to anything else. Outside itself. It's not the because it's not dependent on anything outside itself. Something that is independent, can't be then affected by anything outside itself, because its own existence, which by kind of consequence, the mode of its existence, is only dependent on itself, right. So it determines how it exists, and what and and what it does.
If that's the case, then it can't be interacted with by anything outside itself. It is independent, truly, from anything outside itself. But what we witness is that everything in his universe is dependent, because it interacts with each other, and it affects each other. But also, if there was something that was independent, it wouldn't be in a universe of dependent things, it would be attached in a way from a universe of dependent things. So only the only things that can exist in this universe, so to speak, that we would say our inside our inside are things which are dependent anyway. And if they are dependent, and they affect each other, then there has to be
there has to be something independent, that is not interactable.
But, and is detached from us, but upon which all things depend. And now, of course, is something independent. And if it's independent, the question is, if it's independent, why did it even make dependent things in the first place. And again, if it is independent, it doesn't need to make things, things which are not dependent, but those dependent things can't be made by themselves, will can't exist by themselves. Therefore, they, they need an explanation. And so the thing that basically is independent, makes dependent things voluntarily and not out of necessity, otherwise, these dependent things wouldn't be dependent, they'd be part of the independent thing itself. And
so, we end up the conclusion that the universe itself
is, has to be dependent by the very fact that what exists in this in this universe, they interact with each other has to be dependent, and what is independent cannot be part of, of a universe of dependent things. And but but is must exist to explain why there is a universe of dependent things. I have another argument, which I call an argument from space and time that I can show how in both space and time, or that but space demonstrates things are things that have space or have extension are also dependent. And also, I can there's an argument for for time that I also have discussed, which also includes an argument that looks at what they might say as a block time, and shows how
that block time must also be must also require a creator to cause it to his existence, but that's a bit more advanced stuff which I won't
We'll go into here. However, I will finish off by simply saying that
in, in the Quran in surah Imran verse 190. It says, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day or the alternation of night and day, these are signs for men of Al Al Bab understanding.
We also see it surely in the alternations of night and day and in what and in what Allah has created in the heavens and the earth are signs for people who are God fearing for those people who are open, who feel it in their fitrah to believe in, in something that is that is powerful, and they are open to belief in it and they fear the consequence of not disbelieving reality of things that which are which which could be real. And then they open their minds to the prospect when they didn't observe and look at the universe. They will see with certitude that in the alternation is night and day and the Christian heavens and the earth. And again in another verse in Surah Baqarah, verse 164, it
says, These are Signs for those who use their intellect. Yeah. So what's it? Why does the Quran say in the alternation of night and day, the alternation of nights and days, the measurement of time. And so time itself is a demonstration and proof of God's existence. And in the creation of the heavens, and the earth, the earth, the origination of those things, as well demonstrates the existence of God. And so in a way this, the verse in the Quran is pointing us to look at both time and space or things in space. And that both time and space,
demonstrate the existence of God, ie space time, demonstrates the existence of God, and is this is a very wonderful verses amazing verses in the Quran. They're all amazing. But this is very amazing in relevance to
knowing God's existence. From that the alternation of night and day is how we measure time. That's how we, because it's a, it's a cyclical system that returns back to its original set of conditions, so to speak, relative to ourselves. And that's what we use to measure time, time itself. And the creation of the heavens, the earth, these dependent things are demonstrations of God's existence for those who use their intellect, for for those who want to know the truth, and fear rejecting the truth, those who have Taqwa and those who use their reason and understanding.
So that's basically free, amazing verses in the Quran. That in essence point to how these time and space itself are proofs of God's existence. So better coffee comm for listening and Inshallah, let's open up to questions and answers is at a level here and understood that was incredibly insightful, the Metallo, would you. So it does look like we'll be going over time. And I do apologize. But just a reminder that this is being recorded, and will be made publicly accessible on our YouTube page inshallah. So we do have quite a few questions that have come through a handling lawyer.
The first asks, with these theories, don't we assume that our rational systems hold true for what existed before the universe? And doesn't that make all theories inherently flawed?
Okay, so there is a
there's a misperception that our thinking abilities are based on or only would be valid for what happens inside this universe. When and we are thinking based on models of how the universe works, and therefore we try to apply these outside the universe. Actually, it is the atheists that are guilty of this to us
speculations about how the universe works and then trying to extrapolate or try to project onto what happens outside the universe. They say that basically what happens inside the universe is the same as happens inside the universe and and so therefore, the laws of physics always exist and there's always a constant laws of physics that was always been around and producing universes and things like like, like bubble nucleation or what have you.
In false vacuums, which is basically on the the Lincoln's argument on
this is incorrect. We it's not based on us using manmade, human made kind of logics. It's us avoiding the contradiction that would be inherent in in arguing anything else is the explanation behind the universe. Now, you might say the law of contradiction is a man made law or the law of the universe. No, it's not. It's called the law of non contradiction because
It just tells human beings to not contradict themselves. But it's not actually a law. It's just, and I mean this in the most fundamental way, it is reality itself. And I explained that the law of contradiction is simply
telling us something, if something exists, it can't, it does not not exist, right. And if something doesn't exist, it can't exist at the same time. So what is reality is reality, and is not to be contacted by non reality, I suppose.
That's really all it is. So if something is, then it must be, it can't be is not at the same time.
That's all it is. We call it the Lord on condition just to tell because humans need to call things laws, just as we call say, the laws of physics are basically we call the laws of physics. But really, it's just a regularities of the universe, the regularities that we've seen in the unit in the universe in some similar situations, we call these we derive a model from that a mathematical set of relations. And we call that and law, it's not a law, in the sense of manmade law law that we made, and we impose it on the universe is just a way of us understanding and making a model of regularities. And the law of non contradiction is the most fundamental law there is. For that we
have, let's say, reminded ourselves of, in that it just simply says that something exists, it does not not exist, right? And if something does not exist, then it does not exist. Right. So that's all. That's all it states. And if if you were to say that this, the universe has an eternal past, you're saying a contradiction that we have completed a non completable
series of dependent a chain of dependent things. That's a contradiction, and is purely to avoid contradictions, that we come to the only possible explanation. That is that that avoids contradiction. And that is that the existence of God who has a will and is omnipotent.
That's incredibly interesting to circular.
So the second question is, there is much checking more jargon, when discussing this topic. Are there any suggestions on how to start developing solid understanding in these matters as a beginner?
The, it doesn't require you to, to study physics. It doesn't require you to adopt advanced philosophical jargon.
You can do it quite simply. I've tried to, I've consciously tried to avoid complicated jargon or physics terms. I've mentioned a few though. But I've tried to avoid it and keep it as simple as possible because it is actually quite simple. The only thing that's made things complicated is D desire by those who hate the conclusion, or don't want to don't like the conclusion of a God. They use mental gymnastics, and obfuscations words designed to cover up cover was to cover up the true for Miss direct you from it all void. So they don't they don't they don't want to say a universe comes from nothing. They'll say there's a non rant, there's a nonzero probability that in a false
vacuum, bubble nucleated nucleation occurs. Wait, we wind that a bit. So what are you saying exactly? Is he is because they cover up the basic contradiction inherent in their speculations. And by using just jargon that we don't most of us, let's say would not admit I'm not familiar with or we think it's all even those who are physicists. Sometimes maybe
forget all that. These this jargon is designed to cover up the inherent contradiction. And it's much like as a Christian, a Christian or an advanced Christian theologian would explain the Trinity to you. They would use jargon, they would say that the unit the God has one being but three persons and persons on same as being and they've used jargon, to cover up the basic inherent contradiction that they're saying three and one at the same time.
You know, because God is defined as one will and which is has is only potent. If you have three wills which are all omnipotent. They can do anything they want, they would limit each other and they wouldn't be omnipotent. And that's the contradiction but the Trinitarian wants to hide that by giving you jargon, and giving you words to confuse you. You don't need to know physics. To discuss this topic. You don't need to know philosophy or philosophical jargon to discuss this topic, but
Because the people who tried to deny the obvious conclusion, hide their own contradictions, we're using jargon. We have to, in a way, familiarize ourselves enough to, in a way untangle it and say, No, you're contradicting yourself. And this is why you're conducting yourself. And that's only, that's the only reason why anyone would ever delve into looking at this looking at jargon, looking at physics. And so in the first place, unless you want to be a physicist at yourself or a philosopher, so you don't need to know philosophy. You don't need to know physics at all. But the only way I want the only reason I referenced those things, and I will discuss is because people are
confused by the claims made by these physicists. And there are fist physicists who caught who argue against them. Yeah, so just just know that so. But if you want to familiarize yourself with physics, which I would suggest you do, for its own sake, right, you're learning about the universal create by the Creator. So I would almost say that physics is part of theology. Theology is a study of the will of the Creator, what he does, and and so on. And physics is a study of His will. So learn it for that reason, mostly. And yeah, pick up a primer book and start creating yourself. There's a lot of popular science books.
And but start acquainting yourself with it, it's a very interesting subject to go into is quite fun as well.
I think you explained that really well. Thank you.
And I think the final question that we will answer for today is, what is the best response to atheists or scientists who mock the idea of God?
mocking is not an argument
when they use rhetoric, and again, we could retaliate in a similar manner, but not in a crude or childish manner. By mocking their belief that they believe that something comes from nothing, or they believe in multiverses, weathers, fairies, goblins and unicorns, so they have to believe in fairies, goblins and unicorns
that exist because these things are possible creatures, in some form, a small type of humanoid that has wings or a horse that has a home grown from its head, a small green thing with pointy ears, that that you can imagine universes where these exists. And planets may mean that we're that could exist in different universes, and therefore the atheist has to believe in in various goblins and unicorns.
With the stuff that they mock us for, for by comparing God to thee, even though God isn't a creature isn't a limited thing inside the universe, but is the explanation for the reality that we are observing as a fundamental explanation for reality itself. So So you know, of course, but also you if you want, I'll give you some more pertinent you can also mock, not mock, but you could just point out the limitations of physics, physics itself. Physics is about the relationship between things.
And explains things that we see by reference refers to the composites of it like what is made out of this substance.
The question is, is you can just bring up
Zeno's paradoxes on this.
And ironically, the philosopher Zeno argued that reality didn't make sense. Because
he said that your reality is infinitely divisible. And therefore, you can't trust your senses. Because if things are made of something, then what are those things made out of? And then if that's made, or something else was that made out of it was that made ever What's that made out of, in ad infinitum.
And they came to the conclusion, there has to be an infinite thing behind all things. But their mistake, Xenos mistake and the school of thought that he was coming from their mistake was that they believe that the Your senses are lying to you. And the universe is itself just one unchanging, an indivisible thing. Right? Which is like, no, it clearly is changing. And there are things you know, like, why, why, where is my observation come from, even if my senses are lying to me, I'm observing something and it's changing. So there is you that's impossible to exist inside an infinite unchanging thing. But the infinite unchanging thing does exist. It's just not this universe. But
it's underpinning everything in this universe, ie it is causing the most basic substance to exist, even though the most basic substance is made out of anything. But what gives it its attributes. Why is it do what it does? If it's not made out of anything? Well, it's because it's being caused, and it's being sustained. Right, and physics only measures the mathematical relationship between these basic forms of
things, but it doesn't, it can't tell you what the smallest thing is made out of it, it cannot. It's the limit of physics. Physics just tells you like, you know, let's say if a physicist, let's say, was to look at a game of football, or soccer, as the Americans call it, they would only measure the the speed and the position of the players the ball, and where it is any particular moment. That's all it could measure, let's say for the sake for the sake of argument, it couldn't, it wouldn't tell you what the ball or the people made out of ever physics, physics was, was about looking at football, let's just say, right? Because the fundamental unit would be the ball and the players. And
I know that you could say, well, we do know what people are made out of our balls available. I know. But this is an analogy. At the smallest units of matter, which may be our quarks may be our you know, Bill songs, and so on, and so on, so forth. But
they may, but why do they have the properties that they have? Why do they do with it now? Maybe they made something else, maybe, maybe their types of wavelengths and things their ways. But again, what are waves made out of what these basic waves made out of? What is the vacuum, the so called vacuum made out of? What is space and time made out of? I could do that ad infinitum. And if there is no answer, then
if you can divide reality up into infinitely, it's made out of nothing. And then Then why were we Why is there something when it's made out of infinitely divisible? Nothing, right? There has to be a basic layer to reality that is indivisible. But there has to be an explanation as to why it does what it does. And it can't be explained by what's inside. Because it's not mean about anything else. So can only be explained by what's outside it ie something is sustaining this the most basic units of reality, and giving it its attributes and moving it around. Right? That's another argument for God, that's almost going to market for space time now. But that's the limits of physics, because
it's can't go beyond the smallest units of reality or even know, it's even reached the smallest unit units of reality. It just measures what it does, like how it moves where it moves. That's it. So you can mock physics and saying that your realm of study, interesting, though it is, is fundamentally limited and cannot explain ultimately, reality. I even have a video on my YouTube account on about about this one point. So anyway, you can mock them back there and mock them the limitedness of their, their field, they can study how what beings do, but they don't study what being is ultimately, to put in a nutshell
exactly. Okay, that was very thought provoking. And, and also, it's not just the Americans, it's soccer to us as well in Australia.
But anyway, that's unfortunately all the time that we have for today. I apologize if we didn't get to your question, but just remember that you can ask any follow up questions through the Xero website, which is now in the chatbox there.
I just want to say JazakAllah here and also the love for your time today and we are incredibly engaging and beneficial talk. I asked Allah subhanaw taala on behalf of all of us at the Sierra forum to protect and preserve you and to continue to increase you in wisdom and influence.