Talks to Atheist – God’s Existence – 1
Channel: Adnan Rashid
File Size: 27.71MB
So we could talk about the existence of God in general and see if we can come up with some interesting answers. Okay, so, you,
you, you're an atheist. Currently, I'm an atheist.
So how would you define an atheist? I mean, what, what? Who who is an atheist?
That's a debate on that. Some people say atheism is a way of saying,
I just don't believe in God. So you're talking about your own beliefs. Other people say an atheist is, I claim there are no gods. Right? Right. So I believe
that an atheist doesn't exist, in the sense that the term itself is problematic, right? atheism is a claim.
So you're taking my second version? Yes. Yeah. That's that. I think that's to be more consistent with what other atheistic,
you know, how can I put it? scholars believe there are people that are the worst to me what they like so if we agree
that atheists mean atheistic scholars.
Yeah, there is, I believe. I think Neo atheism is a cult now. It is a cult. It's a cult of religion or belief. I mean,
it's a cult of personalities,
people follow blindly. Individuals who claim to be atheist, or are apostles of atheism, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens.
I believe there are intelligent atheists. There are intellectually honest atheists.
And there are there are, there are.
There are others who are not so intellectually honest, and they can be even classed as bigots. Some even mass murderers are the words you're using some even mass by proponents of performance of mass murder, like Sam Harris, Sam Harris, in one of his recent books, stated that we should preemptively nuke the Muslim world to save the world from an imminent disaster.
Yeah, you get a lot of atheists who don't agree with that.
I believe new atheism is a call
to atheism is a new movement.
What's it called Chris Hitchens, or Dawkins? Sam Harris? Really, this is very interesting, because there are a lot of atheists who think all these people are wrong and unpleasant.
And there are a lot of atheists who think they are absolutely right. And what they say, Yeah, they are justified. People just like the sheeple in other writing, so it isn't.
Each of us decide for ourselves, how to see the world and look out for ourselves. Yes, True. True. I agree. And any intellectually honest atheist would accept the fact that atheism as a term doesn't exist in reality, in reality, as an idea, as a concept, it may exist, but in reality, I believe most atheists are actually agnostics.
You mean? Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. You feel consistent. If someone like me, who
wants to use reasons and evidence to work out the world, my worldview? Yes. I was turning to science. Yeah. science doesn't deliver certainty. Yes, it doesn't live approved. Yes, it delivers the best. Well,
I'm not sure proof it really in math. You get proof in maths, but in science, you just get the consensus and everyone agrees science only there's a sort of miniscule chance that you might find the consensus is actually wrong, and it's all overturned. But if we're talking about proof, we really need to restrict ourselves just to math. Yeah, science. I mean, we, I'm glad that we agree that science doesn't answer all questions. Yeah. In particular, metaphysical questions. Science is confined within the physical world or the physical realm. If you like, Yes, yeah, it doesn't.
Science cannot be used, strictly speaking, to prove or disprove God, because God is not a question of science. God is to this issue says, Can you prove and disprove God? And then the other thing is, what method you use to assess whether God exists. Yeah, two different things. Yes, I agree. But I'm saying that a lot of people make the mistake of using or trying to use science to prove or disprove God. But it's not my opinion. Yeah, sign
is not agreeing too much.
The world needs to see this
Yeah, because unfortunately there are too many bigots and haters out there.
from all sides. I agree 100% all sides, humans are in a big mess today, what we need is more friendly discussion, more dialogue, more mutual understanding, rather than, you know.
If someone is racist, I believe we can I can I kind of try and clarify things. So there's the issue, can you prove or can you disprove God? Yeah. And we're agreeing that that isn't possible. The proof is far too high a hurdle to get either improving God or disproving god, there's going to be uncertainty? No, I don't believe that. I'll tell you why. If you said no.
Okay, so you think you can get certainty, I believe, you can get a reasonably reasonable amount of certainty, to believe in a creator, someone who has created the universe, right, and our solar system, and our planet Earth and life within the planet Earth is too complex. So now you're gonna use some results of science. To know that I'm going to use factual information.
Something that in fact, is the result of science, for example. Yes. So you'll presumably wants to talk about the universe having a beginning? Yes. So that's the numbers out from science. No, not necessarily. Well,
philosophical discussion, it can be a philosophical discussion, let me explain how we know that. I agree. I think philosophy is really yeah. So we can use science as complimentary as a complementary tool to reach or to to get to a point. But we cannot solely use science as the
Yeah. Okay. What are
the criteria to reach
an argument to prove the existence of God? So I'm saying science can serve as a complementary tool? Not the tool. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So I'm not sure that's absolutely right. I believe philosophy is the main idea here where we can talk about metaphysics and the reality of the universe, how it was created. Yeah. When it came about how it came about, who could be behind it. These are very interesting questions. Yeah. So yeah, I think we established a framework.
agreement. Okay. The Yeah, the rules of the game and our player. Yes. So, I believe philosophically using my mind, the intellectual faculties are being given by nature. Yeah, right. Yeah. Yeah. That
there is a beginning to all this. Okay. The reason, the reason why I exist, is only
what you mean by all the comprehensible, right? When I have these discussions, I want to be really clear what we mean by the universe. So what you said is all this is a way of describing the universe. We know we exist. Yeah. And we know the planet Earth exists. Right. And the solar system exists. Yeah, we, we are certain about these things. Likewise, we believe that the universe exists. We don't know everything about your universe, we have no idea how big the universe is, how many planets there are, how many galaxies they are, but we do know it exists. The fact that we exist, I believe we had a beginning. We had a beginning.
And yeah, and our beginning started at one point. It is not an
something. We're not in finite. Yeah. Okay. We had a beginning. And the fact that we had a beginning, I don't believe it was a random
chance beginning rather, it was planned. It was intended. It was pushed, it was moved. Right. Okay. So you need to argue for that. Yes. And my argument is
when we go back,
when we keep going back, we both have mothers, and we keep going back. There has to be the first mother. This sounds very like Thomas Aquinas. Okay. I'm glad that I agree with Jose.
So we agree that there had to be the first mother. Do you agree with that?
Well, I guess the first mother
Well, it wasn't.
That wasn't a first mother. So
how do we know that? Well, that's our understanding of science. Right? So it couldn't be wrong. Our understanding can be wrong, right? I mean, if if we use
losing my hair, right, yeah, yeah. So when I was a young man, I had full head of hair. At some stage I'll be completely bald, right? Of what stage? Do you describe me as you take one hair away one at a time.
There's no clear time when I went when I went from being not willing to fall, when you have lost a reasonable amount like that,
that we do get back in time there's less and less like a mother is, and then until you've got absolutely that's just life at all. That's just a claim. There's no evidence for that. Well, that's my I'm under my understanding what I'm saying. It's hard to say there was one.
It's hard to say that, but it is not impossible. What I'm saying is, because you and I have mothers. Yeah. And they had mothers. Yeah, they had mothers and their mothers had mothers. And if we keep going back, we have to end up with the first mother, we don't end up with the first mother, then we could we couldn't have come become
existence, our existence wouldn't have taken place.
Logically, I'm using logic
and logic to say no, I say this way.
Right. So we know, some scientists. I mean, if you want to bring science,
some scientists believe that we can all trace back our DNA to one woman.
mitochondrial Eve, have you heard of it? I know. It's a very contested idea. Yeah, I am aware that it is highly contested. Yeah, the concept is highly contested. And it doesn't actually mean a physical woman, it can mean.
So Kenny, what do you think of that? Well, we need to go much further back than that. So they were the descendants of other apes. And they were the descendants of more basic mammals, and they were the descendants of the reptiles. So these are clearly goes back. We haven't seen any hard evidence for this, what we call macro evolution.
We haven't seen any hard evidence of macro evolution. We don't see any species turning into other species, as macro evolution suggests, right? What we do have
fossils. It's a matter of interpretation. Like for example, Lucy. Lucy the fossil right? Yeah, that has been interpreted as
an ape. But we don't even have the the complete body to come to that conclusion. It's clearly in a weird way right? gorillas, right. Do we have of Lucy? How much do we have? I've seen? I haven't seen Lucy but in a museum. I've seen a copy of Luke very small bone fragments. No, you're not gonna see loads of it. I'm talking about
how I understand. My memory was the
museum in Tanzania. I went to
that it was about 89%.
You will see an image of what we have.
This is what we have. Yeah, that's what 90% I wouldn't
know. From this.
Okay, my guess is 90% is going to be less than 9%. But it's not. It's not? Yeah, we don't we don't have we don't have the legs. We don't have the complete arms. Yeah. Okay.
We don't have the the complete rib cage. Okay. So what we have, right, so what I said,
I would say too much, and you were saying too little. Okay, so we Let's meet in the middle. Let's meet in the middle. Yeah. So we simply, I know, scientists have suggested that it was like an eight. It was an eight.
How do you know that?
If we look at the we look at this.
We can never know for certain whether it was an ape? The
scientists have ways I know, they have ways of suggesting possibilities. But what I'm saying is the point I'm making here is that we cannot use Lucy as a model to claim a missing link or an intermediary species. Because it doesn't prove a point.
Yeah, of course. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, no one possible. Some people claim that this is Lucy, but that's going too far. In my opinion. That's a myth. That's a myth.
Just like caveman is a myth. Well, that's exactly. Thank you. That's my point. interpretations are not always right. Okay. So what we do know from hard evidence that we haven't yet found anything conclusive to suggest macro evolutions plausibility. Let me explain now, what I mean by that
is, it's a cumulative evidence that builds up so the big you got the fossil
The layers of the rocks and they can be dated with
isotype typing methods, yeah, and the rate the dates of the rocks.
And then you look at the fossils in the rock.
So you know the age and you can then see that the sequence is time. The animals are complicated with time. Right? So that's a way of showing that.
We have a philosophical way of explaining all this. When we start with the Cambrian period half a billion years ago. Yeah, we have these trilobites right. Now, the code, trilobites, yeah, certainly appear in the fossil record. Yeah, there is no nothing intermediary or nothing. Partially, partially referring to the Precambrian explosion. Another pattern, I'm talking about the Cambrian explosion. Yeah, it's took place half a billion years ago. Yeah, that's right. And then these fossils suddenly start to appear. Within the fossil record. Yeah, absolutely. Right, that gradually, the species start to get more complicated. Yeah, yes. Yeah.
Yeah, we have a philosophical way of explaining this way. We believe that God, as we are told, even within the Islamic literature, is God created species, it sequences in long intervals. They are called a yom, Yom, which means six long intervals. Okay? literally, literally translated, it means six days, and we don't believe in six days. Because when we go into exegesis, done by the prophet himself, the biblical
scholars or Christians have a problem
with them, because it means it means literally six days. Yeah, that's why some of them are young earth creationist. We are not young earth creationists, we believe in an ancient Yeah, we believe the world is millions of years old. And we have no problem in Islam.
Yeah, so Islamic literature explains to us that all of these creatures or species were made sequentially by God, and long intervals. Yeah. So when we look at the fossil record, and amazingly, humans are the last that we're getting rather off track, seeing how this is proving God telling me you're just telling me
whatever scientific evidence as fragmentary as it is,
it kind of supports our philosophy.
Whatever little scientific evidence we have very little so far. Unfortunately, we don't have everything we need to know about our origins.
It's a very, the people who've looked into this,
keeps atheists in all the universities around the world. They all agree that evolution is how we got here.
And it's only
a tiny minority of tiny, tiny. I accept that. I accept that. That's scientifically speaking. Yeah, strictly, purely speaking from a naturalistic point of view. They are absolutely right. There is no other way to explain the evidence we have. Yeah. Okay, scientifically speaking, if we divorce God if we divorce metaphysics, or the spiritual realm, out of the picture. Okay. And we're talking naturalistically purely on naturalistic basis. Yes, they have to somehow explain this diversion, or diversity, so you don't know.
And that's the only way to explain it.
Know, but we have, we have some metaphysical explanations.
Here is in front of us.
Okay, it all makes sense. evolutions have all happened. Everything ties up, you say the same. That fits on the Quran, no problem. But do you accept this patchwork? scientists, what the scientists do is patchwork. They take leaps of faith that takes strong leaps of faith that are missing gaps in evidence, and they have to fill them with interpretations. suggestions, inferences. Do you agree with that? No, not really. So you believe that the evidence for
macro evolution we don't disagree on micro evolution, by the way. Okay. We agree that micro evolution does take place. Yeah, it has taken place. Okay. The question we're dealing with is macro evolution, species turning into other species. You're telling me there is hard evidence, without instances without interpretations?
claim macro evolution, conclusively. I don't believe that. I don't accept that. Because there isn't. I mean, if there is evidence for it, please share it with us.
It's that you the fossil record, to find and then you find it. So you find it in the rocks.
the fossil record doesn't support you. It does not support
then you've got the DNA kind of fossil record. So, you know, you're talking about genome, right? That's right. Yeah. genome is where scientists that suggests or they infer
by looking at the similarities between species. As far as the DNA is concerned, the infer the species are similar because they have all their ancestors. common ancestor, right. Yeah. And this is an inference looking at the similarities, for example, and we have similarities with cabbage. We have similarities with bananas. We have similarities with horses. We have similarities with a number of different species, right. Yes. So some similarities to other
similar Yes. And we have dissimilarities. We have major dissimilarities between us and apes. Yeah, right. That's why they are apes. And we are not apes. Yeah. Right. So So I believe these similarities do not necessarily prove a common ancestor. Scientists have to infer they have to infer they have to interpret this evidence, this genome evidence to suggest a similarity. Yeah.
It's like a crime. And a detective looking at a crime. Yes, I agree. It's the same thing. I agree. Something's happened in the past. We're not we weren't there. But you look at what the evidence the past has left for us, right? And you pick over and you look at patterns. Yeah.
And the evidence builds up as more and more as explained by the same thing. So all of this, all of this, if anything, you know, it leads us to the question as to how we came here. How we got here in the first place. Yeah.
If If God doesn't exist, yeah, cognition, intelligence, consciousness doesn't make sense, I believe. And this is what my my claim is, this is the this is where I actually have no doubt that God definitely exists.
I believe this universe will come from chance. It's not a product of random blind chance, if there is no God, if there is no creator, no sustainer, no designer, no planet behind us, then we simply cannot become by chance. The only other option is chance. Random blind, uncontrolled chance. Johnson selection that's that's how things work selection is not chance
together selection by
environment, and drive environment to become what it has become natural processes. And how do natural processes come about?
blind natural processes can produce intelligence and cognition and consciousness? Yeah, this is, this is where this is where I am completely lost, okay, we lost in the sense that I cannot come to believe in a random universe or by chance universe, because our intelligence and cognition cannot be by chance. Because Because I believe stone, a stone that has no intelligence
cannot produce an intelligent entity. You agree? kennestone intermediate steps. So how can we get intelligence from non intelligence? This is something you have to explain to me, how can you get intelligence from non intelligence? Okay, so you start to get life from non life.
So once you've got life, I don't accept I don't accept that.
We cannot have life. Well, I mean, we're gonna be here for then we're gonna be here as long as necessary.
Okay, I mean, let's, let's use simple arguments. You're telling me a stone can give life? That was a process that generated life.
Okay, so we obviously, we still don't know, it's still something that's been locked in. So until we until, so I'm just giving what I understand to be the best guests at the moment. Right. So it's, I guess, I guess it's not good enough for me to reach.
I mean, I know, I know, I'm claiming philosophically that we have been produced by superior intelligence. We have intelligence, we have cognition, we have ability to design to make to build to plan and to implement to decide, all these qualities have been given to us by a superior intelligence. Yeah. not inferior intelligence, or non intelligence. It doesn't make sense to me that non intelligence can somehow produce intelligence. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. It's like, but let me let me let you know. It's like, throwing sand in the air. Yeah. And imagine, do you think we would ever get a sandcastle when it lands ever, ever
No, that's not how it works. So, so our universe, our solar system is more complex than a sandcastle.
It's more complex cognition, our ability to think our ability to see and taste and speak and smell is a lot more sophisticated and complicated. There are certain costs. Yeah. So if we cannot get a sandcastle, yeah, well, you said the city strategy a few times, I can't understand it. I can't grasp how that could be. But that is not a way to formulate a logical argument. You say? Either God did it? Or some other thing, did it? I can't understand how another thing did it? Well, my argument is an argument because we have intelligence and cognition. Yeah, I believe, a superior form of intelligence and cognition is produced us, it cannot possibly be made by not intelligence, or we
that all other possibilities are excluded. You can't just say I can't imagine there are no other possibilities, it is impossible, I'm saying it is logically impossible. To claim that intelligence can come out from non intelligence or life can comply, they are claiming that so what you're claiming God exists to prove that intelligence can't come from real intelligence. I'm using my own existence and my own cognition, and my own ability to analyze situations that disability has been given to me by a supreme entity that has Supreme Intelligence, and supreme competition. That's the point I'm making.
I'll give an example. We we create robots, right? We create machines. And if they function in a specific way, if, let's say two computers, or five computers, were to argue later on, that we have this come about by random chance of environment changing and there are natural causes that have created us, it would be an absurd discussion, right? between five computers, right? Likewise, we are far more sophisticated. So we are humans we are we are the ones who have created sophisticated things. So sophisticated things like computers. Yeah. So using that logic, if we go back behind not just an analogy, it's not logic. Yeah, that's an analogy. Okay. I'm using that analogy. Likewise, we
have been created by a Supreme Intelligence, not an inferior intelligence or non intelligence.
You're just saying that's how I understand things. And I said, Okay, fine, you understand things that way? You need to prove it, if you're gonna, he said, You thought you could prove God exists. And I am proving it through logic and through force offical arguments. Are you saying, by
the way, I'm asking you a question. How do you think about intelligence?
You're claiming it's by chance. But by the same
evolutionary process? evolution does not explain cognition, intelligence. And it doesn't. Evolution does not explain. So you've got an agent, an agent needs to operate in the world. Yes, it sees things the world that he decides the best way to do something. So it's beginning to use a frame to
harden the brain in the first place, that ability to even analyze situations? Well, it started with just response to light, that the first feedback
in the tiny cell can have feedback between light and sweat away from the from the light source or towards the light part of the cell even get that ability to respond to light. That's my question. It was a mutation and it was selected. That's your claim it can you prove that? You cannot No, no, but I don't need to prove you have you need to
the possibilities are excluded. You got the burden of proof. Okay. I can say the same thing to you as an atheist because you claim that there is no God, or there is there are no gods. Yeah, okay. Yeah, but I don't think I don't think I can prove that. I just think that evidence points, right, I believe, because I exist with cognition and intelligence. Yeah, I believe my intelligence, intelligence and cognition is not a product of chance, especially blind chance. When you divorce God and intelligent agent from the picture here, what you're left with is blind process. uncontrolled, random blind process, like throwing sand in the air, okay, by just a really poor analogy,
is I'm using that analogy, and I believe effectively, okay, if you throw sand in the air,
it will never land as a sandcastle. Likewise, because it's a it's a blind, uncontrolled, unplanned process. Even though I have thrown the sun there is an agent behind the sun, but because there is no intention like he's throwing the sand in the air
And you leave the sand that lands there, pick up the sand and throw that in the air, more lands over there. And sometimes you pick up the sand.
And slowly it will build up, because you leave.
When I say a sandcastle or something, but it's
selection and randomness is what?
You've been living in a sandcastle.
Never you won't. How many chances do we have in a trillion to get a sandcastle? Well, nothing, then you won't, you might get
closer and closer leaves the sand that you want in your sandbox, as you're planning and pick up the rain, you're actually making the sandcastle? No, I'm saying there is no selection. I'm saying you're throwing sand in the air randomly. Yeah, you can't, you're never gonna
give an analogy for randomness and selection, which doesn't have the selection element in it, there is an analogy. And the analogy is likewise, the universe, if you believe is a product of blind process, blind, uncontrolled, unplanned process, we cannot get just like, when we throw sand, we cannot get a sandcastle. Likewise, we cannot get something as sophisticated as our universe, our solar system, our planet, Earth and life within the planet, everything is mathematically
provided answers to most of those things. No, you have initially
confirmed that science does not provide answers to all our questions. And one of those questions is
Yeah, yeah. science doesn't provide answers to this question. Where do you come from? Science has no answer to that question. Where did it come from? Why did you come? How did you come into being? science does not answer that question. Well, it's not just got a good idea of how life came from non life. And then science has got very good explanation with through evolution of more complicated, organisms become more
insane to explain the concept of happiness.
Or something that can science explain competition, calculation, calculation, in our minds.
I don't think science can explain spiritual experiences.
feelings that love science cannot explain what love is.
Love is to do with how we form social features. Right? And especially so how can sign What are there any journals or anything written on the control of scientific
psychology journals? Okay, yes, psychology? Yes. Yes.
Psychology? Yes, of course, of course. But psychology does not go into the concept of love. It doesn't explain what love is, and why it's there. It doesn't. It doesn't tell us why love is there. Why the feeling of love? is fun, just as human beings and gives us the right to be altruistic to each other. Yes, yes. Not necessarily. Not always. Not always. But sometimes we have everything we have a feeling of attachment with some
persons, yeah, more than others. Can science explain why
can science explain why those feelings?
Well, you, you have a much stronger attachment to those closest than those. Why? Why? Because of
your meat. Right? Your if you may meet a woman in the street, and you like her, and you fall in love with her, and you have you've never known her, and you just you just the way she talks to me she walks. That's the way she behaves. You fall in love with her Why? Well, the biology behind that is that you need strong attachments to bring up children. And
that's later but why do you fall in love with someone you don't know? You've never met her in your life. It's your mother. She's not your sister. She's not your wife. She's someone random on the street. I don't think that really happens.
happens it has happened to many people. It happens in movies.
I saw that. I wouldn't think
so going back to someone you know you. You're infatuated with an image of someone you don't know.
Going back to the question. Yeah, I believe God exists because I exist. And I've been created for a purpose. The universe the solar system is designed is mathematically placed. Even the sun in the moon that placement is mathematical is exactly right for our existence. If we move the sun from its constant, right,
we would cease to exist as you know, as astrophysicists have already clarified even those millions of miles away. It has been rightly placed for life to exist on planet Earth. You can say it's random. It's by chance. It's accidental. But I don't believe that. I believe. I believe the fact that it's mathematically coded and our lives, how many places in the universe's life. We don't know.
We only know
So we can only talk about what we know. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, we know this one. This is the perfect place for life to develop because of course, that's the kind of life that will develop. Yes. And and the fact that we know we are here, and we know that we are intelligent, we have cognition. Yeah, I believe is not a product of random
process of chance or accident. It simply doesn't happen like that, logically, things don't work like that. You will never have unplanned, uncontrolled. It's like having an unplanned, uncontrolled demolition of a building. You demolish it, and then you get another building, nicely formed nice kitchens, nice toilets, nice bathrooms, nice furniture, fully furnished. It doesn't happen like that. The planet Earth is furnished for us. By God, I believe. There's a supreme agent out there, you can feel you're looking at the information and interpreting it in your way. Yes, but you're not proving that you're always the right is giving a reason I'm giving you reasons as to why I believe I
have a strong belief in God. And I believe my reasons are very strong moreso than the reasons of Neo atheists, or atheistic thinkers that have not yet convinced me. I have read the books, I've read the works. They philosophical scientific arguments are not convincing. They simply cannot answer basic questions about our existence, right? That's why I'm a strong believer in God. When I look at the universe, when I look at the planet Earth, when I look at the solar system, when I look at our own creation, within myself, when I look at my eye, for example, it is more powerful than all of these cameras in front of us. The focus in our eyes, you know, the speed of our focus. Yeah.
The camera takes a while to focus, right? I
don't believe it has come about by random, random, accidental chance. Yeah. You keep saying you believe that. So what you're doing is you have your worldview, and you're looking at the data of the world, through the glasses of your worldview, then to
prove me wrong, you have to give me reasons as to why I have to believe in in a sophisticated planet.
In sophisticated creatures created by an unsophisticated, unplanned, uncontrolled process.
Well, you have to show me why. And if you show once you show me why conclusively, I will join your rank. I'll be the first one. I'll carry the flag. Yeah. So tell me about your thoughts.
Absolutely. I'll go to Brazil. I'll go with that.
I'll go and join the carnival. With a beer in my hand dancing. Yeah, life is beautiful. There's no life after death. No, God, no Recompense. no accountability. Hallelujah. Hallelujah.
Hallelujah is the wrong word. Right.
Have a party Eat Drink * and die. Sorry, you know?
That there is a God. No, there is no possibility. Because Because all of this, I know, this is a this is an existence. And because it exists, it is impossible for a god to to to be not there. Okay? There has to be a god for me to be here.
I'm not, it's not because I am wrong or right. It's because something I can see. I can see clearly the universe is there the planet Earth is it the solar system is it is sophisticated. It's mathematically coded. The solar system is mathematically coded, right? our existence depends on the position of the sun, we mess with this constant, we cease to exist. I don't believe this is by random chance. Or it's an accident, which produce
there's all these different places in the universe where life could be, and we happen to be in one of them.
remarkable. That's a good question. Okay, that's a good question. We only have one sandcastle and we don't have other 50 sand castles. Now, just because we have one sandcastle and we don't have other 50 sand castle, we can't see them. Doesn't mean that this one sandcastle is a product of chance. No, it is still a sandcastle. It looks sophisticated. It works in a sophisticated way. Hence, it has come about by a planned, controlled process of creation. It is not random just because other 50 lives are the 50 planets we cannot see in the universe or in our galaxy or beyond. Doesn't say that doesn't mean that is not designed. That leap of reasoning is not justified, which leap that you
can't understand any other way could be therefore there is we cannot understand anything we don't know.
You can only understand things we know