Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
The Chrono Institute will be holding a new upcoming course on race and gender for this July in Sharla, which will help students understand the various controversies in the West. From the cultural war between the left wing and the right wing identity politics, critical race theory to the various intersectional, non intersectional feminism, abortion rights debates and transgender debates, it will critically explain the various left wing ideologies in the West, their schools of thought history and their arguments and philosophies and how to deconstruct and refute them and effectively engage them and respond to them from Islamic worldview. The online course begins in July 2020 to
open to all students globally for online attendance. There's also an onsite attendance option for students based in London UK, See link in the description. If you'd like to see more content like this, please support the channel by subscribing and clicking the notification bell. If you find this video insightful and beneficial, please support the YouTube algorithm to spread it by liking, commenting and sharing. Thank you
thank you everyone for coming.
This is gonna be a great event.
It's quite common in London has been talking about something that is you know, he talks about a lot and you can find them all over the internet. A lot of debates very intellectual, very engaging, very informed about these topics are very important to us, especially living in the West. So without further ado, I'm going to positive
Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam, the Vicario Muhammad, Ali Taiping are sadly sadly here are Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah that occurred
Hope everyone's doing okay. I'd like to thank the various Liverpool ISOFIX you've got kind of Federation of socks here and, and also the cream society, but I've been led to believe it's the first functional mosque or Masjid in the UK. So it's quite an honor to be here, as well as Abdullah Quilliam is someone who's quite well known and the Cuillin have argued that Muslims had owed allegiance to the ultimate Khalif and that he was worried there'd be a war coming up, which is before World War One. And he went over, it was believed he went over to fight for the Ottoman caliphate to defend it against the invaders. It's up to the Quilliam had some very wonderful things
to say about Muslim unity but revival, about uniting the Muslim ummah, defending it against invaders, especially the British Army, and so on, so forth. So it's quite a honor and a privilege to be in the masjid that he founded. So anyway, but let's go back to more fundamental questions about reality rather than about a persona. So today is going to be a discussion on atheism, but also the Krons undeniable arguments for God. Many people think that if you have to argue for God's existence, you have to use stuff outside of the Quran, like I don't know, philosophy, read some Greek thinking, read some Christian thinking, appropriate their arguments, and then basically argue it and make it
to be convincing in front of atheists and to convince Muslims that God exists. But really all the arguments are really contained in the Quran. The minimal, some just don't realize that they really are in the Quran. And these arguments are very effective, and are very rational by rational I simply mean that they make sense. There's no contradictions in them. And they inevitably, and exclusively point to only one answer behind reality, which is that there must be a Creator that has well that decided and determined all things and cradle things. So
the first question we should ask ourselves is, Does knowing God exists require complicated arguments? No, it really doesn't. So then why do you hear all these complicated arguments being used in the public realm? What's going on? Why do you hear this philosophy using more technical philosophical jargon? Like you might hear the term necessity or contingency or dependency, or independent existence, all these different terms? Why do you see all that? When surely, then, if because it is so evident in his existence? Why do you need such complicated outcomes that most people don't know about? Or don't use these terms, these technical terms? And they sound very
obscure and very abstract. Well, the answer to that is that you can, you can know cause existence very simply, or human beings generally speaking, throughout human history, most human beings, most humans, human civilizations, believed in divinity, something defined. It's almost unanimous in almost every culture. However, there's differences which came on later on, but certainly every culture believed in one Ultimate Creator, God way first creator. And well, it's a very simple argument. Here's the simplest argument that anyone can understand. And most people most human civilizations just realized, which is if you just take some
Think which is observable the human fit today, you could say are our natural propensity for to do for things such as just kid asks, Where do babies come from? The kid knows that babies don't come out nothing. They're not made by nothing. These are basic rational things that everyone has rational just means. Well, the word in Russia, Russia, and Latin just means thinking. But it's the basic thinking process that all all humans who have intellect come to mind. So they humans see all things that that are. So all things that they see are incidental, and they came from somewhere else. Incidental means that they come about by an event that happened. So you know, the trees grow out
from the ground, that's an event that happened, tree wasn't always there. They see that, you know, the weather, I don't see the the hills forming, but they, they can see that everything around them, the wind, birds, everything around them, comes about by something, everything that's incidental, let's say we brought about by happenstance comes from somewhere else, something else caused it. So humans realized that basic simple, simple observation, all things, which are a result of happenstance come from something else, then humans see that they did, they didn't make reality, when you were born, one of the first things you noticed is that there's something outside yourself. It's
not you, and you can't control it. So you didn't make it. You don't and you can't control it. But it's controlling you in some ways. You're this outside external world to yourself. Babies realize this from young age. Humans know that they have a mind. And they know that mind can make deliberate things. So there's incidental things, things are just made by.
Let's just use the word random things that happen in the world. And then there are things that are made by which are deliberate. Yeah, so carvings, cause your mobile phone clocks, what have you, this table and chairs. These are deliberate things that were made deliberately. And you have a mind and you know that you can make things deliberately. And so you understand, oh, humans understand that. Okay, well, deliberate things are made deliberately by someone has a mind you have a mind. And so you know that you can do those things. So then ultimately, all humans has realized that all incidental things must come from something deliberate. So basically, you can't have if everything in
the world is incidental, it came from something else that came from somewhere else that came from something else. But you can't just have it going back forever. They knew that it was a beginning point where the first thing was not incidental that was created. And if it was created, it's not incidental, then it was created by something that did it deliberately. And then it must have a mind. Not like your mind, or humans realized that there must be a mind behind everything. Basic fitrah realization that all humans come to.
So then they realized that there must be a mind behind the whole universe behind everything that they see. And so they'll call it the Creator.
If the creator is able to build the earth, sun, moon and stars, he must have very vast power, lot of power. Well, that's quite obvious, again, but a basic simple realization. So the whole universe works. And then there's, there's bonus realizations that you can make. So you can say the whole universe works quite regularly. There can only be one controller over everything. Yeah, so the universe, everything works quite regularly quite ordered. So there's not multiple people fighting over multiple
creators fighting over this one university seems to be all under the control of one rater. And even in the most polytheistic, religions, they always believed in a head God, there was always a head God. And of course, the creator can't resemble incidental things. Because if the creator is is an incidental thing himself made up by happenstance and what made that then what made that's the ultimate crater can't be incident can't look like an incidental thing, kind of like a tree, kind of like a rock, kind of like the sun or the moon, or what have you. Now, I use what the incidental it just means, like things that just just occurred due to events. That's, that's all it means simple
and deliberate things while you're not with deliberate means. So this is the real basic argument, if you'd like that all human beings genuinely using their intuition, your subconscious process of power, your intellectual processing power, comes to that general realization, in most civilizations. You call it the fitrah. Or, because it's not something that we just that you develop later on. But even babies, when they did an experiment, they show babies an image on the screen, something moving and then and then it's it disappears. And then the ball reappears elsewhere is a bit of a ball, sorry, a ball was moving. The baby looks at it, like very shocked, because the babies expect
causality cause and effect, not things just to just pop out of existence from nothing, it shocks the baby. So you're built with this fitzer expectation that things that happen due to just due to events have a causality to them, right basic fitness in your fitrah and that's it. This is all this is as complicated as it requires to be is required to beat another god exists. Now, the Quran gives an argument for
Those who have built in it, yeah, those who reject the basic observations that humans naturally make when they're born and when they look at the world is there's a reality, it's great in themselves, they don't control it, it must be controlled by something else that has a greater mind, of course. So the Quran says, or what they create by nothing, or what they themselves, the creators, so you can't be created by nothing, of course, doesn't make sense. You didn't create yourself, you didn't create the heavens and the earth. And so if you didn't create the heavens and the earth, then you must be created by something else. Another mind, not your mind. But something else. basic, simple
fitori observation the client is trying to, to get through to that, to trigger that basic intuition that you have. And of course, it continuously ask that they don't possess the power behind the university don't control everything in the universe. And they are not omniscient either. Right. So they're not seated. They don't know anything about the universe. They don't control it. So what are the alternative is there except there is something higher than them that controls everything. And they, and they don't control everything. So the humans aren't gods. But there is a God that created human beings. So you know that you haven't always existed, of course, and you didn't create
yourself, and you have a mind. And so if the universe, if whatever is behind the universe can create something with a mind it too must have a mind as well, let's say a basic intuition that you can, you can come to, however, it's one little problem.
Why don't all human beings believe in God, or one God to be exact. And the reason for that is humans introduce assumptions.
They introduce assumptions. And these assumptions are,
they work, the problem and assumption is an assumption. When you assume something about something, it messes up your thinking process, the conclusion you're going to get to, if you assume something is incorrect. So if you just invent an assumption, and it's wrong, you're going to get a problem. Every thing every time you don't understand something.
Every time you make a mistake in your entire life, every mistake you will ever make is because you made an assumption about something. Every single mistake that you ever make is because you made an assumption. And of course, the problem is humans like to make loads of assumptions. And what's worse, is they teach the kids those assumptions. And the kids, they need to learn from the parents, right? It's part of your fitrah to learn from the parents, because you need to survive, right? So the parents told you don't jump off a cliff, you need to learn that okay, jumping off a cliff is gonna be bad for my health, or sticking my head in the oven. It's gonna be bad for my health. Yeah,
or like or playing with sharp objects it's going to be it's going to be painful and bad for my health potentially. So the child already uncritically borrows and learns everything they can from the parents. And that is the avenue by which and the assumptions are taken to the next generation. Because the kids are taught assumptions the parents hold, which are just wrong, basically, close the door, or is it? Is it too loud? Yeah. They don't know that this was the room was a
physical assault laws, they said that the moment I close it, that's when someone has to come in. Okay, this,
you see what I'm talking about? Okay. All right. Well, they can open it, they can open
it, no one came in to the close the door. There we go.
So now, if I made if I said, You know what that will, they will waiting out there until until I was about to close the door. And then they came in? That would be an assumption. Of course, it's just coincidence, right? But you make an assumption, you come up with the wrong conclusion. I also saw this documentary called inside the medieval mind was about European medieval mind. And the European medieval mind, they had so many weird things they believed in, they believe that there were people around the world or parts of the world that had human bodies, but the heads of dogs, and then they had debates amongst Christian theologians had debates as to whether they had souls and you could
save them by preaching Christianity to them and whether they should be open to the teachings of Jesus. All this debate, they had over something that they had no evidence for, they just made up. And then someone took it ran with it, and they just assumed that was the case. You see, and the the documentarian that was talking about the medieval mind or the European medieval mind. They said that the Europeans even though they had debates on real weird things, and they believe weird stuff, they said that they weren't any less rational than people are today. They just their starting assumptions was the problem. Okay, their starting assumptions was the problem. And I mean, if you think well,
Muslims, impervious to assumptions, no, they're very much unfortunately just as susceptible to assumptions that we that many people follow. There was this case where European visited an ottoman soldier Ottoman lands, as well.
to a soldier who was just about 1500s. So the ultimate it was probably a Janissary or what have you. And he was talking about he went, he goes, he goes into battle. He doesn't wear armor like the Europeans. And so the European was like, why don't you wear armor? And it's all because my my life and death is cut off. So it's by divine decree. So if it's by Divine Decree, then there's no point me wearing armor because I'll only die when I'm meant to die. Okay, well, true. That's what we believe as Muslims. But there's the assumption. The assumption is that whether you made where will armor or not, from your own perspective, as human beings, it would make no difference. If he had
wore armor, maybe Allah would have willed that he died later on not in battle because he was wearing armor. And that protected him from most. Most of the hits he might receive in the heat died much later in life. Calif, Omar encountered a Muslim who had had this the assumption of Qatar the wrong assumptions about what Codelco that means. And there was a plague in Syria, he went to visit Syria, and you heard a plague and then he decided to stay away from that place until the plague had passed. And then someone said to Omar, are you running away from Alaska? And he said, if I go to Syria, or Alaska, and if I stay out of Syria, that's a lot harder to
understand. So if you have an assumption, you're going to come to the wrong conclusion. So you say, oh, you know, no point wearing masks or exposes up to COVID. In fact, why don't you lick the rails or go on the train and lick the bars because it doesn't matter. It's Kedah, if you get sick as Kadar, right? When you say must be stupid, because because it could have been as Kadar that you were stupid, and that you lick the rails and you got sick because of that stupidity. So you've made it you haven't made it kadar. But in essence, you've discovered, but the coda was that, yeah, well, we know about the case of danger of death was seeing someone,
Thomas, where people, some people could see danger of death at one point or near their death. And they saw danger of death, and they got scared, and they run a long distance, an end of death seemed to be shocked to see him at a different place. And he ran that
to another place thinking he was giving your death. And then when you ran a long distance, long distance, he discovered the angel death waiting for him at that spot, and death was said to him, I was surprised to see you elsewhere, because I knew that I was going to meet you here today. Right? So again, if you can't, if you have an assumption, you're going to get the wrong conclusion, as your assumptions that that will distort your thinking. Right? So humans have made assumptions, and that leads to problems that leads to them now, coming up to the wrong conclusions to this basic factory, this basic factory, this basic,
intuitive understanding of God's existence becomes distorted. When people say, hey, maybe there's more than one God, like there's more than one king on Earth.
Yeah, so they made an assumption. Now, what does the multiple kings on Earth got to do with
the creator behind the universe? Yeah, that's they're not comparable. So then you're you. But now you're assuming as a comparison, and that leads you to think, oh, then polytheism was possible. Whereas before it was impossible. But you think it's possible, because of an assumption? Or, Hey, I hate feeling guilty for wanting things I'm prohibited by God from How do I know he even exists? I've never seen him. And I don't get punished whenever I break his laws, assumptions. Just because you don't you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Almost all new knowledge that you'll ever learn in this on this in this world, you never saw before. There'll be things that you learn
all the time. So just because you don't see it doesn't mean doesn't exist. Of course, again, they also assumed, well, if these if God exists, and he wants me to follow these laws, why don't I get punished the instant I break them, as an assumption, you assume that God enforces those laws, like a king enforces the laws in society, the king has to enforce laws in society to prevent to create order in that society.
If there is no ordinary society, then obviously you've got people break the laws, there's gonna be problems. So the king has to do immediately, the king or the police will ever have to enforce the laws immediately as soon as they know about it by but God's laws is not for maintaining the, the purpose of your existence is not so that you can help God maintain orderly universe that's not God doesn't need your help. But to be tested, whether you will follow follow the good and bad ordained by the Creator. So the assumption is that God operates like a police force. He needs your help to maintain order on Earth. That's not a maintain human order. That's not the reason. But the
assumption then lead you to the wrong conclusion. You think, Well, you must not exist then because I don't get struck by lightning as soon as I break a law. Or maybe there was no beginning just endless eternity in the past.
Even though again, the obvious reason for that is infinite regress or fallacy. As you know, if we had to wait an infinite amount of time to get for this lecture to begin, it would never begin. Or if this lecture begins, and I tell you, don't worry, this lecture will only go on for an infinite amount of time, then it stops, it will never end. Because infinity doesn't exhaust doesn't complete. So we know that this makes sense. But if someone doesn't, is not aware of it, and they simply say, Well, you know how we can go, we can go back in time, we can imagine going back in time, like 20 years, what about 100 years? What about 1000 years? Hey, what about forever, you've just made an
assumption that just because you can remember there's a past, there must be an infinite past. That's where the assumption comes about. And it leads to contradiction and problems, incorrect. Conclusion.
So then, before we discuss the assumptions that lead to this, what is atheism, atheism is simply a belief or well view that lacks God simply that's all it is. Just anyone that has a worldview, belief, but there's no God in it. So that's simply what it is. But the reasons for that vary between atheists. So there's an atheist that simply suspends belief in God doesn't choose to believe in God, but doesn't reject his possibility. Just says, I don't see enough evidence to make me choose to believe in God in any way, shape, or form, even though you might believe he's a possibility. Right. And they might give a different reason. They might say, I don't think he's likely to exist. So he
might exist, but he's not likely to exist, therefore, I choose that I won't, even though he might unlikely exist, I still choose not to believe that he exists. For example, that's what that's what it means. So that's why they choose to suspend belief in God. The second type of atheist is they reject us, they will simply say that they reject the belief in God. They think that he doesn't exist, he cannot exist. Because either they think that his the belief in God is an inconsistent concept. They think it has contradictions in it, which it doesn't. But their assumptions about God have contradictions, yes. Or they believe that what they see in observable reality doesn't match
what they assume would be the case of God exists. Right? So the reason for being an atheist depends on the assumption the atheist holds.
Or the reason why people are atheist is because they have assumptions. That's where why they aren't they're atheist. So what's that mean? Now? Why are more sophisticated arguments used today? Why do we need more stuff? It's not why do we need but why do we use more sophisticated arguments to prove God's existence today? Why? Because the assumptions are more sophisticated, the atheists to bring more and more assumptions that are more sophisticated. By sophisticated I simply mean, so long and contrived, that they can hide the contradiction inside, you don't see the conviction easily.
That's what I mean by sophisticated. Because you can't simply say, hey, let's believe that something does come from nothing. You say, by nothing, you say that that's ridiculous. So they're gonna say like that, they're gonna say it as
before the universe, there was there's a nonzero probability of a quantum nucleation event occurring in vacuum. And therefore, if a quantum nucleation event occurs, reached a certain threshold, we can show that it does, it would then lead to the processes that will create the unit that will see these universes we see the expansion and so on so forth. I basically said something comes from nothing by nothing. But you don't you don't hear the conviction in it, because it's so abstract and so convoluted. Yeah. So and actually, this is a theory by Alexander Vilenkin. He's a physicist. And he says, he says is a nonzero probability of there being a quantum fluctuation. And then if the quantum
fluctuation reaches a certain threshold, we can then map out how the universe
is the mechanism by which it forms into expansion. So what he said just to give you just to break it down really is what he said is I'm gonna give you analogy. If I was to go to any, any kitchen in Liverpool, there's a nonzero chance that I will find a piece of dough in the oven.
And then we know that dough has yeast, we know that dough dough has enough yeast in it and enough whatever flour on the temperature conditions of the oven, we can map out we can calculate how, how it will become a piece of bread.
What's it what's really great, that's really great. But where does it come from? You're simply saying that we can. There's a probability you might find it in some oven. Great. That's true. There's a property there's at least one oven right now that's baking bread in Liverpool. That's true. But it doesn't explain where the dough comes from.
But if you tomography too much focusing upon the mechanism, how Adobe comes bred and nonzero probabilities, you forget that they've just told you that
Something comes from nothing by nothing. You understand? So that's why the assumption is so sophisticated, the hide the contradiction.
See, and as all we do as duat as causes to Islam is we just disentangle it and explain and show it to people. There's the condition is quite obvious. Yeah, we, we demystify the sometimes pseudo scientific arguments and wordings.
So, assumptions are the only things that can block a rational mind from coming to a conclusion that God exists. So as I said that it's actually become more sophisticated, more contrived, an absurd, in order to hide internal conviction arguments to refute these convictions must also be sophisticated, too. Because now you have to painstakingly almost drag the atheist through every tiny little assumption they've made, and refute every time the assumption to clear the path, no clear the road of the debris. So there's a straight clear path to belief in God. That's what we have to do. That's what we do with people who are stricken with a lot of these fiscal assumptions. As a wise friend of
mine, once said about people who are lost in sophisticate assumptions, the hardest thing to explain to people is the bloody obvious.
Because if they've been lost so many assumptions, then the hardest thing to explain to them is the obvious becomes really hard, even though it's meant to be so obvious. I
wish I could claim credit for that. But that is a friend of mine that came up with so
Alright, so what kind of assumptions do we see, and these are not exhaustive list, there's other there's all kinds of assumptions, but these are generally the kinds of categories you get. So the first assumption is positivism, the only knowledge gained from the senses is factual. So only knowledge gained from the senses is factual. So they, they would argue that sometimes, although some would believe that logical proofs are acceptable to them, but they say that actually is not 100% Certain, the law of non contradiction has no so is that certain? How do you know the law of non contradiction always is the case. So they might say, hey, science might show us that something can
come from nothing, we haven't seen nothing. If we saw nothing, we could then examine it like, and it's like, nothing is a thing, even though it literally means nothing. Right? So they say nothing, the if you treat it as a thing, then it becomes not an object. And then science about looking at objects. And science says you can't talk about an object until you've experimented on it, you've observed it. So if I just if we just kind of a bait and switch if I just make you think that nothing is a thing?
Then we can talk about it like like a scientific object. Yeah, but it's not a thing, is it? Yeah. But they'll say, hey, if we if we saw nothing, maybe we could and we experiment on it. Maybe we could see nothing does produce something. Say no, because by definition is nothing. It's no thing at all. It's not a thing. They say science might show us that conditions are possible.
Why? Because they say well, you know, you haven't? Because you haven't seen it yet? Doesn't mean doesn't exist? Yeah, they say that? They'll say Well, no, but by definition, contradictions are impossible, because contradiction is literally what if you think about what it is, it is, it negates itself. It says itself doesn't exist. If you actually think about what conviction means. I know Latin means context means saying a word against itself. But if say somebody exists, and then it doesn't exist, at the same time.
It negates itself, it says it doesn't exist. Right. So that's what context there's no, the assumption behind this, they say is that, you know, human laws are fabricate by human beings, and they could be wrong. The law of non contradiction is a human law. And therefore, it made by humans, therefore might not be true. Let's say no, the law non condition is just is a logical law that we use for logic, yes, and right. And generally rational thinking, Yes, but it's not a law of the universe. It's just reality. Right? And what I mean by that is, that law non condition simply states that something doesn't, can't negate that exists can't negate its existence at the same time.
Simple as that, because if it does, it doesn't exist. So quite literally condition doesn't exist by definition. Because what it's what it means is, it means that something negates itself, its existence, that's what it means if I say this exists, actually doesn't well, then it doesn't exist.
So it's not a human law. It's just
quite literally reality. And it's the most foundational thing possible to say, an infinite regress might be possible outside of time.
Sequential change going back in eternity past, that might be possible. But because maybe it's only a problem in time, but outside of time, you can have an infinite regress and say, Well, no, because time just means what
means change, you can't have an infinite amount of changes finishing.
Because infinity means non finishing
it hence contradiction, right? So quite, quite simple.
Sometimes they'll sit they again, they might say, well, in mathematics, we can have infinite sets. So they want to do mathematics here or has encountered some candles, infinite sets, right, you heard about, they say, Well, you can have an infinite set. Well, firstly, you can't, physically speaking. But even if we imagine an infinite amount of bountiful things, yeah, you can imagine that. But that's not what infinite regress is, again, the assumption that in a way, no one was lying to you, but they don't realize it. infinite regress isn't an infinite set of stuff. infinite regress, is a bunch of things that are linked to each other and depend on each other, going back into the past, or
going back in a chain of dependencies. They're not just a bunch of collection. Oh, I've got a bag of infinite bags in this bag, not just collection of stuff. It's stuff where one of those members depends on the other members behind it to finish completing itself to get to it. Any one of those members. It's a different thing altogether. But if they sell you the wrong understanding of what an infinite regress, is, you won't see the problem of infinite regress
epistemological nihilism, how do you know anything? For sure? Maybe you in the matrix, if you know that that film as I'm showing my age now, I can't even believe now that say the word matrix now shows my age. But what's the matrix? Some some person that wants told me when this in my previous lectures say, Oh, my God, okay, a fictional simulation computer simulation? How do you know you're not inside a computer simulation? You know, brain in a vat with like, lectures connected to you giving you a false reality. You're not dreaming right now? Or you're or you're in a coma, and you're imagining all this? So how do you know that's not the case? So if you could, because you don't know,
they'll say, then, you know, you can't know anything for certain. And I say, well, actually, I can. Yeah. But again, you have to drag them through. Okay, well, let's start from the from the first principles.
I'm sensing some well, actually, I'll get to repetition in a bit. But I'm just gonna tell you what these what they say. So they say that, how'd you know that nothing exists. So if you can't be certain, so here's the thing. If you can't be certain that what you're seeing is accurate or correct, then you can't be certain about anything.
I say there's a difference between not being certain about the particulars of what I'm seeing. And nothing exists, because I'm seeing something. I'm observing something, I'm experiencing something so clearly, nothing can't exist in this case. Yeah, but they jump from one assumption to the next. And you don't realize so they say that. I don't know God exists for certain because I can't even know that anything exists for certain. No. So they, then they'll tell you, there's no possible evidence you can ever prove to them that God definitely exists. Because evidence itself doesn't exist for certain. You understand, they start closing those doors to clear rational thinking, you have to open
those those one by one, they'll say, they'll say, a mate. Again, some even say maybe time might be an illusion. So maybe the universe is a tunnel. But time is an illusion, they now argue that using
a kind of block time, or four, or type of fourth dimensional time that they say isn't a block universe, they actually argue this today, although the ancient Greeks, some of the DLA eleatic School of ancient Greece argue the same thing.
We're gonna get to refute these bit by bit bumps, gonna show all the assumptions, or physicalism, or naturalism, all that exists is only physical. So they'll say, hey,
if all that exists, is only physical. The problem with this is that they're not being objective about the physical world, that you need evidence from the physical world, that the physical world is all that exists, no tangible things that your sensors can detect the physical world.
But they come in with the assumption that not only the physical world, why because I can only see the physical world. Well, that's an assumption. Or they say that observation of the physical world, just our little talk about causes, they just are, right. And they use normal assumption. They say, hey, if God can be can just be why can't we say the universe just is? It's an assumption because God and the universe are not the same thing. And it's not special pleading that it's that you're doing special pleading, no, no, no, it's because they fundamentally have different natures quote, unquote, which we'll come to universe is dependent on and we'll show you why is dependent and God cannot be
the is not dependent. So clearly them they're not in the same category to be equivalent.
They might say unexplained phenomena is random. You ever heard of God of the gaps where they say, if you have a gap in your knowledge,
it's a you put God there and I say, Well, you put randomness there.
Where there's a gap in human knowledge. You say things are random. And we'll we'll come to a situation where they say foresight was random that turned out not to be random. So they
It refuted themselves. But then they they always claim an overt fears that was refuted by science? Well, no, actually, you got to refute by science quite a bit. The unexplained constants of the universe, like, for example, the constant of, of gravity, or quantum constants that we see, they'll say these just aren't they just are what they are. There's no no one determined what they are. They just they just asked, these are all assumptions, which are not borne out by reality. But if you make these assumptions, they'll say, we don't need God anymore, because they just, they just are that then they automatically false theories and predictions. They say, If God exists, I don't believe in
God. Why? Because if God exists, then surely we'd see. Right? They say, we'd see evidence from science, from physical world. But if we see anything physical, that can't be God, but if we go into a definition of what God is, so that they might know this already, when they set it up like that, that they set up to fail, and some Muslim, someone was telling me in a debate with an atheist, they'll say, after the atheist guy asked him what evidence would be acceptable to him to prove God's existence. But there is no evidence that they'd be acceptable to him. And some, some most of the thing that's a good argument. But the atheist, I didn't use it in my debate with him with my recent
atheists call Matt Dillahunty. I didn't use the argument against must ask challenging him, what evidence would be acceptable to you? Because he'd simply respond,
it doesn't matter, that there is no evidence acceptable to me. Because if Surely, if if God exists, then surely he would make it available evidence that would be accepted, acceptable to me. Right. So it's not my fault, that he made this universe in a way that makes it impossible for him to prove himself to me. That's how that's how he responds, it's again, you know, just because I don't have any evidence, I think is acceptable to me doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It means that God is unable to make a universe that makes evidence, which is physical, what have you that would be acceptable to me for his night, from his nihilism or nihilist perspective? And so on? All the things. If God
exists, then surely you'd get a Nobel Prize for the discovery. Right? Ridiculous. So you're saying that a bunch of guys will have an edge Ma, to give a consensus to give you a Nobel Prize for saying something? Well, that's just you're relying on human beings to decide what is true and false, then you might as well just believe in a priesthood or something. And, you know, I can give you a bunch of scholars that will say, Simon schools, they will say that you know, that God exists and what have you. So you can accept that? No, so when why should we accept Nobel prizes of a new knowledge? I jokingly argued for new knowledge, not for stuff you already know. We already know anyway. Yeah.
It's like saying that the sun exists, you're gonna get Nobel Prize for that, even though it's true, the sun exists.
Or if God exists, maybe you get his expect his signature, and the universe? Why did you expect that? Yeah. Well, they'll say you, maybe you'll see an image of him. If he exists, then surely we'd see an image of or we'd see him himself wearing our white robe and a bit. Yeah, again, who said that that's when that must be the case. If he exists, they assume it. And then they point to the fact that you can't see that. And then they use it to say, look, see, my argument has been made for me, we can't see this prediction that I've predicted that would be the case, if God existed, therefore, God doesn't exist. Now, your predictions are false. They're based on assumptions.
And they also say, If God exists, then surely it would be easy to know he exists and not require long arguments. Right. But they've only made us need to bring long arguments because they bought long assumptions.
Right? So that's the that's the problem.
Defeating a few assumptions, quite simply.
Not sequentially. science is the study of the motion of things relative to each other, not what things ultimately are being, right. So whatever, whether you're doing chemistry, pharmacy, biology, or physics, ultimately, it's all about the study of things and how they move relative to each other. energy moves, mass matter moves. That's really what you're studying in science, how it moves, but not ultimately, if you can't divide it any further. What it is, you don't know.
Science has the inability to tell you what the most fundamental things are made out of. If they can't be divided further, it can only tell you what an atom is made. What's an atom is by telling you the smaller components was made out of a nucleus with proton neutron. And with electrons that go in electron crowded cloud around it. It tells you what it's something is by the things inside and how they move. But if you can't divide it any further, they can't tell you what it is. anymore. Science is limited. It's only about motion of things, but not what the things truly ultimately ultimately what they are. And we're going to go into how we can
How would that show that God exists?
So again, now against when atheists will talk about science, they, they don't tell some of them. Some of them accept mathematics and logic, others would say we don't know for certain mathematical logic is true. And they will say that, even though despite the fact that science depends on maths and logic, to express itself, and to be correct and true, also, science discovers many things by hypothesizing unseen causes behind stuff, and then making predictions about what should be the case of their true and then seeing if those predictions match. So here was the case, they sold these pollen grains in water, and the pollen grains were just moving in a very random motion, they could
have Brownian motion, the study of random motion things moving randomly.
And they just say it's random. It's just random. What was happening? Of course, does anyone know anyone who has studied physics or chemistry Brownian motion and these random movement of pollen grains in water? Can anyone tell me what was happening? Why were they moving randomly? randomly?
No, you don't study this stuff. All right, it was the water molecules hitting them. The water molecules which can be calculated, which if you knew where their positions were, and how they were moving, you couldn't calculate exactly what what each pollen grain would do. But because you can't see them, they couldn't see the water molecules, they assumed that these pollen grains are moving by themselves randomly. Yeah, randomness of the grit of the gaps. But now we know now we know that it's not random. It's just so complex, in fact, randomness in the sense that the eighth is number some Atheists say in the metaphysical sense doesn't actually exist. randomness is a human word for
complexity outside of our knowledge. That's what it is.
Like rolling the dice is random know, if you could, if you knew the strength of gravity, the air pressure and all these different variables, each atom each air molecule where it was and how much energy you flew the at the the dice were all on site, it was facing up on your hand, if you can know these variables, you could calculate 100% exactly what the dice roll would be. But if you don't, cuz it's so complex, it appears to you to be quote, unquote, random, but random is just complexity outside of your knowledge. That's all it is.
nihilism, easy to refute epistemological nihilism, as in how do you know anything exists?
Simply, all finite effects must have a cause we can demonstrate that but even if we don't accept that, very simply expect we're experiencing something. So the experiencer exists, you exist, you know that for certain because you're experiencing something, even if your brain in the vat in the matrix, or what have you, you're still you, yourself, exist, you you are aware, you're self aware, anyway, or at least you're aware, even if you're not self aware, you're just you're aware, so you can't be aware, if you don't exist, basically,
you're observing something outside yourself. So there's an external world, to you forget, my wife is a matrix or computer program, or aliens manipulating your brain. And there's an external world, too, you know that for certain, and you can't control it. Yeah, 100% of the time, anyway, you can't control it. So the external world, you are not the God of this external world.
In fact, you there are even times when you feel things that you don't like, like pain, pain is a reminder that you're not the God of the of the universe, because you can't avoid things you don't like. Some people might think if they only got things they liked, that you liked, that somehow they will God in a way, because they only will, they'll say, I'm willing only good things for myself. But if you get pain and suffering, that just reminds you that you're not the God of this universe.
You're observing change. So whether you're in the matrix or not, your things are changing. So change exists for definite
apps, you're absolutely certain that change exists. And you're observing different images, in one view, meaning, for example, you're seeing white and you're seeing black and you're seeing this purple, you're seeing these different, different sensation at the same time. What that means is that reality has is not in divisible but divisible into these different things. And therefore reality has space. Or you could say extension three, call it space extension, because you can only have different things if there's space for it, right? So you know that space exists or two extension exists and you know that change exists. You know, there's an external world outside yourself, you
know, that you don't control the external world. And you know that you exist, there's so many things you can tell for absolute certain. And guess what, everybody, this is enough to be able to prove God's existence.
Right, which we'll we'll come to
fake feeds and predictions are based on a false assumption about what a god is or does and that should be correct with minimal predictions, meaning, what is the bare minimum we would expect
it if the universe or everything that exists, has a god? Well, you can look at the opposite way the universe, there was no God behind the universe, what would you expect to see, if there was no Creator, the universe would consist of things which are independent. So because they're not dependent, they're independent. And therefore, if they're independent, then they would not change, they would not move, and they could not be moved, because everything gets if it's independent, nothing could could change it, nothing could affect it. But if you live in a universe of of things that can be affected, and you yourself are affecting these things and are affected by it, then that
indicates that something else that is independent and not this universe, right? Very simple, very simple way of looking at it. And of course, if there was more than one God, could massage was only one God. Well, here's the first chronic was second chronic argument against that, which you know very well. If there was more than one God, the universe would be disordered. And they might say, there's no chaos in the universe. No, the laws of physics will be changing every single second or even or smaller than that the laws of physics will be changing.
As they as there will be conflict of multiple wills behind the universe. This is the Quranic argument refuting the false assumption, right?
All finite things, go back to a determiner. Here's a very simple argument for this. There's simple ways to saying it, then there's been more technical ways of saying the same thing. But here you go. A finite thing has a size. So anything like this chair has a size? Did did it determine its own size? Well, no, because
if it did, it would have to create itself. Of course, Sonic can't make itself it has to exist first to make itself and of course, then it would need to be made by itself. So there's, that's absurd. So it didn't determine its own size, it's a bit of a finite existence. If they exist at the size, it didn't determine, then it was determined by something else. So at this site, this chair didn't determine its size, because it didn't make itself then its size was determined by something else. Therefore, finite things are created by something else, very simple arguments. But of course, the average atheist or skeptic might not like the argument they think is too simple. And they start
nitpicking at it. And then you have to make it a bit more sophisticated. You have to drag them. And so then it becomes this, right? Where you have to drag them to for nail. A finite thing is a thing that exists by way of its extension, ie it depends on extension exists. It is chair had no size, it wouldn't be a chair wouldn't exist. Right as a chair, anyway. Right? So then here's the here's the possibilities, finite things that either determine themselves into existence, ie they made themselves that's we know, that's a contradiction. So then the only two left is they either are determining themselves, then the chair is determining its size right now. Or it was determined by
somebody else. So these are the two possibilities. Let's look at that. The second the first one, if they are determined, they're determined themselves to particular finite extent, why do they have a size that stops at what so why is this chair not twice the size it is? Or half the size? It is? Why is it that particular size, what's determining it to be that size, and not a different size.
either if they are the if they are making, if they're the extending themselves to the the to that length, they can also extend themselves shorter or longer. So if this chair is sustaining itself to that size, it can make itself smaller or bigger, because it is the sustain of itself, right?
But if it can make itself bigger or smaller than it is not limited to any size to exist, you know? And if and if it can make itself bigger than where does this exercise come from? From nothing. So if you can make yourself bigger, and then it can make new it can add new stuff to itself, or make yourself smaller. But then if that's the case, then it's not limited to existing any particular extension, and it is separate from extension, ie, if this chair can determine its size than it is it exists separate from size, it is trade, transcend size, transcends shape.
And if so, then,
then then in essence, it's in essence, the thing behind the chair is the thing that is independent, but the thing behind the chair isn't the chair, whatever it's sustaining this chair, isn't the chair itself, because the chair is is defined by shape. So there's something behind the shape of the chair that's making given the to the chair that shape, therefore,
therefore all finite things were determined by something else else. Ultimately, this thing must not be finite, so it can't be created or bound by something else. So that's very simple. Now, I said the same thing I said in the previous argument, I just made it a bit more sophisticated because you have to drag the skeptic bit by bit by bit over every tiny detail.
To get rid of their assumptions, and so on, so forth. So we know that this chair
was defined by always being sustained by something else. And is was created by something or defined by something else. We cannot just because it's finite, it's limited. Of course, intuitively, you're, you're, you're fitzer fitrah already knows this stuff. Whenever you see any shape, even a rock mountain, the sun, you always ask what made what shaped it that way, but made it that way. Because you know, it could have been bigger could have been smaller. So what made it that size? You know it automatically, but when you're in pure intuition, you're the process, the unconscious process, and your brain
already already works this out. All I've really done is given words to it, my book, but when you have someone who's struggling by assumptions, you have to persuade them them with words, you have to then spell it and if they really sophisticated, and sometimes you have to spell it out to each tiny pot to them.
Lastly, they'll say, how do we know that physicalism? Or like the universe of only physical things is not sufficient to explain itself? Why does it need a god or creator? So it's very simple, you can demonstrate it in the following argument, my very following argument to show that the universe is insufficient to exist by itself.
Many people have said, you might have heard the argument from contingency, and I've ever heard of this one, going from contingency, as they say, there, the universe is made of contingent things. And they depend on something that is independent or necessary existence, you've heard this thing. And what the atheists will respond is, they'll say, how do you know everything is contingent? Yeah. Like, it depends on something else? How do you know that? How do you know the airfinance universe depend on somebody else? You know, you said, Well, I can move it and I can change it. And maybe you can make my move, it will change it. But maybe fundamentally, it's made out of fundamental
particles, like quarks and leptons, and all kinds of other things, which are fundamental. And they are they always exist, they're eternal, they're necessary, whether or not that's that's the case. Now, what they've done is, again, they've confused you with assumptions, using other words, making you think that science has shown there and these things are not contingent on the dependent things. And then you get confused. So then, then we have to basically drag them over the over bit by bit details, what to show them why what they're saying is wrong. So right, they've simply developed this argument, to show that everything that has extensional space is dependent, right? And so there must
be something outside of space and time that isn't dependent, but create space and time.
So they say, give me your evidence for God, where's your evidence for God? So here you go, space and time, right. And you notice that I put the earth which is rotating
on its own axis facing the sun, because one of the ways you know about time is you know, from night and day, right? Regular rotation, regular motion, that returns back to its original configuration is a definition of time that we can come up with, if you as well, scientists will come up with the may only measure of time is something that is circular that returns back to its original settings on a uniform or regular way, is definition of time. And more change or movement, or how to measure time anyway. So, time and space. That's my evidence for God. Right? But how is the evidence for God? Well, let's start with the let's define what we mean by God because sometimes the atheists will say,
you put God here there, whatever you you don't even know what you how to define God. You just say God, it's a great maximal being or a being that has perfection. These are words that atheists will say are vague. They're vague words, perfection, maximal being what does that mean? Okay, well, I'll give you very clear definitions. And one of the reasons why when I talk about these arguments, I don't I try my very best not to use philosophical terms. I try to make it most plain English possible, is because I don't want to make people think that they have to study philosophy to to know this stuff. I think anyone can understand this. That's why I deliberately, in my debates, and my
lectures, I tried to use as much plain English as possible. But that's that's why minimal definition, God is necessary, ie he must have always existed, he must exist. There's no point in the past he didn't exist, quote, unquote, so he has to exist. Or here's the first existence. There's nothing before him. Basically, what is independent, so not doesn't depend on anything else? Pretty straightforward.
has the power to create or exert power, power in physics has worked on but basically can can do things things can happen. With the exertion of power, he can make things or create things from nothing.
You can choose to do that. So if you choose not to can choose to do it. And if you can choose to do it has intention and will intends what he creates a will, I suppose, though you could argue that will always serve because we'll just means the capacity to choose, I suppose. So it might be circular, but I added there because intention will simply conveys to you very clear that this is a, what they call an agent, right. So, it's not just a mindless thing, but it has agency or IE, it can choose their essence, right? It choose and, and ultimately, you can even work out that he has a knowledge as well, because if he intends to do something, he must have knowledge about what he's
doing. Anyway. So that's my definition, very minimal definition.
And that's what I mean by God as the most minimal definition. So let's see if we find if we encountered this definition anywhere in our investigations.
Now, I'm going to tell you guys, I put some diagrams up now, don't worry about the
the technical side of this discussion is quite simple to understand. But I'm going to give you the technical one technical side of this argument, just so you're able to deal with anyone that you come up with. I use this against a recently against an atheist called Matt Dillahunty, who was very good at ripping down arguments made by Christian theists and so on so forth. By pointing out this, this premise here is wrong with this premise here is assumed that this premise is vague. He is He will minut ly investigate people's premises and their arguments to destroy it. So this one has to be really,
how should I put this rigorous, right? But it's actually quite simple. Okay. So, first and foremost,
we have observable reality, forget using the word universe, what do we mean by universe? How big universe forget that you have observable reality? Because of you observing? simple definition. Okay. What's it caused by if anything? Well, first possibility is, is observed reality made itself which we say the competition, observe reality is uncaused, which I will argue I'm about to argue the conviction,
or God, or the other alternatives are observable reality was caused by nothing. So it was created by nothing. On the very the other possibilities, observable reality was caused by something with no intentional will. Okay, like, multiverse? Let's just say as one example. Yeah. So these are the only possibilities that are there.
These are the only possibilities that there's no other possibility you can imagine outside of that. So let's go over these and see if they are.
If, if they were if they actually do indeed possess contradictions,
as this sitting by the bay, very simple principle, the law of non contradiction, we are going to if we encounter a contradiction, we are going to negate it. So if say has a condition, we know it's not true. And we're going to simply use the principle of p or not p. So either something is, for example, independent or not independent, or is or if something is necessary, or not necessary. These are the kinds of things that we're gonna go we're gonna go into, but it's not that difficult. Now, this is the this is the simple version of the argument I'm about to present. So inference from space or extension.
This is a simple version, it's very simple to follow, there is existence, not really complicated. existence can be of two kinds, dependent or independent, might either be existent to depend on something else, or existence, that doesn't depend on anything else. There's no other doesn't. Is there a third possibility? You think any third possibility is no? Okay? So simple reality cannot consist of only dependent existences. I use a simple example. I say, imagine you're a penniless student, maybe some of you don't need to imagine that. And you want to go buy a sandwich from local shop, and you need some money for that. And so you ask your friend, can I lend some money from you?
He hasn't that he doesn't have any money, either. He asked his friend, can I lend some money from you? He doesn't have any money, either, because he's poor, and so on, so on, so forth. If if you asked an infinite number of students who were all poor, and had no money, would you ever get money to buy that sandwich? No. So you can't have a variety of only dependent existences, because at some point, you have to have something to read the base is based upon, that is not independent, it's not dependent but is independent, doesn't need anything else lend you the money has some money to lend, basically. And the analogy of being able to buy a sandwich is being able to exist, that's the
analogy. So there has to be there must be independent existence somewhere. Maybe it's this universe is independent, maybe whatever. I'm not saying it's anywhere in particular, I'm just saying has to be somewhere there is something that exists, that is independent, doesn't need anything else to exist. Okay? It can't have an infinite regress of dependent things. That's my way of putting it. So anything that that depend on space to exist, is dependent like this chair. Right? If this chair depends on space to exist, if it didn't have the space it wouldn't exist.
Okay, so therefore, the independent existence does not depend on extension or space to exist.
What that means is that, wherever is independent out there, that doesn't depend on anything, doesn't depend on space to have a place to exist.
And it doesn't depend on space to exist to exist. And it is independent.
Well, if someone doesn't have doesn't depend on space to exist, then it is indivisible. Because if space can be divided, right, whereas in something else independent, obviously, has doesn't depend on space, and so exists outside of space, and so can't be divided, is indivisible. And if it's indivisible, then they can only be one independent existence.
Because you can't divide it into more than one.
And if so, then there cannot be one.
And therefore, of course, if the independent existence creates dependent existence, it and there's nothing, there's nothing smoothen it, the independent existence not made of anything smaller than itself. If it was it will be dependent. So it's not made of anything smaller. And yet, it still creates things that exist in space. Without having that doesn't have to, they can only be explained by choice.
It does so because it wants to, there's no mechanisms inside it on the gears are mechanisms of making it make things, right. That's the simple argument. Very simple. That's all it is. But of course, you can you can get nitpicking skeptics, or atheist. And so you have to say, Okay, well, with with diagrams,
then I say simple, the same thing, you cannot read to an independent existences. There must be an independent existence. That's pretty straightforward. I mean, you mentioned, but then you say, anything that is composed of parts depends on those parts to exist, because they'll say how'd you know, things are dependent, and there were you have to drag them. So let me show you.
The castle depends on the sand to exist, right? If there's no sand, then there's no castle.
So in reality, in a way, the castle doesn't actually exist, just the sand. Because the foot forms don't really exist. Only the material that's made up of there's a range in those forms, but forms don't really exist in a way.
So that if that's the case, anything extended in space, likewise, depends on a composite of spatial divisions to exist. Anything that has size can be divided up is, it's made of some it's made of its internal division, you can, you can always, always imagine it could be divided in many ways, even if you can't physically divide it up. It can be it, it is made up of whatever's inside the area, whatever's inside there, because remember, the square doesn't exist, only the shape of the thing is made out of. Right? So the square depends on whatever is made out of, to exist right? Now, guess what?
Anything that is extended in space is always divisible. And is always and therefore it's always dependent. Because you can imagine going smaller and smaller, no matter how small you go, it always has size.
Right? So what you get to and what I what I actually argued against as atheists called Matt Dillahunty. Is that if, if but you the problem with with him, I said with his art with his worldview, is that you can't have a universe of only forms, but no substance.
Because if anything exists, and it depends on an area, it's just a shape. It's just a form. Where's the substance? I said? I said, jokingly, the problem of your worldview is it lacks substance. That was a little bit of a dig ahead. Funny, why is it just a good good natured one. So therefore, the independent existence out there somewhere out there cannot be divisible and doesn't depend on an extension in space to exist. What is in the independent existence is something which doesn't depend on form. It is something that creates forms, but the extended existence can't be produced. So in the universe, what we call the extended existence of something has shape or size. It can't be made out
of a composite of adding together independent existence is of no extension. So what they might say is they'll say, how do you know that the universe is made up of, of tiny points of no extension? That make up which are independent they don't they don't depend on anything else, but they make up the universe that that the substance of the universe is not a bunch of dependent things which are tiny, so tiny, they actually have no space. So here's the problem of that. If I add to give a bunch of bricks that have no size, how much someone's going crazy out there or something weird noises is is that the son of your brain is trying to work
to work this out,
it's actually quite easy. Basically, they might say, okay, okay, I concede that anything that has a shape or size is dependent. Great. But how do you know that the things you'll see in the universe are not built out of building blocks of zero size? Okay. So you said, Okay, well, let's add them together, shall we? Let's add an infinite amount of things that have no size, how much what size comes out of it?
Zero, it doesn't matter how many things of zero size you add, they always come up to be zero.
So does that mean then
that means that extended existence can't be made out of
independent existence things out that are independent, that have no size. So there is a separation there, they're not the same thing they can't be made out of the or the other. So, the only thing that explains it is that that extended existence, whatever it is, is dependent on independent existence, to extend it into existence, ie create it.
Right, so the independent existence is not the substance of the universe. But it is the one that creates the universe extends it into existence, create extension itself, by by power. So in other words, let's just say God doesn't make universe out of himself.
Right, but rather, he makes universe from his from exerting power.
Right, extending it adding to to exist to not to reality by adding from nothing.
if the independent existence is indivisible, it cannot be separated with divide into multiples, and therefore there was only one independent existence. So independent existence, even if you had 1000 independent existences. It couldn't be 1000, because they don't be the one in the same thing. Let's just put this way, there's not enough space for more than one God, because there's no space. Quite literally. Okay. Now, I want to give a give a little caveat here for those people who want to know about Islamic doctrines, and different schools of thought in Islam. There's there's afterlife amongst Muslims for centuries and centuries, between the Shioda between the Orthodox schools and,
and maturity, and so on, so forth. So I simply, I simply put that I argued that God doesn't depend on face, right. But some people believe that he has shape. But everyone accepts that he doesn't depend on anything. So it doesn't depend on space. The Ashara would say, no form, oh, he's not of any form. And some people say he has a form, but we say build a cave without expressing how. But the point is that God doesn't depend on space. That's all we have to argue, right? And guess what had been Tamiya, who's from the type of from the author, the school has the same argument? He would be believing that God has some kind of form, but we say we'll be lucky if we say we don't say how that
what it is, or what have you. But everyone, everyone agrees that God doesn't depend on space. Everyone agrees on that. So this argument you can use by any school of thought you want anyway. So if there's only one independent existence, and all of observable reality is dependent, then guess what? All extended things, in reality depend on one independent existence to exist, done. That's it. That's the argument from space. And guess what, even if your brain in the vat or you're imagining things or you're in a coma would have yo the biller, you could still come to the exact same conclusion. Because all you need to do is to see that space, you observe space, whatever it is, even
in a program, this space, the computer program is this space.
Okay. And if independent existence is indivisible, then there is no more, there is nothing more fundamental than it. And if it's nothing more fundamental than it, it produces extended existence without compulsion, from another more fundamental source, as in has no components. There's no components inside it. Yet, so if it creates,
that it does have because it chooses to do,
there's no other explanation.
And if that's the case, so if intention is defined as an unnecessary choice, not compelled by prior more fundamental causes,
and if it is uncaused, independent existence and it creates with intention, this meets definition of God. So, if if, if God is not, is not forced to create,
and nothing, he doesn't depend on anything, of course, nothing compels him to do and he does so. Then he and he chooses to do so. He has intention.
As intention this meets the minimal definition of God that we defined at the very beginning.
Someone said some atheists complained or you're defining God into existence it No, I came up with definition. Here's the concept we believe in. Now, let's
If we can find that concept in our investigation of reality, that's all I did, then define him into existence. Yeah. So that's it. That's, that's all the arguments need to make.
The next argument, the domain is only to space and time. So do we have enough space and time for this? Final?
All right, so we'll wrap up pretty soon. So, there is existence yet kill Sopris something cannot come from nothing by nothing. So there must have always been existence, there must have always been existence, because existence could have started from nothing by nothing. So there was must been something that always was existing. Okay, I think everyone can agree on that. No one disputes that because they produce a conviction to really go, there cannot be an infinite regress of change, because change is about one thing happening after the other and depending on the previous condition. So there must have been a first thing, you can have an infinite regress of change. As we said, if
this lecture went on forever, it wouldn't stop right there by definition. And again, if you had to wait for forever, for this lecture to begin, then again, you wouldn't begin. So the fact that we've arrived at today knows we can know for certain that there wasn't an infinite past, or infinite, or infinite regress of change. That must have been a first thing. Guess what? Either the first thing was static or not static? Yeah, it is, the first thing is static, or is not static. So if the first thing is if non static, so if it's moving, if it's being moved an infinite regress, because the thing that created the universe itself has always been moving,
then it's always changing. And that itself has an infinite change going back into the past. So all you said is, instead of the universe being infinite, infinite in the past, you're saying something else infinite in the past? Yeah. And that will be the same problem, my infinite regress. So if you say it's completely static, it's just static, right? It's a static, it's mindless has no will no intention to complete static, then why does it? Why does it move? Or why is it initiate things? If something is completely static, no change would occur.
There's only way to break the deadlock is it might if it's it must have created the change of beginning change by choice. Something that begins movement, let's just say begins to create things that move or change is the only possibility. And of course, if it's the first thing, if there's nothing before it, if it's the first cause, or the the first the first thing that exists, there's nothing behind it, that pushes it to do stuff. Right? So it stops things from bias, but from itself, then it is it has well has choice It initiates it. Nothing is making it do it. There's no before circumstances that made God do what he did. Right? He basically, he just initiates things. That's
the simple argument. Very simple.
Of course, here's the more complicated version is slightly complicated, but not much. Same thing, there's existence, something can't come from nothing by nothing, there must have always been something existing a first or necessary existence.
Time is change, as you know, asked him by experience, you think things are changing change either defined as, as an arrangement or for more extensional things that depend on site prior to its or arrangements or was rearranging themselves, or change could be also that something didn't exist, and then an arrangement came into existence? So something this chair comes to just here is an arrangement of wood, complex wood, starches, it's an arrangement. Okay, so either this chair was rearranged from prior prior things like wood that was rearranged into this chair, or this chair popped into existence, de novo from from from nothing, okay? That's what does change need to be of
these two types. They can't be infinite regress of arrangements and things and changes basically the same thing I said before, and so
we have to look at that. Okay, so there must be a first existence. So what can the first existence be either the first existence is an arrangement for more extension itself? It's just basically in a thing that has shape or something that does not depend on shape, or form.
Okay, well, arrangement or shape depends on its constituent members to move. Because it's not the chair that is moving everything inside the chair that is moving. That makes it move every particular Woodstock molecule and then quark and what have you. Those are things that are moving the chair is just is a shape, it's a form of something. It's the something that's moving, not the shape itself. So what I'm saying there, okay.
So, things that are shaped shapes don't move by themselves, but the things that they're made out of are the ones that do the moving.
The first existence can't depend on the shape basically.
because it is the first existence, it can't depend on shape. As we said before, whether change comparable was the first change than the first change must be that the first existence creates the first shape.
Right creates the first shape. And then after that, the second thing that happens after that is that the shape moves and rearrange this. That's it. So the first thing that changed wasn't the first cause, but was rather caught that the first thing that the first court did was it made something and then change that something over time, as in with every moment of change. So the first existence creates an X and creates the first moment of time, the first arrangement, and then afterwards, that arranger just keeps rearranging is the first existence being the first cause therefore precludes any prior external or internal causes to it. So nothing was nothing was prior to it, it has no
mechanisms, or nothing's pushing to do it. So if it makes something than it does so because it has choice, and and it chooses to do so. And we end up in the same conclusion. Okay. So it means definition of God, something that is not that makes things and it's not necessarily to make things. So what I've done simply is, I've simply shown that all the all the possibilities, right, so all those things have been we've seen produced convictions, when you think about them, and you examine them, the only thing left is God as the only concept that is left.
And of course, we see that, in in time, the universe is being the observer, reality is being created. And in an in space, from the space access, it's being sustained. So the universe, golden mate, university, and when walked away, but he's actively sustaining it, because everything in his universe is just forms, forms of his power, or ayat, right? Of his power. So space and time are the best evidence for God. Why? Because we know they must exist, space and time, wherever you are in the matrix, or wherever you are, in a coma, or what have you. You know that the space and time there has to be because you're seeing it, you're observing and experiencing it. And if they exist, then God
has to exist, because he's only possible explanation left off to remove all contradictions. You could say the only thing you can know for certain, after you exist, is that God exists.
Right? And not many other things in life, you know, for certain.
And guess what is it my argument,
in the Quran, surely, in the creation of the heavens, in the earth, space and extension, and then the alternation of day and night, change in time, if you like, these are signs that people have reason,
or, and then of course, coincides with power that we construct the heaven very, we are able to extend the vastness of space, there have
there are the verses, interesting, it starts with space, and then it begins the creation of arrangement, and then the arrangement gets changed to space, then time, and of course, many has time, but then time precedes all that oil has created in, in the haves, and you have so this, this first says, look, the creation of the heavens and the earth. But time goes before what were the things that developed inside the heavens in the earth. So time develops all the things, you need time to develop all the things inside the heads of heavens in the earth. Very interesting how the Quran places these words, the wording of, of these verses, but what we also see is that the Quran
says space was initially was created, she has one unit and then expanded into the current universe. So we know this first have not those who disbelieved, knowing that they have the New Earth were joined together as one piece, and then we parted them. But also here we see in this verse, that the universe was expanded. So Allah raised its ceiling and in proportion did
yeah. So what we're seeing is that these are here in the Quran, these are the arguments of the Quran uses space and time as one of the fundamental reasons for God's existence that you can, you can know for certain, and of course, the he is the sustainer of all things, as well. So he's actively sustaining it again, his throne extends over the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tie him at all whatsoever. So
there we have it.
I think we'll, we'll leave it there. But the argument of space and time isn't what I just concocted out of modern science, but it's actually in the Quran itself. I've simply explained it simply are more sophisticated, and other versions simply to deal with the assumptions made by those who wanted to deny us so buckle our feet and for your patience and for listening and Shawn, let's be up online for you to watch pornography