Facing Disbelief #1 – The Universe and an Approach to Anthropomorphism

Adnan Rajeh

Date:

Channel: Adnan Rajeh

Series:

File Size: 51.09MB

Share Page

Related

WARNING!!! AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. Therefore, no part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

AI Generated Summary ©

The speakers discuss the importance of disbelief and sources of the internet in modern day challenges, including "strategical" and "monistic" evidence. They also touch on "vertually particles" and "monistic" evidence, as well as the use of " Volkswagen fallacy" and "vertually particles" to describe actions and events. The concept of "imaging" and its significance in various ways, including religion and culture, is also discussed.

AI Generated Transcript ©


00:00:00--> 00:00:04

Also leave us a limbo Barik, ala Nabina, Muhammad, Muhammad and while he was here

00:00:06--> 00:00:34

today, this is the second session within the seven episode series that I'm going to run in sha Allah Tada cackling disbelief and the sources of Iman and how to kind of deal with modern day challenges that I think most younger people will run into if they haven't already done so within their studying facilities or whether at work or just with friends and or just maybe just being exposed to the, the wild world of the internet.

00:00:36--> 00:00:53

Like, which is what I think there'll be a WW it stands for, but probably doesn't. Um, yesterday we talked about I went I went through I went through the basic reasons or the common reasons of disbelief, and I had packed a few of them that I think are important, and I'll refer back to them every once in a while. So I would advise you listen to that first

00:00:54--> 00:01:12

session well, and kind of have an idea. And I went through some common fallacies, which has also been referring to some of them and shall as we go along, because they're important. And I pointed out the four sources of Eman and maybe what, what it is that we base our arguments on. So today I'm going to I'm going to tackle the concept or the source of the universe.

00:01:13--> 00:01:51

And I'm gonna go through a number of points that I think Michelle will be helpful for us and then I'm gonna take on what a common fallacy that that is used when we talk about Allah subhanaw taala. And I'll unpack that as well hopefully when the time will allow me to do these two things. So when we talk about the universe, there's a source Allah subhanaw taala in the Quran, it's all over the Quran. So I really don't need to go through verses but for example, in Santa Monica the Halacha sobre SML Ba, ba ba now I talked about a few 100 people why many men devote Bellagio Hotel on photo to melges bussola CalHFA teeny, Yun Talib la calle Basu cos Yong, woo hoo ha, see, that's the power

00:01:51--> 00:01:53

dialer polygon guru na

00:01:54--> 00:02:00

t will not go it's a go and look and see what it is that Allah subhanaw taala has in the cosmos and on the earth,

00:02:01--> 00:02:36

we is what we do. And that's why and because of the the frequency of these verses. And so in the Quran, where Allah subhanaw taala asked us to look at the universe. It's considered the first source of EMA and this and it's important that this sequence is observed. And we talk about sources of EMA and you need to go sequentially, you start with the universe, you start with what Allah Subhanallah has already created, I'm gonna go through a couple of, of challenges or thoughts, and I'm gonna basically unpack this or talk about it by just going through a couple of the a couple of challenges or obstacles or arguments that exist against using the universe as as evidence of Allah subhanaw

00:02:36--> 00:03:19

taala. Again, I just want to make it very clear that I talked yesterday, I talked a little bit about scientific proof, scientific proof, which is materialistic proof, which is mechanistic way of thought, for something to only be a fact for you, if it comes to a mechanistic thought processes, or for only to be a fact, if it comes through scientific proof for materialistic proof. That is never been the case, meaning that's never how the world actually has worked. And that's not how we have come to conclusions in terms of factual, scientific concepts is not through that. uniformity of evidence is uniformity of evidence is what we use. And that's an important concept. And it's

00:03:19--> 00:03:52

different than scientific proof. I got the question yesterday, but I was I want to talk about it today. So I kind of went through it quickly. But this is very important to understand that what we what we talk about when we when we talk about belief in Allah subhanaw taala, we were referring to that concept, we're looking at something called uniformity of evidence, because scientific proof by default can never exist. It's not. It's not it's not possible, because science can only give us the existence and the mechanisms of things that that are floating around within the observable universe, which Allah subhanaw taala is not so in science does not have the ability doesn't have the tools to

00:03:52--> 00:04:19

actually offer you any proof. But uniformity of evidence is what we talk about is what actually exists. And it's much more powerful than scientific proof. By far, when you have multiple sources of evidence that are all pointing in the same direction. That is actually much more. And when I talk about mounting the Islamic narrative, if there's one piece of evidence that is not uniform is not directly pointing towards the Internet to Allah subhanaw taala, then you can you can, you can basically get rid of the whole thing.

00:04:20--> 00:04:54

On the other hand, scientific proof always has a margin of error, always, always the most clear, scientific facts always have a small margin of error. It may be less than 5%, or even less than that, but it's still there. uniformity of evidence leaves no way for us to be to be in doubt of something which is what we actually argue exists when we talk about Allah subhanaw taala, which is why we have to identify what are the sources of evidence here, the four sources and then we look at them, where are they pointing? Are they pointing in an opposite direction of God? Are they all pointing in the direction of Allah subhanaw taala is enough for one of them to be pointing in the

00:04:54--> 00:04:59

opposite direction for us to say it's not worth holding on to this. It's not worth believing in this but we don't

00:05:00--> 00:05:31

We actually see it to be the opposite everything, all the evidence, there's uniformity of evidence of Allah subhanho wa Taala of the existence of God. And because of that we don't we have, we have certainty, we have certainty. If it was scientific proof that you were going after scientific proof actually doesn't offer you full certainty. It offers you a really high probability, but not certainty that anyone who does research knows that knows that just based on the the, the metrics and measurements that are used to actually come to conclusions. So a few arguments that exist out there. This is the first one The first one is they claim or they'll say this, they'll say,

00:05:32--> 00:06:07

the burden of proof of God is on you. Because you're claiming that something exists. And since my my sense is don't reach it, so that the burden of proof is on you. It's not on me, I don't believe in anything, there's no burden of proof on me, you're the one who's saying there's a God, and we'll prove it because there's a burden of a perfect the burden of burden of proof is always on the person who was making a claim of something existing. Correct. That's what the argument is, there's a there's a, there's a fundamental flaw within this argument that is that goes unnoticed. There's something called self evident truths in the world, right? They're their conditions for something to

00:06:07--> 00:06:23

be called a self evident truth. First thing, it has to be universal meaning has to be something that exists for all people, no matter where they are, it can't be specific to a culture, it can't be specific to a time, it can't be specific to us, to a religion or a race, or a part of the world has to be universal. It has to be something that is not taught.

00:06:24--> 00:06:55

Meaning is not something that is going to be taught to someone, it's just going to be a part of their common sense, meaning something that they're going to grow up with is going to be clear to them. It has to be natural. It has to be something that is not artificial. It's not something that happened after the the man the hand of man mingled with it, it's something that's a part of nature itself. And it has to be simple, it has to be the most simple explanation. And this is not again, this is not a definition that is religious. This is just when you talk about self evident truths. Well, any self evident truth has to meet these four criteria, these four criteria, it has to be

00:06:55--> 00:07:14

universal, it has to be simple, it has to be natural, and it can't be something that is taught is that something that you just it's a part of your common sense. So anyone born into the world is going to end up having one of these self evidence, the self evident truth, because it's just something that is natural just comes to them normally, as a part of their instincts as a part of their comprehension of the world around them.

00:07:15--> 00:07:16

So

00:07:17--> 00:07:27

that being said, what are examples that most philosophers or all philosophers would give me and scientists actually believe or accept as self evident truths? For example, the existence of the past?

00:07:29--> 00:07:35

Have you lived in the past? Has anyone from the past come and spoken to you? Then how do you know it ever existed?

00:07:37--> 00:08:03

The past meaning before you came along before 100 genetic was explaining it but explain it brought into this world and you bless the world with your existence. How do you know that everything before you actually happened? That's a self evident truth. Because you don't need anyone to teach you that the past happened. It just, you know, it does. It's just it's just a it's a self evident truth. It's natural. It's universal. It's simple. I'm not the first thing that exists there things around, there must be so that's the self of it. Another example is the existence of external minds.

00:08:04--> 00:08:05

I have a consciousness

00:08:07--> 00:08:29

I'm conscious I'm here. The existence of other consciousnesses is the self evidence. But I have no proof of it. You talk to me, I have no I got there's no way for me to prove that your consciousness is there, no matter what you how much you speak to me. No matter what you do around me, I still don't have concrete proof is a self evident truth that you are unconscious, or as conscious as I am. That's just accepted.

00:08:30--> 00:09:01

The simple law of causality. These are all by the way, these are all uniformly accepted by by scientists. I'm not I'm not adding my own thing. And there's no fallacies here. I'm just saying this is what they talk about the law of causality something happened, something caused it. That is accepted universally. When you see something that has occurred, you walk into your house, everything is broken. Law of causality will tell you something was there, you don't need to be taught that it's not something that is artificial. You walk in something is moved or changed around not the way it was before someone did it. Someone something, did it, there's something there's some cause that puts

00:09:01--> 00:09:03

out there, the simple laws of logic.

00:09:04--> 00:09:28

I am either Canadian, or Portuguese. If I'm not Portuguese, that means I am, right. You just came to that conclusion, your mind just jumped to the conclusion, no problem at all. That's self evidence. That doesn't require any that doesn't require being taught. There's no this is very simple, it's universal. And it's a part of nature. So these these simple laws of logic are a part of the self evident truths that exist in the world.

00:09:29--> 00:09:34

So the problem with this argument when they tell you that the proof of the burden of proof or give me

00:09:35--> 00:09:59

the burden of proof is on you when you when you claim the existence of God. Well, it comes down to two problems here. Number one is that when you deny the existence of a creator, I'm not talking about a specific god, okay? I'm not going after a specific description. I'm seeing someone or something that put the universe into existence or into motion. That's what I'm talking about here. We're gonna broaden the definition

00:10:00--> 00:10:33

Something that caused this to be. So when you say that no, this is just here, it doesn't nothing caused it? Well, the burden of proof is now on you, because you have just taken a self evident truth, which is the law of causality. And you said that it doesn't, it's not going to apply to this, the burden of proof is now on you, because you're taking a separate, self evident truth, and you're limiting it and saying, it doesn't apply to this. So you have to prove that that this self evident truth, which is the law of causality does not apply does not apply to this world. And if you can prove that, then that's a different story. But if you can't prove that, that I don't, that I don't

00:10:33--> 00:11:08

have to prove to you the existence of a creator, that concept comes already, it's a part of us just existing, because we're here. And because other things are here, the universe, when you look at it, it exists, the fact that it exists, means that there's a cause for it. And that causes what we claim to be the creator, as Muslims, the cause of all of this is what Allah subhanaw taala is. So if you're gonna say there is no cause, then the burden of proof does not lie on me, the burden of proof lies on you. Because the self evident truth is there, we don't need this is something that is accepted all over. And that's one that's one of the basic arguments that exist is probably the most

00:11:08--> 00:11:19

common one. And it's based on a simple fallacy, where we're Yes, the evidence of proof lies on the person who's claiming the existence of something. Yeah, but there's a little bit of a there's a caveat here, because you're saying,

00:11:20--> 00:11:21

you're saying that

00:11:22--> 00:11:29

this evidence does not apply to this. And to make it even clearer to you. If a murder happens, if some if someone was killed.

00:11:31--> 00:11:40

The burden of proof on who did it is on the prosecution on who did it. Not the fact that someone did it.

00:11:41--> 00:12:14

So the difference here on who did it, yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have to prove that full ended it they don't have to prove that someone did it. Like a self evident truth, the guy was stabbed 15 times and there's a knife beside him. I don't need to prove I don't just start by saying, well, first of all, let's prove that the knife didn't do it on its own. Let's see if we can prove that the knife did not jump up and shove itself into this person's guts 15 times and then we'll go on No, that's self evident. Obviously, someone did it. The pursuit, prosecution has to prove who did it. So for Islam, and we're talking about Allah subhanaw taala. We're talking about

00:12:14--> 00:12:28

the one who caused the universe to exist, I don't need to prove that someone did that you need to disprove that that happened. Now the details of Allah is a different story. Now the details of who God is. That's a whole that's a different thing that we'll come to and tell them. So that's the first point. Second point.

00:12:30--> 00:12:33

There's something called I'm not sure if you've heard of this ever heard of Russell's teapot?

00:12:34--> 00:13:12

So yeah, so and this is what Dawkins talks about, in his book, The illusion of God or God, God Delusion, whatever he calls it. He talks about Russell's teapot Russell's the one who is known as a philosopher, he talks about the existence. So he said, he said, He's the Masons. He said, there's a there's a micro teapot that is circulating the universe are circulating somewhere between Earth and Mars. And this teapot is it cannot be picked up by any telescope cannot be measured by anything. And it's the reason that everything exists is the creator, that that small teapot is the creator of everything. And it is circulating the earth between Mars, Mars and the earth. And it's very small,

00:13:12--> 00:13:37

it can be picked up by anything. And it's the Creator said he is what his argument argument is that there's no difference between what you're saying and what I'm claiming. I'm claiming this and you're claiming that? Well, there's again, a fundamental problem with the argument. A teapot does not fix the problem mean, a teapot does not explain anything. When I say when we say that there's a creator, there's a reason there's a cause of all of this, where it's answering a question. The question is, why is this all here? Where did this all come from?

00:13:38--> 00:14:11

Where did it come from? There needs to be a cause. So when we say there is a God, and the concept of God is creator, someone who was actually able to put all of this into motion? I am answering a question. I'm offering an answer to a question that exists. When you tell me there's an invisible teapot you're not answering, you're offering me an answer. Because coupons don't do anything. teapots can pour tea, that's as far as they go. They don't really create anything. So for us to draw the parallel between these two arguments is actually, you know, fundamentally flawed, because the teapot does not explain the existence of the universe. You're just saying, well, the only parallel

00:14:11--> 00:14:46

that they're drawing with this with this argument is that well, just like you can't see God, you can't see my teapot. Yeah, I understand that. But I'm telling you that the God that I'm speaking of is the one that put all this into motion. What did your teapot do? What exactly does a teapot do? You can say, Well, my teapot created the universe, then we're back to the same point, you're claiming that something created the universe, you're just defining it, you know, based on your level of intelligence, that is a teapots and I'm looking at it as something a little bit much more or much more granddam than that, but we go back to the same point again. So the again, these are a lot of

00:14:46--> 00:15:00

these arguments that you'll find that go against the fate that sounds very silly, because technically, many of them are and they're just based on simple fallacies is simple lack of use of basic, granular, linear logic that you really need in these types of

00:15:00--> 00:15:12

tuitions the concept, but it's a big deal. And you'll be surprised the amount of traction, the concept of Russell's teapot actually gets in the scientific world as an argument that is very, that is very sensible. But it doesn't offer an explanation of anything.

00:15:13--> 00:15:49

The answer that we are offering when we say there is a Creator, it offers an explanation explains why things are here, where they came from, you have an explanation, the existence of a teapot does not yes, there's similarity in the terms that you can't measure it, you can't see it, but it doesn't offer any explanation of any sort. So it's a really, it's a dead end, I need the argument. But it's there. Another argument, and this is a 6000 year argument. It goes even before that the something called freedom will Allah, which is the ancient aspect of the universe mean, the universe is old, it has no beginning to say that the universe does not start the universe has always been here. Because

00:15:49--> 00:16:22

when we're saying the law of causality, you're saying this is here. So something when I put it here, so what put it here? And they're like, no, no, it was always here. Nothing started, it's always been there. Well, we don't have to actually waste any time philosophically disproving that because science did that for us. So Homolka. Funny enough, funny enough, is science actually took care of this argument for us. And we don't have to actually go into it. Because Because science, the laws of thermo thermodynamics, for example, or something called the BV G theorem, you can look it up, if you want to read a little bit more about it. It very simply explains that the universe has been in a

00:16:22--> 00:16:55

state of expansion. And anything that continues to expand with it, the material that it has within, it cannot be infinite in nature, there has to be a beginning point to it. There has to be something that started the initiative, the simple laws of thermodynamics, it can't, it can't, it could not the universe based on the scientific measurements that exist within it. What the scientists have come to, is that it's impossible for the universe to have been infinite, there has to be a beginning point, just the way that it expands the way that it moves. It's not possible for the universe to have always existed the universe definite, which is why what's the most

00:16:56--> 00:17:29

probable theory that exists for the universe is called The Big Bang Theory. Right? That there's a point in time where it all started. And the question is, well, why do we need it because the laws of thermodynamics and I want you to take some time to read the BBG theorem. If you have time, just go through it, because it's it's very, it explains things quite well. And it gives you a lot of a kind of an a scientific background for it is that it's not possible for the universe within the way that it actually exists within the rate that is expanding for it to have always existed. It started at one point, at some point, it began. And that takes away. Of course, this very, this is an ancient

00:17:29--> 00:18:04

argument. This goes back many, many, many, many years ago, many, many millennials, And subhanAllah, it only was only fully debunked, and he recently like debunked it scientifically where I don't need to actually have a philosophical argument. There are a lot of philosophical arguments that will debunk this theory of the the ancient aspect of the world. But we don't even need to go there anymore. Because scientifically, we have evidence that there's there was a starting point, how long ago is difficult to most scientists think is around something for 14 billion years ago. And this is where we think, roughly there, that's where it all began. We don't know for sure. But we know

00:18:04--> 00:18:12

something at that point that it began, scientists actually even believe pretty Gyani concretely that at some point, it will also end.

00:18:13--> 00:18:23

Just like as it expands, at some point, it will come to a to a plateau point, and then it will contract amongst upon itself again, of course, that could be billions of years away. But this is what they still believe.

00:18:25--> 00:18:25

point after that.

00:18:26--> 00:19:06

There's a theory called the Theory of the multiverse. Ever heard that? The multiverse? Yeah. The multiverse is one of the to me one of the most interesting arguments that exist out there. And the reason that I think is interesting is because it has zero evidence to support it. It is nothing but wishful thinking there is nothing, not even not a speck of evidence that this is even a possible theory out there. But because enough scientists that again, science is what brought us a lot of the everyone's just microphone, you brought us the lighting. We brought us the internet, we love sites have even the saints, we love him, he brought us so many so many easy things. We get to drive cars,

00:19:06--> 00:19:41

we can fly in planes, we get to do so many things. So we respect science, which we should. And then we respect those who actually stand in the worship within the the tomb of science. So when someone who was scientific was doing working within science comes up with a theory when people attend to listen to it. Aside from that, I have no explanation for why it is that the multiverse became a theory that is so popular within within scientific realms. Because there is zero there's zero evidence to even see it suggests that it's possible. First of all, you're suggesting that there's not maybe two universes similar to ours or three, there's an infinite number infinite. I'm not

00:19:41--> 00:19:48

talking about millions. I'm saying infinite number of universes, meaning it never ends. There's no end to it.

00:19:49--> 00:20:00

Now, the moment you say something's infinite, I don't see the difference of your argument than what I'm trying to explain to you about Allah like the moment you even even say the word infinite. There's no end to something. It's

00:20:00--> 00:20:32

then maybe maybe we should come back, come back to the drawing table, drawing board and sit at the table and talk a little bit more. Because based on what are you saying something is infinite? What evidence do you have? There's an infinite number of universes. It's a really cool idea. I love Rick and Morty. Don't get me wrong. It's fun to watch. It's a fun show. But it obviously the concept itself has no there's no there's no scientific basis for something like this. I like it. There's a there's a Canadian philosopher by the name of John Leslie. And he has there's something called Leslie's firing squad. He this is this is a thought that he kind of uses to explain because the

00:20:32--> 00:21:06

multiverse is just a way to explain our existence in a way that gives no no reason for it to exist me No, cause you just there's an infinite number of universes. So if there's an infinite number of them, one of them must be able to have life exist, one of them must be because so that means we're just here based on that zero point, a million trillion zeros point one chance that we're here. And we're just that universe that ended up having life in it. But that also tells you that there's an infinite number of flight forms existing in all the universe, because it's not, it's, we only need enough new universes for our

00:21:07--> 00:21:40

probability to exist, you're saying infinite, that means it's an infinite number of universes that have an infinite number of reasons. Again, the whole concept itself is lacks any form of, of logic to it or a science, but that's the theory they have. So he has a nice little way of kind of pointing maybe a flaw in this way of thought, which I don't think we need to actually point out. I don't honestly think this is a theory that's even worth talking about. But because it's so widespread, and because some people who are very prominent, like Hawking's for example, Stephen Hawking was one of the pioneers, people who really did stand by this way of thought, and he thought this was the middle

00:21:40--> 00:22:07

of system, regardless. But the Lesley's firing squad is it says the following that if you were if someone was was, was going to be executed, standing in front of the blindfolded and there are 50 marksman, right? All of them with their with their rifles, or their snipers pointed right out the guy, and they all shoot at the same time. And somehow the guy doesn't die. Now one bullet has this person. So one of two things, either it was just luck,

00:22:08--> 00:22:10

or they didn't want to kill them.

00:22:11--> 00:22:12

So wishes it

00:22:14--> 00:22:47

those who take the concept or those who take the choice that it was just luck? What is the probability of this being just like, Is that acceptable? Is that an acceptable argument? Is that an acceptable probability or possibility of 50 marksman, and they still don't hit him? So he says, Well, let's take it the opposite way. Instead of thinking of 50 people shooting one guy who's standing as a not moving target, and they're all well trained, and not hitting him, that we were hit basically, by the bullet of life, right? This this, this planet, or this universe was hit by the Buddha, like, what is the possibility of this being just

00:22:49--> 00:23:10

just out of luck out of it, it's a cosmic bullet that just going through all these galaxies and all these universes, and is directed just to Earth, it just hit Earth, and we ended up alive? What is the probability or the possibility of that being luck, versus there being something that actually wanted us to exist? I think it's a very simple argument. And it does make to me a lot of sense, there's not really not much for us to do imagine

00:23:12--> 00:23:51

that somehow we exist on a point million zeros point one chance of existence. And that's the explanation that we're gonna go by within a multiverse that is infinite in nature, that we have no evidence to support whatsoever, versus there's a forest that wanted us to exist, there's a cause for our existence. I think when you look at both arguments like this makes this is much more simple. This makes much more sense. And the thing thing is, again, the uniformity of evidence continues. We don't just take our email from university, we're gonna go to life and then to history and then to our personal and then you'll see, okay, okay, there's too much here. There's too many lines, because

00:23:51--> 00:24:12

I'm not sure when was the last time the multiverse tried to communicate with us? What was the last time that multiverse presented itself or explained itself or spoke to anybody or sent anyone or had any interest in being in communication with anyone? But you'll find that okay, the evidence is kind of stacking up in one direction rather than than a theory that has nothing to support it whatsoever. It's just, that's number four, number five.

00:24:16--> 00:24:53

So there, there are theories out there that say, and this is what Dawkins says is that we just popped out. This is the theory that he has of the world maybe just just popped out into existence, just just here. That's it. There's nothing there's nothing else to ask. There's Krauss, there's Yanni the universe created itself. We just do even to meet even more bizarre. But then this theory, that sounds kind of crazy that we just popped out or created, created ourselves like the universe great. So gained a little bit of momentum. In the era of quantum mechanics, once quantum physics became much more Jonnie, widespread and became a field that people looked into, and respected, this

00:24:53--> 00:24:59

became much more of an argument. Yeah, that we just kind of popped out and that's an acceptable explanation for why we're here today.

00:25:00--> 00:25:07

And they use quantum mechanics to explain and I'll tell you why. So this is, this is why it's important. If you don't know much about quantum mechanics, I actually took a 12 lecture course.

00:25:08--> 00:25:38

It's, it's online, it's for free. And it's given by, I think the university account, but the university was with a Stratford. Oh, I can't remember anymore. What is it? Maybe it's, I can't remember it was in the States. It's not it's not in the UK. But it's always a long, it's a long course. And I just I took it just because I was tired of hearing the word Quantum. And I didn't understand exactly what they meant by it. So I actually took it took this long course I listened to stuff and I have this all these notes at home. And when it when it comes down to the basic of it is the basic, it's very interesting, it's obviously very helpful in quantum computers, once they are

00:25:38--> 00:26:11

able to actually develop them appropriate will be very much, much more powerful. But the concept of quantum mechanics is that is something called virtual particles. And this follows the hydrogen, I Heisenberg's Uncertainty law, meaning there are virtual particles that exist in a form of matter, and then don't exist in the form of matter there exists in the form of Wii U, meaning something existed, that doesn't exist, existed doesn't exist. So because they were able to measure these virtual particles, moments where they existed in motion, they didn't exist. They said, Well, you see, you don't really need a cause for existence, you can not exist, and then you can exist, that

00:26:11--> 00:26:30

means the universe just exists. We win, and they walk away, they dropped the microphone and they walk away. Thank God, we went, hello, sweet, we were able to prove that there are particles that will exist, and then another moment, they won't exist. So they go into existence out of existence. And that means that the universe does not actually need something to make it to cause it or to bring it to existence. So these particles prove the point.

00:26:31--> 00:26:57

Well, there's a number of fundamental problems with this argument. First of all, what they call the foreign or the state of non existence, we call that the vacuum state. And that vacuum state, most scientists don't believe that it doesn't mean is non existent, it just means that we don't have the tools to actually measure how it exists. All it means is that we don't have the tools right now, to measure the fact that it does exist. That's the big difference. For example,

00:26:59--> 00:27:00

if someone has breast cancer,

00:27:02--> 00:27:04

I can do a full panel,

00:27:05--> 00:27:11

bloodwork a full planet, I can take over 250, different pieces of bloodwork.

00:27:12--> 00:27:42

And I will not be able to detect breast cancer. Just because all of my blood work does not tell me that less breast cancer is there does not mean that they don't have breast cancer, it just means I don't have a marker yet. That tells me that breast cancer is there. That's all this means is I haven't developed a marker now able to detect something that we know is there, the person has breast cancer, they already have it. We do a full blood blood panel. There's no difference between this blood panel and someone who's healthy, you have no difference. Does that mean the person who's healthy has breast cancer? Or does it mean that the person who has breast cancer doesn't have it

00:27:42--> 00:28:16

because the blood panel doesn't show it? If someone tried to say this is very simple. So the fact that we can't measure the existence of something at a certain moment, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that we don't have the tools to actually measure it. Let's put that aside. Let's say I'm wrong, that we have the tools and it doesn't exist by a virus. So when these virtual particles are moving from a state of existence to not existence, they're going back and forth. Are they following a law? They say? Yes, this the law and this is high news. Okay. So it's following the law. Let's stop there. Before we tell you about Heisenberg's amazing idea. Let's put that aside. You're

00:28:16--> 00:28:27

saying that the following the law, okay, anything that follows the law cannot have existed on its own, because there's a law that's dictating its movement, there's a law that is dictating it, there's a law that controls it. So it can't have

00:28:29--> 00:29:03

created itself because of the law that's already dictating whether it's there or it's not. So that law has to have pre existed in order for this to work. So anything that follows a law of any sort, cannot have created itself, because you need something to actually put the law into motion. It's important that this is again, these are going back to the self evident truths, simple logic, just simple logic. If something is dictated or controlled by a law, well, then that thing could not have existed without the law can't predict the law. It can't predate the law of its existence, that law has to predated very simple the law of gravity. We don't predate that we didn't exist. And then the

00:29:03--> 00:29:15

law of gravity has always been a part of space time. It dictates how things work. You understand what I'm trying to go by this. The law of gravity dictates how things work without the law of gravity.

00:29:16--> 00:29:19

As they say, as we know, today, if the law of gravity was just slightly stronger,

00:29:20--> 00:29:58

the universe would have expanded your state into that little atom thing that we were part of and the Big Bang, if the law of gravity was a bit looser, then we would be flying over the place and there will be actually no the star dust would have never turned into into into planets or stars or anything because there was no there was not enough. Not enough pool, none of pool. So this law predates the existence of everything is there. You can't create your own law that will control you. That's just a simple law of logic. So it's just something to understand where I'm coming from. So we talked about the virtual particles within quantum mechanics they need they don't prove or disprove

00:29:58--> 00:30:00

anything. They're just an

00:30:00--> 00:30:15

other scientific phenomenon that we've observed, that we will continue to research and understand and figure out, it doesn't tell us anything about the fact that something that the universe could have existed from nothing. Yes, that's that's not what it explains. But it's a very well kind of used any argument

00:30:17--> 00:30:45

for not a good reason. But it's there. So let's go back to what Allah subhanaw taala talked about in the Quran. But now that you kind of went through these are the basic fallacies or the common arguments, there's a lot more I know many of you probably, there's a lot more arguments, but honestly, I for the purpose of this and so that I don't completely lose my voice by the end of Ramadan, I'm gonna just go through the common ones, the ones that I think that are most talked about, and that you'll hear a lot about within realms that of studying or work. So I think it's worth talking about, you go back to one of the lots of pilots I talked about, he says I love the

00:30:45--> 00:30:58

hull of a semi semi working three but but the one who created seven layers of heaven, and there were seven here doesn't necessarily I'll talk about that later Inshallah, towards the end of the course, or the the sessions, the seven here doesn't necessarily mean a number seven is the symbolism in Arabic of infinite

00:31:00--> 00:31:21

repetition of infinity. Whenever you finish the seventh day of the week, what happens after that, we all die and everything else is gonna start again, it just keeps on going. So seven is the symbol of things just keep on the repeating system. Six is the symbol of a lot and seven is this eminent infinity is just it's just the way the the Ottomans use these letters, or numbers step by step marginal means a lot

00:31:22--> 00:31:54

to a certain degree to an R and measures something that is almost infinite. We just saw the dean and he's in the Quran. So it goes way beyond your ability to actually quantify or calculate or measure within your brain. Leave off or whatever the other Murtala and is the point of the marathon if you watch man even tougher woods, you won't see in the creation of Allah any discrepancy in terms of the laws, there's uniformity of laws, all the laws apply to everything. And that's a self evident truth but that's what he's asking you to look at. It's really interesting what the Quran tells you to take a look at the prices just look at the simple stuff. All the laws that dictate the universe are the

00:31:54--> 00:32:27

same match on off you can rush man even to vote federal jail Basara look again hell Turabian photo you see discrepancy in between what Allah subhanaw taala made don't matter to you as masala tea and then look again look even deeper Yong Felipe de Cal pasado costly Anwar you'll find that you're you'll you'll come back to yourself find out that there's no discrepancy all of the there's uniformity of laws that govern everything that exists in the universe. That's number one. Number two, whether in CELTA home man holla, Pastor Marathi will obey a voodoo number or the insulting woman Hala customer but you will, or Sahaba shumsa Will Pamela Leia pollun Allah, the causality

00:32:27--> 00:32:34

thing? If you ask who created all this? Where did this come from? What is the starting point then they say Allah, not as in,

00:32:36--> 00:32:45

or God specifically, even though it is obviously, but as Allah subhanaw taala being the force behind existence. So like, we want to talk about the force behind existence.

00:32:47--> 00:33:13

We define that force as Allah, it's not the other way around. There's something I say it's not saying Allah is the force, we're saying, there's a force behind existence. And we call that force, meaning the name of that force is Allah subhanaw taala. And that's who he is. He's the force behind all of this. So that's how Muslims actually look at this whole issue. The problem with the belief in a supreme power and a deity comes from I'm gonna give you the this is what I'm explained to you as an example of a fallacy. This is an example of a straw man fallacy.

00:33:15--> 00:33:45

Most scientists who don't believe in God, they don't believe it's not that you don't believe in a force behind the universe. Einstein did not talk about this Spinoza I need the element later on in this course, inshallah. Darwin did. And most most renowned scientists historically believed in a forest and a supreme power in a deity. Their problem was not in believing in God, their problem was believing in the biblical God, or the Old Testament God, or the one of the gods that exist in scriptures that have been around for a long time.

00:33:46--> 00:34:26

And this is a good example of a straw man fallacy because when they go after Allah subhanaw taala. For us, they're not going after our understanding of who Allah subhanaw taala is, they have made a strawman. They have made a picture of God that is that they have pulled from different scriptures and different faiths that have been very manipulated version of God, and they go after that version. So God isn't God. But the thing is, we we haven't even got it within the world that we live in there. We have not been able to explain the Quranic explanation of the Quranic narrative of who God actually is, we are stuck. We are clumped up with a bunch of other faiths that have a very distorted

00:34:26--> 00:34:56

version of who God is that the scientists say we're not going to believe in that. And we're like, I know, I agree. We don't we don't believe in that either. But because we don't have the ability to set ourselves apart and say, That's not how we see God to beat him to begin with. That's not how we believe who he that we don't believe him to be that to begin with. We're stuck with this straw man fallacy, where they go after God, but they're not going after our narrative of God. They're going after another narrative of God. I'll give you an example. Which is and this is the probably the most clear example in terms of the straw man fallacy for this is it that you seem meaning when when God

00:34:56--> 00:34:59

is described as closer to human

00:35:00--> 00:35:34

As closer to his creation in the Old Testament and in the Bible, again, we believe that the Old Testament in the Bible were sent by Allah subhanaw taala. If you don't believe that the version is today, or actually what he said, subhanAllah there's a lot of manipulation. And probably the most clear pieces that were manipulated are the descriptions of the Almighty himself in the Bible, in the Old Testament, to find in the Bible, Old Testament, Allah's content is talked about, as some as someone who walks and wrestles and gets angry and cries, and this is how they describe him, they talk to he comes into the world, and he and he exists within the world and it and obviously, the

00:35:34--> 00:35:42

Christians go beyond that. And the Jesus himself is in their understanding is God and yet he he bled, and he lived on earth. And

00:35:44--> 00:36:00

where does this all come from? Before I talked about the fallacy where we kind of different this all comes from the innate need to understand why why text was manipulated to begin with, because well, why would human beings even manipulate their own text and, and put God like that? I'll tell you why. Because human beings don't like the idea of God.

00:36:01--> 00:36:32

Innately, the human being doesn't like it doesn't like that we're so limited. And he is so unlimited. Not fun. It reminds us because we're what are we described as Islam were described as what? Right? Anybody we're servants, we're creating a simple creations we're here to serve. Now, that's not to attract a visit. Unless you understand the Khalifa part, which you're supposed to understand in Islam, which makes it balances out it makes it makes it much, much more easy to accept, but that we're creations that were simple, we don't like them. So one of two things we do, either we try to

00:36:33--> 00:37:10

God defy or horrify human beings, or humanize God, to close the gap a bit. That's why we love Marvel and DC, a lot of fun, because it's really nice to do and to imagine that you can fly or you can, you know, shoot lasers out of your eyes. Or that you can you know, morph into something different or you can or that you don't need oxygen to breathe, or that you're invincible or you know, whatever it is whatever, you know, whatever superhero you like, interesting left the most loved beloved superheroes, Batman who can't do any of that, right? Just interesting enough, again, for the same reason, because Batman will beat something sometimes. So he's beating demigods. And we like that. We

00:37:10--> 00:37:48

like the idea of a human being beating a demigod and taking out a God somehow with his intelligence, quote, unquote, or with his, even though he's mortal. So either we humanize God by saying, no, no, he's like us, he gets upset. He has a wife, he has a child, he has a baby, he fights with others, he gets up with these descriptions that are human based, which takes away the immortality and the divineness and holiness of God. Or we try to improve ourselves. Now, outside of comics and any movies, we can't really improve ourselves. It's not something we can do. But we don't have the ability to do that. We're stuck with the limitations of our of our bodies and what we can do. So the

00:37:48--> 00:37:51

old the second best thing is maybe we just bring him down a bit.

00:37:52--> 00:38:23

Kind of down a notch, make it a bit boring. That's why people like pagans, like everybody that lost now, here's the rock, they can go into the rock, the rock doesn't speak back to them. Right? So it's like, yeah, they're gods, but we take care of them. Like we they live in our homes, we, we have limited control, we want to have control. You want to have to do want to believe that we have full control and that we're not we're not second degree. We're not servants. No, we're, we're somewhere in between. We're not not that low. We have some say in stuff. They say let me let me restate the question. No, you don't. You don't. You don't. That's not how this works. But that's where it's

00:38:23--> 00:38:57

coming from just to understand where it's coming from. So when you look at the description of God in the Old Testament of the Bible, and other Yes, a lot of it is just some is what we just said meaning he is brought similar he's humanized, he's turned into something that is flesh and blood that has similar emotions to what human beings have. When you take the Quran and the Quran does not have that narrative. The Quran says lay sanitary, he shaped nothing, nothing is even remotely similar to him in any way. Nothing. Nothing is similar to Allah subhanaw taala well, who has sent me sorry, forgive me who was sending asleep and he has the All Hearing and all seeing right right in the same verse.

00:38:58--> 00:39:31

Don't you hear? Don't you see? Yeah, and he's all hearing all sing, but it's not like you it's not the same that's why the verses there. At least the chemistry said nothing is similar to him. Even though he's all hearing and all seeing because when you think of hearing and seeing you're imagining eyes, you're imagining ears no don't because he sees an IRS but not like you are you're not like him Subhana wa Tada. Listen to how Allah Subhan explained, it is not the Quran describes Allah, Allah Who knows somehow it will method when we hear commish clarity and fee Hi Miss Barham, Gilliam sparkle Feasel, Georgia Sujatha Coco window Ryu and Europa to make sure you've got the mobile

00:39:31--> 00:39:50

rocketium zaytuna Tillandsia team will are going to be your guide guide as to how you lead well I would love to just who now know don't know. Allah is the Enlightenment is the light of the cosmos of the earth. It's Light upon light and X describes to us the amount of light that exists that is not humanized. Who Allah who led the law ILAHA

00:39:51--> 00:39:59

animal labia shahada Hu R Rahman r Rahim who hola hola de la ilaha illa who will molecule produced to Salam will McMinnville Mohammed

00:40:00--> 00:40:34

I Zizo Jabatan with the Kibera Allah will hollyball burial Musa where you have 15 descriptions of Allah subhanaw taala and three verses at the end of certain question that remove Allah subhanaw taala in any form or manner from being similar or existing within the same realm, universe, time or space that human beings exist within. And that is how Allah subhanaw taala described in the Quran, who will oh well, when you well, well hero well doubt is the first and last well how is that even possible? Well, if time doesn't apply to you it is well why What about the he's good parents is the hidden well how does that work? Well, if space doesn't apply to you that that works as well.

00:40:35--> 00:40:58

And you're saying where I'm coming from. So when you recite these verses in the Quran, the the narrative of God that you're given is a narrative of a divine existence that transcends time and space, and anything that we have in our lives, but the human being is not very good at connecting with something of that nature, which is why you have in the Quran, descriptions of Allah subhanho wa taala.

00:41:00--> 00:41:07

So these are the types of different descriptions of Allah they'll suffer to Allah His attributes karimun Rahim and

00:41:08--> 00:41:19

any Baba Quran these are the attributes of Allah. And then you have somebody called a fire Luma the actions of Allah subhanho wa Taala Babu, ha, you hemos Sheva, and some of them can give you the illusion of

00:41:20--> 00:41:37

resemblance to human beings like Uncle Bob, like a real law. Legal str. Similar to the word God means wrath or anger. Reply means satisfaction or pleasure is dua is with some still but when you're when you're balanced on something to Allah subhanaw taala use these words, a rough man who allows you Stella, Yaniv

00:41:38--> 00:42:12

Rowley, Allah who I know will use his words, these verbs to these these verbs means that he's human, no, then why are they using the Quran? Why? Well, if he doesn't use verbs that you can comprehend, then you you don't understand anything about Allah. So there has to be a certain degree of usage of words that you can register with something that is relevant to you, something you can draw a parallel to, you have to be able to do that or the human being mind does not comprehend if I tell you that Allah subhanaw taala is a divine existence. And there's no similarities. There's nothing you can't you can't understand you don't comprehend what Allah so Allah subhanaw will use certain

00:42:12--> 00:42:48

words to describe him under the umbrella of laser chemically, he shade under the umbrella of these large verses in the Quran that explain his divine is in His holiness, and the fact that he transcends our realm and our existence itself, when he'll use words that you can understand something causes Hold on, okay, then I shouldn't do that. Something is real Oh, then I should do that is still Uh oh, he's in control. Nothing is happening without him supine without it being on top of it. And that's why historically, and then of course, you have something the third you have the attributes, attributes of God, the actions of God, and some of them can be taken resemblance

00:42:48--> 00:43:24

from if you don't understand metaphor. Remember, let's go back to yesterday. One of the mentalities that will lead to disbelieve is a pure mechanistic way of thought, or sorry, is a is a metaphor, blindness way of thought, if you don't have the ability, if you don't have the ability to understand metaphor, then this will cause you problems. Because you a lot of problems, you will lose the ability to understand love as being strange. And the third thing is mad. I used to be called up Luca Kona, who say for 10, Wella fairland. There are things that are neither attributes nor actions. Like what seven things Alia do we'll call them when I you know, was circle when I saw Bureau will when

00:43:24--> 00:43:38

she was just, you know, seven, seven subvert the existence of Allah subhanaw taala? I can't say that Allah said, I can't describe Allah as a yet as a hand. No, I can describe him as, as merciful. But I can't describe him as a hand. I can't say his action.

00:43:39--> 00:44:12

Yes, I can say you helped me but meaning is wrath is put up on something, but I can't say his action is the hand, then what is the hand it's neither an attribute, nor is it an action. It's something that the Muslim scholars throughout history have done one of two things, either they have done for you, which or they said, We don't know what this means. We don't know what it means. And we're not going to ask and we just leave it as it is. And that was okay. For the first 250 years of Islamic existence. No problem. People could do that. Meaning what does he mean by them? This is again, this is not modern. This, isn't it? We didn't start doing this as Muslims. Now. This has started 1200 or

00:44:13--> 00:44:48

300 years ago. So what do you say? What would you Allah? Allah has faced what does that mean? Does that mean we don't ask the question, that's what they did. And then another group in sha Allah maturity also has to know Jamar, they did something called Lean. That really means they understand the metaphor behind it. What do you it means Allah subhanaw taala because out up whenever they want to refer to someone, they refer to him by his face, they use the word face to refer to him the word yet dand is a metaphor in Arabic to actually describe power or strength, etc, etc, etc. So the Muslims did one of two things, either they just said, we don't know what this means. Or they said,

00:44:48--> 00:44:59

metaphorically, it means one of this thing or that thing, but no Muslims. This is way before any of these arguments became any popular today. No Muslims ever said that.

00:45:00--> 00:45:11

He has a mechanical hand, a physical like ours, no Muslims ever did that. mean, there's not one Muslim scholar that ever claimed that when Allah Allah says he has an aim. And

00:45:12--> 00:45:48

when it does not allow me, for example, I was not a full cabbie or a union, or you know, that Allah subhanaw taala has an eye similar to ours, actually, when you're talking about Allah subhanaw taala. And you describe hand, or leg or foot or fingers, or you're not allowed to use gestures that may guide someone to lead someone to think that it's similar to what you're talking about. So I would say Allah is I can't I don't point to my eye, because that's not acceptable. And this is, this is the Hadith of the Sahaba of Allah. I know, from the Prophet Allah, you saw this is not appropriate, because there's nothing there's no symbol it there's nothing to be drawn. There's no similarity. The

00:45:48--> 00:46:21

why is he using it, because that's the only way the human brain can actually comprehend God, you need something, you need to give me something, something to help me understand you. Because my brain is only able to draw parallels from the universe around me. If you're outside of the universe, that means I have nothing to draw to, but you give me something just enough so that I can connect with you so I can feel relevance. So Allah either chose certain words in the Quran, for example, the outer shell could see, for example, another example, the throne and the chair, the throne of the chair, are the physical or the, or the creations of God, of course, their creations of God. But what

00:46:21--> 00:46:50

exactly are they? Do I imagine an actual chair or an actual throne? No, we can't do that. Then what am I going to do? Well, either we do the food and we say, we don't talk about that, because we don't understand it. I don't think that answer works anymore. Today. As much as I love, will we let I grew up that way. I don't think it works anymore. Because I have to bring answers or else people can't you people just walk away, metaphorically understand what the notion of policy means for Arabs. And that was the was where everything returned to meaning the

00:46:52--> 00:47:07

the initiation of operations, that's where that means. I mean it where all the vineyards would come in, that's where they will start and go to see is a word that is used to a place where all knowledge is taken. That's why if you go to any of the Muslim countries, and you want to go and learn about the hub,

00:47:09--> 00:47:09

anyone knows shares?

00:47:11--> 00:47:48

What's his name, say the company? What does he sit on? What does he what is what is this thing called? You know what it's called? It's called Christian Imam Malik. Is of courtesy, even though he doesn't necessarily care. But corsi is me this is where all the knowledge in America is put because, of course, currency means Arabs. So metaphorically, lousy literacy is meaning the control and the knowledge and but used in the form that the outcome could understand or used in using words that allow you to comprehend what he's talking about Subhana wa Tada. So either dutifully to say, we don't know. Or you understand metaphorically, but either way, you're not allowed to say go to see

00:47:48--> 00:48:10

and then you look at a chair and you're not allowed to do that. That's how about that scuffle Islamically way before these arguments existed before Yanni, Hawking's and Dawkins and Hitchens and all these decades before that, Muslims, It's haram for you to actually take anything that Allah has just tried himself with, and they say, it's still he has a hand and put your hand up. No, no, no, that's not acceptable at all. That's an act of Chicago for you're not allowed to do that.

00:48:11--> 00:48:49

Where's the problem? The problem comes with the metaphor blind mentality, where they read a hadith or HUD Hadith that we're nearing towards by one or two Sahabi. From the Prophet Allah. So I'm gonna do Sahaba of the Prophet Elisa companions of the Prophet alayhi salatu salam, and then they read the Hadith, and they refuse, they decide they're going to understand it, literally. They refuse to understand it metaphorically. Haluk Allahu, Allahu Allah to him. Allah, Allah created Adam is at his image. By the way, the Quran doesn't have any of that in it. That wording in the hadith is actually a biblical term is from the Torah. The Torah has that in it right? The difference between the Torah

00:48:49--> 00:49:17

and the Quran, the torah and gene in the Quran, Quran never ever talks about the existence of God in our universe ever. If you want like some lines, the Quran never ever points out that God anyhow, in any form or manner existed inside of our universe physically ever, never talked about actions of God that had movement that had within it walking that had within it, anything that you can attribute to the actions of a human being that are specific to a human being, the only thing that we have is kind of them Allah who moves at the cleaner and that has its own

00:49:18--> 00:49:55

its own explanation within the Quran that will come to inshallah at a certain point, but that even that is very clearly defined in terms of what it's meant. On the other hand, you have in the Bible note, you have descriptions that are very physical, very physical, where he wrestled, and he fought, and he talked and he and he was sorry, and he walked and he bled, and he had jelajah Allah Subhanallah on my foot, and the client doesn't have any of that in Hadith, or heard in a hadith that are attributed to one or two Sahaba who narrated to us yes, the chain of narration is authentic. There are certain things that if you choose to understand it, literally, it can cause you some

00:49:55--> 00:49:59

problems. Like the Hadith, Allah created, dada Swati, there's a million ways to understand that

00:50:00--> 00:50:29

I'd also like to hear meaning as image physically know obviously because we just explained later chemical he then his image what in terms of the ethics he can carry? Allah Subhanallah Karim you can be carrying Allah is Allah him you can be a Rahim was the food you can be a fool. That's what he meant. Very simple it's not it's not hard like it's very very very easy the Hadith will occur that your Rahim will be Rockman where the Russian which is the relationship of kinship of kin, meaning blood relations on the day of when it was created, it takes

00:50:30--> 00:50:36

a rough man the word is basically waste. So we have well Rockman the waste of a rough man.

00:50:37--> 00:51:14

Well, are we talking physically here? Well, first of all, it is a physical thing is the relationship of kin, a physical thing? It's not even a physical thing to begin with. So how is the basic, the whole thing is metaphorical, obviously. But it's a beautiful, I love the Hadith, because the Russian will say Europe, I want my rights to Allah will tell it, are you not happy or satisfied that I will only connect with those who connect you and I will break off those who break you off, meaning those who ruin their family ties, I will get rid of them and those who who hold on to their family ties, I will strengthen my connection with them. It's a beautiful Hadith strengthens family. Are you going

00:51:14--> 00:51:46

to sign it literally no understanding it literally is a complete waste of time. It's not makes no sense at all. And then you have a lot of Hadith that are similar. A lot of it doesn't, there's quite a bit. I'm done. I'm run out of time. There's a lot of Hadith, they're like that you can go and you can look them up and see them one by one after the other. They're not very complicated. All you have to do is understand the metaphorically, why do we have to descend it metaphorically? Because the Quran told us to? It's not because I'm telling you to not because I want to get out of an argument that I'm losing with some of them. No, because the Quran said So if what I said later can be cliche

00:51:46--> 00:52:20

is that Allah when Allah Azza wa T will apply and explain to us who God was to when we're given these descriptions that may seem that they're resembling the human being. They don't because we have an umbrella, you have an umbrella concept that's already installed into our deen that helps us deal with these types of justice. But these metaphors exist these figures of speech are there yet? Well, why would I use them because we require a certain degree of relevance. As human beings, our brains require some degree of relevance, that relevance allows us to understand God connect with Allah subhanaw taala a little bit more. If you remove all of these attributes and descriptions, then we

00:52:20--> 00:52:51

struggle if you're struggling now to connect with Allah subhanaw taala. Imagine how hard it would be if there were no descriptions at all, that you could draw any parallels to in your mind or have any relevance towards Allah subhanaw taala because of so that's why these things are there. But that's an example of a straw man fallacy. Oh, the image of God that people are like, I don't want to believe in that God. And we're like, well, we agree with you. We don't want to believe in that God either. We totally don't. We totally believe there'll be one that died. But because we're clumped up with the group, and the strawman fallacy allows them to kind of continue to poke holes at a God that

00:52:51--> 00:53:22

we don't even believe in. We can't seem to get ourselves out and say this is actually what we believe Allah to be yes, we believe a lot to be defined to be holy to be beyond time and space. He's not human, he does not have human attributes and he does not he's not emotional like we aren't he does not that's not what he is. And why are these words in the Quran, these words are metaphorical, they're used there to draw relevance to Allah was to understand Allah subhanaw taala and to be able to comprehend what he is saying, but we understand every time we use them, that there is no way that we're going to say this is exactly the way we do it, or it looks the way we look or be or functions

00:53:22--> 00:53:54

the way we function. It doesn't and that is that predates any of these modern scientific arguments regarding God, it predates it by a lot. So I'll end with that in shorter that's over 50 minutes. We'll continue Inshallah, tomorrow with we'll talk about insha Allah the second source, which is Jani life, and we'll go through a little bit of the theory of evolution Inshallah, as most of my colleagues share Allah Allah, Allah antiestablishment, go to Lagos, Allah wa sallim wa barik ala Nabina. Muhammad Ali was like this main. Yeah, I'm okay. taking questions regarding what we talked about, though, regarding what we actually talked about and nothing outside of what we talked about.

00:53:54--> 00:53:58

So don't ask me a question that we haven't covered yet. You're welcome to ask about what we what we covered in terms of,

00:53:59--> 00:54:06

of the points, it's because I have a lot to cover still. So if you ask me now, then you're gonna throw me off and waste time? Good.

00:54:10--> 00:54:10

You have a question?

00:54:11--> 00:54:12

Okay.

00:54:13--> 00:54:17

Anyone have a question? Your question? privately.

00:54:18--> 00:54:39

I have a question. But how do you address God of the gaps for us? Yeah. So God, God of gaps. We'll talk about tomorrow when we go a little bit more deeper into into science. I mean, tomorrow we talk about life, we're going to cover a little bit more of how science approaches certain things. Because it's also a fallacy. Like it's a fallacy that we'll I'll cover tomorrow shoutout, but it's a part of tomorrow's

00:54:40--> 00:54:51

luckier than anything else. So he's gonna like us, we're gonna have things instead of just summarizing the Muhammad Yunus which means talking Leland Baraka, he comes around we're gonna talk we're gonna please we will put up a

00:54:52--> 00:54:59

forum for feedback. You're welcome to I would ask you all to please fill it out. Help guide maybe

00:55:00--> 00:55:17

helped me know what this effort did for you and helped me know how this effort could have been better and how to improve it in the future inshallah Tada so I'll put that up tomorrow it'll be like a QR code and just fill in I mean I may even put it on the WhatsApp group just if you're attending just tell me just give us some feedback in terms of how this is going and what