Islamic Spirituality: The Search for Meaning
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 83.48MB
Today's event is called Islamic spirituality to search for meaning. We haven't had a talk like that throughout the week. So hopefully this will shed light on a different aspect of our speaker for tonight, this afternoon.
with a Muslim thinker, speaker and researcher. He tours the UK, frequently giving talks on various topics
come all the way down to deliver this talk. And without further ado
Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam, Mohammed Ali TV Masaki Salim I greet you all the summit greetings of peace. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
May the peace and blessings of God be upon you all, it was very interesting topic which I was asked to deliver about spirituality.
And we've all heard and use the word spirituality quite a lot many times in our lives, we generally use it to refer to actions that do not produce any particular material product or benefits, but are done seeking an intent, normally outside the material world. Many of us are used to dividing the material world and spiritual spirituality rather from each other. And therefore the material world is this world. And the spiritual world is usually attribute it to some other transcendent world.
But if we put our assumptions aside, we must ask, what do we know about the material world and about this other world? Of course, materialists would deny any other world except the material world, which they define as the universe of tangible and tactile objects. I say materialist and not atheist because someone can actually be an atheist, and still believe in forms of spirituality. There are types of Buddhism's, which doesn't require you to believe in a god.
Those who are not materialists believe that there is a spiritual world that exists somehow outside of the universal parallel to it, that transcends it, where human souls can reach for attaining some developed spiritual rank or capability.
Or that can be attained only when the human being dies. However, I would argue that both the materialists and the spiritualists are wrong, at least according to the Islamic concept of spirituality, and allow me to explain. So let's take the material universe that materialists are so fond of. They say that only material things exist only tangible things, only tactile things, things you can touch, feel and smell. However, there are quite a lot of other things in this universe, which are not material which no one would contest their existence. For example, just observing the universe, we say that all these material objects behave towards each other, with a set of
regularities in their behavior, these regularities we call laws, like the law of gravitation, laws of motion, laws of entropy,
the laws of thermodynamics, why are they called laws is because every time we see these objects, of which these laws describe, behave to each other, they behave in a very consistent manner. And so we call these things laws. Of course, this consistency or laws in itself, are not material. So how these who, who, what determines these, the behavior of these objects, obviously is a discussion we'll come to, but their behavior their regularity isn't a material thing.
Of course, science is all about investigating the laws, how objects behave towards each other. But I would argue that the biggest and most significant immaterial phenomenon is consciousness. The very thing that materialists use to experience the material world they love so exclusively, the mind knowledge, feeling, emotions, concepts of justice, equality, maths, poetry and art are not material things. Included in knowledge is meaning. Meaning is not a material thing, and doesn't exist materially Sure, you can write a book
using language which encodes meaning, however, all the material universe can see is ink on a piece of paper wrapped up by some leather, nothing more. There's a clock in this, there's a clock up here. If you look at that clock, if a materialist or the material universe, if it could ever look at things, what's the look of that clock, all it would see is a device that moves and rotates twice per rotation of the sun, or rather rotation of the Earth, going about its axis, nothing more. It is consciousness that gives that clock meaning that gives those particular symbols a particular understood meaning.
This also shows something very important that something can be immaterial without being spiritual. No one says that the study of mathematics was a spiritual experience, unless you really, really love maths. But it's not maths is not material masters describes relationships between things. In fact, I would dare say that mathematics, certainly more than the empirical sciences attained definite and certain knowledge, its theorems cannot be refuted, because mathematics is definite two plus two equals four, you don't have to observe that to know is true. And it will always be true. However, in the empirical world, we only have theories about the material objects, how they operate. And many of
those theories are proven wrong over time, after we observe the universe using improved equipment, and so on and so forth. So, I would say mathematics has actually produces much more definite knowledge than science does, or rather observation of the universe, because your observation, how do you know for certain that what you are describing is the an accurate depiction of the reality of that thing. And if anyone doubts that I'll just give an example. If any scientist here in the audience would like to define to me energy, I would be interested to know what the definition of energy actually is, what it is, what actually is energy. If you have a definition, please give it to
me. But we talk about it all the time, the whole world around us is surrounded by energy, we use that word so ubiquitously. And yet, what is the definition of the word engine? energy? Something that makes sense? No, no, no, that's what it does. What is it? Right? Don't know. And yet, they speak so confidently about the observation of the material world. And yet, they can't describe the most fundamental and most ubiquitous aspect of it in energy user define anything in relation to the way it interacts with the world around them? Well, I would say that if I say, what is a human being composed of, we can describe, it's made of cells. So what is what is energy? What is energy composed
Okay, and then we can describe using a diagram, what the cell is, what it looks like, and so on, we can actually have a description of it's a membrane of some kind, and it has particular components in it. We can describe what it is, Yes, we can. That's the whole point like, like, what is a house, no one says,
a house is only described by this capacity to give shelter. House has a particular description. So that's what we have a definition of a description of something. So what it is, and we described separately what it does, these are two different things, not the same one in the same thing. I mean, most of the descriptions of the house you would give would be in relation to observations you make, not in relation to a core essence of houses. You don't find a house in terms of house stuff.
define it in terms of how it looks. Okay, so what does energy look like?
And what is it? Well, we have a house. Okay, just just just to just to continue. So we have a house, we look at the house, we know, it generally has the most have some kind of a structure of some kind, it could vary depending on the type of house, maybe you live in a hobbit house, or some people you live in a standard British Industrial Revolution era, outhouse doesn't make a difference. But you can describe what it looks like or what it it, it is in essence, so you could say it's composed of bricks, or something composed off of some material matter which encloses a space. Right, you can make you can make that description, but no one you don't just simply describe the house purely by
what it does. However, I would even I would even argue that even with energy, although we say that energy creates motion, or creates movement amongst the smallest subatomic particles, but we don't know how it does that. And we don't even know fundamentally, as I said, What? What energy is really a concept we just created to describe some things that we see, but we don't actually see energy. Or we don't actually know what energy actually is. It's actually a theory in of itself to describe motion. For example, when people say kinetic energy changes to electrical energy, for example, I say, Well, how does that look that is a particular energy corpuscle that changes into from a kinetic
type to electrical type. That's, that's that's the situation is is is a theory to explain the material. But my point is that we do talk about you know, actual packets of energy. Yeah, yeah, quantum quantum of energy. But please tell me where you have
seen in a microscope or electron microscope or any other way, but an energy particle of some kind, and what it is, and that's my point, yeah, you can talk about it.
Just using the word quantum doesn't actually mean that would never be explained, it actually actually makes it much more complex because now you're just you're just moving it from one level to an even more smaller level. But we still don't know what it is.
no, no, no, you have a theory, or we have a theory of what to explain the observance of what we observe the natural world. But we don't know what it is, right. So energy, as I said, is a theory introduced to explain what happens in natural world, but we don't see energy. And we don't know what it's made of. So that that's simply my point of simply my point, but just to continue the discussion.
So in terms of that was the materialists. So materialism doesn't explain everything in the universe. And one also could argue that energy isn't material either. However, as for spiritual ism, they also make a mistake of spiritualists they make a mistake, it is first to assume that they know anything about the realms outside the material world. Secondly, their claims about what transcends the universe is pure speculation without knowledge given to them, or without a means to perceive it themselves. And unless you believe in a communication from the originator of the universe, where this originated, revealed knowledge about such things, which people can call, let's say, revelation
to reveal, you cannot know for sure any of these things, any so called spiritual experience, you might claim might be the subjective experience that you experience from your imagination, or it could even come from a drug induced delirium. How can you be sure unless something is sent which can be experienced and verified by other people as a means of authentication? Now, as Muslims, we believe in the revelations of the Torah, the engine, the New Testament Bible, as reflected by critical parts and New Testament Bible rather, the Quran as well as many others that have come to humanity throughout humanity's existence, which we believe all accompanied were accompanied with
authentications. However, we believe that these revelations conveyed knowledge of a world that is beyond the material universe. But these worlds are not spiritual ones, in the sense of disembodied spirits floating around in some intangible either, which most human beings imagined as some kind of smoky mist, Misty realm, know the world, which as Muslims, we believe in, which is beyond the particular material universe is also material. You can touch it, you can see it, you can taste it, smell it, and feel it when you're in those worlds. They exist, we believe right now, the place of judgment in the Hereafter, as well as paradise and hell are all physical places, according to the
Islamic worldview, not spiritual ones. Sure, the laws of physics, they may be a little different, but they are places that can be sensed physically, according to Islam, Christianity, and various sects of Judaism, who told you they wouldn't be so in fact, they are not spiritual worlds made of non physical substances not existing in different dimensions, whatever that means. But rather, they are part of the same material reality of our universe. They just happen to be outside the particular bubble that we live according to our worldview.
They are physical places and a physical physical location inhabiting the same as we do, and I think it's something you should do head on for a moment.
So if these other places are not spiritual, where lies spirituality? Well, spirituality lies in meaning, and meaning lies in purpose, and not any purpose, but rather, the purpose of creation itself, or the purpose of everything that exists. And for something that doesn't have a purpose, it does not have a meaning.
So I think the ultimate question is, does anything in this universe have a purpose? Does it have any meaning?
And if it does, then what is this meaning? Now, first and foremost, I want to go and sound really basic, what is purpose? And therefore what is meaning? Well, the purpose behind something is always its intent. It can only be described as his intent. So the purpose of this clock is the intent that the clock was built for which was to measure time, that's its purpose, and therefore, you know, its intent.
So knowing that we know the meaning of it, and we know that those particular symbols have a meaning related to its purpose, which is the indicate the time of day.
So we have to foster question, does the universe have a meaning? And does our lives have a meaning? And there's anything that exists have a meaning and the only way you could answer that is if you try to find out if you had a purpose, and the only way you can answer that is if you know if it was intended or not, you have to understand the study or find out whether it was intended.
You know in language use as an example which is useful communication.
The speaker invokes common concepts within the mind of the listener. It is within the discontent
The use of words like for example, cat, bucket or car have a purpose, the purpose of each word is to invoke a particular concept in your mind. This is the intended reason for the existence of these words. Therefore, these words have an intention behind the existence. And these words have a meaning.
But if something could create itself, then it could define its own intention, and therefore its own purpose. But because the act of creating oneself requires one to pre exist first to do so is rationally absurd. So the intention behind one's existence can only come from an external source, unless one has always pre existed, and therefore, you wouldn't have a purpose behind your existence. But since I can, I'll take it No, none of us here have pre existed eternally. And we can know that rationally which which I'm going to go into, I would say that all of us here was made by something else. And the big question that everyone asks themselves, whether you are a theist or not a theist,
is, why am I here? Well, you can explain it through a bunch of material processes. Or you can explain it through a bunch of material processes that was ultimately initiated by something that intended it, which is perhaps a theist, the theist perspective. But ultimately, we have to ask the first question, which is, how do we know anything actually even has a meaning or purpose in the first place? And to know that we have to know what the universe was intended. And to know that we have to know what created or caused the universe.
Now, usually, in such discussions, I always, infamously bring a rock. And they're not different people. But rather, I bring a rock and I asked the question, so I'm going to ask you to please imagine that this bottle is not a bottle, it is a rock. I should have asked the ISO before coming. Now if I was to ask anyone here, if you saw a rock, or there's a bunch of rocks outside, you can see this one question is, how do you know any of these rocks that I saw outside come in here? Or this? Let's say imaginary rock I have here? How do we know it was created? How do we know? It had a start point? How do we know it wasn't an eternal,
object that was never created? Does anyone have any answers?
How'd you know that this is not an eternal rock mark is a teleport what I could say bottle by now what people gonna say to say, well, that's a watchmaker argument. You're using a human created object and you're saying how to know it. We know that human create objects have been created by humans. However, I could counter that you might have seen bottles being created on TV. In a factory, most of you probably haven't gone to bottle factory, maybe some of you might have. But did you see this bottle, this particular bottle being created in a factory? Maybe this bottle is the eternal bottle, of which all the bottles are based on humans discovered this bottle hundreds of 1000s of
years ago. And so this is a great concept. Let's imitate it and make every other bottle, like in its image. How do we know that this particular bottle isn't infinite and eternal?
You so strictly we thought it would be most sensible to assume it isn't because we have loads best on the basis that
comes from the bottom making process. But we don't know beyond.
So, so you're not sure that this bottle is, is created? You're reasonably confident but you're not 100% sure this bottle could be couldn't be eternal. So there's a possibility, are you saying there's a possibility bottle is eternal?
There's a possibility in the same way that a possibility thing is possible this bottles eternal, infinite bottle, which crazy
or is eternal anyway? Yeah, it's strictly possible that what was eternal in the same way as possible,
or that the sun is the Mirage?
It's not logically impossible, but it doesn't seem likely.
But firstly, what do you what you define as likely? So you're saying that likelihood is just a an assumption that because we've seen a whole bunch of other things in one way that if we see the next iteration, I think it might follow what we've that we've seen previously, which is like what is just an assumption, but you're telling me you don't know for certain if this bottle is created or eternal?
Not from a colossal perspective, from a common sense perspective, from from what common sense isn't so common
from a rational perspective.
But it's possible that you know, maybe I'm pretty good accents.
Just a common sense, just just rationally just using basic thought, how do how can how is it possible that we can know for certain whether this border was created on you saying you cannot.
Everything we understand about automating processes means that the likelihood of it coming from automating process is very, very, very high so that we don't realistically consider the possibility that I
I'd be quite
honest. Isn't it strange that what I would say regarding the bottom? Is I know for certain that the bottle or a rock that I see outside, okay, that's why I prefer the rock rather than the bottle because because what we'll know, because there are rocks beyond
our telescope range that exists all over this universe, presumably. So we understand.
There are rock making processes for rocks we see on planet Earth. What about rocks that have fallen from the sky falling from space? How do we know how to know how do we know that they're not eternal rocks, these meteorites
find the rock that doesn't conform to our expectations based on theories we have
presented with issues.
So we need to start talking about
new ideas. Why do you Okay, here's the point. Now, why would we need to look? So if we see a rock, that doesn't look like any rock that we know, or there's not like he was formed by any presence? We know? Why do we assume it was a it was formed by a different process of which we will now investigate what it is why do we assume that? Why don't we just say, oh, there's a rock that has formed under conditions that we're not used to, hey, maybe it's an eternal rock? why don't why don't we assume that we don't make any assumptions about what data? Well, if you're saying that if we meet a rock that has formed, using processes that Northern Rock seems to have formed under or rather, it
looks different than what we've seen, that you said that we The first thing we do is we try to find out what other you investigate the other processes that might possibly exist that create that work, which comes with the presumption that their work is created, and not an eternal rock, maybe this new different kind of rock we encounter is a rock is because new different is different. Because it's an eternal rock. We never no one ever assumes that no one reasonable would ever say that. Why is it? Because I will I will answer the the point of how I know, because quite simply, it is finite and limited. This bottle, I know it's not an eternal bottle, I'm going to help you out here with giving
some certainty. I
know, it's something that happens before it's the science, science is just observation. You look through a telescope or a microscope or a petri dish or just directly with your eyes. Science. Don't be confused by the term it quite literally is just observation, nothing more.
Well, recording of data requires language, the assumption of causality requires philosophy, pre existing concepts, the assumption that the universe follows a regularity in all its laws requires philosophy, not science, right? Science.
Okay, just see, here's the thing, right? science does assume things, if you study the philosophy of science, the belief that the universal laws are consistent across the universe is an assumption that science makes. But even that said, science to be reviewed, when you want to break it down, science doesn't actually make any assumptions. It just observes quite that's it. That is the making the theories part, that's human mind. Right, the writing the data into into numbers, that's the human mind. That's not science. That's mathematics. That's language, the making the unders if we make an experiment, and we modify the experiments slightly, and they produce a different result, and we
record that, it's because we modified the experiments slightly, but that possibly was a factor, while create different result is the understanding of causality, which is irrational is a rational process in the mind to understand causality not science, science, doesn't make any assumptions. Yes, but it doesn't do anything else except observe, quite literally change what science to observation. And that's it, that's pretty, pretty much what it is the idea that science, some kind of ideology, or some kind of anything more than just observation, our 21st century fallacies and myths which we've kind of accrued onto it. So the first and not to be confused with the scientific method, of
which there is a method that was developed over time and it's and it's arguably still being developed to stay refining the salon to improve the accuracy of observation, but, but let me return back to my first point, and we can say this for the q&a, because we're gonna stall this lecture, q&a, come back with your contentions. So, my point is that I know for certain that this bottle is created, and I know for certain that every particular block that I will see no matter how weird and strange and different in other block I might have seen, I know that he has created is because it is finite and limited. And so what I mean by that is what this particular bottle is not twice as big as
what it is, it's not half as big as what it is. It's got kind of a Black Label with some blue coloration. It's not orange label with green coloration for example. It is its particular color. So the question is what what the find this bottle to be only this particular size,
with its particular attributes of color, what the find that? So with let's go through the possibilities right, the bottle defined itself, the bottle chose to be this size with this color.
on it. problem with that is, in essence, what you're saying is the bottle created itself. And that produces a contradiction, because the bottle would have to exist first in order to do anything. And if it doesn't exist, how can it create itself? The second possibility is that the bottle lips just popped into existence just the way it is, which is absurd. And the third possibility is that something else made the bottle and defined it with a particular size, shape, and coloration. This works with bottles, this works, this rational process works with rocks, because intuitively, even if you don't understand that process, every human being knows when it sees something limited or finite,
that it was created by something, it was defined by something intuitively, and this is the basis of all human thought on causality. deny that and you deny cause or you might want to call it out of the window, but there's no, there's no way you can deny it, because the only way you can deny is by accepting a absurdity or a contradiction that at the bottom made itself. Does that sound plausible? All the bottle appeared from nothing. And before anyone mentioned it, I know they're going to mention there's a theory. And yes, this is a theory as in a speculation
that there exists in a in a pure vacuum, a kind of quantum foam or quantum sea, which there's all these different particles or quantum particles are hitting each other. And at some point, they collide at some point and create matter. And people say so that's what we things can pop into existence, I say, Well, no, in that theory, you're actually saying the opposite. There is an existing quantum see that exists. And then within that, see there are certain collisions or certain things happen, which then cause observable matter to pop into existence. But you're not saying it's from nothing. That's still not from nothing, you see, so do not be fooled by a lot of what's called
scientific theories. These are basically just speculations, including the concept of multiverse, which I'll get to in a bit.
So if we know that this object was created, because it is a finite limited object, and we know a rock is created, because it's a finite object, and we know that I'm crazy, because I'm a finite limited object, then we have to ask the question, ultimately, of all the finite objects that exist in the universe, what ultimately created all of them? Now, you might say, Well, how do you know that? The universe is an infinite? Or the universe? You know, how do you know it's a finite thing to have you seen the entire universe, I say what you misunderstand
the universe, in its the definition of the word really means everything that exists, that's pretty much what it means the universe means everything that exists. So I'm not talking about the universe, which is in the parts of everything that exists, which is infinite, I'm talking about only the finite parts of what exists. Ultimately, we have to explain where they came from. So where did the finite part of the universe let's just call it universe for short, the universe? Where did it come from? How was they made? What we don't know how we have to hopefully investigate using CERN material, materialist, research processes, science, which I might add the systemic civilization
contribution to, like, even hate them. But a different question.
We can be on the whole process, but that we know the universe had an origin point or a beginning is absolutely certain, because the universe is finite, it is limited. It has certain laws in it. And it has certain configuration. I don't know how big the universe is, I don't know all the laws of the universe. I don't need to All I know is it's finite limited? I don't need to know more than that. Because it is limited or is not limited. It is it's finite, or it's not finite, there's no third option. So then the finite universe, what creates it, there are only two possibilities, just two possibilities. The first possibility is something else that was finite, create the universe,
something else that was limited, like the universe create universe, let's say, in one particular theory, the the Big Bang and big country, which is basically that universe maybe came from Big Bang, but that was the result of a big crunch of a previous universe, which, which kind of collapsing on itself. And then it blew up again and became this universe. Maybe there was a prior universe, or maybe there was some other mechanism other than this universe, which created this universe and not a finite inner mechanism. Maybe that's a possibility. Maybe that actually is a possibility. Now, we don't know how big the universe is. And if that did exist, and whatever other universes that made
our universe, they would actually be technically part of our universe, too, because they are also in existence, and they are finite, limited, but I digress. Some people say, Well, how do we know there wasn't an infinite chain of pre existing universities? So we had this universe was created by a previous dying universe that was created by a previous dying universe that was created by a previous dying universe, ad infinitum. Well, there's a rational
problem with that argument. You'd require an infinite chain of pre existing universities, an infinite number of previous universities to be transversed. Before reaching this one. What do I mean by that is, in essence, it's like, it's like me saying that.
Before this, this lecture began, the ISOC came out and said Abdullah is arriving, he'll be arriving infinite amount of time. So just wait. If it takes an infinite amount of time for me to arrive in this lecture, would I ever arrive?
an infinite amount of time, I would never arrive. And if I said that the only you could only leave is that you have an infinite amount of time is past as riveting as though the lecture you might be, you would you would be very despondent because that would mean that you would never leave the lecture. So if I had to tell you, if anyone told you that, for this universe to be coming to existence required an infinite chain of you to all the universes or all the things, all creating each other leading up to this point, we would never reach this universe. And ultimately, the questions that are answered is another analogy I like to use is, you know, a domino rally. If you
put one Domino here and you put one behind it, you put one behind it, and you say that Domino can't move until the domino behind the hits it. And if I was to create infinite chain of dominoes, Would any of them ever fall down.
Or perhaps another analogy I'd like to use is, there might be like a sandwich dispensing machine in, in the university that probably is usually most University there are. So say, I wanted to get a sandwich, and it costs, let's say, one pound.
But I didn't have any money. So I asked the sister here for one pound, and she didn't have any money. And she asked her friends, and her friend didn't have any money. And she asked her friends, and she didn't make money, so on and so forth. If an infinite amount of people were asked all that didn't have any money, would I ever get that one pound for the sandwich?
would I know? It has to begin with one person saying, Oh, yes, I have one pound to start the chain. going with that one pound being lent to each person eventually reaching me there has to be someone that starts that process going or, or give it to me directly, whatever, whichever process. So ultimately, an infinite we call this infinite regress fallacy for short in philosophy. So infinite regress fallacy concept doesn't exist, you can't have an infinite chain of things. The only other possibility is that ultimately, whatever started this chain of creation going or leading to us or create us directly, whatever it is, is not finite, is not limited. Otherwise known as infinite,
unlimited. The word infinite and that means not finite. And same with unlimited that has no has no limitations, has no particular defined characteristics that it couldn't change, or that was defined
for itself. So sign is not finite, not limited. Okay. It can only be that there's no other possibility. But of course, someone could say, that's great. Maybe we even concede that. But how do you know it? Isn't this infinite force, you talk about the infinite unlimited thing? How do you know it has a will or it has intent, because remember what I said in this lecture, for there to be meaning in this universe, meaning in human life, there has to be intent behind it, right and intention behind our existence behind everything in this universe. Maybe this infinite force, or thing is a mindless force, or mindless thing. It just creates universes. There is a particular
theory that fits that bill, which some people call the multiverse theory. People get confused as to what that actually means. Some people think it just that means there's infinite amount of universes, and all the people believe it to be the thing that creates infinite amount of universes. So let's go that latter description. So they believe the multiverse is a kind of almost like a mechanical kind of thing that creates universes. And the argument is that if you think this universe seems suited towards life towards human life, it's only because there's an infinite amount of universes. And if you have an infinite amount of universes with infinite possibilities, eventually you're going to get
one particular universe that will be suited for life and our condition. There goes the other argument, right? But there's a little problem with that one a little a big problem with that is, why does the multiverse make universes not answered? This multiverse is a mechanistic process? Why is it making universes No one asked that question. What I mean by that is, so this multiverse is producing universes. What is making a do it? There are two possibilities. One, something outside the multiverse is forcing it or pushing it to make universes like a view of a infinite factory assembly line, someone's pressing the button. And of course, if that was the case, then whatever is pressing
that button is the ultimate cause not to the universe never can exist, not the multiverse, which would then mean the multiverse isn't the first cause. And then you have to answer then what is making them more diverse is that first cause and so on. So that can't work. The only the second possibility is
The multiverse has an internal mechanism that makes it makes it create universes like a clock. It has an internal mechanism that makes it move. Right. Of course, we didn't have to ask the question, what is what is making that internal mechanism? Make universes?
Or maybe there's a smaller mechanism inside that, okay, great. And what's making that smaller mechanism make universes, okay? Maybe there's even smaller mechanism inside that, like, you know, it's like a babushka doll, you know, you open up and it gets smaller and smaller and smaller. There's a big problem of this, it's like answering that this clock works, because it's a smaller clock inside that. And if you an inside that smaller clock, there's an even smaller clock, and inside that is an even smaller clock, ad infinitum. So an infinite amount of smaller and smaller, smaller clocks, moving the hands on that face, there's a problem of that if you've really noticed
it, infinite regress fallacy, again, use that for the hands on that clock to move, you're saying there's an infinite requires an infinite chain of clocks are moving each other
to move that hand on that face of that clock. If that hand required, and had to wait for an infinite amount of clocks to to basically move each other, it wouldn't move, and what would be the first clock that moves all the other clocks, it wouldn't exist. So infinite regress fallacy couldn't exist, the multiverse doesn't couldn't have an infinitely smaller mechanism inside it. Because you're just now sending us an infinite regress fallacy. And it couldn't be something else higher than the multiverse, making the multiverse do what it's doing. Because then the multiverse isn't the first cause. It's this higher thing.
So the only only possibilities with the multiverse doesn't make sense. The only possibility, the just the only possibility, quite literally, the only other possibility is that whatever is infinite, all powerful force is that created the universe will create all the universities or however many they are, I don't know,
it did it on its own initiation initiated it itself.
Without any compulsion, by any smaller mechanism, or outside as a mechanism. We have a word for this for something that initiates actions of its own.
His own volition is called will.
It has will. And if it has, well, then when it makes universe, the universe is intended. So this ultimate first cause when it made us, we were intended to exist, and it has an intention behind our existence, then our existence has a meaning. Because meaning is only defined as intention. That's what meaning is. So I could argue very, not by I don't need to empirically see this only because it's quite literally the only possibility that doesn't run into contradictions
and fallacies, there's no other possibility.
And this is quite fascinating, because
the Quran, it tells the human, the human reader, to think about these things to actually come to that conclusion. The Quran says, and we believe is God speaking, and we did not create the heaven, the earth, and that which is between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, and this is very fascinating. It's an if you assume, in essence, if you're saying the universe has no meaning, even though the universe was intended to exist is this is your assumption. This is you making the assumption on that. And just a side, little anecdotal side point I always find funny is, I sometimes hear the argument, they say, I don't believe in God, just like I don't believe in
unicorns, fairies and goblins. It was trying to bring some fantastical creature fairies, unicorns, fairies and goblins. I say, Okay. And you asked me, What do you believe creates the universe that has life in it? That was a universe that has a life that could think and observe the universe and think about the origins of the universe and come to the conclusion of the Creator. What do you think? How do you explain that? They say, Oh, well, I believe there's an infinite amount of universes that were created by the multiverse, which have infinite possibilities, and we just happened to be the one that was conducive for human life. So it was very fascinating.
Because taking your logic to its natural conclusion, if there's an infinite amount of universes with infinite possibilities, that must mean something that gets it. That must mean that it's one of these universes. There's a unicorn,
another universe, there's a goblin and another one universe, there must be a fairy infinite possibilities, right? And all the rings happened in one universe and Game of Thrones happened in the universe, it must infer the possibilities, right? infinite possibilities. That's what that's what they are. Right? And there and I say, well, in response, looks like you're actually believing in goblins, fairies and unicorns, not me.
Because they because according to their theory, they'd have to they'd have to exist. And so that is just a small anecdotal aside there.
reflect upon that right, reflect upon this. The Creator of the heavens and the earth, intended to create
that produced you,
your life, your particular life as well. Not just okay, there's millions and billions of humans Yes, but you specifically as well, your lifespan. Everything that happened to you today, including you coming here was all intended to happen,
then your life has meaning.
And if you're intended to exist, and the very beginning universe seems to operate on laws, law of gravitation, law of enthalpy, or entropy, what's what is our law? What's the law for our creation? How are we meant to live? What is some What should we be doing? And what Shouldn't we be doing? Because we seem to have the capacity to intellectualize this. We have the capacity to make choices. Some disagree about whether free will exist if you're a materialist, you have to disagree that freewill exists. If you're a materialist, you have to believe Free Will doesn't exist, of course, then you can't even justify why people should even have freedom. Because if Free Will doesn't exist,
why give people freedom, then, whereas at least we have the basis to argue that people have the right to make choices? Because you have free will the capacity to make choice and what is free? Well, how can you determine it in a material universe, but we have the basis to argue that we have the basis of that is freewill. So whatever made us made us to have the capacity to observe the universe around us think about it, and come to this very conclusion. I'm presenting today
to come to knowledge of the Creator, the creator made us and with with the capacity to have cognisance of his own existence. You don't even need revelation to tell you that. But the Quran does make these points. The Quran says, Do they not think within themselves, God has created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them except with truth.
And for an appointed term, and indeed, many of mankind deny the meeting with their Lord. And in all of us in the crime, indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day are Signs for those of understanding the word signs. And in Arabic as I art, I'll come back to that in a second. who remember God was standing or sitting or lying on their sides, and give thought to the creation of the heavens, the earth, saying, Our Lord, you did not create this aimlessly Exalted are You above such a thing?
And this is the meaning that comes to our lives. Because if you were intent to exist, and you a were intended to live by a certain law, like everything in the universe follows regularities, then what is the law behind our existence? And then you have the basis to judge good and bad. Why? Because you know, the intent, obviously, we have to, we are very complex creatures, and we weren't born with instruction manuals, we require some help as to how to actually order mankind, which I would say is the argument for the necessity of Revelation, because we're too complex. How are we meant to organize an economic system that produces real justice? How are we meant to organize a system that
produces accountable government, true, accountable government? How do we organize ourselves, to create justice in the world, to give to those who need and those who deserve and not those who don't deserve? So these are things which political philosophers are still trying to wrangle To this day, we still don't know how to do these things. But
and very fascinatingly, if you know your purpose, and you know how to live, you can judge good and bad,
then we know what a car is for generally speaking, a car is for transport unless you buy one for demolition derby but, but generally speaking, it's for transportation. So if a car engine doesn't work, and the car doesn't move, is it a good cop or bad cop?
It's a bad car. Why is it bad cop?
Exactly. fulfilling your purpose is what determines good and bad. What are the basis is there? I mean, even as Richard Dawkins, which Dawkins said that, because he rejects this idea of obviously purpose by the universe, he says that it doesn't exist, good and bad doesn't really actually exist. In reality, it's, you could argue, as an atheist, it's a it's a fiction that we produce isn't actually good. There is no good reason or bad. But because we have meaning, we and we have guidance, we can argue, argue from our perspective, that there is good, bad, and universe based on whether you fulfill your purpose. And the fascinating thing is that all any aspect of human life, see the thing
is this if God intended you to exist, and he made you to have a lifespan, and he made you too need to find food and to have family and to relate to other human beings, all these things you're going to do in your life. These were intended
everything about that what you do is intended.
Surely your purpose in life isn't just once a week, you know, people say, Yeah, I go to church once a week and that's my fulfillment. It's like wait a second is your purpose of life only once a week? Was it part time purpose of life? If you have a purpose of life, wouldn't it not affect every aspect of inform every aspect of your life encompass every aspect
Have your mind. And it's what the Quran says. It says, it tells the reader to say verily my prayers, my sacrifice, my living and my dying of God, the Lord of all that exists, your entire life is,
is encapsulated by your purpose. And this is spirituality. Spirituality isn't that you float off as some disembodied spirit for the fall, that's not spirituality. Spirituality isn't just only going into some underneath a Bodhi tree and reflecting on things, I mean, yeah, it's good to reflect No, nothing wrong with that. But that's not that is not the be all end all spirituality, because we were created to eat. So while we someone is reflecting off in their Bodhi tree, or in a cave, somewhere, there are people that have to actually
tilled the land and produce fruits and vegetables so that humans can actually eat and feed the person who is focused on his particular matter or matter. And here's the fascinating thing,
if good and bad informs every action you do, and you will create a living this life, then spirituality is everything that you do in your life, if you do it, pursuing the good, fulfilling your purpose, having in mind your Creator, that is spirituality. So being a good employee, that spirituality, being a good student, that is spirituality, excelling in your field of study, that is spirituality,
being a good friend, or good confident, to somebody, that is spirituality,
inventing a medicine that chose some forms of cancer, that is spirituality,
as well as prayers, as well as reflection, as well, all these aspects of spirituality, there is no division really, between the material world and the spiritual world. Because if you really reflect on it, as from a, from a office perspective, the entire universe was created by God or by the Creator. So the entire universe is spirituality, if you want to look at it from that perspective, everything is spirituality.
So this division that we've created artificial one, meaning in a secular world, that there's a material world, and a spirituality is a fiction, there is no division because everything is your purpose in life. And I know politics these days to say, we should keep our let's say religion or ideology separate from politics, which they don't eat, they don't they don't do it, like you tell a secular liberal to keep secular liberalism, away from politics. They say what, but it informs our politics, but also it is our way of life does. So why are you telling us to do it, as well tell the communist is great, you're a communist, but keep your private life not for the political life. So
wait a second, but communism is all about political, you know, life and systems. And the same with a Christian same with a Jew as well, they had certain beliefs and ideas that informed their political life. So to say, and really what you're saying is with the idea of secularism is you're saying that whatever is your purpose in life, it should be separate from your life's affairs, which is completely irrational as a concept. So spirituality brothers and sisters and friends,
is not detached from the material world. as Muslims, we don't seek spirituality away from the material world, we speak spirit, we seek spirituality through the material world, because ultimately, all these things come from the same origin. We believe the Creator, thank you for listening.
Thank you very much for that talk.
If you'd like you can either raise your hand
or you can SMS your question to the number on the screen
to be anonymous. And
spirituality. Liquid with a good
mind is code spirituality also
be subject to a form of
duality or neutrality. For instance, there's electron, proton neutron, positive, negative. So they're also positrons.
So could spirituality be
of more forms than just the good? Or the positive? That's my first question. Okay. And the second thing,
when you start to
ask, it's okay. Okay. The second question that I have is when you spoke with spiritual again,
could you speak a bit more about the law of attraction and what you think
have negative particles between humans,
between humans and what we see. But then I'm thinking about law of attraction in the sense where you project your thoughts towards something that you need. And that automatically happens, which is pretty much like praying for something, and then comes your way. Okay? Aren't your points in reverse order? So the law of attraction about that, if you call it law, it's more of a, and this is just my opinion here. So no offense to me, and you're free to disagree with me. I don't believe that just because you covered something, it will happen to you. If that was the case, everybody would get what they want. Cuz everyone covets, right. So, I don't think that's is borne out by reality. But in
response to your first point, is it possible to have a spirituality which is neutral, or bad, but my point is this, if you are intended for something, so if a human being is intended to have some kind of to do something, to achieve something within a winner capabilities, or to be to help achieve awesome Daredevil tactics, all right, okay.
We're gonna come back to the red tape or something.
So the, the issue of spirituality, neutral, neutral things or in, let's say, bad things wouldn't make any sense. Because if you have an intent behind your existence, and you don't fulfill that intent, then you're not doing your, you're not doing an action for any higher reason, or meaning, you're doing it with an intent within the material universe purely for the intent of in the material universe, which is not linked to good to your intention behind you, so that, so then they won't have any spiritual basis of that at all whatsoever, then you could argue it's a material basis, as then your intent is purely that's a selfish, self centered, or material, and not a higher value beyond
the base material. Intense, so yeah, so.
So let's say for example, someone can give food to somebody else. And do so because they believe it to be a good thing to do a quantity, this particular perspective of worldview, and that might be explained by a spiritual action. But someone could also hit someone else. And maybe, maybe that person is rich that they don't like, and they will kill that person to take their money will take their wealth, that is not doing it for a spiritual reason, a reason that's linked to their purpose in life, it's linked to something outside their purpose in life, and would only reside in the material world, that the the action that the intent is only in the material world, not for some
higher up higher. So in that sense, it's not spiritual and can't be spiritual. As for neutrality, I don't think there's anything really that you could argue is, is neutral and spiritual, per se.
Because even if you're just driving your car, I mean, but you might say it's neutral action.
This is always linked to something else you're driving your car, for what purpose do you drive your car to University studying, driving your car to pick up your mom, you're driving your car,
just to just for relaxation? Maybe because you've had a stressful day. And of course, looking after yourself is something that you should do anyway. So if you anything you can do to de stress yourself is a good thing, provided it's not drugs or anything like that. So it's always linked to something so there's nothing that you can do that is not linked to to spirituality, except bad things or things that are against your purpose against your the intent behind your emails, your question, a lot of questions or contentions from the audience as well. So you don't just give me questions. But if anyone actually disagrees with me, and I'm sure there's lots are awesome, please make your points
that gentleman over there.
So the gentleman just to reiterate his question, he said that my definition of secularism is problematic because it's secularism is about not allowing a majority religion to impose its ideas on other people who might not share that religion. And it's not atheism. It's not secularism isn't your last because again, sexism itself is not necessarily atheism. Right. Okay. Well, first and foremost, whose definition of secularism there are so many definitions of secularism, there's an even a great book called secular isms, which goes into this discussion of how of all different types of secularism. Some people interpret secularism as making gotten policy science based, but not
necessarily taking religion out of the question. So people call I mean, people generally think of Britain as a secular country, and yet the head of state is head of the church or leader of the church in some way. And you have like bishops in the House of Lords which are not elected. And that's a, of course, even in America where you don't have an established church in this country. You do have established church in America, you don't have an established church, but people who say
usually Protestant Christians will vote in mass numbers for policies which are informed by their religious belief. They just don't say it. Publicly say we, you know, we do this law because the Bible says it they just say we are pro life for example. There are countless different terms.
I love that. secularism means different things, different people. And its first definition was the establishment of church from states for the most part, or a state based on the leader just being the weather holds the the weapons, or the biggest stick is the leader, not the pope or anything like that, who's a spirit doesn't have any weapons? Well, at least no weapons to control all the countries in Europe at the time. However,
if you look at it sectors and philosophical, what it really what it actually means would be that in theory would say, well, religion informs morality, if you're saying that no religion should be the basis for any state, then bottom all system will form the basis of any state. Now, usually the counter argument from secular liberals is that well, secularism is you know, it's it's religion neutral, so that should be the right basis. But secular liberalism itself is a worldview has a morality system, and it has a particular bias when it comes to judging right from wrong. So all you've done is substitute one religion for a materialistic religion, quote, unquote, this time being
secularism, communism has a worldview, it has a base of judging right from wrong. And no one would say that communism was neutral when it came to different, different religious beliefs. And so I think the same can be said of secular liberalism, you just get different types of security prisons or so but there are some which are reimpose strongly in society, like in France, where you
will not be allowed to wear hijab in good old secular France, very public in France, and you can't you certainly can't wear the face covering in France to free France, England, which
has been actually very pluralistic to many religions. And actually some some people argue that England is much more accepting of different religions because it has an established church, which was ecumenical and accepting your secular state like France. Of course, the French Revolution wasn't the wasn't all roses and rainbows and gumdrops smiles. So
that doesn't mean any one particular thing.
The absurd notion, which is your purpose in life is separate from your affairs. For morality, right now, what really happens is
my particular morality, they follow their belief system
via language, but they do in Latin America, England, liberalism has become like a mainstream ideology. And some people will argue even Christians will argue that it's acceptable for euthanasia and abortion, and so on so forth, because they've adopted secularism in their public life, even though partly they disagree with it, which I think is a bit hypocritical on them. But some of them are forced to be hypocritical, because if there was, if they express their religious opinions, they would be called down strongly by a secular media by digress anyway. So I'm argued a secular liberal secularism itself. It doesn't make sense philosophically, every society, it
comes from your own view, there's no way of getting rid of that.
The question is,
would that definition of spirituality be in line with the Islamic definition?
And follow up with that it says, and how does it
differ from other faith traditions? Okay, interesting question. So, how would the definition represented, differ from the Sabbath?
Okay, I do the first part of the question. So the Sabbath is okay. It's a spiritual discipline, I think the early forms of what's called Sufism are really just psychotherapy for Muslims. And ultimately, what do you do in psychotherapy, when you go to a psychotherapist, do you have a particular problem with your subconscious, you, you have a particular habit or behavior that you have an issue with, and the psychotherapist tries to help you to deal with it, it might be anxiety might be depression, it might be you have anger problems. So the psychotherapist tries to put you in some kind of a course we either cognitive behavioral therapy or some other kind. It shouldn't be
drugs, but not psychiatry, not psychotherapy, they just say, oh, here's some drugs for anxiety. But it should be
it shouldn't actually be to deal with your problem that you have in your, in your heart, so to speak. So if you look at the salaf, as it was, which is the the Arabic word I suppose for, for the practice that Muslims had been kind of engaged in for centuries. It's really a type of Islamic psychotherapy to get your heart in line with
the Islamic model for for quantum behavior. So if you're anxious, a person who is adept at practicing dissolve might put you in some some types of realizations or certain types of reflection certain types of practices, to help you reflect that. For example, maybe your life is in the hands of God and whatever happens to you, you should trust in it but just do your best and not worry about things you don't control to help you get rid of your
It may be, right. So the sell off really is just a sonic psychotherapy. And it's not really a particular sector or a different sector or different school of thought it's actually just a practice
after, or during the time of you maybe maybe even prior to time of colonialism in the Muslim world. And you had a lot of these Western ideas come in the certain Muslim style to interpret, to solve as a requirement to just separate from material world and go into a spirit into the spiritual world of just separate from material society and materials. It is bad or evil, mainly because Muslims were losing control over the material world, so to speak. So obviously, the Europeans were had superior military technology, and, and so on, so forth. And Muslims couldn't compete around about the 17th, the 18th and 19th centuries, and they started to kind of divorce themselves from the world. And this
is actually very recent in Muslim history. Just to give you interesting, some people think that Sophie's has been pacifist, which is not traditionally what they were, some of the great Sufi practitioners were actually military leaders and commanders. They even let insurrection against French occupation of Algeria, against Italian occupation of Libya, and so on and so forth. These were Sufi commanders in generals who fought and Russian occupation of Chechnya as well, in the 19th century. So these were Sufi commodity generals, who were very much in the world. And if you looked at Sufi practitioners, or Sabbath practitioners rather, at night, yes, they were engaged in Acts of
reflection, and pondering and worship. However, in the daytime, they were judges, commanders, leaders, politicians, scientists, whatever. So the separation of the material world and spiritual world that doesn't exist, but rather, because the human heart requires some modification over time, because it might have accrued wrong habits, bad habits, bad perceptions, it needs to be worked on. And this is what the Sabbath comes into it. So that would be the second point of how the Islamic spirituality differ from Buddhism, Christianity and others. I would say that, I mean,
in these traditions, there's a lot of variants of practice. So you might have Christians who are very much their practice of spirituality is, is almost identical to, let's say, or similar to Muslim practice. There have been a case where people will go into monasteries, and they'll have communes of monks or nuns, who want to be separate from the world of politics in the world of the more mundane world and just focus on their rituals. And there have been equivalents happening in the Muslim world, with men going into the Muslim equivalent of monasteries, and separate from the two world to do meditation, but that we call a citizen to be a citizen. But citizen isn't really an early Islamic
recommendation practice, because the Prophet Mohammed is also known he lived in the real world, he didn't go into a monastery or just spent his entire life separate. I mean, sure, he spent a lot of time pondering about things, prior to his prophethood, when he was trying to work out the purpose of life, and he was trying to work out these things. And then we believe he received revelation at that point, though, after he received revelation. He then he very much went out into the world. He was a lead political leader. He was a judge. He was very much someone who was a teacher, he did, he was a father, and he was a husband, he had all these different things which is in the real world, or in
the material world, so to speak. So as sadism isn't really an Islamic practice, but certainly, and religions that engage with a citizen or they have a cetus Pratik practices, is probably just a human phenomenon, not necessarily a religious phenomena. As for Buddhism, I think that obviously, we don't believe that someone who's trying to be engaged in spirituality should for example, abstain themselves from marriage. And likewise, with those who are Muslims who are trying to attain knowledge in Islam, we don't have a clergy anyway. We don't believe that they should abstain from marriage because marriage, you know, we have reproductive organs. So it's intended for us to
generally get married, we believe, or at least for those who can't, but
there are people who,
who choose that path individually because they find it most gratifying for themselves. And early Christians did not necessarily encourage us either, he doesn't. But it became that way over time as a human phenomena that just pops up in every corner of human culture. But as Muslims, we don't believe that humans to become more spiritual, you have to divorce yourself from the material world of which you were made into you're born into the material world. So why do you think you should be separate from it during your life, you should actually be engaging with it until your life ends and then that's your separation that will form the material world.
firstly, I'd really like a definition of spirituality. I think it's a very healthy way to carry forward the idea.
I mean, I have a number of connections with
okay, I tell you what I
To forward and then we'll open up and then if no one no one else has any more any more people come back to just a given time for others but but put put two of your most most contentious contentions.
I think more or less problematic. I think
materialism. materialism entails meaning understanding, like, for example, when you draw a parallel with
you read that that's just a material thing. And that's somehow evidence that there is something immaterial and spiritual to the universe, which isn't really true. materialism doesn't struggle to account for inflammation and transformation or transfer.
I mean, you don't have to be a theist to read a book. I mean, that's not what I was arguing. I was really arguing that in the eyes of the universe, or the material world, and language itself is not a material thing. It's not something that's a tangible object in of itself.
Not just a scripting language, but every single phenomena of language, including spoken and interpretation is explicable from a materialistic sense. Well, see, well, here's the thing is explicable materialist? Well, here's the issue mean.
Okay, okay. Well, I don't think you can say is explainable for material sense, I would like to hear the explanation as to what is a consciousness? What is? Well, what isn't information or knowledge?
Yeah, well, okay, what is okay? I mean, just give it give a pointer. So I've listened to the materialist explanations of consciousness. So they say that all these biochemical processes are happening in the brain, create an electric field of some kind, this field is consciousness. In essence, it's the materialist version of the soul. Is this again, a non tangible field that is electrical, biological field? That's one theory from
the variable document.
every cycle of nominal is not a mystery as to like, what is happening? Well, I would, I mean, look, the consciousness, right, please tell me where they find it under a CAT scan, or a
magnetic resonance imaging
machine, please tell me where they find consciousness. Currently, they are the theory the best theory they can produce is that consciousness is a right is a arises out of these chemical processes happening in the brain arise as some kind of disembodied electrical field, which is pretty much the materials version was sold. But it's a speculation. What does a feeling? What are the feeling filmmaker? Right? So people, you know, that is a common joke. People say that, you know, love is no different to eating large amounts of chocolate. And maybe some people is Hey, but what it actually feels like the perception, the experience, or the understanding of knowledge itself, what is that?
You know, where do you find knowledge? I mean, sure, you can see neurons connecting each other to when you're trying to remember things. Yeah, of course, you so but how do you know that's connected to someone remembering it's because the person tells you right now I'm remembering something. Okay. And then you you link it, what they just told you what they claim, maybe they could be lying. But we know, we didn't even look at the lineup for the experiment. But we rely on someone's testimony as part of our scientific experiment. And that's my point. It's not material to describe it as the scientific equivalent of a soul. That's quite misleading, because it's not the materialist
So I want to start on that. But we have this abstract object that we can't really prove.
Whereas from scientific perspective, you're consistently linking it to observations, and you create create theories that fall down. And if you can't find them,
or where to find them directly contradicts them. So the idea of how neurons work, if we suddenly find consciousness arising in trees, in a certain way, we don't have a theory of consciousness to completely change. Well, well, the question is, how would you know that trees are even conscious if you have to learn to tell you tell it to you much like you have to rely on the person who's if your cat scanning, or am I writing an individual, and they tell you right now, I'm remembering something nice. And then you measure what's happening in their mind, and you link it to what they've said, on their testimony. But you don't get my point is
okay, my point is this. And I try to tell people so that they don't get confused with scientific jargon. What's really happening when some when scientists are saying that we know how memory works, we because we know that if someone's remembering something, neurons will be connecting, forming new connections. We know this because someone in experiments said right now I'm remembering something and they will they will tell the subject please remember something at this point in time, Bobby scanning of your brain. And then they say, well, this because we told him to do this. And we see that this thing is happening his brain at the same time. These these two things must be connected.
That's what they do in a scientific experiment. But but they can't see knowledge, but they can't see knowledge in an MRI. They can't see consciousness in MRI, and really all the discussions of What is consciousness or spirit
correlations not based on any evidence, including freewill. They're not non evidence based. They are based on explaining the evidence. Okay. Okay. Do you know what speculation is? speculation is just thinking about it? Not necessarily. If If I see if I see the sun come up and he looks around and I say the sun is a disc, right, the sun must be a disc. And I say, Why do you say that? after that? Well, it's based on the evidence that the sun is round. So I've used an observation, I've taken observation, and I now make a speculation based on observation that to explain the observation, right? what you described is quite literally no different.
No, no, it's, it's always let me finish. It's, we all observe different things in this universe. Where we all differ is how we explain that the theories and scientists differ as to how explain how they explain things, right. So you know, is, for example, is light, a particle photon, or, you know, is it a wave? What is the exact nature of the electron? Because we see quantum Can we see superposition exerted by the electron? And now we think what, what is it now? It's very confusing. So we come up with theories to explain things that we see. But let's not confuse the theory for something that's proven. Okay. And that's and that's, that's the point of proof theory is most
theories when they first are formulated are speculations as to let's have an explanation that explains that situation. There is a persistent science out there is that you create hypotheses and test your theory, and then you make observations of the theories that exist in science are theories that are not falsified. But the problem is that there are theories which How can we falsify them? Right? So for example, so So, for example, I mean, let's say, someone says that inside a black hole, there is infinite density, right? speculation. We don't know. I mean,
specific readings. I mean, I don't know what, okay, what exactly or based on particular, particular electromagnetic No, no, no, it's, it's no, it's, they take a look, they take limited observation unit, okay. It couldn't be saying, it is famous, actually, classical, Islamic discourse in the matter, you put people into a room, and you put an elephant in the room, and the lights are all turned off, and everyone grabs different part, the elephants, and they start describing what's there. So it's a tree in this room, and someone says it's a rope because they're feeding the trauma rope, troubled Missy, pull up a rope. But anyway, so based on that limited observation, they're
coming up with theories as to what is actually in the room. But only if someone who turned the light on and could see the entire thing from all angles would know truly what it is. So considering, and here's my point, is that science is just observation. And considering that we don't have on omnipresence, nor omniscience, so we can't, we can't see the entire universe as it is from every angle. We are making speculations on limited observations of the universe. Now, I don't think it's a bad thing, because it helps us to gradually refine our ideas, and it's really great. But the problem might an exit the issue I take is when you have it motivated, let's say scientists, some of them,
many of them are atheist, who like to make big jumps. And because they are scientists, they present their speculation as theory. So when Sam Harris talks about consciousness, and he says that, Oh, yes, explainable isn't explainable, it quite literally is not explainable. But what he's doing is it's explainable with, I could produce a theory for it from my own biases about the subject, but yeah, okay, fine. Anyone can do that. All right. Anyone could do that. But but the all you need to do to refute me on this matter, and I shall accept is please present me an MRI scan of the of consciousness, and I will concede the point. I mean, this is the issue, you're asking for
consciousness to be represented in a way that we don't understand consciousness
is not containing any evidence for consciousness beyond beyond testimony, if any evidence for it your testimony.
What do you study the university?
Okay. Okay. Okay.
The reason why I ask is if you if you're making, if you're making sweeping statements about fields of study at the University, and if someone who said that they studied at university makes a point that sister has said about neuroscience. Now, obviously, you guys haven't studied the latest discussions on neuroscience? Well, most of you don't, unless you only were assigned students, maybe you are. But unless, but assuming that you don't just study neuroscience. Many people here won't know what is the current discussion of neuroscience yet. So I'm saying that you know what, ignore me, ignore him and listen to the sister who claims she's obviously studying neuroscience.
Tell me, tell me, you believe in the theory,
but you believe in the theory of relativity, right.
Okay, have you performed the experiments that demonstrate relativity? So what did you learn about it?
Well, I mean, I don't know much
about it. So my lecturers, so some someone from authority then told it to you and you believe the difference between taking, okay, I get
to expertise and authority and arguing from authority is I'm an expert in this area. That is true. Whereas different companies expertise, the same these are group of people, and they're less explainable reasons as to why they would lie or be wrong than
it's still as a variation argument from authority still.
And that's my point, most most of the people who most people who believe in different scientific theories will only know about it from books, and from individuals that that teach them. Yeah, sure, the vast majority might not have any basis for lying. But if you didn't directly yourself, did you perform the scientific experiments, you cannot argue that you base all your knowledge, purely an observation, and that was my that was my point.
But But that being said, and I don't want to derail this discussion, we can have a great discussion as to whether language or whether knowledge or consciousness is material not. But it doesn't detract from the main point of this of my presentation, which is that the only possibility that exists for the origin of everything that is that is finite Limited is an unlimited Infinite Creator, that will need to come into existence. That was that was my main, my main argument. But your second question, okay.
I tell you what,
I tell you what, so we'll, we'll open up to everybody else have a chance. And if that's exhausted, we'll come back to you again, just just give some chance. So, you
know, we believe that human was educated. And we also made
So humankind has given a free will, when you go to us right. Now, we'll go to Rihanna. So.
So, now, I wanted to say, what's the
continuum as well as the degree? Okay, so a typical time mode, discussion between philosophers and matter? So I'll answer very simply, we
might be a bit bold to say, Actually, no, I'm on the journey kind of plainly, which is, everything that exists, we believe, is created by the Creator. And because it didn't create itself, it would have to be always maintained by the Creator, because we if we didn't control our own existence, how can we maintain ourselves, I mean, you won't, you don't have control over living forever, for example. And so there will be outside processes, which, hopefully not for a long time yet, but which will eventually or internal processes, which will cease to function, and that will be the end of your theoretical duration. So the universe itself, didn't come into existence by itself, then create
itself and likewise, we believe is maintained always by the same creator that quit in the first place. So everything that happens is maintained and intended by God. So that how does that
fit with the idea that we have free will? Well, it's very simply, I would say that God quite literally facilitates our free will. It's like, I use this analogy, but it's just an analogy. It's not it doesn't actually fit it well. But if you play a computer game, or just anything on the computer, you'll see that the electricity and the processor of the computer facilitates the actions that which are happening on the computer, even if you're inside a virtual world. But all that all the events which happen are facilitated by the processor, and processor accepting your request to move move something cable, your mouse and your keyboard, obviously, the processor has to accept that
request for you to be allowed to do whatever you want to do, right. But it's not a perfect analogy, because obviously, the computer doesn't control your choice. However, if you imagine that we all kind of almost like computer sprites in the in the program in the matrix, then everything is facilitated by, let's say, a processor using my analogy. Anyway, I'll put that on your way for now. So in terms of the issue of the creative universe, everything that happens is by his will and only happen by his permission. Now, we believe that God's knowledge is not limited or finite, as in all like God is not limited, not finite, limited, full stop. So he knows exactly what decision you would
make in any situation, and how you act any situation. So in any situation you're in, he brings about your choice, and so the choice is yours. But because he's not limited. He didn't
didn't have to wait to say, Okay, well what this person will do, I don't know this person will do. So I'll let them see what they do. That would mean that God is limited. But if God is unlimited, then he knows exactly what you would what you would freely choose. And he facilitates you to make that choice. So the choice is still yours. But you depend on God to bring it about, because ultimately, your whole existence depends on God. Does that make sense? It makes sense. But
you don't choose who you're going to die on or that particular sense. So yeah, so basically, how you choose which path to take, but at the same time, it's
okay, well, let me give you a verse from English Proverbs, which is, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Right? So the first the client is saying that you can't choose you don't choose who's guided, basically, because you don't have any control over someone else's freewill. And likewise, if someone is someone is, is to be guided, it's it's on their own merits. So are they really sincere to the truth or not? And there's a verse which says, says, just a paraphrase the verse, it says that
God misguide those who unjust basically, does it you know, someone who's unjust and does bad things, and is not basically a sincere person, God misguides them, right. So he basically means is, he keeps them away from the truth because or rather, they would, he did, because they are unjust, insincere person. And they've chosen making those kind of choices, they will not be guided, basically, they'll not be given and shown the pathway to the truth, and some because they've been unjust, and they wouldn't accept it anyway. Right. So this is basically the case. So you're all in you're responsible for your choices, but you don't control everything in the universe, and your choices for them to
even be made. It requires God's permission for them, for God to bring them out of you. Because you don't you don't you didn't make yourself and you certainly can't make anything. So we require God to facilitate us to have that permission to do so. So in a way, God is a facilitator of your freewill. So while God will not compel you to be bad, or to be good, but rather God will facilitate your choice, and will say, support your ability to make that choice, basically, of which you wouldn't have that ability to do so.
I just want to know,
what you said about how the
universe was created and
how the universe
works was created in the first place. Why was creation create in the first place?
Okay, well, this is your question, I suppose, like, I alluded to it, but we will create it. And the Quran says that I have not created mankind or genius to worship me, God God is saying in the Quran. So we are here to worship, what does that mean? What does it mean, and the only definition you can understand by worship, which is used
in Arabic, the word worship naboth, can means basically, to, to follow to make God the intent of our actions. And I think it's clear, it's borne out by reality itself. Everything in this universe that said, follows a law. And my point was, what is our law? And so I can make up the intent of my actions. But what does that look like? So I want to do something for God. But what does God want me to do for him? So God wants me to feed the poor, God wants me to help those in need. gozman wants me to stand up for justice. And that's how I do actions. And I do what I can do intending it for, for God. And that's where the spirituality comes into it.
not, here's a here's the thing, right? You see, this is actually us. mobilizing God unintentionally, but it's a good good question to ask. But I'm saying that people are stuck with that, because we unintentionally make an assumption. And so don't worry, humans make unintentional assumptions all the time. It's, it's nothing wrong, per se, as long as we realize that the unintentional assumption is that God does things because he needs things.
Right? I mean, but God doesn't need food or sustenance. The Quran says that, the Quran says it doesn't even have God in the slightest if you if you if mankind was a turn away from him, it wouldn't have gotten the slightest we do it for in essence, what we're doing actually benefits our own selves, not him. He's not benefited by it. But if you want to ask why would God do something he did? He does things because that's his, that's his world. Because he's the first cause he asked me what would cause the first cause to do something. But that poses that there's something before him, or that motivates him like he has instincts like animals do that or that you know, he feels lonely
or he feels
or he wants a companionship or he wants food. He feels hunger, these things, an infinite unlimited thing, what creator wouldn't need these things at all whatsoever. So when God
wills things. And rationally, we can call that the only possibility anyway, we can rationally conclude as the only possibility that he wills things out purely out of his own volition purely because he initiated. But and he wills things in a particular measure. So he says, In the Quran, he measured things out in truth, that things that ought to achieve a certain objective in this room. Things are to achieve a certain intent. But as to what motivates God to do these things, is a meaningless question considering that if he's the first cause there's nothing prior to the first course.
You see, whereas we as creatures depend on other motivating factors to push us like instincts, like desires, like feelings, we require those things to push us to do stuff. But God is not in requirement of anything, and doesn't have any, any instincts that push him. So that's what the minute is, it's like saying, you know, can I imagine infinity? I can't imagine it. Can I imagine an absolute first cause? I can't fully imagine it. But rationally, I can comprehend it. But I can't imagine it. Or really encapsulate it. Because I'm a finite creature. I don't know what infinity counting does know what it looks like. I don't know, I can't understand what an infinite unlimited
thing would look like. Because I'm finite creature. It's like going to a calculator and doing one divided by zero. I don't care how powerful your calculator is, right? your calculator will every calculate will show error. It can't do that calculation. But there's no conviction, the concept, God can just build things. Because if because he because he wills things. But he's not human like us to require prerequisites, if that's what you're asking for. So the intent behind the universe is the is only the intent that he he told us for, which is that we make him the intent of our actions. And everything in his universe obeys God's law. Anyhow. So you know, the Quran says, will you choose a
religion other than than Gods when everything in his universe submits to him? You see, the lady in the front?
She said, Thank you. Okay.
Yeah, good. Okay. First question.
those who are close, don't know, the secret way to God, and often get confused by
And what is it like? Don't you have free will? Is that God?
Like an interview? How can I explain
nowadays, the word Kappa, because they used to persecute religious minorities in Middle East like Christians, and Jews as well like, facing muslim extremists. And also in the past, they've been persecuted. And the doublet is basically used as well as a device for search. So there are many are Christians who kind of don't like the word cosmic history, the history of that from that part. And so they say, this word should be avoided, for the same time, as mentioned,
from a Muslim.
Okay, so I'll answer the first question first, and then your second one. So the first one is their description of the crime that refers to people's hearts being closed. In other cases, it refers to people who believe literal, and it refers to people who've made the assumption, it's an assumption that God couldn't possibly exist.
They would they, and that there's only material explanations for the universe, not looking at anybody.
But when we don't know, I mean, you know, even atheists of people who have kids being atheist, actually could be a type of agnostic. So it doesn't it's not always the case. But people who make can make assumptions. And if they make that assumption, why do they make that assumption, there could be a whole host of psychological reasons. Not that they're insane, but just that they find the idea of being uncomfortable, a great big burden,
especially in secular liberal societies, where the belief of the autonomy of the individual the sovereignty of the individual doesn't tolerate that there is anything else beyond the individual that should compel them to do stuff, basically, right. So the idea of God which God then becomes viewed as a unwanted interloper, like interfering in your life. So basically, like what you just somehow made yourself and God just interfering with you. And that's why we shouldn't believe in him. I mean, that, you know, it's irrational as a concept that the second liberal, philosophical premise of the the absoluteness of the individual which doesn't even bear
evidence in any actual observation of humans, humans aren't actually
we might exist as separate units, but we're not individually in the full sense. I mean, if no one taught you language, you'd never learn it. Basically, you have you have to thank all the human beings of teaching you language of which you used to think, basically, most of your characteristics were imparted to you, by your parents and society, which is why most people are very conformist to their society. They say, I'm going to be individually mounting and they buy the same clothes everybody else buys. If I'm an individual, I do my own thing. I'm not gonna
Form is near they make if they like, for example, if gods who say we're nonconformist, and yet they all conform to their own fraction of that often as a minority group. So humans, in one aspect of the influence each other quite a lot. In fact, one could argue What is it about the individual actually makes it unique or not unique but authentic in themselves. And individual could be, you could say, your genes, your society of your parents determines your personality, what else is left? Nothing else. So that's different discussion anyway. But in terms of that, when the crime describes people close to their hearts,
it's a person that makes that assumption for some reason, that might motivate them. They don't like accountability. They don't they have been taught at a young age that it's a it's a fairy story, it's fanciful, it's regressive, or that religion is somehow back with humanity, or what have you. They've taught something in their mind. Maybe they don't, they don't like a father figure maybe had problem depends a whole number of possibilities, not saying that's always the only possibility. There's 1000 possibilities, which someone will say, I don't like the idea of God's existence. And I reject an a priori, that any possibility. And there's an interesting verse of the Quran, which says that, you
know, if a person who has chosen to disbelieve was to see a miracle, they will try to explain it like, Oh, well, I'm, I'm suffering a delusion, or my hallucination I'm experiencing. And the idea was that they believe as in that they don't, because they've rejected the possibility of something beyond the material world, or the smaller bubble to the tangible world they're in, they've already rejected any, there's no evidence, there's literally no evidence you could give them. In fact, he's Interesting, interesting test, what evidence would be sufficiently required for them to believe in God? If If, if they saw a chariot coming down from the sky with a Zeus Zeus like figure on it, they
could explain that as either hallucinating they taking too much LSD, or possibly aliens, whatever, there's always some explanation, they can bring the same No, no, no, there's still a material information. So this is literally non false, non falsifiable if you've made that assumption. So they've closed their hearts, and there's no guidance that they could, but they made the choice to close the house in the matter. And so then what the Quran says that that's the case, then God is not going to guide them. And what it means is that, that they will, they will not even experience any discomfort or dissonance by being shown the truth anymore. Let them live their life out in their
ignorance, because they've chosen it even peacefully Actually, it's actually a mercy of God that if they choose not to reject them, at least in life, they're going to have a kind of peaceful life separate from the truth, because they've already rejected it. And all right, fine. All right, don't talk yourself anymore this life, enjoy your life, you know, for the limited duration. Right? And that's actually that's the mercy, you know, in a way, that's okay, they get if they reject the truth, they get this life of relative peace such that it is anyway.
So we see that this is what the Quran is talking about, it doesn't mean that they are now compelled to this belief, right? It's always those who unjust those who are insincere, those who've chosen to close their hearts, they're the ones who are misguided, they've chosen to misguide themselves. And really what God is doing is Alright, fine, then at least have a life, quote unquote, happy that can be in your misguidance for that for that duration. As for your second point, the use of the word Kaffir. So
I've actually faced certainly from even from media, when I've used the word cafard, to say, oh, you're insulting non Muslims. And I say, well, in the Quran, one word is used, and it can mean in different places. And it can mean different things, depending on the context of its use. So
children, I'll get to that. Yeah, I'll get to that. So, theologically speaking, the calf. So a calf a theologically is someone who rejects the truth, while knowing it, or does not even bother to investigate it, because they happen to live in ignorant life and they've chosen not to even research or or check what they've been told. Or they've chosen to reject the truth once they know it full stop. So an insincere, a deliberately ignorant person, someone who's deliberately chosen ignorance. Now the thing is, is how do we know who truly fits that bill? Because the Quran describes a class of a type of Catholic called a monastic. So monastic says that
a monastic will say that Muslim, a boy in a Muslim family, but being a Muslim was purely incidental.
Finding what my mom and dad are Muslim, okay, that's my, that's my society, I'll just conform to my society. And but they're still just deliberately ignorant. And when they are really tested with with with truth of doing the right thing, or doing something, which is not beneficial to them individually, they will pick up the selfish motive as opposed to the truth. And that's their test, you understand in their in this life. So ultimately, God alone truly knows who the real followers submit him off, and who are the real rejects because there are people that their judgment who come to God and say, God, if I had known the truth, I would have followed it. Right and they might be
tested on their judgment or they might be tested only in one
Good day knew what limited knowledge they didn't know they'll be tested. Did you follow what you didn't know? was right and wrong? Did you follow your conscience and what you didn't know, it could be a guy from the Amazon rainforest who never encountered religion at all? whole number of things, right? So ultimately, God is not unjust. So just because you say you're Muslim doesn't mean that you are necessarily saved. Because Did you really pick your religion? Did you really? Will you really follow the truth? All right. The second point is, if anyone can,
there are people who come they're just not saying they were Muslim in this life, and sincerely telling to God, I if I knew the truth, really, I would have followed it. So they're not they're not really careful. Ultimately, God truly knows who the real Kaffir is, and who the real follower or since the mandalas person, the person who's who has it sincerity in their hearts. As for the use of the word Kaffir. In the Quran, it's not so derogatory, but it is, for example, just to explain that we believe that profits came to every nation, we believe that in many nations, the truth was corrupted. So that people at some point, their ancestors might have rejected the truth, they did
call for the government to reject just means to victory. Well, what literally means the cover, actually, in Arabic, it means just to cover something up. So the person might be from the people whose ancestors rejected the truth, but that particular person might be a sincere person, and not a true Kapha. But sometimes the Quran uses it in a legal sense to mean someone from people whose ancestors rejected the truth or some point, but doesn't mean that that particular person is actually a rejecter. of, of the truth. And this is clear in Arabic language. But if you make a direct translation, people assume it's a pejorative term in all its uses, and sometimes it literally just
means a non Muslim, by non Muslim could end up with their judgment being saved. Whereas a person who called themselves a Muslim, on their judgment ends up being punished because they weren't sincere and yet the person who was not a Muslim was sincere during their life. So that's why we have the word monastic in Arabic in order to mention the Quran, a person who says yeah, Muslim, but in their hearts, they are they just a Catholic who was born in a Muslim society, if that makes any sense. And there are people who are Muslim, who are we have never worked for them. They called the hoonah fat or Hanif. Right, someone who's not a Muslim, who says a non Muslim, doesn't mean it doesn't, doesn't
say that most of them obviously pray or do any of those things. But on a day of judgment, because they were sincere to the truth wherever they, they could find that in a society, their culture, whatever, they are saved the Hanif. So I hope that explains the kind of intricacy so Catherine is not necessarily pejorative term. But theologically speaking, all Muslims will admit that only God truly knows who truly is the Catholic and who truly is the moralist, a sincere person or the believer, and because you can't see into people's hearts, right, so that's basically that's
the top to bottom of, as you say, it's not like salvation or soteriology. I hope that answered your question.
Okay, so the gentleman says that I was very quick to dismiss scientific theories. But do I Why don't I apply the same rigor to Islam? And your claimed, points that you that was in condition in the Quran, historical
inconsistencies, or lack of evidence and,
and the problem of theodicy? Well, here's where I would find the contention. Firstly, I don't reject science, I'm actually a, I actually have a great advocate for Muslims to engage in science. And I'm extremely happy to hear that, for example, scissors are neuroscientists and some are engineers, and some are physicists. And there's more Muslims coming into science that now in Muslim mode, and are beginning to aim for Nobel prizes. Not that we need Nobel prizes. But my point is, that Muslims are rediscovering a Islamic tradition of investigating the natural world that God told us to, because Did you know do you know see how the mountains were created, how the heavens were raised up how the
camels are made, the crown is full of exhortations to observe the natural world, and see how these things work in natural world, verse after verse after verse mode. That's why it spells Islamic thinking on the matter. So I'm all for science, I just don't like when I do really motivated scientists try to fit in some of their materialistic assumptions about the cosmos into science. When there's no evidence like the multiverse. There is much evidence for the multiverse as Zeus and Thor and yet some people call it a scientific theory. There are scientists who very rightly have denounced that and saying that is not science. That's
Not scientific theory, it is purely a speculation by someone. So I'm all for science. I'm all for observational natural world, I'm just against speculation that is motivated by a consistent desire to deny
any other possibilities. And I'll give you just one small example once your point in force, which is, there was Einstein believed in the steady state is made up every time. So the steady state theory, steady state theory is the belief that the universe is eternal. That has always existed in roughly this the way it has existed. Steady state theory, and so much he wants to believe that he even invented these universal constant numbers to kind of make the equations work on his theory of steady state there. Along came a Belgium priest, a priest, who was also a physicist, George limmat, who said that basically, the universe expanded from a common origin point, and it began to exist, in
essence. And Einstein famously said that I can't follow the mathematics by hate your conclusion.
with telescopes and getting better, and satellites and salsa, obviously, we now see much more clearly the redshift and other evidences to show that the universe is expanding, every galaxy is moving away from us every single one. So therefore, the universe is expanding, it must have a common origin point. Now everyone accepts that the idea, the Big Bang, you know, the Big Bang, that that actual line, The Big Bang Theory, was actually a pejorative word invented by an atheist scientist to say, why is this theory these people come up with Big Bang, it was actually meant to be a pejorative, but it stuck is now everyone calls the Big Bang Theory. So the big bang theory is not
just a Comedy Series. So it's actually it was a originally a pejorative used by atheists against those who believe that the universe had a soft point, a beginning point. So there you see how, in that particular case, evidence defeated an atheist who made a materialist assumption of the eternality of the universe, which rationally wouldn't make sense anyway. So rationality would predict that that wouldn't make sense and wasn't true. And then the evidence came along, to refute that theory. And the big bang theory is now mostly accepted by most scientists, back then the majority of scientists accepted the steady state theory. Right? So just because the majority of
scientists believe something, doesn't mean, it's true, per se. And for the vast majority of human history, the vast majority of scientists, in fact, almost all scientists, up until the modern age, will in the modern age, even up until maybe the 18th century, if not later, were God believing scientists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, the first universities that have universities in the West were built by universities anyway, were built by the Catholic Church. Well, they weren't against scientific development. But I digress. As to your points that you mentioned regarding the issue of theodicy, the issue of you saying they have the issues of here, historicity of the Quran, and the
issue of internal convictions. We can have a different discussion on this, but I challenge each and every one of those claims as being false. The history we have very good. Here's the historicity of the Quran. Just even Recently, there was the men Ghana manuscripts discovered in a collection in Birmingham not that they will on earth in Birmingham, where they compensate them to basically within the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammed. Yeah, right. I recently debated Tom Holland on this, not listed on that particular issue. But he's the guy who likes to say, well, carbon dating, they could be, you know, it could be from the range of the carbon dating, which was before the previous
lifetime. And before that, he was arguing that either programming didn't exist, or the chrome was invented after the time the book profits lifetime. So Tom Holland wants to come on to this every anytime except the profits lifetime, basically. Right? That is, I would argue my belief and ideological bias by Tom Holland. Okay. Whereas we have great evidence, there's not even multiple sects of Islam that believe in different commands. We have when we had early splits in different sects of Islam, no different versions of the Quran or historicity, a second to none, I would say in terms of a manuscript from that age. And so it masked tested, it was, it wasn't just like the
Christians where they had to go from 500 to 4300 years without a government, and then they get their scriptures up where they could, and there was no central authority, except the Roman Catholic Roman Emperor. From day one, we had an Islamic system of government that was implementing the Quran, and so had to have had to have it and had to basically, you know, have it there had to implement so we didn't have to wait three 400 years before a crime was compiled. And so
there was no different teachings. Please, look, please tell me where there are different versions of the crime anywhere and I will concede your point.
Well, we have a lot of actual texts from eat some people say from random table or from on the third, the third character of Islam and comparing the Prophet Mohammed is awesome.
Well as the recent mean, gonna find, please tell me what there are some short any variants, variants of the Quran, this text or some different insights, sentences or different paragraphs or paragraphs missing like you have with the Bible. We don't have that problem. So I would contend that as for the issue, sorry.
Yeah, I would say it was consistent from the start. Yes, that's why we don't have different segments. We had splits from the Sunni, Shia and the group splits at the mall at the very earliest times in Islam, and they do not have a different Quran to the mainstream say.
Yeah, different color covers, or maybe, and so on. Yeah. So, but, but anyway, as for furiously, which the problem of evil I think I even I think I even dealt with that during this, this this lecture. But if you want, we can discuss that further. But I would contend we don't have any problem of theodicy. We don't have any internal condition in the Quran. But that would require a separate lecture, or if you wish, a debate and I have debate is very precise topics with different individuals. And I'm more than happy to do it again. If anyone from any particular group or society wants to invite some of the maintenance topic, I'm more than happy to, but I contend My point is, I
continue those three issues don't exist within.
Okay. There is no problem of theodicy for Muslims and for Islam and from Islamic viewpoint in cosmology. That's that was my point. But it might be a problem for
certain Christian sects, perhaps, yes, but it's not a problem for us. We don't have a
point, I think you're always trying to say that the time
is right. After a revelation of the COVID-19 passed away, when it sounds to me, Fred for the land, people started coming back saying different versions could happen. And I think that's when they had to make sure that no, no, no, no, no, it was, it was basically there was a concern that Persians who were becoming Muslim, Arabic isn't their first language, they would, they would have problems trying to basically memorize the Quran, and they were worried about corruptions arising. So to prevent possible future corruptions, from non Arabic speakers becoming Muslim in science memorize the quantitative which, like Arabic isn't their first language. And you have to short because in
teaching, they standardized, a written form. Arabic language wasn't standardized. At that point, there was no standardization of the written form of Arabic, you could spell word in different ways, the same word could be spelled in different ways. So with the automatic compilation with the completion of man, a friend and companion, the prophet Mohammed, lots of them, they decided to standardize the Arabic language, and then write the Quran in in the standard form of Arabic. You see, that's what happened. But there was no issues with there was never any allegations of different versions, there was concerns that because many Muslim was memorizing the Quran, I mean, memorize
those who have memorized the entire Quran, hundreds of them all consistent with each other, their memorization is consistent, they will work they will, they will die in battle creditors, incident battles. And so it was time to actually put that in written form, accurate form. But of course completion demanded not only finding people's memories and going around and find what they actually has done a bit, but actually finding backed up Britain forms a bit too. So for every verse that was going to be written in this compound compound form, they have to find a large number of people already speaking, that that understood it and memorized it in that form. And they tried to find also
written forms of it to tabacky up. So we know they've been Tibet, he was the compiler he himself had memorized the entire Quran went out to try to find a written forms of the quote, because the Arabic language was not standardized, at that time of month, standardized the Arabic language and then the Quran was standardized, because Arabic language was televised. So that's that's what happened to make
sure we got the final question, make a good one for
about 10 minutes. I have a slight issue with the way you talk about the approach approach to say materialism or approach to a lack of your
assumptions like if I observe the universe, and I don't come to the conclusion that there are supernatural forces in universe,
I'm then making an assumption that there aren't. Now my issue with this is that
if you apply a scientific or very strict philosophical method to high fidelity universe, and we don't really run into many of the problems that you've asserted exists, so, in fact, you require more explanatory power to, you know, to put weight on the experience of one man who asserts that he was directly connected with by God or angels.
I mean, this is very unlikely claim.
Whereas we don't really struggle. If we look at the universe and we say, well, all I observe all these processes, there's no need to
Say, you know, anything else? Okay. And the other issue I have, when you talk when you relate that to I'm not quite sure how you got to the step that we must have an infinite in view of the universe. And I certainly don't think that you made a particularly good job of asserting that.
Because we certainly look at naturalistic processes that happen without being caused, that we can understand in a way that we can understand without having an example, nuclear. We don't have any mechanistic idea of why radioactive decay occurs, but we know that it does, and we can say it's on course, okay. But we wouldn't say wills it. Okay. So you're the second argument you mentioned, I'll do the first one after that. Okay. And a, okay, let me let me go there. So So the second, the second argument you say is that there are many things we observe in the natural universe, which are uncaused. And so why do we feel the universe has to be called? Say, wait, I say, but I would call
that, you know, people say, go to the gaps argument, I would say atheism of the gaps argument, you're saying that because we're ignorant regarding to the cause of the radioactive decay. This therefore proves that radioactive K is just caused from nothing. So you're saying no, no, no, because what Not only that, let me let me let me let me clarify. Because, well, your point was that you said that we can observe things in this universe of which they are uncaused. And then you cited that let me finish, let me
let me respond. When you say we don't know anything about the cause, well, then why you cite the example. So if you find that radioactive decay is something we don't know the cause. And you say that somehow
is can be used evidence against the argument, which says that every finite thing requires a cause doesn't follow? Because if you know, well, then you're I don't know why you cite the example that would have no no relevance to your whole argument or counter argument. Because what you're saying basically, is that really the case humans are currently ignorant over the course of it. So then why you bring that example, because there many things we're going over. So I don't know why you want to bring something over as any kind of argument for anything other than our ignorance. As for the patient, will, we don't see a mechanistic cause for this to happen? We don't come to a conclusion.
We wouldn't describe the nucleus. Okay. All right. So, so, let me let me Okay. Okay. So your argument is your your argument is because, because we see a process, right, which happens, we don't know why we don't assume that radioactive radioactive decay happens because of will, right. But here's the thing. I didn't say, look at this object called God, and why does God do something? Why does this this the multiverse or whatever the infinite thing doesn't, I didn't say that. I said, ultimately, I don't know how big the universe is. I don't know how big the chain of causality goes. I didn't make any assumptions on the matter. I said, ultimately, there has to be a third first
cause, because rationally, there can't be any other possibility. I also said rationally, this first cause has to initiate actions of its own volition. Because rationally, there is no other possibility. That's what I said, I didn't point to any object and say that object does stuff because it chooses to. I never said that. I said that. Ultimately, I don't know how big the universe is. I don't know how many other universes there are, how many chains of causality there are, I didn't say I didn't make any assumptions. I merely said that the only rational possibility after going through all the other possibilities, and this counting each every one of them due to contradiction. I said
that the only limited let me finish, the only possibility was let me finish them. The only possibility that remains is something that is infinite and begins things to exist on its own volition, nothing else would make any sense and would avoid contradiction, or
what would avoid self conviction? That was, that was that was my point, right? That wasn't the only issue I made. So I was right with a rational argument on the ultimate cause. Now, as for the first point, which you mentioned, you say that
let me let me do that, then you can come back to my points. Right. So the first argument you made was that there are the I somehow attribute supernatural reasons behind phenomena in the universe. I never said that. I never said that at all. The things that happen in this universe, as the Quran tells us look at how these things happen. The Quran tells us to look at how things happen, how the rain comes, how the mountains form, how the you know, the skies are there, it tells us to look at the house. So we don't as Muslims say that there are supernatural reasons for the processes that happen. We just talked about causality, the ultimate cause of everything that's fine into that
exists. That is all and it doesn't require great explanatory power as a Muslim, because anyone could come to the conclusion that God exists without being a Muslim. You don't have to be a Muslim to conclude that God exists or this creates this infinite, unlimited creator that creates by volition exists. You don't have to be Muslim. You don't have to be Muslim to conclude that our existence was intended. You don't have to be a Muslim to conclude that our ability to have consciousness and to think about these very concept we're having and to come to the conclusion of this is the creator
was intended to, you don't have to be a Muslim, which is why in Islam we believe that in history, people who are Kahuna far those who came to this conclusion purely through thinking about it themselves, including a lot of Greek philosophers, of which we studied, who came to the idea of first cause without idea of without any revelation coming to them. So that was my point that I think he misrepresented that point. Because I accept, but but but here's the point, here's his issue. If you deny a first cause, if you deny this first cause has volition, then you create a problem that requires greater explanatory power. So either this unit, you're saying the universe will pop out
from nothing, is much more absurd and requires much more explanation than believing in a first cause, or to explain that we have we we somehow exist in a universe that was conducive to life. Why this universe exists that allowed us to have life will require such an absurd explanation, such as the multiverse of which there's a universe that makes there's a force that makes infinite universes, one of them which has unicorns, fairies and goblins in it. That is much more than that. Well, well, that is the counter argument that that is the only counter argument to the the anthropomorphic principle, which is the issue that this will explain why that's incorrect. Well, I just spent the
lecture explaining why it's incorrect to so I would agree with you that is incorrect. But there are but but, but but but so you have to concede that you're not the only atheist in the world, or I'm assuming you're right, maybe not. You're agnostic. But you're not the only a theist or agnostic in the world. There are others who say they are atheist, agnostic. And there are all these others amongst these others, they are those of great number who posit that argument as a counter to the to the first clause. So considering that you're not the representative of atheists or agnostics.
But there are others who say it and I have to mention it, because it has to be refuted as an absurd point. The old the only the only alternative argument, let me finish. Let me finish.
Let me finish. The only other argument that some atheist posit except the multiverse is, well, I didn't see the beginning of the universe, I don't know who created. That's it, I will not ask I will not have any beliefs at all beyond just universe exists. That's it have no further questions. Right. It's there, we accept it. That's it. That's the only alternative point and that is that is best, not even providing any explanation in power. That's just not having any explanation. Full stop. You see, because there is no other explanation other than an absurdity, or one that makes rational sense. The other The third option is just not even to say, we have no further questions, there's nothing for
the universe, we just ask no further question at the end. That's the only third option.
We say? Well, I didn't say I mentioned before, very clearly, I didn't say that this universe. I know how it came about. Maybe this universe was made by a previously dying universe, right? I made no assumptions. Maybe it's a chain of causality. Billions of universes long. I don't know. I made no assumptions I made he said, ultimately, at the end of all this, there was a first cause because there's no other rational possibility. That's all I said. I make no assumptions, my points. But I made he said that there's no other possibility, ultimately, than a first cause somewhere.
I would say that's a great question, to link into the topic of assignment of spirituality. And I think very pertinent, a very important point, when I mentioned about intent behind everything that exists. Generally humans have a general intentionality. But because we are born in different circumstances, and we have different capabilities and different powers, and so to speak for yourself, as an individual may have a very specific ability to contribute. But this country, this contribution falls within the rubric of so if you're here to do good, you're here to help the poor those in need and so on. And you're in Nottingham in the 21st century. And you're born here or
you're you're raised here, and you have some means here, then what can you do here? For example, what can you do to me if you have the capacity to travel around the world, and help people around the world, or to campaign for some critical issues of justice, against corruption, and so on and so forth? That would depend on the individual experience, I would say that, in a way, every human being has the same purpose in which I agree with you. But individually, we have different circumstances. And so the circumstances that you're in, determine how you should act if you want to pursue your purpose. The other choice is not pursue your purpose and just conform to your circumstances like
many humans, unfortunately, do. And so I would, I think that's a very good very nuanced point to bring up and I thank you for your question. We all have a general purpose we have to follow but specific circumstances
and you're attending
in the studio