Deadly Sins The Mirage of Atheism
Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
File Size: 108.25MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim Al hamdu lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala Rasulillah Assalamu alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh. Who brothers, and sisters, and friends, and welcome to the mirage of atheism, I pray to Allah subhanho wa taala, that every single one of you are in good health have high Iman, and that you and your families and your friends.
Well, and that Allah subhanho wa Taala is enveloping you in His boundless love and His boundless mercy.
So we're going to spend a few hours together talking about the mirage of atheism. Now, why do I believe that atheism is a mirage? Well, what is a mirage, and Mirage, essentially, is an optical illusion. It's a misrepresent misrepresentation of reality. It's a perspective that is not in line with the actual state of affairs. So it misrepresents the truth and misrepresents reality. And today, I want to talk about three main areas why atheism is an intellectual mirage. Because atheism doesn't make sense. Concerning the universe, atheism doesn't make sense of the beginning of the universe, atheism doesn't make sense of the dependency that contingency of the universe. And atheism
doesn't make sense of our natural born affinity to worship. Now I'm going to explain all of these points.
Now, before I get into all of the points, I want you to realize that these are big topics. They, they are topics that require study, that if you're going to different if you progress, different levels, you will understand that there's a wide literature in academia, even in theology concerning this topic. So I want you to appreciate that. What I'm going to be talking to you about today is not everything. And I'm not giving you all the nuances and all the details. However, I'm giving you the essential framework and the basic concepts, in order for you to have that sense of certainty in order for you to grow. Because there is an Islamic principle, as many of you know, that doubt
doesn't override certainty. So the way I'm going to present the three main areas today is going to be based on the kind of basic structure of the argument, the basic concepts, the fundamental ideas that are certain, and then that would allow you to grow. And then when you engage with these ideas, even if you don't know about something, or even if you know you have a question is not, it's not going to trouble you is so going to give you any doubt why, because doubt doesn't override certainty. So we're going to start with the fundamentals. Start with the basics, start with these key concepts
that you know, are intellectual in nature. But nevertheless, you will be able to basically grasp them and have that sense of certainty and then you'll be able to grow.
Now, in saying that, every single one of you will be able to access a free copy, an E copy a PDF of my book, The divine reality, God, Islam and the mirage of atheism, the newly revised edition, the PDF will be sent to you, the organizers are going to send you a link or a form, you just type in your details, and you're going to receive the book for free. Now, that will be part of your journey, to start fleshing out some of these ideas, to start studying further to look into the references that the book refers to some of the deep concepts, some of the contentious and objections from the atheist and skeptic community that you could learn how to address. So this book could be the next
stage, if you like after this talk in order for you to continue your intellectual spiritual journey in sha Allah. So with particular reference to the book, the arguments or the perspectives I'm going to be talking about today refer to certain chapters in the book. For example, I think it's chapter four or five, when we're gonna be talking about the Quranic audio for God's existence. Also the chapter after that, or before that is divine link the argument from dependency, and we're going to be talking about chapter 15, which is the free slave why God is worthy of worship. So some of the ideas I'm talking about today are going to come from these chapters and
For more information for more nuances for references, please go to these chapters. So, why is atheism a mirage? Well, just to summarize what we said earlier on, atheism is a mirage because atheism doesn't make sense of the beginning of the universe. Atheism does. Atheism doesn't make sense because of the contingency, the dependency of the universe. And atheism doesn't make sense because of our our natural born affinity to worship. And even if you don't believe in God, you're still worshiping something. And we're going to unpack the idea a little later on. So let's go to the first point. Atheism is a mirage because it doesn't make sense of the finer tude the beginning of
And why would you introduce introduced to today is the Quranic argument for God's existence, which is a very powerful argument, which shows that atheism is false. And it shows that believing in an uncreated Creator is rational, not only can we come to this conclusion, using our sound, up, sound intellect, but we can also access revelation, and Revelation gives us this answer. Now, what's interesting this, this argument is not just an argument that you have to behave in Revelation, you can't say, oh, god exists because the Quran gives you an argument in the Quran. Big and you got to just believe in the Quran. No, we're not. We're not postulating such an argument. We're saying that
this argument that we're gonna be talking about now is logical and rational. It's in line with sound reason. It's universal. And it's in the Quran. We're not saying you have to believe in the Quran in order to articulate this argument. Because sometimes when you give this argument to atheists, or you discuss it with atheists, they're like, Oh, you've taken it from the Quran. I have to believe in the Quran. No, you don't have to believe in the Quran. Just listen to the argument. But the reason I like to call it the Quranic argument for God's existence, because it is from the Quran. And as you know, the arguments from the Quran are the most powerful arguments. They're the ones that can really
awaken the truth within ourselves. They are the arguments that are the most profound, the most powerful, and yet they're simple at the same time. So what is the Quranic argument for God's existence? Well, Allah subhanho wa taala. Allah says in the Quran in chapter 52, verse 35, to 36, did you come from nothing? Did you create yourself? Did you create the heavens and the earth? Indeed, you have no certainty. So let's unpack that. So Allah subhanho wa Taala is talking about first and foremost a human being, did you the human being, and we know the human being is not an eternal, it had a beginning, the human being had a beginning, I was born, you were born, we are
finite in nature. So Allah is saying, Did you the human being come from nothing? Did you create yourself? Did you create the heavens on Earth? Indeed, you have no certainty. So we could take the logic of this argument, there's an underlying logic behind this argument. So Allah is talking about the human being that is finite, it had a beginning. So you could apply this argument to anything that had a beginning, you could, you could apply it to a bunch of keys, you can apply it to a boxing glove, right? You can apply it to anything that had a beginning, which also includes the universe.
So like saying, did that thing? I like to think essentially, from a logical perspective did that thing that had a beginning, like a human being, like a bunch of keys, like a boxing bag? Did that thing come from nothing? So that's the first possible explanation?
Or did it create itself? That's the next possible explanation?
Or if you remember what Allah says, Did you the human being created the heavens and the earth? So the logic behind the third option is, well did this thing that came into existence did this thing that had a beginning did this thing that was good that came into existence? Did it create something else that came into existence? Because when Allah says, Did you create the heavens and the earth, were you are a finite being that came into existence? Did you create a finite thing like the universe came into existence? So the logic behind that is, was that was the thing that begin did the thing that began to exist, create something that also began to exist? And then Allah says, Indeed,
you have no certainty. Now, obviously, this is a almost like a rhetorical ploy to make us understand that, you know, the belief in an uncreated Creator is in line with our fitrah in line with our natural disposition. It's in line with our sound intellect, and it is the truth. So let me just summarize this, the underlying logic behind chapter 52 Verse 35, to 36 is did that thing that came into existence from nothing number one, do
Did it create itself? Number two?
Did it create something else that was created number three, or was that uncreated Creator? So these are the four options, the four logical possibilities. Now, before we apply this to the universe now, we have to basically
deal with the fact that the universe had a beginning. Because if you remember, these AI ads are only applied to something that had a beginning, because Allah mentions helical, were you created from nothing. Now, this implies that Allah is talking about the human being that was MK Luc, that came into existence, the human being is one that it came into being. So in order to play, in order to apply the logic of this Quranic argument, which is also a universal argument, you have to first start with the perspective or the position that the thing that you're talking about, also came into existence, also at the beginning. So if we want to apply the logic of this argument to the universe,
we have to first try and show that the universe had a beginning. I don't want to get into the the huge, astrophysical debate about the universe coming into existence. I don't feel these are very strong arguments from a philosophical perspective. Why am I saying that? Well, very simple, you have to understand that, you know, when we talk about the Big Bang model in academia, there are around 17 different models that explain the same data. And many of these models, they have equal epistemic weight. What does that mean, they have equal weight in terms of their truth value. So you could pick any of these models, yes, there are debates and discussions. But generally speaking, there are 17
different models to explain the same data. And this is, and so when you think of the Big Bang, you have to understand there are 17 different models that explain the data that is associated with the Big Bang. This is called the philosophy of science underdetermination, meaning, there are more than one model, there are more than one models that explain the same data. And each of the models are competing with each other, and they have somewhat the same value in truth. So this area of astrophysics, it's still growing. And from my perspective, philosophically speaking, there, it's not what you will call, you know, anything with certainty, you cannot conclude anything with absolute
certainty, because we have limited observations concerning this reality. Even Professor Krauss, the
physicist, and the author of a universe from nothing, in his very book, he says, These are speculative type of conclusions, you know, because they anything with certainty, because we don't have enough empirical evidence even even. And that's quite honest with him, because, you know, scientists that they, they, they have limitations. And usually the limitations are that they don't, can't observe everything. They have limited observations as Elliott sober the philosophy of science, and he's also an atheist. He says that scientists are restricted at any moment to the observations they have at hand. No one has an infinite number of observations, or all the observations required
for a particular phenomena, especially when it comes to astrophysics. So I'm not going to go into that, to show that the universe began. I just want to basically show you that the universe began with a very, very simple thought experiment.
Look at this boxing glove.
If I said to you, this boxing glove is eternal, what would you say to me?
What would you say? You will say Hamza, how can the boxing glove better? Well, what if I say, No, it is eternal. This is an eternal boxing glove. This boxing glove never had a beginning. It was always there. It is eternal. It had no beginning. You wouldn't be like, that doesn't make any sense. Then I'm going to ask you, why does it doesn't make any sense. Well, the reason you know that this boxing glove is not eternal, even though you didn't see the beginning. Even though you didn't see it when he was made, even though you didn't see when it emerged into its boxing glove existence. The reason you know it's not a turtle, because it has limited physical qualities, okay, it has limited size. So
this one is 16 ounces, right? He has limited colors limited volume, shapes, size, smell, actually, this one smells alright. It has limited physical features. Now,
given the fact that it has limited physical features, you know, they had a beginning Why? Because it cannot give rise to his own limitations. something external to the boxing glove gave rise to the limitations or
boxing glove, right? Let me give another example.
Let's take these keys. These keys have limited physical qualities, limited size, shape, weight, charge, smell temperature. Now these keys didn't give themselves their limitations, something external to these keys gave rise to those limitations, given us the fact that then that the means that these keys had a beginning and this boxing glove had a beginning, because it couldn't give rise to its own limitations by itself, there was something external to it to before it, in order for these things to exist with these limited physical qualities. Let me give another example just to make this very clear to you take this pen, this pen has limited color, limited shape, size, volume,
smell, taste, I don't advise you independent, but you get the point. Now the pen didn't give rise to his own volume, length, size, weight, temperature color. And we could ask the question, why is it the color purple and not any other color? Why is it this size? Or not any other size? Why is it this shape? And or any other shape? Why is it this temperature? Or any other temperature? Why is it this volume or any other volume and so on and so forth? Given the fact that we could read his questions, we can now say, Well, this pen didn't give rise to his own limitations, there must be something external to the pen before the pen to give rise to the pen with its limitations because the pen
cannot give rise to its own limitations, its own limited physical qualities. Nor can the boxing glove, nor can the keys. Now, where am I going with this? It's very simple, the universe is no different. The universe has limited physical qualities, and it's made up of limited physical qualities, even the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, if you want to call them quarks, or virtual particles, or subatomic particles, whatever the case may be these things whether we like it or not have limited physical qualities.
Now, given the fact that things with limited physical qualities cannot give rise to the old limitations, there must be something external to them, that gave rise to those things with their limited physical qualities.
And it's no different for the universe, given the fact that the universe is a physical thing. And it's made up of physical things, even things that we can't see things, you know, there could be, you know, things in the quantum reality, it doesn't really matter. The point is, they are physical, and they have limited physical qualities, they can't give rise to the only limited physical qualities, something external to them, and therefore external to the universe gave rise to the universe with its limited physical qualities. So what does this mean? This means the universe had a beginning.
in order for the universe to have its limited physical qualities, there must be something outside of it, and something prior to it that gave rise to its limited physical qualities, which means the universe had a beginning the Universe is finite. Why? Because here is the principle. Anything with a limited physical quality is not eternal. Anything with the limited physical quality had the beginning, just like the boxing bag, when the boxing gloves when I said to you, this boxing glove is a turtle, what did you say to me? You basically said, Well, how can it be a turtle? And I said, Well, why? Why don't you think is not a turtle, because it has limited physical qualities. The
principle is everything with limited physical qualities came into existence, it was finite, it wasn't always there, because it can't give rise to its own limited physical qualities, something outside of it gave rise to it with its limited physical qualities. Likewise, this whole universe has limited physical qualities, has limited physical qualities, therefore, and it can't give rise to his own limited physical qualities. Therefore, there was something outside of it before to give rise to the universe with his limited physical qualities. And the universe is therefore finite. If it's finite, it can't be a turtle, because finite things have a beginning. So this is the easiest way of
showing the universe had a beginning. You don't have to look into the science because science changes. You don't have to go into mathematics. It could be it could be quite complicated. It's based on a really key rational principle, that things were limited physical qualities can't give rise to themselves. There was something outside of it to give rise to it. It and it's limited physical qualities, which means it's finite. And it's no different from the universe. The universe has limited physical qualities. It can't give rises on limited physical qualities. There was something outside of the universe that gave rise to the universe with its limited physical
qualities. If that's the case,
The universe had a beginning it is finite. Good. So since the Universe is finite, had a beginning, we can now apply the logic of the Quranic argument. Let's go back to remind ourselves what we were saying. Well, the Quranic argue the logic behind the Quranic argument is things that had it beginning things i finite I, they came from nothing, they created themselves, they were created by something else created, or there is an uncreated Creator. Okay, it was created by an uncreated Creator. Let's go back again.
The saying that things are finite. Obviously, the Quranic verses speak specifically about the human being, but since the human being the human being is finite, is holy Kool Aid came into existence, it's math, look, it's more that you could apply this to anything that had a beginning, anything that is finite, so the Quran is saying, did that finite thing come from nothing? Did it create itself? Was it created by something else created? Or was it created by an uncreated Creator? So let's logically and rationally work our way through these? So number one? Could the universe come from nothing? Well, this is absolutely absurd, because from nothing, nothing comes. But before we get a
little bit more into this, we have to really understand what do we mean by nothing. Now, what we mean by nothing in this context, is basically the absence of anything, no prior causal conditions, no prior causal activity, no potential, the absence of anything, the absence of anything. And this is very important, because the cause of nothing is a universal negation. We're not talking about the kind of nothing that some scientists are talking about, that nothing is the absence of time and space, but it's still something like a quantum vacuum. But quantum vacuum is actually still something you can't say it's nothing in the sense.
So what we're saying here is that nothing means the absence of anything, no potential, no prior causal conditions, no prior causal activity, this is what we mean by nothing. So the universe couldn't come from nothing in this sense. Because from nothing, nothing comes if you have some nothing and add more nothing if you like, all you're going to get is nothing. Think of it mathematically, zero plus zero plus zero is actually zero. And what's even worse here is, well, the logical implications of saying that something can come from nothing. Now, if you, you could mirror it logically, and you could do a kind of logical assessment with its opposite. Because if you're
saying that something comes from nothing, then it also means that something can disappear into nothing. So So if something can come from nothing, then it logically also is the same for the other way around, that somebody can go into nothing you can disappear, it could vanish, right? It can become nothing. Without any explanation. Let me give you an example. To say somebody can come from nothing is logically equivalent. If you mirror it, mirror it from this perspective, imagine, you just close your eyes, and all of a sudden, your room and your house disappears.
You should if you're consistent, if you believe something can come from nothing, then you should also believe that something could vanish can become nothing as well. So since if you close your eyes and your bedroom in your house disappears, you should find it reasonable that the House has disappeared for no reason, because of no cause. Because of nothing going on. It just happened. But no one would ever expect that because it's irrational. Well, if that's irrational than the universe coming from nothing is also irrational because that is its logical equivalent. Imagine, for example, Richard Dawkins, he gets a call from his bank manager, and all the millions he's made from writing
his fiction books, right. You know, his bank manager says Professor Dawkins, your millions of pounds that you made from writing your fiction books have now just vanished into nothing. Would Richard Dawkins accept such an explanation? Of course not. But if he believes the universe came from nothing, you should accept such an explanation, because that is the logical equivalent.
And this is why it is absurd to say the universe came from nothing.
some argue well, what about the quantum vacuum? You know, some scientists say that you have virtual particles coming from the quantum vacuum, and therefore that means suddenly can come from nothing. No, no, no, this is a misunderstanding. You remember what how we define nothing. Nothing is universal negation and
Nothing means no absence of anything, nothing means no prior causal activity, no potential. Now the quantum vacuum is not nothing in this sense, the quantum vacuum is still something, it is a rich structure, it is a sea of fluctuating energy. So when a virtual particle emerges from this vacuum, it's not necessarily something coming from nothing. It's something coming from something. Now, another argument one would argue is, well, what about God? You're saying that something can't come from nothing, but doesn't go to create from nothing? Well, this is a slight misunderstanding. This is concerning the theological sense of nothing, and then nothing that we're talking about here. Now.
Yes, it's very true, that Allah subhanho wa taala, creates, he says, Be and it is confer your call.
So Allah creates that could be nothing apart from Allah and Allah create something, we know that, but there's no contradiction here. Why? Because it's a subtle misunderstanding of
Allah creating from nothing, and something coming from nothing. Why? Because when we say Allah creates from nothing, we're saying there is Allah creates from no material stuff. He rose it and it becomes that's not the same as something coming from nothing. Why? Because there is something already there. Allah is in existence, and via his will and power, something comes into existence as well. So it's not the case of something coming from an absolute nothing, because Allah exists, right. And the prior causal conditions, or the prior causal activity is Allah's irata and his Qudra His power and His will, so Allah's power and will, are the prior cause of conditions to bring the
universe into existence. So it's not the case of Oh, you're saying that something can't come from nothing? What about God? Doesn't he create from nothing? It's a it's a dis analogy, you can't compare. Why? Because when we say Allah creates for nothing in a theological sense, we're not saying there is nothing at all, even Allah doesn't exist. Now, the biller, were saying that Allah creates from no material stuff. But that doesn't mean there is no prior cause or condition because the protocol the condition is Allah's will empower. So it's not the case of something coming from nothing in it as what we've just spoken about now, in the context of this argument, so when an
atheist says, you know, there's a contradiction here, you guys are saying, something can come from nothing. But us but God creates from nothing. But there is a subtle difference here. Then nothing that we talk about the theological sense means that God creates from no material stuff is his will and power. That's not the same as saying, somebody can come from nothing because Allah is not nothing. Now the builder Allah exists. And there is something there prior to the universe, which is Allah's will and power and Allah's will empower brings the universe into existence. So hopefully, you've understood this point. And this is further clarified in my book in the relevant chapter as
well. So we know the universe cannot come from nothing. That's the first option out the way. Second option, where the universe created itself. Well, this is absurd. Look at this boxing glove. Could this boxing glove make itself? No? Could these keys make themselves? No? Could this pen make itself? No? Could I give birth to myself? No. Could our mothers give birth to themselves? No, exactly. And this really undermines the argument that the the universe created itself, because think about it logically, for something to create itself, it means it was in existence, and not in existence at the same time, which is an impossibility. And it also means that it was there.
it came into existence, again, an impossibility. So any also means that you should attribute power to the universe before the universe exists. Absolute crazy stuff. So we know the second option is not true, that it couldn't be the case that the universe created itself. But the third option, so that's four, this is three, the third option. The third option is well,
something created was created by somebody else created so the universe which is something created it had a beginning
was created by something else that was created, for example, like another universe. Well, that is not plausible. Maybe our first instinct you but you might be like, Yeah, that makes sense. Because I was born, you know, my mother gave birth to me, and then her mother gave birth to her and
They're all created, they all came into existence and that can go on. But ultimately, this is not an explanation because it can't go on forever. That's the point. Because if you're saying, for example, the universe was created or came into existence because of another universe. Before that, well, let's ask the question, did that universe come into existence as well? Yes, it did. Because we're more we're saying the option is something created was created was created by something else created.
So if that universe that created this universe was also created, what about another universe? Therefore, it must have been created by something else created as well, like another universe? Well, is that universe created as well? Yes. Well, if that goes on forever, we wouldn't have we wouldn't have the universe today. I mean, let me explain this again, if this universe was created by another universe, and that universe was created by another universe, and that universe was created by another universe, and that goes ad infinitum forever, we will never have the university because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes. Let me give you another thought experiment. Imagine
I had a you know, in the UK, we have a water balloon, we in when it's summer, you have a balloon and you fill it with water, and you throw out your friends and you play these games, and you measure our sort of throw a water balloon at you. But before I throw the water balloon at you, I have to get the causal power. In other words, the permission from my friend behind me, in order for me to throw the water balloon, by he says, You know what, before I give you permission, Hamza, I have to ask permission, to give you permission,
and that goes on forever, because that person also has to ask permission, if that goes on forever. Will I ever throw the word to believe that, you know, likewise, if this universe was as a result of something else that was created like another universe, and then that universe was came into being was as a result of something else that came into existence like another universe, and that goes on forever, we will never have the Universe Today. By since we do have the universe today, then the only option is that there was an uncreated Creator.
Because we said the universe couldn't come from nothing. The Universe couldn't create itself, it couldn't be created by something else created ultimately, therefore, the universe had an uncreated Creator colors. This is why atheism doesn't make sense because they deny and uncreated Creator, atheism is an intellectual Mirage, because it denies an uncreated Creator, but a sound reason the Quranic argument, our sound, intellectual faculties can come to the conclusion that there is an uncreated Creator, because the universe had a beginning. And we could raise certain questions. Did it come from nothing? No, it couldn't come from nothing. Did it create self? No, we know it couldn't
create self, was it created by something else that was created ultimately, no, as we just discussed, because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes, therefore, there is an uncreated Creator.
That's why the first point, atheism is a mirage, because it doesn't make sense of the finer tooth, the beginning of the universe.
Second argument, the argument from dependency. Now, this is a very powerful argument. And you could use this argument by staring at a wall by staring at a pen by staring at a bunch of keys. By staring at a boxing glove, you can derive God's existence by just looking at these things. We're not going to do that for now. But let's understand what this argument really means. Now, this argument from dependencies, also known in philosophy as the argument from contingency, but I like to use the word dependency, because it's more in line with our theological discourse, but one can also use the word contingency. Now, what we're saying here is that the whole universe is dependent, and it has to
derive its existence from an independent necessary being Allah subhanaw taala. Because in our classical tradition in the books of Arpita, Allah is also described as YGL goodfood, the necessary existing thing, because anything other than Allah is mumkin.
Is is is potete is mumkin is potentially existing from that point of view, because it could have not existed. Yeah.
So. So what we're saying is that the whole universe is dependent, and everything within and everything that we perceive, and the only explanation for the dependency of the universe is that there's an independent, eternal necessary being. But in order for us to really unpack this and understand this properly, we have to understand what do we mean by dependency in the, in the context of this argument, there are four things that we mean
By that we mean by dependency for things, okay? When we say something is dependent, we're saying something is not necessary. Now, what does necessarily mean in the language of philosophy, even in the language of theology, now, when something necessarily exists, it means that it was impossible fret to have not existed, let me repeat, when we say something necessarily exists, it means that it was impossible for it to have not existed. Okay? Now, when we're saying something is dependent, we're saying that it was possible for it to have not existed. Let me give an example. Imagine I go from upstairs to downstairs in my house, I go to the kitchen, I open the fridge freezer, and I see a
pen on top of an egg box. Now, do I close the fridge and say,
you know, the pen sitting on top of the egg box necessarily exists? No. I actually question I actually question why is the pen on top of the inbox because I know that the pen has an explanation, there is an explanation external to the pen, and explanation external to the pen
that provides and provides a reason for why the pen is on top of the egg box, there's nothing necessary about the existence of the pen on top of the egg box, okay, because it could have not existed, the pen could have been in the egg box, that the pen could have been on top of the fridge, the pen could have not been there at all, there is nothing necessary about the existence of the pen on top of the egg box. Now, by virtue of the pen in the in the fridge on top of the egg books, I want an explanation. And the reason I want an explanation because I know it doesn't necessarily exist on top of the egg books. And I know that the pen didn't have to be that it was possible for it
to have not exist in the way that it does in my fridge. Okay. So this is very important to understand this what we mean by dependent, when we mean something is dependent, we mean that it is not necessary, which means that it was possible for it to have not existed, it was possible for it to have not existed in the way that it does, right? It could have not existed at all, or it could have existed in another way. This is what we mean by something being dependent. That's the first meaning. The second meaning when we're saying something is dependent, is that the fundamental building blocks of that particular thing could have been arranged in a different way. Let me give an
example. Imagine you're driving your car, and you're passing around about and on the roundabout, there is this grassy area, and there is an arrangement of flowers, okay. And the arrangement of flowers basically says, I love you.
the fundamental building blocks of that flower arrangement is each of the individual flowers. Now, the fundamental building blocks of that flower arrangement that says I love you could have been arranged in a different way, there's nothing necessary about that arrangement. And we know by virtue of the arrangement, because of that arrangement, that there's an external explanation that explains the arrangement of the flowers that says, I love you, it could have been a gust of wind, for example, it could have been a gardener that was hired by the local government to basically arrange the flowers in that particular way. And we know there's nothing necessary about that arrangement,
because instead of saying, I love you, it could have said, I adore you, or I like you or have a nice day. The point is, the fundamental building blocks of that flower arrangement didn't have to be the way that they are, they could have been different and not only that,
there is an external explanation to explain the arrangement of the fundamental fundamental building blocks. In this case, it could have been a gust of wind, highly unlikely I know, or it could have been a gardener. Okay.
Now, that's the second second definition of dependency. The third definition of dependency is something is dependent in the normal dictionary sense of the word. I am dependent on food in order to exist. I am not self subsisting, okay. I don't exist, you know, independently and I don't have any needs. I need the I am dependent. I don't soak subsist.
I need things external to me like oxygen and food in order to survive.
So that's the third definition. The full definition is something I'd said earlier in the first argument. So it's very good we covered it, which is dependent things have limited physical qualities, like this pen, this pen has limited physical qualities, it has a certain color, size, temperature, volume, etc, etc. And we could raise the question, why is it this color and not another color? Why is it this length and not another length? Why is this wider? Not another width? Why is it this weight and not another weight? Why is it this temperature? Not another temperature? Why is it this? Is it this volume and not another volume? Why is it this density and not another density? The
point here is the reason we can raise these questions is because they could have been otherwise. And it gives rise to the fact that will did this pan give rise to its own limitations? Of course, no, there must be something external to the pen that gave rise to the pen with its limited physical qualities. So dependent things have limited physical qualities, meaning there is an external explanation and external reason outside of the thing that gave rise to the things limited physical qualities. Okay, so those are the four meanings of dependency. Now, let's apply this to the universe and everything that we perceive.
Number one, is the universe not necessary?
Of course, it is. There's nothing necessary about the universe. If we can't say it was impossible for the universe to have not existed. Even physicists say that the universe could have been a different type of universe with a different type of physical structure, and maybe physical laws, there's nothing necessary about the universe. In actual fact, the universe didn't have to exist at all. There's nothing in science that tells us that the this universe that we live in, is necessarily existing from the point of view that it was impossible for it to have not existed, okay. So we know that the universe, every night we that we exist, could have been a different universe. And it could
have not existed at all. So this means is dependent, which means there must be an external explanation for the universe, because how did the universe come to be? Just like that, we just like what we said about the fridge and the pen on top of the egg box, we said, well, there is an external explanation for the pen being on top of the egg box, right? There's nothing necessary about the pen existing on top of the egg box. Therefore, there is an external explanation to explain the pennant of the ebooks. Likewise, there's nothing necessary about the universe, it could have not existed, therefore, there is an external explanation for the universe. The second definition is that there is
one of the fundamental building blocks, where we know that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are arranged in a particular way, they could have been arranged in a totally different way. And therefore, there needs to be an external explanation to explain why it's one arrangement over another possible arrangement. Okay, just like with the flowers in the roundabout, it said, I love you, the fundamental building blocks being the individual flowers, they could have been arranged in a different way that said, I hate you, or I like you or have a nice day. And the reason and the reason they are in the way that they are at the moment that says, I love us because there is an
external explanation, such as a gust of wind, or a gardener that explains that particular arrangement. Likewise, with the universe, its fundamental building blocks, you could, wherever you believe them to be, you go ask the scientists what they are, you could call them virtual particles, subatomic, subatomic, subatomic particles, some quantum reality, it doesn't really matter. The point here is that there are fundamental building blocks of the universe, and they're arranged in a particular way. There's nothing necessary about that arrangement, they could have been arranged in a different way. Therefore, just like the arrangement of flowers, there's an external explanation that
explains a particular arrangement.
The other point is, the universe is dependent in the normal dictionary sense of the term that is not so subsisting, it just didn't exist by itself. The fourth definition is that the universe has limited physical qualities. Now we've discussed this already. The universe is a physical structure. Yes, it's huge and vast. By it's a physical structure. It has a particular size, even if it's growing for example, and expanding, it still has a finite size the universe is not eternal from that point of view, and is fundamental building blocks also have limited physical qualities and things that we perceive within the universe, of limited physical qualities. And as we discussed previously,
things with limited physical qualities can give rise to the own limitations. There must be something external to
Do that thing, prior to that thing that gave rise to that thing. And it's limited physical qualities. Likewise, the universe, even though it's huge and massive, the University has a physical structure. It's limited, it's not infinite. And we also know that the fundamental building blocks that make up the universe, and also the things within the universe have limited physical qualities. Therefore, the sum of all of that has something external to it that explains it, and how it has these limited physical qualities, because you remember, things have limited physical qualities can't give rise to their own limited physical qualities. So what we've shown so far now is the universe is
dependent. It's not necessary, necessarily existing, and therefore, it can't be eternal.
Right, so where do we go from here. So since the universe is dependent, there are three possible explanations. Number one, the universe is independent and therefore eternal. Number two, the universe and everything that we perceive is dependent on something else dependent. And number three, the universe and everything that we perceive is dependent on something independent, unnecessarily necessary and exists eternally, eternally existing. So let me repeat the three possible explanations, rational possible explanations, given what we've discussed so far, number one, the universe is independent and therefore eternal. So the universe and everything we perceive is
independent, and therefore eternal. Number two, the universe and everything we perceive is dependent on something else that is dependent. And number three, the universe and everything that we perceive is dependent on something independent, necessary and eternal. So let's work our way through these perspective. Number one, the universe is independent, and therefore eternal. I'm sorry, this is not a good argument, it's a bit of a cop out, I do apologize, because we've just discussed at length, why the universe is dependent. If it is dependent, it can't be independent. Because what does independent really mean? It means that thing necessarily exists, it means that there is nothing
external to it, that explains it. And it also means that it was impossible for it to have not existed. But given that we spent some time showing the dependent nature of the universe, this is not a very good argument. So let's go to the second option, the universe that everything that we perceive is dependent on something else dependent. Again, this can't be the case, because it's not providing any explanation. All you're saying is, the thing that requires an explanation is explained by something that requires an explanation. Because remember, dependent things have something external to them that explain the limited physical qualities, the fundamental building blocks being
arranged in a particular way, etc, etc. So when you're saying this dependent thing, the universe and everything that we perceive is also dependent on something else dependent, that you're basically saying, something that requires an explanation is explained by something that requires an explanation, which is not an explanation at all. Also, remember what we said in the first argument, the Quranic audio focus on God's existence, the infinite regress of causes, we know that it is absurd, irrational to have an infinite regress of causes. Likewise, if this universe, and everything that we perceive derives its existence is dependent on something else that is dependent. And that
thing that's dependent also dependent on something else dependent, and that goes on forever, we will never have the universe today. So this option, again, is force. So what's the third option, the universe and everything we perceive is in is is dependent on something independent, necessary and eternal. And this is the most rational explanation to explain the dependency of the universe that actually derives existence and it depends on something independent, and it is a eternal, why is it eternal? Because things that are finite, okay. Things that are finite, are dependent, okay, things that are finite or dependent, and things that are independent, are not eternal. So since this the
the universe derives existence from something that is independent, given that it's independent, it also has to be a terminal and this makes sense of Allah subhanaw taala. Because Allah says He is Alleghany he is the independent, Allah says He is a summit cool, who Allah who I had a lot of Summit Summit, meaning the self subsisting meaning that everything derives existence from this, this being this eternal Creator. So
If this makes sense of the existence of God and for more information, go to the relevant chapter in my book and to deal with certain contentions. But let's deal with one objection is quite a popular objection to objections. One objection to this argument is, oh, this is God of the gaps, you know, you have a limited, you have a gap in your scientific understanding. But in the future, when we progress scientifically, we're going to fill the gap and it will basically, we will not need God as an explanation. I'm sorry, this argument is a metaphysical argument. It absorbs all scientific information. Even if you had a new scientific theory 5000 years ahead from today, this argument
still works. Why? Because it's art because science can only deal with things that are dependent are contingent. Science cannot deal with things that are necessarily existing. Because, as the philosophy of science Eliot soba says that scientists are restricted to the observations they have at hand, direct and indirect observations that many you can observe it is the minute you know, it's a dependent thing, because you cannot observe something that is independent, something that is necessarily existing, something that is eternal, you can't observe that you already observe contingency, you observe things with limited physical qualities. And that's the nature of
observations. So given the fact that science can only give us theories, or give us conclusions that are dependent in nature, then
science cannot deal with this argument at all. Because this argument transcends science, for example, you know, science can say that you have an infinite you have any different number of universes and these infinite number of universes explained this universe, for example? No, it doesn't, all you explain is dependency with more dependency, because all of these individual universes are still dependent, right? They're not necessarily existing. They're not independent, and eternal from that point of view. So what we have to understand is that the science objection is not really an objection, because anything that science can give us can only refer to dependent things.
So when you engage in a scientific theory, or you try to derive a scientific conclusion, you can only refer to dependent things. That's the nature of science. This is the scope of his methodology. This is the philosophy of science, not one scientist, and not one philosopher of science will say to you that science can refer to eternal independent things. Because that would mean that that science now has gone outside of its method and its scope. And he goes in is going into metaphysics and philosophy. Generally speaking, science can't do that science is restricted to the observations that it has at hand, direct and indirect observations. And the things that we can observe directly or
indirectly, are dependent. So all science can do is given you a dependent solution to this argument. But if you're giving a dependent solution, you're not solving the problem, because you're saying the universe that is dependent is also deriving existence from something else that is dependent. And we've already said that this is a false conclusion, because you can't have an infinite regress of dependencies.
Another argument here is, Well, isn't this
a logical fallacy? Isn't this the logical fallacy of the fallacy of composition? So what's the fallacy of composition? The logical fallacy of the fallacy of composition basically says that
you can't say that the hole has the same property as its individual parts. Okay? For example,
take a Persian rug. A Persian rug is quite heavy, especially if you buy really expensive and it's a heavy rug.
Now, it will be absurd to say that the Persian rug is light in weight, because the individual parts that make up the Persian rug, the threads are very light. This is true. This is a logical This is the logical fallacy applied here the fallacy of composition, it's not always true, that the whole is going to have the same properties as its individual parts, just like a Persian rug. Persian rug is actually very heavy. Even those individual pots are the small threads. So it would be absurd to say the Persian rug is very light in weight. Given the fact that its individual parts. The threads are also light in weight. So this logical fallacy can be applied but you have to understand when it can
be applied when it can't be applied. Because in some cases, you can't apply it. For example, take a brick wall. A brick wall is hard, though
Hold record is hard, and is individual parts, the individual bricks are also hard. So it can be the case that the whole has the same property or properties as its individual parts. In this case, the wall is hard, and is individual building blocks is individual parts, the brick is also hard. So it's not a universal fallacy. It's not always fallacious to say that the whole world has the same property as its individual parts or parts, likewise with the universe, because what they're saying here is, oh, you've committed a logical fallacy because everything in the universe is contingent, or everything in the universe is dependent. Therefore, the universe is dependent. You can't say that,
because the hole doesn't have the same property as its parts, just like the Persian rug, we agree, but you can't apply it to the universe. Why? Because the universe is more likely to record. Because if the everything we perceive within the universe is dependent, and it's fundamental building blocks of the universe are dependent, then we can say the whole universe is dependent. And we're not.
We're not accused of
committing the fallacy of composition, why, because of the principle of dependency, the principle of dependency is as follows. Dependent things make up dependent holds dependent individual things make up dependent holes. And for them to deny this, they have to prove how dependent things do not make up dependent holes, which is absolutely impossible. So that's why this contention is not a valid contention. So final, so the so atheism, again, is the intellectual Mirage because it doesn't make sense of the dependency of the universe.
everybody worships. Atheism doesn't make sense of our natural born tendency to worship.
You have to understand brothers and sisters and friends, even if you don't believe in God, you're worshiping something, as my tingling said, man cannot not worship, man cannot not worship. Now, interestingly, in the Islamic tradition, worship
is quite profound. It means four main things entails forming things that you know Allah, that you love Allah, that you obey Allah, and that includes being humble before Allah, and that you direct all your action, your your, all your acts of worship to Allah alone, you single out and you direct all your acts of worship to Allah, Allah, the internal acts of worship, the actions of the heart, and the actions of the acts of worship of the limbs.
So you this what worship and tells brothers and sisters, that you know Allah, you love Allah, you obey Allah and you direct all acts of worship to Allah along the internal acts of worship, the actions of the heart and the actions of the limbs. Now,
this is very important because if you take the logic of this,
everybody worships because remote we said, what our worship entails that you know, Allah, you love Allah, you obey Allah and you direct all acts of worship to Allah Allah.
Let's take the logic of this. Something that you want to know the most, something that you love the most, something that you obey the most, something that you direct your acts of worship towards the most, like gratitude. Because gratitude is an act of the heart, it's an action of the heart, ultimate gratitude. If you want to know something the most you want to love something the most, you obey something the most. And you, you, you, you, you are ultimately grateful towards something the most that is your object of worship. And what's interesting, even for the atheist, at some point in their life, they want to know something the most, at some point in the night in their life, they
want to love something or many things the most, at some point in their life, they're obeying something, or someone or something or an idea the most. At some point in their life. They're displaying gratitude in their heart, ultimate gratitude for something with some things the most. That is the object of worship.
And this is so true that you can't run away from worship, man, human beings or natural born worshipers. The point is, whom deserves your worship? And this is very interesting because a beautiful chapter in the Quran, chapter 39, verse 29, and I'm paraphrasing when Allah says, Consider the situation of two people. One man is a servant to many masters, and all arguing, and another man he's a servant to one master who's
condition is best. Obviously, the one with a better condition is the one who's who's a slave who is who is a servant to one master. If you're a servant to many masters and all arguing you're finished, right? So from that point of view,
Allah is trying to say to us, if you don't worship Allah, you'll want to master your worship and all these other things. So if you want true freedom, true liberation, then worship the one who knows you better you know, yourself and the one who has more affection for you than your own mother, which is Allah subhanho wa taala.
So, from our point of view, the default position of human beings is to worship even if they deny God, and that's why atheism doesn't make sense of this natural born tendency to worship because they end up worshiping something that is not worthy of worship. So the question now is, why is Allah worthy of worship? This is one of my favorite topics. I have a free essay on my website called seven reasons why Allah is worthy of worship. I think that's the title. Check it out on Hamza dos.com. There's a chapter in my book on this is a lecture on my YouTube channel on this and it's about why Allah is worthy of worship. I'm just gonna give you two main reasons.
The reason we should worship worship Allah no other things is because number one, Allah is worthy of worship by virtue of who he is because of who he is.
Now, let me explain this. Brothers and sisters, you know, we praise things and people because of their attributes. For example, we will praise poets like the famous poet Cabal, when he said this one frustration, this one such that, that you find so difficult frees you from 1000 soldiers, we may we may praise him for his eloquence or for his rhetoric, rhetoric or for his poetic skill. Likewise, we may praise soccer players Ronaldo, or Messi for the soccer attributes and abilities, athletic attributes who may praise Khabib Habib for being a great wrestler, you know, by the way his father passed away yesterday a few days ago. May Allah subhanho wa Taala make it easy on him and and grant
his father Jonathan for those and forgive his sins and make it easy for all the family. I mean, so we may praise Cody because of his wrestling attributes and skills.
But the interesting thing here is brothers and sisters, their attributes, they may be great, but they're not perfect because they're human. And they're not maximally perfect. They're not to the highest degree possible. And they have some limitations and flows, but yet we praise the poet. By virtue of their poetic skills and attributes. We praise the soccer player by virtue of the athletic abilities and soccer attributes and skills, and we praise the enemy wrestler, by virtue of his skills, even though their skills and attributes are limited and forged in some way, no one's perfect, and they have deficiencies and flaws. We praise them we say bravo, we give a standing
ovation. AHA is compelled to praise him because of who they are. If that's the case, then what does it mean how we must praise Allah because of who he is. Because Allah has names and attributes are maximally perfect to the highest degree possible. They have no deficiency and no flaw. We must give Allah an extensive praise and praise is a form of worship, in ohm Kitab on Kitab is Surah Al Fatiha the mother of the whole book the whole Quran, in the first line of the M Kitab of Surah Al Fatiha that summarizes the Quran which is summarize of how he'd summarize zation of the hotel he'd hola says Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen. All perfect praise and
gratitude belong to the Lord of everything that exists. Extensive praise is a form of worship. So if we could praise all of these things, and these things don't really directly benefit us in any way, and their attributes are limited and flawed and not perfect. What does it mean about praising Allah subhanho? wa taala?
Because it means that we must give him an extensive praise because his names and attributes are to the highest degree possible. There are maximally perfect, they have no deficiency and no flaw. So we can praise deficient things that are flawed in some way. And they don't directly benefit us in any way. That what does it mean about giving Allah an extensive form of praise and praises worship? And that's why Allah is worthy of worship because of who he is. And not because of how he's decided to manifest His names and attributes in our lives. Maybe we don't have a great life. We live in poverty. We haven't been given many bounties, Allah is still worthy of praise because of who he is.
So that's the first point. And this is very important because we shouldn't have a transactional relationship with Allah, that we only worship Allah if he gives us something. No. This is a false understanding. This is this is making you a
As a peer with Allah, which I would argue could be a form of shadow, of course, because you're saying Allah You know what I give you some ah, if you give me some, some, some wealth, some health, family, wife, kids, and I give you my a bad No, no, no, no Allah is worthy of worship even if you receive the crumbs of the universe. In actual fact, Allah is worthy of worship, even if the whole universe decided not to worship him. And Allah is worthy of worship, even if the universe worships him. And Allah is bound to Your Majesty will not be decreased if people don't wash your pen, and Allah is bound to Your Majesty will not be increased if people start to worship Him, such as Allah
subhanho wa taala.
So, that's the first point why those worthy of worship the second point is Allah is Al holep. He is the Creator. He's a lot. He's the perpetually creating. Now,
what does this mean in the context of worship? Now,
there is something in your lives that you receive every moment of your existence that you don't earn, or deserve, based freely given to you. And it's priceless. What is this thing? This thing is every conscious moment of your existence, life itself. You don't earn it own or deserve it, you kind of increase it fly.
It's priceless. Why? Because if I sit, you had 10 minutes left to live. And in order to have another 10 hours, or 10 days, you'd have to give me all of your wealth, you would throw all of your family, such as the priceless nature of life. So we receive something that is priceless, that we don't earn or deserve every moment, which is life itself. How should it make us feel? It should make us feel grateful. And gratitude is a key to worship.
And we must be grateful to Allah. We shouldn't be like those people who receive a free, priceless gift every day. And we start thanking the gift and not the one who gave it to us. We must be grateful, ultimately grateful to Allah subhanho wa Taala Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen.
So this is why Allah is also worthy of worship. So because he's worthy of extensive praise by virtue of who he is. And because he's worthy of ultimate gratitude, because of what we just discussed. There's many, many other reasons we don't have time. For that. Go to chapter 15. In the book when you get it, go on to my website, Hamza dos.com, there is a lecture on this topic and an essay on this topic as well. So to summarize, three main reasons why atheism is an intellectual Mirage, it misrepresents reality is an intellectual optical illusion. Number one, atheism doesn't make sense of the beginning of the universe. The atheist position on this doesn't make sense, we know there must
have been an uncreated Creator. Atheism doesn't make sense, because of the dependency of the universe, we know there must have been an independent, necessary, eternal being like gave rise to the universe. And atheism doesn't make sense based on the fact of our natural tendency to worship, because everyone is in a state of worship, as we said, and the one who is worthy of worship is Allah subhanho wa taala. And we must worship Him.
And even if they don't believe in God, they still worship something. Because what does worship entail? Something that you want to know the most loved the most, obey the most, or refer to the most asserting that you express acts of worship to the most such as ultimate gratitude? People who believe in God or not have an object of worship, but the question is, who is worthy of worship? And we said, Allah is worthy of worship based on those two small points that we made. And you could do your further research based on the references that I've given you. So before we end, I just want to answer two main points.
There are certain issues that come up concerning the atheist theist dialogue. Number one, you know, if, if God is so merciful, why is this so much even a suffering in the universe? Well, this is a really, really false argument. I've written about this in my book, it's also on my website for free hubzones.com. And there's other people have written about this as well, please check other people's work as well. Now, for me, this is the basis argument, it's very emotional, it's not intellectual. They're saying, If God is loving or merciful, good, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world, and since there is so much even a suffering in the world, that God can't be good. And the
reason they say this is because if God is good, loving, and powerful, then he should have he should want the evil to stop and he should have the ability to stop it. But since evil exists, either he doesn't have the ability to stop it, or he doesn't. Or he's evil, he wants it to continue. This is a false argument because it's based on two false assumptions. Now, obviously, I'm summarizing this you have to go to the references I've given you. But the summary of the of the responses as follows. There are two false assumptions. The first false assumption is that he assumes that Allah that God is only good only loving and powerful, this is false. Allah is also al hacky Allah.
believe he is the wise he is the knowing he has the totality of the wisdom and knowledge, Allah has the picture, we just have a pixel.
We just have the pixel. So Allah is all knowing and all ways, then it solves the problem. Because even as suffering in the world exists based on a divine wisdom and divine knowledge, even if we can't understand that divine wisdom and knowledge, the point is it doesn't mean it's not that they so the atheists, they misrepresent who God is in the Islamic tradition, they're saying God is good, and powerful and loving. And that's it. Well, if that was just the case, they may have an argument, but it's not just the case because Allah is also Aleem al Hakim, the knowing in the wise, given the fact that he's knowing in the wise, therefore there is a wisdom and a reason and knowledge for why
these things occur.
So breaks down the argument logically. Second point, that the second false assumption of the argument is that Allah hasn't given us any good reasons why there's even a suffering in the first place. But Allah has if you look at the Quran and Sunnah there are so many reasons. Number one, life is a test right? Life is we're here to worship Allah subhanho wa taala, which also includes we're here to be tested, and so on and so forth. So they have two false assumptions concerning the problem of evil and suffering. Number one, they misrepresent who God is, they think is just good and powerful and loving, which is not true. He's also the wise and the note and the knowing, which
solves this, this this problem. And also, they assume that Allah hasn't given us any good reason why there's even a suffering in the first place. But he has primarily we have a purpose in life is to worship Allah, and that includes that we're going to be tested. And that summarizes
a response to that false argument. Another argument they have is, oh, we have science, science. Now, deniers, God, no, this is not true. Anyone who studies actually who actually studied science, someone who studies the philosophy of science, you would know that the question of God is not even really a scientific question. What science can do is at best, keep silent on the topic, or maybe provide certain evidences that you can use a philosophy argument to use some of those evidences developing philosophy or argument to either
talk about God's existence or try and suggest that he doesn't exist be the science cannot deny God's existence in of itself.
Yes, you can use scientific data to form a philosophical argument, but that won't be scientific anymore. But the point is, science in of itself cannot deal with a question of God. Why? As we said before, Professor Elliott sober an atheist philosopher of science, he basically said that, at any point in time, scientists are restricted to the observations they have at hand. Science deals with direct or indirect observations. God is not observed. God is outside of the universe. That's the that's the classical understanding of the Divine. He is a creation is distinct and destroying from the universe. Allah has transcended LASIK and literally he che, there is nothing like Allah subhanaw
taala. So the scientific method can be applied to the god question directly from that preview. Also, you have to understand that generally speaking, science, adopt something scientific conclusions have to adopt something called methodological naturalism. methodological naturalism is that for any any scientific conclusion to be scientific, you can't refer to
divine power, divine creativity or God's power of God's existence. This doesn't mean they reject God. They're just saying for conclusion to be scientific, it can't refer to the god stuff, right God, God can't refer to God in any way.
This is very different from saying that God doesn't exist. That will be philosophical naturalism, which philosophical naturalism which is different from methodological naturalism. philosophical naturalism basically says that God doesn't exist there is no divine there is no supernatural and everything can be explained by physical processes. All phenomena can be explained by a physical via physical processes. That's very different from methodological naturalism was just basically says, in order for something to be scientific, you can't refer to God. But that doesn't deny God. So what some atheists do, they confuse philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. And just
because scientific conclusions don't usually refer to God, they now think, ah, therefore, God doesn't exist. No, that's not true because that's, that's, that's, that's, that's only if you adopt philosophical naturalism, but methodological naturalism just basically says, For something to be scientific, you can't refer to God's existence, but it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. As you know, a famous Balaji Scott II taught I believe, he said that you know, just because a scientist
is committed to methodological naturalism meaning that scientific conclusions can't refer to God. It doesn't mean they can't believe in God for other reasons like philosophical or theological reasons. So they conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. For more information on this, there's a chapter in my book called
I think it's called does science deny God.
But it's about deconstructing the false atheist assumptions concerning the argument that science denies God. So please read that chapter as well.
So we're done.
We are done
with five minutes and 40 seconds remaining for the end of the lecture. So we're going to open out to Q and A shortly
For that enlightening talk,
I'm sure we all benefited immensely from it. And before we move on to the question, as a session, I would just like to remind the viewers that
to receive your free version of the book, authored by brother Hamza, please fill up the Google Form that we'll be sharing in the comment section right now, and you'll be receiving that, inshallah.
Intention, I think we can move on to the question session.
All right. So the first question
is, how do we answer it is academics like Dr. Rush to pose the question that if God exists, and it's all wise, in the Islamic paradigm? Why did God not choose a better or easier form of connecting to the creations compared to a revelation that was in a language only, only to a specific group of people, the Arabs?
That it was revealed in Arabic?
Yeah, I think this is an interesting question. But I don't think it's a very powerful objection. The reason I'm saying that is because the message of the song can be translated in any language, the basic message of a song that God exists, and he's worthy of worship. He is the Lord of everything that exists. He has names and attributes that are perfect, that have no deficiency and flow. And that he's the only data worthy of worship and the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is the final prophet. And he showed us how to worship Allah. Simple. That could be explained in any language, sign language, most code, Japanese, Chinese, Cantonese, Mandarin, Turkish, Greek,
Aboriginal languages, any language. So it's, it's a bit of a false question. It's like saying, it's assuming that the only way we can access the essence of the Islamic tradition is through Arabic, that's not true at all. And it has to reflect
reality is going against going against him. Because what is reality? Say? People are non Arabs who don't know Arabic are becoming Muslim all the time.
So that will be very easy, quick answer to Mr. tabash.
Answer. The next question is, what books can you recommend for a beginner student in this field, in addition to your book?
You know, the one of the reasons I wrote the book is because there wasn't a Muslim in the English language that wrote a book on this topic.
So that was one of the problems. So
that beginning book
there is a really old book.
It's not that old, but it's probably old for you guys, is called dialogue with an atheist. For my remember, that was a really good basic book articulating certain positions and arguments, and it was in the dialogue format with an atheist. That's the only one that really comes to mind in a powerful way. There was another book called Islam in focus that has some
has a chapter that mentioned something about God's existence.
What else in English?
Oh, there is a really good booklet that you could download. It's called.
It's called Making Sense of God. It's a very basic summary of my own book, actually. And as I think a lot of it was used for my book,
It's, it's published by one reason if you go to one reason dot o RG, you can find the text version and the PDF version of making sense of God. So if you start with that, and then you continue inshallah you'd be in a good place. But I would also always argue or affirm that you need to sit with lemme who have studied up either, and you go for a basic opinion book and then develop further. Because, you know, my whole book really is a contemporary version of, you know, the classical traditional arguments that say, really, we're standing on the shoulders of giants. It is our job as Muslims or each generation, to contemporize, the classical tradition, we're not changing anything
that those concepts have existed since the beginning, so
if you're able to study credo book, in a way that you can apply in the modern world, they'll be far more powerful than reading any other book.
The next question is, at sea. Ice tell us the universe existed millions of years before humans are? Considering the worst be? And it is? Why did God wait for so long?
See, sometimes when people ask the question you have to ask, does not being able to answer this question undermine Islam? No, you have to understand questions that are nice to have, and questions that are fundamental, this is a non fundamental question.
God decided for humans to come on this planet way after.
So what universe or Allah decided from, you know, according to the scientific understanding at the moment, which could which is limited?
You know, the the earth came, what billions of years after then human beings came, we know, Why did Allah wait so long? Well, we don't know. Allah is infinitely wise, and all knowing Allah knows Amido. However, you also understand that there is an assumption in the question. The assumption in the question is
that this whole universe is just for human beings? Well, no, because Allah talks about that the whole everything worships Allah in some way, everything submits to the will of Allah in some way. So the purpose of the universe to exist in that perspective, is to submit to Allah, so that the purpose was being fulfilled, even though we didn't exist, we came billions of years after. So there is an assumption in the question that everything is just for us. It's not the case at all.
At the end of the day, creation itself is a manifestation of Allah's names and attributes and creation is, you know, submit to Allah, everything does such that in his own way, right to ALLAH SubhanA, Allah to Allah, so it's fulfilling its purpose. So, you know, Why did Allah create human beings way after?
It assumes that human beings are the most important thing, and it's not necessarily the case. Because, you know, Allah's creation has a purpose, everything has a wisdom and a purpose behind it. So you know, for those first few billion years, creation was filling his purpose, right. So that would be the easiest way of doing it. But to be honest, this question, even if you can't answer, it doesn't really undermine God's existence, or the fact that he's worthy of worship. It says, you know, nice to have, you know, we'll ask Allah in Jannah. And we get an answer. And the reason I'm saying it in this way is because you have to understand that not every question is a fundamental
question. Just because you can't answer all the questions, it doesn't mean you should give doubt in your faith, because some questions are fundamental, some are non fundamental. This one is, is non fundamental.
The next question is an exhibition is somewhat of a follow up question to the previous one. So why did it take six days of everything in the universe as the Quran states be? And it is, and it also states six days set up? Which requires more clarification?
Well, there is no contradiction here. Allah saying Be and it is, and the universe, or creation being created in six phases. I mean, to say six days, from a human point of view, you know, the Sun and the Earth doesn't really make sense in that context. And the best way to translate that is six phases.
There is no contradiction when Allah saying confer you could be in it is, because the it is, is the phases right? That's the house. That's the aspect that's the physical manifestation of
the it is so
That's a B, and the way it came into being was through the phases. Why do you have to assume that you just came like that there's no indication for that at all. This is just the physical manifestation of Allah's command. So Allah says confirm your Quran. The Quran is the phases in this context, there's no contradiction or logical contradiction in any shape or form. It's like for example,
say for example, I want to
I want to move.
Okay, I want to turn turn on the light, right. And, by the way, I turn on the light is through a series of dominoes. I push the first domino, and all the dominoes fall, it takes about 30 seconds to turn the light on, right, because the last domino would hit the switch.
Now, I made a decision, I'm going to turn on the light, and I click it, right and I moved the first domino.
Now, I've willed it to happen, I said,
turn on, I'm gonna turn the light and I do the first action. But then he takes some time for the light to finish on. There is no contradiction with my will being instantaneous. And the way my will has manifested itself, eventually, after 30 seconds through the dominoes for the light to turn on. Likewise, Allah will the universe coming to existence, coin, and then fire coin, and then Allah basically willed then his work manifested itself through the six phases. So there's no contradiction in it from that point of view, but also, Allah also can.
Because we know those more powerful, instantaneously do creation as well. But that's in line with His will and His wisdom. At times, it will be six phases, or other times it will be instantaneous. Allah knows best and that's in line with Allah's wisdom and knowledge and power.
The next question is, is studying modern philosophy a must refute these doubts? Or can we hold upon our classical understanding when dealing with them? Is it even possible to merge both?
Yeah, I mean, look,
at look, the classical under an understanding has used as a classical language. So can you use a classical language in the modern world dealing with people who don't have that language? No, because the key or solely principle of Dawa is to speak in a language that people understand, right? If I start going to, you know, some atheists and start saying, you know, must look,
monkey monkey and why people who do, he'll be like, what, what the hell's going on here, right? Now, our job is to contemporize. So we have to, you know, understand their language. And sometimes that means understanding their background, it doesn't mean you have to immerse yourself in philosophy, of course, not just understand their language and their frame of reference, understand the classical concepts properly, learn to apply them in a contemporary way, as simple as that.
Now, I'm a strong believer that if you learn the fundamentals properly, you don't really have to engage in philosophical discourse, because, look, every human being has a fifth floor. And in the fifth row, the innate disposition, it has primary knowledge that Allah exists, and he's worthy of worship, but that fitrah gets clouded. Our job is to uncloudy the fitrah. If you know these fundamental arguments, or perspectives, or I add or signs well, and you just share it with people, it could be enough to awaken the fifth row, you don't have to go into crazy philosophy. In actual fact, I would not even advise that, because, you know, you don't create certainty. By dealing with
these doubts, you create certainty by giving them certainty. So give people really good powerful Quranic arguments for Allah's existence for why Allah is worthy of worship. And then if the questions come deal with the questions, don't start firefighting, give them a strong foundation share Islam, to that strong foundation that Allah exists, He is one that he is worthy of worship, right?
So and as I would also argue that there is a limit on how much you can philosophize, because it gets to a blameworthy level, to the point where you're splitting their philosopher hair, and you're not getting anywhere. And that for me, is an indication that that person doesn't need philosophy anymore, doesn't need arguments anymore. what that person needs is something else. Maybe connection with Allah, maybe reading and maybe revelation, maybe good behavior from the Muslims or flock and other who knows. Because there's different ways to uncloudy the fitrah because if someone is going on such a crazy level, and splitting the philosophical hair, this is an indication for something
else that's going on. It's not an intellectual issue is a psycho spiritual issue and give it a go.