God – Fairy Tale or Truth?
Date:
Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
File Size: 33.06MB
Episode Notes
Dr. Lars Gule, Scandinavia’s leading humanist and atheist, debates Hamza Andreas Tzortzis on the existence of God and Islam.
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of evidence and thorough research to support their claims, while acknowledging confusion surrounding the title of the book "IT" and "arousal of the universe". They stress the need for a good faith attitude and clarification on the definition of "any thing" and "arousal of the universe". They also explore the concept of "right answer" for moral outrage and consider the context of realities, while stressing the importance of fear and empathy in achieving things. They mention a book called "come to the end of the CRAN" and a new book "come to the end of the CRAN."AI Generated Transcript ©
In a company, there was a that was Sam moto scileanna that
he suddenly faced with the
company for the sisters and friends like which was the warmest Islamic greetings of peace Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
Which basically means me the Peace and blessings of God be upon you. First and foremost like to thank you for coming tonight to address a very important question. And I'm going to address this question by saying that Islam is more rational, because it makes sense of the existence of God. Islam is more rational, because it makes sense of the miraculous nature of the Quran, which is the book of the Muslim. Now, Islam makes sense of the existence of God because we have all asked the same questions. Why does something exists rather than nothing? Where did the universe come from? My response to this question, some atheists have claimed the universe is a brute fact, eternal. It just
is, however, to maintain such a proposition, I argue is untenable. Because there are very good reasons the universe was brought in to be in other words, it began to exist, its past is not eternal, it is finite. Now to substantiate this claim, we can bring to our discussion two points. Point number one, the obscenity of an actual infinite history of past events for the universe. And number two, Big Bang cosmology. Now, the universe must be finite, because it is absurd to postulate that the universe has an actual infinite history of past events. Let's take the following example to illustrate this point. Now imagine I'm an American football player. And before I can pass the ball
to one of my teammates, I have to ask permission from my coach, but he has to ask permission also. And if this goes on forever, will I ever pass the ball to my teammates? No, I wouldn't. And this highlights the absurdity of infinite regress of causes. And this applies to events to therefore that cannot be an infinite history of past events to the universe. In light of this, the famous German mathematician, David Hilbert, he said, the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.
Also, the universe must be finite because modern cosmology concludes that the universe is not infinitely extendable into the past, it must have had a beginning. Now, according to modern cosmologists, the standard model of the Big Bang is with physical time and space were created, and matter and energy were created at the point which the cosmologists cool singularity. And clarifying this, john baslow, the author of Stephen Hawking's universe, he said, it was not just a matter that was created during the Big Bang, it was space and time were created. So that since that time is the beginning, space also has a beginning. Now, there are other models of the Big Bang, such as the
oscillating, and the vacuum fluctuation models. This is arisen as a result of an assumption of an eternal universe. But modern cosmology has told us that there are principles within these models that necessitate a beginning to the universe. And some of these principles include include the second law of thermodynamics matters, stability and equal to fine tuning something we could discuss if we get technical in the q&a. That's the big bang model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago, as Alexander vilenkin, one of the world's leading theoretical cosmology says, with the proof now it is now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility
of a past eternal universe, there is no escape people. He didn't say people I said, people, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. Now, in light of this, there are three possible explanations. Number one, the universe came out of nothing. Number two, the universe created itself. And number three, the universe has a cause. Now, we know the universe couldn't have come up with nothing because, frankly, out of nothing, nothing comes. It's an undeniable philosophical principle. This is why the philosopher BJ Swartz, in his publication about time explains, if there is anything we can find inconceivable Is that something could arise from nothing. We also know the universe
could have created itself, because that would imply a paradox. Just imagine your mother giving birth and so I know it's messy, but it's an impossibility. Also, philosophically.
imply that the universe existed, and it didn't exist at the same time, then the best explanation is that the universe has a cause. Now, this doesn't mean it's good. It doesn't mean it's a lot. And it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean anything. What it means is it's the cause, but upon conceptual analysis, which basically means, let's think hard about this quote, think critically using our rational faculties, we will come to some striking conclusions. Now this is cause created the universe which includes time and space, I would argue must be one, because if we follow outcomes, reason, which enjoins us not suppose it causes beyond necessity, and tells that this cause
must be one. Also it must be uncaused due to the absurdity of infinite regress of causes, as we discussed with American football example. Also, this cause must be immaterial, which follows the Quranic paradigm of LASIK, admittedly, he shaved, there is nothing like the Creator, he is transcendent, because since the school's crazy time of space, it must therefore transcend time and space, which really means transcend the material. Well, it must be powerful, because it created the whole universe, it must be intelligent as equated all the wars in the universe, any law giver or rule maker implies intelligence. Significantly, this cause must be able to have a relationship with
the material world, because it has a will now think about this. Since this causes uncaused and therefore eternal, and it brought into existence a finite effect, it must have chosen the universe to come into existence and enjoys indicates and when, and it will indicate it can have a relationship with conscious beings within the universe. Now what we've done just by reflecting upon reality, we've concluded with the Quran is the book of the Muslims completed 1400 years ago, as God says in 112 chapter, say, He is God, the one, the only God, the eternal, the absolute, he begets not known as he got him and there is nothing like unto him. Now before we get to my second argument,
that the Quran is a miraculous discourse, I really want to basically have a new conversation with you guys today. I want us to be in an emotional intellectual space where we can connect with each other. So I'm going to deal with some what I would argue outdated atheist cliches concerning this argument, so hopefully, we can move along positively. And contention number one is quantum physics undermines this argument, because there's a claim that particles come from nothing, and that subatomic events do not correspond with causality. So things can begin to exist without the cause, and things can come out of nothing. Well, firstly, the quantum vacuum is not nothing, it is
something it is a sea of fluctuating energy. It has the rich structure and obeys the laws of the universe, like philosophy of science, Don polkinghorne, he states, if not nothing, it's a structured and highly active entity. Also, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists, for instance, the David Bohm interpretation being one of them as polkinghorne states, bonds theory there are particles which are unproblematically, objective and deterministic in their behavior.
contention number two, if the actual infinite is not real, then how can God be actually infinite? Well, listen to the argument when we say the actual infinite is no real, we mean an actual infinite of discrete segments, the infinity of God is to be understood in terms of an undifferentiated, infinite entity, let me make this a bit more simple. The Infinity of God is qualitative, and not quantitative. It has nothing to do with an infinite set of definite and discrete finite particulars. contention number three, Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist and his new book, The grand design has shown apparently that the universe can so create, it can come from nothing. Well, he states his
book, because there is a war like gravity, the universe can and will play so from nothing. But first and foremost, if we read this book properly, he's nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means the quantum vacuum. And we've already discussed the quantum vacuum is something it's a rich structure is a sea of fluctuating energy. Also, concerning the law of gravity, well, that's just a mathematical equation that describes nature. And it basically is the force of attraction between material objects. Now, if you're assuming that to be placed before the universe, but the universe has to be placed, for God to be in place, so Hawk is in sending us that the universe existed in order for to
bring itself into existence.
But that's, again, like saying your mother gave birth to herself. It's a paradox. The final condition
The universe can't have a cause, because the universe is the beginning of time. And to claim such a thing would be tantamount to saying, What's north of the North Pole. Now, this firstly assumes that you need physical time for causality. This is not true, I would argue the claimant has to bring this take the Big Bang, for example, the initial singularity of the Big Bang is not considered to be part of physical time, but constitutes a boundary to time, however, because we want to just say, it's still causally connected to the universe. So what this shows is that even though physical time didn't exist at this point, there is a still a causal connection with the universe. So by analogy,
God's act of creation can be the same, in other words, is prior causality or not prime time. Now, let me go straight to the second argument, which is this not make sense of the miraculous nature of the planet? Now, first and foremost, let's define some things here. What do we mean by miraculous by miracle? Now, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miraculous, meaning something wonderful. Now, the old ironclad definition of miracles, the David Hume definition, if you like, was a violation of natural law. But I think this is incoherent, because what's the natural law and natural law is just an inductive generalization of patterns we perceive in the universe, that something
transcends the pattern of changes, doesn't mean it's a miracle, maybe we haven't been looking hard enough. And this is what philosopher bilinski observes. So as long as natural rules are conceived of as universal, inductive generalizations, the notion of violation of natural law is incoherent. So I would pose an Islamic philosophical point here, Islamic thinking states that a miracle is an act of impossibility. Once we have, once we have exhausted all of the possible naturalistic explanations, then it's a signpost to the transcendent, as opposed to the divine. And to substantiate this for the plan, I would use two arguments, the unique literary form the CRAN, and the way the crime describes
natural phenomena. Now, the Quran is a thinking book, it teaches us to think for instance, it says,
In Arabic Meaning, do they not use the internet? Do they not use their minds, but the crime goes further than this and challenges of mankind with regards to his authorship. And this challenge is with regards to its unique literary form. And this is a historical context because the Arabs at the time of revelation 1400 years ago, were the best at expressing themselves in the Arabic language, so Arabic linguists par excellence, but they fail to change the Quran. They couldn't imitate the unique literary form the Quranic discourse, as follows the fixture abouth law, who was a notable British Orientalism, translated states, and those several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to
it, as far as eloquent writing is concerned, none has yet succeeded. Now, the literary form describes what we know the Arabic language because the Arabic language can be divided into various literary forms, right prose, also known as straightforward speech, also known as muscle and poetry, which has to adhere to the 16 rhythmical patterns known as Bihar. Now we know the Quran is not writing prose, because write rules and sin definable features in the Quran transcend these features as divinity steward them the famous arabist in his essay writing prose, which can be found in this medium, and has shown that the structure features of Quranic Arabic differs from writing prose. We
know the crime is not straightforward speech, because it has estimates he has rhetoric he has eloquent and these are the features of straightforward speech. We know the cry is not poetry, because none of the totality of each of the chapters of the Quran adhere to the rhythmical patterns of poetry. This is why Mohammed Khalifa in his publication, the wolf worship of the Quran concludes, read is familiar with Arabic poetry, realize that has one thing distinguished by exact measures of syllabic sounds and rhymes. All of this is categorically different from the Quranic literary style. And it's no wonder the scholar arabist aj Arbor he states for the CRAN is in the pros, no poetry,
but a unique fusion of both. Now how does this make it a miracle? Well, the reason the Quran is a miracle here is when we go to the nature of the event, which is the
the nature of the event, which is the Arabic language rather, and we exhaust all possibilities of the 20th finite letters, the finite grammatical rules and the finite words, we cannot create the literary form of the Quranic discourse.
This shows is an act of impossibility. It is no wonder Professor Bruce Lawrence. In his book The crime a biography says as tangible signs. Quranic verses are expressive of the inexhaustible truth. They signify meaning laid within meaning lights upon light miracle of the miracle. Now my second argument, to substantiate the Quran is a signpost to the divine is descriptions of natural phenomena. For example, the scholar Mr. Ali in his book The Quran on orientalist, he says the Quran is not contingent on a seventh century world view of natural phenomena. For instance, the as the time they believe that the mountains used to keep the style, the grind is a reflection none of this
seventh century mode view. And I'm going to use for instance,
a stage in the development of the human embryo as described in the Quran. Now the Quran mentions the word not for now, according to the classical dictionaries, like some Arab and academic dictionaries, like Lane's lexicon, this word can mean a single entity which is part of a bigger group of its kind, a single sperm from a collection of millions of spams. It can also refer to one female egg from a group of many other eggs in the ovaries, and it could also mean a drop of fluid. According to the prophetic traditions of the Prophet Mohammed upon him bpce explained as a combination of fluids from the male and from the female, and they're both responsible for genetic material. Now the Quran else
would describe the nuts for as a mingled entity from other entities. And think about this very carefully. All this multi layered meaning of one concise word is in line with more than embryology and physiology. For instance, embryologist, john Allen and Beverly Kramer in 2010. They state the human individual arises from the conjugation of two minute structures queen cells, one from the mother, and one from the Father. These are called gametes. Together these gametes form a single celled as I go from which the entire embryo, including its surrounding membranes grows. Now, how do we explain this, since the nature of immunological knowledge was based upon the works of Galen and
Aristotle, and getting a restore to that absurd views with regards to fertilization gate, for instance, said only the sperm has the faculties, meaning the sperm is responsible for the genetic material. We know this is false. Also, Aristotle had another absurd view, he said, the sperm mix of the mixture of blood, but the word for menstrual got an error, because, hey, it's not mudfur. So the cry actually goes against a seventh century worldview of knack of describing natural phenomenon. So where did you get this from?
When we exhaust naturalistic explanations, he couldn't get it from Aristotle. He couldn't get it from gaming, he couldn't get from Hippocrates. He couldn't get it from any of the medics at the time, when
it's an accusative case, to support that the CRAN is from the divine.
I would also like to add that this process also describes a physiological process. For instance, we know that these cell structures that form the zygote have to be contained in fluids. And when you we just discussed that the word nuts actually also means fluid or drop. Interestingly, sperm have to be contained in semen. And the ovum or the egg has to be contained in oviduct to secretions. And this is recent findings in physiology that the oviductal secretions support the process of fertilization. So again, we ask the question, how is the mind with modern science? This book should be a reflection of a seventh century worldview, but it's not and will give many more examples during the q&a, I
really want to entertain a positive discussion with you guys, inshallah, which means God willing. Now, just to add one more minute, I like to say that look, this is not just about intellectual gymnastics, this is about who we are as human beings, especially you Americans, right?
Always claim about freedom and the pursuit of happiness and liberty, very important concepts. But I want to raise something here. How do we achieve true freedom?
An American writer once wrote that being born is like being kidnapped and then sold to slavery. And it's so true, because what is the reaction of a biological and social circumstance? He didn't choose when you were born? he choose your parents even choose your siblings. II choose your DNA into the karmic circumstances you are brought up in. You're shackled to these. So how do you teach your freedom and is that experiture
The way to free yourself from this social biological conditioning is actually to worship God. And by doing that, you free yourself from the slavery of your own desires, and the slavery of the reaction to social biological processes. And hopefully we'll discuss this a little bit more in the q&a, and maybe transcends all the intellectual gymnastics that I've been practicing so far. Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you.
Like every other Muslim, I know you're very kind and very articulate person, and obviously also very educated
to knowing you, and thank you again for moderating. Thank you cash, a few building blocks, Chelsea, and, Jeff, thanks for all your work on this.
I used to believe in God, I was a minister of the gospel for 19 years, when I was a kid, raised in a Christian family, I thought how lucky was I? I was born in the right family, in the right religion in the right country, in the right time of history. I felt like I was in the frontlines for Jesus and it felt so real and I believed in it, I got goosebumps when I used to pray and I used to feel the presence of God in my mind and thinking of the wild goose bumps were evidence of the Holy Spirit when actually goose bumps are evidence of evolution. Did you know that? Why do we use frogs because our hairier ancestors used to fluff up their fruit when they were cold or when they had to scare off
the predator?
Muslims say
there is no God but Allah.
And I have to say that I agree with the first two thirds of that
atheism is the absence of belief in God, it is not a positive moral philosophy is not a part of the philosophy at all. It is simply the absence of a belief. There is a subset of atheists who do take it a step further and claim they do believe there's no God, the basic atheism is simply not believing in a god, since there's no evidence for a God.
It is rational, therefore, not to believe and
since there is evidence that religions are natural human creations, it's not rational to insist in the absence of evidence that any particular religion such as Islam, is a supernatural exception. During my rebuttal time, I will tell you exactly what's wrong with the arguments that Hamza gave, he's vomiting and he's exerting. He's wrong, his arguments are stress. But first, I want to make my own case here.
What day the week is today?
Thursday was Thursday mean?
The day of the week devoted to a god named Thor for there were people all over the world, millions of people, good people who were born into a religion of this skypod thunder god named Thor, and in their lives, which is God and they died worshiping that God, that God was apparently influential enough that we have a day of the week, at least in many countries, is named after that God, who caused the thunder, who caused the light blue cause all those things to happen for the or Zeus did or name your God. But now that we know more about the weather, now that we know more about electricity,
that was close, that was no longer necessary, that God is now just the name for a day of the week. Is there anybody in this room who worships the god over?
here in this room worship of God himself? Not anybody here. Millions of Mexicans
are no evil your worship, or believe in the goddess Diana?
Scott is a great No, nobody here millions of people believe in that God.
people in this room worship the God of Abraham, as described in the Bible and people in this room. Oh, there you go. We've got some. Well the only difference between you and B, then is that I just believe in one less God than you do. You are atheistic when it comes to other gods. You are skeptical when it comes to Thor, your you are probably a skeptic when it comes to the angel Moroni. In fact, there's historical evidence for the angel Moroni and Joseph Smith much more recently.
And I would like to ask Hamza, if you believe in the existence of the angel Moroni effect the Mormon Church has some miracles the Mormon religion has had explaining the existence of the Book of Mormon, its unique literary style, and where it came from. Of course, there are natural explanations for the origins of these writings. So
all of us in this room are skeptics all of us in this room are doubters. Hans is a skeptic and a doubter of the religious claims of others.
Islam is basic meaning his submission, you submit to the authority,
but how can I be rational? When rationality and reason require the free exercise of your mind, you can be a rational agent, as you are required to submit to some dogma to some doctor, some religion, it is not rational to start off by saying that we must submit submitting is wrong submitting is slavery. Yes, that's right, that we all come prepackaged with genetic predispositions. And much of our nature, at least 50% of it, I think, is predetermined and we're stuck with it. But we have a frontal lobe, we do have the ability to transcend some of our nature. And this frontal lobe and the rational process that we all have rises above those instincts rises above even the culture and the
history of the religious that we were raised in.
The reason I made this is pretty simple.
First of all, there's no evidence, if there were evidence, think about this, if it really were evidence it would be on the table, it wouldn't be something as flimsy as the existence of the Quran, as opposed to miracles in the way that Chronos worded it there really were evidence for God by now. Somebody should have won the Nobel Prize for pointing that out. Think about if there really were evidence, anyway, scientists, any skeptic any doubt, or anybody would bring it forward and say, here we go. We have positive evidence for a god. I'm also an atheist, because there's not even a coherent definition of a god. What is this God made up? How can it be spiritual being exist? Sometimes the
definitions that are given I've debated other Muslim scholars have
said, God, Allah is infinitely merciful. I think most Muslims believe that God is, in fact isn't that in the very beginning. God is all merciful, ever Merciful. He said that God is also infinitely just he is all just, well, that's impossible. If you have a god is defined as infinitely merciful and infinitely just if that's your definition, then does not exist because it cannot exist. What is mercy? Mercy is distributing punishment with a less degree of severity that is deserved. Mercy means that you let you let someone off with less punishment. What is justice, justice means that people get punished with what they deserve. That's what justice is. You don't send a kid to jail for
stealing cookies, right? You have a certain sentencing and punishment for a crime. So if Allah is infinitely merciful, think about this. If he's infinitely merciful, All Merciful, ever Merciful, then there's no need for help. I can't go to hell if a law is infinitely merciful, right? Because infinite mercy means no matter what the crime is even disobey, even disobeying Allah, even refusing to submit a law is one of those things that would be covered by infinite mercy. Therefore, it is a contradiction in Islam, to claim that a lie is infinitely and ever Merciful. And yet, they're still unhealed to please those of us who somehow escaped that mercy. It was incomplete, just that he can't
be merciful. So if that's your definition of a god, that God cannot exist logically, rationally, of course, different theologians of different religions have different definitions of a God and the thing with them even within Christianity, they have to take it with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, to mix it with the problem of evil to try to make this God palatable to it. But if God is defined in mutually contradictory ways that we we can say not only is there no evidence for such a God, be like arguing for the existence of a married bachelor, Kenny nary bachelor exist, no is some evidence. So I have yet to see a coherent definition of Allah, or Jehovah or a spiritual being
that makes any sense No, or even talking about.
And of course, there's no good arguments for God. This first argument that I gave I would, I would talk about that during rebuttal time, is not a good argument. It's a basically a god of the gaps argument, but it's even itself internally contradictory. There are other arguments that people have brought forth ontological design teleological arguing
As in all of them, as Bertrand Russell once said, they all boil down to bad grammar, the arguments for God just don't hold water, you look at them, you scratch beneath the surface and look at them and unpack the words. They fall apart logically, and there's no agreement. If Muslims can agree with each other, and they don't, I've even heard pastor say that there are different interpretations of the Quran and different scholars differ on this. But if the Quran of such a perfect book, why are there different interpretations? Why have they disagreements? Why are there factions within Christianity? why are all these different groups arguing over the same so called Holy Scripture I
used to preach the Bible was inspired.
When Paul wrote in the Bible,
God is not the author.
But can you think of a single book that's caused more confusion than the Bible?
There's no agreement among believers about many of these principles. Of course, in general, there is some agreement. But if I were a God, and I wrote a book that was so sloppy, and so open to misinterpretation, I'd be I'd be embarrassed to release it to the public.
course there's no good answer to the problem of evil, if God is if a lot of God is all merciful, and all caring and all good. All you have to do is walk into any Children's Hospital. And you know, there is no God, parents were desperately praying for this miracle. The answer believes that miracles can happen because they're impossible. And yet the children die at the same rate as anyone else. If prayer were really answered in faith, and a lot really made a difference, we would see it, we would measure it, it does not make any difference. A belief in the law makes no difference except in how much money you might give, or how much if you are weak enough in your moral principles, that
you need a religion to motivate you to be kind and to help the poor. While it may be, in that case, keep religion we'd rather have the good or the not. But millions and millions of good non believers in this world are terrible. They give the board they give to charity, they help people out without using religion as an excuse.
And of course, that's the final point. There's no need for God, millions of people live their lives, with purpose and meaning with joy with love, without having to bow down as, as Paul said, in the Bible, he was a slave of Christ. And of course, as the Quran says, We are off submission, we are all having to submit to the will and the authority of this person who created us. You sometimes heard it said that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I don't think that's true. I think the absence of evidence is it's not proof of absence. But the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. In fact, you can hold it in your hand. For example.
Suppose the world bomb scare, we all had to leave this building already came in and we're all standing outside waiting. The authorities went through the whole building, and then they finally announced, okay, it's clean, you can come back in, would you come back in?
Would you have proof that there's no bomb? Probably they would go through the building, implement a checklist or a chart or something. And they would look at all the trash cans and all the drawers and then whatever they do, they would do. They would certify the building is clean, right? We have proven of absence, no, but you would have evidence of absence that short you can hold in your hand would be evidence of absence. The same thing happens when when we look for a god. When if a God existed, the universe should be different in some way. Some would be some way that we would note it. But as we look through the universe, as we go through the trash cans in the drawers, and we look
everywhere, we we see the universe that looks as if there is no God, we actually do have evidence of absence.
In fact, the physicist in his book God, the failed hypothesis says, If God is the hypothesis that carefully find that it fails, he fails all tests.
One of the reasons there are many reasons why Islam is not rational. And one of them is that the Quran is based on hearsay.
We have hearsay testimony, which would not stand up in a court of law that many Rahman went into a cave and he got some words to recite, recite. The Quran needs to recite.
In fact, the I think the very first recitation if I correct me if I'm wrong,
historically, was that God created humans from a blood clot. That's the word that I had one of my translations other translations say other things. And by the way, different translations of the Quran contradict each other and I have two different versions of sometimes the same verses translated different ways in the English
Arabic is not that strange of a language. Arabic is a language like any other. all languages have problem with translations. But Arabic is not that special. It's a wonderful language. It's unique. But all languages are unique. When you translate from Spanish, when you translate from Greek, when you translate from Arabic, you're going to have some problems. But if there is an all knowing or caring God, who cares about this message getting to us, then why wouldn't we make it so that the translations would be understandable to all of us?
What we do know about the Quran is that it was written by human beings. And what we do know from history, is that human beings make mistakes. Whoever put that book together was a human being was an aboubaker, who gave the Canon the original canon for the, for the Quran, which the guy Why do we take his word? Why do we think this word is special? He's just a guy just like the people who wrote the New Testament. They had a religious agenda and everyone claimed the New Testament has these reproducible miracles to the Book of Mormon has these miracles and look at all those things. They're just people, they're just human beings. It's, I think, has a basement with me that someone like
Joseph Smith, although he claims to be inspired, he claimed to have found in a hole in the ground, he's gotten outlets. A human being who exaggerated he made mistakes, he was wrong, he misinterpreted the people who put the Quran together, we're human beings, human beings make mistakes. They made a mistake with the Quran. The Quran has verses that are contradictory within it. It can't be a perfect Bookman has verses that contradict each other. One example, there is a surah. And that says that hell is eternal, hell last forever. But I read another syrup, I can find it. If you want me to look it up for you. This is no hell doesn't last forever, it lasts as long as the earth lasts. So there's
a contradiction in a, a perfectly being was writing a perfect book, why not have good verses in there which contradict each other? And that's just one example. That if I were an Islamic scholar, I would say well, I can interpret and reinterpret, but then there's the problem. Why does it have to be interpreted and reinterpreted? Why can't it just be clear, the Quran is not clear, just like the Bible is not clear.
And I think one of the main reasons that the Quran is not a rational book, is instead of using reason and argument, to make this point, the Quran uses a threat of violence, hell as a threat of violence.
Steven prefiero was reading through the Quran says this is this is not amazing literature. This is not special literature. He said the Quran reads like a fire and brimstone sermon from start to finish up some examples.
We have prepared for unbelievers a shameful punishment. I'm the unbeliever Okay, this is talking about me. You Muslims who think this is a wonderful book is talking about me. I'm a non believer, those who disbelieve our revelations shall be cast into hell. And when their skin is burnt up and cinched, we shall give them a new coat that may go on tasting, the agony of punishment for God is almighty and all wise. So the believers will laugh at the infidels on that day regarding them from their cushioned seats. So you're going to sit on a cushion purple belt underneath the fig tree with these dewy eyed young women sitting next to you, you're going to be laughing at me for having the
temerity to think my own thoughts and disagree with your I'm an infidel, I'm a non believer. Your book is arguing from a threat of violence to me, and that's in the Quran is believe Horford believe or burn if you don't believe you're gonna suffer. Any system of thought that has to make his point with a threat of violence is morally bankrupt. And you want that book under your arm with any pride, you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be able to make your point, using Pure Reason and not not touting a book that has a threat that my skin is going to be burned off my arms
is going to be regrown. So that a lock and burn it again and again, while you're sitting up there laughing. Are you proud of that? You think that is rational? Do you think that is kind? You think that is good? If you do think so if your God does exist, and if you did create hell, then I would say to allow you created help you go to hell, you're not worthy of my respect. I will never submit to a beam who is so irrational that he has to make his points with a threat of violence. And I think you're better than that. I think you kind of demand that I think you have risen above the brutality of your own book. In spite of the primitiveness of the book, you believe that to be a good person
and I salute you for that. I applaud you for being a good person in spite of this alone.
So during my rebuttal time, I'm going to quit now I think there's one minute left. I will explain what is wrong with this first
Alright, thanks for the opening statements. We're gonna go straight to the rebuttals, a minute rebuttals
beginning with Dan.
Okay, there are three big problems with arguments about sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument. And even Christian theologians use it too. And Hamza already alluded to a couple of the problems of his defense against that we're not good. First of all, this argument begs the question,
because it makes an assumption, the universe began to exist. And so things that have a beginning, have a cause is basically, anything that has a beginning has a cause?
Why does that make the question?
Because the existence of a beginningless thing, or personality is the very thing you're arguing for in your arguments. Allah is a beginningless thing. But you are assuming your very initial premise, that the universe can be divided up into two different sets, a set of things that begin to exist and a set of things that don't begin to exist. And yet you offer only one possibility to fill the definition of things that don't begin to exist, which is thought which is Allah in Allah is the only thing where if a creative being internal, transitive, is the only thing that fits that bill, that you have effectively begs the question
by saying, everything that begins to exist translates to everything except God. So your first premise is saying everything except God needs a cause. Which begs the question, it's circular reasoning, you're bringing your conclusion into your premise, you can't do that. Logically, you can get out of that there are ways for you to avoid begging the question by either defining conceptually or potentially some kind of an item other than God, that does not begin to exist, in which case your your phrase would be meaningful would be coherent. If we all understood and we none of us have experienced that anything that doesn't begin to exist, how could we, and the universe we live in, we
can't point to anything that doesn't begin to exist in time because we live in a temporal universe. So right there from the start, you are kind of secretly packaging your conclusion into your premise by assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.
You've already pointed out that the argument is self refuting. Although you think you had a response to it, when you say that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality? Or who did you call saying the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, but he said, God, is some kind of a different kind of infinity. He's not a discrete infinity. But let me ask you this, the person who's going to make the football pass has to get permission from the coach who has to get permission from somebody, if there is a God, if a law exists, and allow somehow, either in or out of time, that's assuming that makes sense to talk about causality outside of time? I don't think it does. But let's just assume that it
does. Because how do you know what if, without temporal antecedents How do you know what came first, that's how we know how causality works is because of time, we don't, we don't look at a defect and then think the cause happened later. That's how we know what the very word causality means. But let's just assume that in some strange way, because of our limited minds, there is this being up there outside of time who can function in a causal way?
before Allah created the universe, in your interpretation, he must have had some thoughts, it was decided for some reason I either lonely or my justice or my holy or whatever his reason, he must have had some thoughts for before. Or if you don't like the temporal word antecedent, to the decision to create it, there must have been a thought in the mind of this PDP and the seat and let me use the word before even though that's a temporal word, because cause and effect we can talk about logic, one thing follows another, whether inside a timer out and so, before or antecedent to that thought, a lot must have had a preceding thought and before or antecedent to that thought,
Allah must have had a preceding thought, and according to you, these are these are thoughts in the mind of a being according to you, there cannot exist in infinite regression. You
To a timeless, not beginning. In reality, therefore, in the mind of a law, there must have been a first thumbs if an actual infinity cannot exist in reality, we're not talking about discrete this, we're not talking about numbers, we're not talking about where does the set of negative numbers begin? Even you are correct to point out that we can't find that within reality, if we can't find out what the reality then need to do we find that within the mind of a god, a God would be subject to the same limitations that you think the universe is subject to. If the universe cannot come from nothing, then neither can God come from nothing. If God exists, if a lot, just he is anything, he's
something right, he's not nothing. If nothing comes from nothing, then a lot comes can't come from nothing, a lot had to have a creator as well. And if you posit, therefore, the existence of a being or an entity that is eternal, did not be fault scientists for hypothesizing that the universe itself is eternal, could be eternal.
Another
when you talk about the clock,
thank you.
Thanks for THANKS TO DO NOT to some imaginary theme.
But another problem with this argument is that it's comparing apples and oranges. And I'm surprised to see this.
The word universe these days, refers to our particular universe that we're in now. cosmologists don't use the word universe anymore. In fact, I only need cosmologists think it was a singularity anymore. You're you're reading science posts from 20 years ago, I think, Hawkins has given up on the word singularity. No one thinks the Big Bang started with the singularity. Now, of course, most people think that we're at that minimum that Planck distance or whatever they called the Planck constant minimum, and extinguish books. He talks about the possibility of fibers where time flows. And look, that point was really a point where time is flowing in opposite directions. But in any
event, the confusion you're making here is you're confusing, logical spheres. When Bertrand Russell was debating cobblestone back in the 40s, asking about the word universe, broke for us so well, the word Universe Today he would use the word cosmos, because of the possibility of multiple universes. In fact, Hawking and even Paul Davies now are on board with the high likelihood of there being a multiverse In which case, our particular universe that did begin with the Big Bang is just one of many, it's not the cosmos. So the problem you're making is that the the mistake you're making is to confuse the universe with cosmos. So yes, our particular universe didn't have a beginning, in space
and time, space time, and like you say, can be like a point of the North Pole, what's north of the North Pole? Well, the North Pole is just a point like any other so it wasn't like a like that was the beginning of time where the clock started ticking. So you're comparing apples and oranges, even if our particular universe did have a beginning, it doesn't that beginning doesn't apply to the cosmos itself. We will be doing is you're trying to jump up a logical sphere. And what bursar also said to cobblestone, it'd be like saying, well, since every human being had a mother, therefore, the human race had a mother that doesn't follow when you jump up from apples to oranges. And that's a
logical mistake you're making by confusing and conflating logical spheres. So your arguments don't work. Your evidence doesn't work. And during a further rebuttal, let's talk a little more about the Quran.
Okay, thank you very much. I thought that was a very interesting emotional sermon towards the end. I was like crying, spitting straight, but I'm just about to cry on a big hug. You know,
you're so upset about your outdated cliches, about religion about the concept of hell. I mean, it's quite interesting that you said like typical atheists, not to be stereotypical causes that we fail to read about people, we fail to really want to connect with other human beings. When was the last time I read an extra Jesus of the Quran, for example, was the last time that we read words Islamic law in the eyes of the Muslim do we do that? Or do we go straight to the shelf and say, What does Robert Spencer
I have to say, the guy who hates Islam, what does it say about our intention? Do we have an emotional intellectual atmosphere where we are listening with the intent to understand? Or are we manufacturing a response? Some think about? Okay. Let's talk about Dan Barker's claim claims.
First and foremost, the gaps, the gaps, we don't say we don't know that we just squeezed in there, we actually reflect upon reality to the universe, we come to certain conclusions, we come to certain attributes. And then we see that there's a correlation between our view our reality has told us that's not good for the gap. So to go to the gaps to be, I don't know, therefore, God did it. So I think that's an outdated, as cliche as you think submission to God is not rational. Well, you said it's about grammar. Let's change the definition here. Well, you could submit yourself, submit your social conditioning, or submit to a higher rational being, what sounds more rational people to
submit is rational being if you know, they're actually been existing, you have evidence for that. So you can play with words and because people can preach, I mean, I think you're preaching us has carried with yourself in your atheist.
You know, we can't have our cake and eat it. I don't like Christianity, but I'm gonna stay preacher. Thank you. No worries, dude.
Anyway, so the point is about the gods names and attributes, we don't say we don't say all the infinite, what we say is God is the merciful. And Islamic theology says that we reconcile His names and attributes, the the, in the loving or the masterful means he's greater than human beings. And we will have all these names of attributes, we see them find his oneness, and we reconsolidate together, we don't say is infinite. There's infinitely that infinitely this no Islamic thought. He says, he's very merciful. They're just and we take these names and attributes, and we reconcile them together, for instance, also, he talks about difference of opinion, well, that's going to happen
when you have human agency Anyway, you have that with anything. And we consider a difference of opinion, the Islamic tradition as a mercy. Imagine everyone being the same. Everyone looking the same and acting the same? I mean, what's that? That's like, that's boring, right? Yeah. Boring people, Muslims, you know.
Also, you talked about the crisis based on his testimony. I mean, surely, I don't believe you said that.
Guy, I mean, when we look at the science of
textual integrity of the brand, we see that the sign the historical scientific principles applied to the text integrity of the supports any known Western type of history, for example, we have a philosophy of the mutton, which is the text itself, and the isnaad, which is a chain of narration. And each person in the chain of narration has a biography, was he trustworthy? Did they meet each other? So the sciences of textual authority in the Quran, are extremely, extremely sound, but significantly, what actually is the main part of the preservation of the Quran is based on oral tradition, and over tradition. And it's not just Chinese whispers, because based upon something in
Arabic, called Moodle, water reporting, which is recurrent testimony. Now recurrent testimony as ca coding. Testimony says, many things that we believe in is because of testimony, you probably believe China exists because of testimony. Many of us have never been to China before, but yet we believe China exists. Now most of the crime is based on recurrent reporting that has been reported by so many different people at different times and places, all going back to the Prophet Mohammed upon whom bpce to claim that's not the Quran, we used to claim a conspiracy, that they had a time machine and conspired together to say this is what the crowds meant to be. And also, you talked about the
contradiction he's finding for me, I've never heard of that before. That's how they came from left field. And also the threats of violence, for example. I mean, come on, this is so shallow. What we're seeing is the disbelief is someone who has been given evidence and out of his arrogance rejects it out of his arrogance, and Kufa, disbelief I mean, someone who has a veil of the heart they cover like, you know, the farmer who puts a seed in the soil, and he covers the seed of you covering the truth. This is what we mean, we don't believe someone like a red Indian who's ever heard about Islam. We don't say that person is going to help. They don't have this type of theology.
That's a straw man. He's doing logical fallacy he put a straw man of Islam, I suggest you need to start reading around the intricacies of Islamic theology. Also, you have to understand the kinds of thinking book for example, the things I talked about are based in the Quran, as the Quran says.
You know, use your minds
factor of the unforeseen? Do you reflect to them themselves? Was the own physical mephala to zero? And in themselves? Do they? No, see, I either base your life on your forefathers, even if it's based on knowledge. These are rational principles. It's an existential text that makes you think about the meaning of existence and who you are. It's been quite unfair, that, you know, come on, man. And also, you talked about
singularity, you know, Singularity is not old, vilenkin 2008 cosmologists in 2006 even recently, because what is your understanding? The concept of singularity is not old stuff. I mean, you could talk about Stephen Hawking all your life. But it doesn't mean he's white, just because Stephen Hawking, I mean, that's an argument of authority, right? You're standing on the shoulders of giants? And also you talk to also about that, why isn't Iran a Muslim? What? Why isn't the evidence on the table, that's, again, a logical fallacy, you're standing on the shoulders of giants, because Bua don't do it. It's like a fallacy of social reasoning. Like, just because the majority of people
don't believe in it, therefore, I shouldn't believe in it. I mean, it's like critical thinking. I mean, that's like Nazi Germany. To me. Everyone wants to kill a Jew. Maybe I should do
that. Is that right?
Sure. You know, and also, you spoke about apples and oranges. Again, you have a grammar problem? No, I see the universe as an object, because it has a spatial temporal boundary. I'm not saying it's a category of things. So I don't think your argument here works. And also you think that we have a special pleading to God with this argument. But since the eight is always maintained the same about the universe to begin with. And of course, then you did the same thing. I mean, interestingly, Professor Anthony foo said that we need to make a choice in the universe that is uncaused, or the cause of the universe is on cause I think in light of tonight's evidence, we know that the universe
is caused and the force of the universe is uncaused. Also, you talked about whether you cause God but the thing is, God never came into being rather we know we have evidence the universe came into being. And finally, he spoke about good schools. But we say that that's a fallacy is a straw man argument is, we say that his intentions, if you want to put them even to that kind of words are eternal. And there's a difference if there's like a discrete finite kind of
process going on that you could claim the actual infinity doesn't make sense, because the code itself which I discussed in the innisfallen presentation, but more of that in the next part of the rebuttal. Thank you.
One more round of rebuttals. And then the closing statements disrupted rebuttals are five minutes each.
So did Allah
create the universe and say, Oh, look, I created the universe. Now I better decide to create the universe. Did it happen that way, doesn't deciding come before antecedent to action, in the mind of a deity in the mind of a law, a decision precedes an action, therefore in the mind of a law, they're there. According to you, there's an infinite series of preceding decisions. I do read the Quran for myself. I didn't consult a lot of these authorities. So in fact, we do consult authorities, they disagree with each other a lot. And you all know that within Islam, there's arguments there's disagreements, and that's wonderful. But that strikes against the uniformity of the teaching of this
book, I read the Quran for myself, I read two different English translations myself, with my own mind, with my open mind and an open heart and I rejected on rational grounds. It is irrational, is insulting. We can do better. read Shakespeare, Shakespeare can't be reproduced by anybody read read Moby Dick, read some other wonderful works of literature. The Quran is amazing. But it's so repetitive. How many of you read it? It's so repetitive over and over. And Helen Helen believers and this is obviously it's not poetry, because who would ever have said that to music? But
let me let me read to you here. Here's four sort of number 493 81. kills a believer intentionally will be cast into hell, to live there forever, and suffer God's anger and damnation forever. Hell's forever, but surah 11 and I didn't get this from a book. I just got this from beating myself. And those who are doomed will be in hell. For them will be signing and sobbing where they will dwell so long as heaven and earth endure. So punishment in one surah says
They suffer and they help forever. The verse in another surah was you're asking me to read with an open line contradicts this surah when I was a Christian apologist, I would have been real good at finding some rationalization. But the plain words of the text here, show me that this book is contradictory. So please don't accuse me of special pleading or looking at somebody else's. This is from my own reading.
The Quran is not surpass science. Why Muhammad tell us? Or why didn't a lot of Muhammad something about why did we say, by the way, folks, wash your hands before you eat? Why didn't you tell us about the germ theory of disease or something? Why did you come up with this basic kind of rough idea and even in the Bible, you can find suppose it answers the prophecy that if you interpret them a certain way, more or less comport with what we think we know about cosmology or about science today, but there's so much more useful that the Quran could have said to us that a lot could have said to us, which would have been much more important than bow down and submit and make sure you're
pointing in the right direction, because the direction is important, by the way that makes Islam a kind of flat earth idea. Why is it important to point to Mecca. By the way, Mecca is not that way, Mecca is actually kind of this way, and you have people in Europe, that what is called they seem to be pointing out into outer space. And when you think about the flat earth mentality, and I know you think a lot in the Quran, and a lot of Islam is metaphorical. But then why can't we also think therefore, that God himself has metaphorical? Is this metaphor with hell and heaven in language use it? Why can't we think that Allah Himself is also a metaphor that Muhammad came up with?
You say that the authority of the Quran is based on testimony that has the link, we don't know that you take somebody's word for that. Nobody was there in the cave with Muhammad, he came out and told us what he said nobody was there to hear it except mom. So we're taking Mohamed to work just like you would take Joseph Smith's word that he saw the angel Moroni, whom I'm sure you doubt exists, I doubt that Muhammad actually heard a voice unless he was schizophrenic in some way, which happens with a lot of religious leaders. I doubt that that actually happened.
Yes, conspiracies happen. All religions are a conspiracy in some way or another, that people are conspiring to put their best face on the origin. The Quran is not that special. And by the way, you're wrong to say that the universe is an object, if you're talking about our particular
you know, event horizon of the universe we live in right now. This universe, yes, it had a beginning. It has a, an unbounded infinity to it. But the word universe as you're using it means cosmos. cosmos is the collection of set of all things. That cosmos is all things that exist, therefore, the cosmos cannot be a thing. The cosmos is a set of things. So you're comparing apples and oranges. Your logic is irrational.
Okay, that's pretty good. Let's go to the Shakespeare question. Shakespeare's inimitable Oh, Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo denied a father's name? We can make you more Islamic. Oh, Abdullah, Abdullah denied it I mother, and I try.
But the point is, see, see, I want to connect with you. I know you don't know what I'm talking about. Because you have no idea of Arabic language. You have no idea what the intricacies of eloquence in the sciences of Arabic. So introducing Hamza? I don't know, man. This discusses like two gentlemen who don't want to be taught about it. I want to know what you mean. Maybe might be a bad argument from the Shakespeare one is so shallow, because Shakespeare or chef
Shakespeare, for example, His he articulated some of his plays in I am big pentameter. History is interested in your head. And it pentameter has been replicated by many people. As a matter of fact, his contemporary Christopher Marlowe has been accused of some of his work. So the Shakespeare argument is not an argument. Also the contradiction. I didn't really get the verses. We do that in the q&a. Please, most of the funny things are washing your hands while
your hands before every prayer dude. And
he said before eating
his way?
Yes, he washed his hands.
And also testimony See, the problem is, do I know that the prophet SAW the angel? The reason I know there will be some testimony there is I know that is because he claimed it. And I know he was truthful because of historical evidence. I know the crime that he brought forth, is a signpost of the transcendent. Also, if you want testimony there African tribes today have never read an Arabic Quran but they learn it from memory.
One tradition all the way 1400 centuries back to the Prophet himself to claim to claim that the client is not intact will be to claim a conspiracy, which you're doing also.
And I disagree i think it is good to destroy them argument apples and oranges not true I'm considering the universal spatial temporal boundary as an object, I mean, you could argue about this till the cows come home. And also you talked about Flat Earth, right? Well, this is not true because even the Quran itself mentions explicitly about basically the night and the day and use the word will basically if you go to Arabic language is like putting a terminal around head. So indicates the opposite of a flat earth type of perspective. What else did you say?
Did you say much and you will be angry?
I just therapy.
I mean, I studied psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy is cheap. And it was Thank you.
All right, seven minutes of closing statements.
Okay, there was a lot we could not go into in much depth, but how that is completely missing this logical spirit and completely missing the point. cosmologists today admit that this universe that we live in, and that is ago, nobody would even use the phrase this universe, the virgin Russell's day, the word universe meant all of existence, everything. Today, the word universe doesn't mean all of existence, everything today, the word we use is the word cosmos, for all of existence and everything. The word Universe Today is a much smaller word that we talked about multiple universes, this universe, this particular event horizon, has this particular Big Bang within it. So you are
absolutely right, that this universe had a beginning. You're absolutely right, that we can go back to a point at the Big Bang, yes, this universe, but that's not the cosmos, you are taking observations from within this universe, and then jumping out of that logical spirit to the bigger sphere of the cosmos, which, as I pointed out earlier, many are very happy about the possibility of a multiverse or even without a multiverse.
explanation for the origin of this particular universe. That's why you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't take Suppose I were to say, us a bad a bad argument that every nation began with a war.
The Alliance of all nations began 20 years ago. Therefore, there was a war 20 years ago. Does that is that logical? No. Why? Because I'm confusing.
A set with the items within this set. Suppose I said,
every musician in an orchestra plays in harmony with itself. Therefore, it follows that every orchestra is playing in harmony with every other orchestra that doesn't follow, you jump up a logical sphere, and you're confused that you're taking a finding from one level and trying to apply it to a higher level. That's the mistake you're making logically and I'm surprised you don't see that. You read books, you study these things.
It's comparing and even Bertrand Russell in the 40s pointed that out about the human race not having a mother. Okay, so we are all human beings. Right? We're all biological animals, any of us can breed with each other. We all come back. We all come from a common ancestor, somewhere back there. We have common needs and wants. I'm not ashamed of being a preacher. I think being a preacher is fine, and actually is kind of good therapy. Yes. I'm not ashamed of being angry. Sometimes. It's not against a God who doesn't exist, but against followers of yours, who insists on threatening people like me with the physical torment was used. What's your book does? There's no doubt about it. Anybody
reading the Quran, in any language, can see that there is a threat of physical violence in that book. How are you going to talk your way out of that it's there is playing and I think all of you listening
For the moon rover dream that he made a Muslim in Colorado last year. And when I mentioned that you're going to be sitting on the couch under the fig tree with the young virgins looking down at me and laughing while the skin's burning up a thumbs up and you smile? Yes, yes, he was happy about that. And by the way, there are Islamic scholars who do say, and I can give you tapes of it, that Allah is infinitely merciful. They use that phrase.
One that I debated in Queens, said, Allah is infinitely merciful, he is ever Merciful, he is All Merciful, and he is infinitely just so there's, maybe you don't use those phrases, but some do. And my point was that if you define God that way, then you can show that that God is a married bachelor and does not exist, you might have a different definition. But I've never heard a coherent definition of what this God is, and God is made out of the Spirit. How do you how do you distinguish the spirit from nothing? Like like the philosopher, the laws of accounts at the invisible and the non existent? look very much alike? How do you know what a spirit is, as we know things exist by how
much space they take them, things that exist can be measured, if they can't be measured, they don't exist, if they can be limited in some way, you know, along dimensions, or how much time they take up or weighed or measured, then they don't exist. And since I've never seen a definition of this alar, God that in any way can be defined coherently or logically or measured in any way. We cannot say that that being does exist, it exists only as a concept in your mind. And in the mind of Muhammad, in the minds of people all over the world. They have this idea of this being that exists. But we're all human beings with basic, General human nature, we all have the same needs and wants. What
difference does it mean? Why is it Why do you think it's more rational for you, to use this religious belief of yours to live a life of meaning and purpose, when millions of good people don't believe in your God, and yet live lives that are just as good, if not better than yours? What's the point? The point is submission to avoid eternal punishment that that is despicable. If the point is to live a good life, and I applaud In fact, I think in the Quran, from my reading, there's more emphasis on good works and helping the poor within Islam and there is within the Christian New Testament. And I think that's one of the positives about Islam that we can we can say, most Muslims
really are concerned about helping directly helping the poor. But think about this picture this equation, right? And this evening solving religion plus good works, equals the worse now solve for religion.
What's the point? Why Why spend all your time bowing down in prayer why spend all your time doing these rituals? If you separate the good from all religions, Islam has a lot of good in it. So this Christianity so if Judaism all religions have good in it, the good is not a religious ideas and humanistic idea. The good is peace, avoiding harm minimizing harm, increasing well being or whatever you want to call it. The good is the human needs and wants that we all share together. The things that are distinguished or religion from the common transcended with an all of us human beings have those things are not good things, what day of the week, you should worship, what kind of clothes
women should wear, what kind of presentations used to make, those are a waste of time is more rational to spend your time and your energy doing actual good rather than investing in a divisive, irrational religion.
Sorry.
Okay, good. Thank you very much for your patience for this is a friend.
Okay, first and foremost, see what's interesting in the last 10 years in the sociological sociology of religion, there's been academic studies on digital studies as well, they have shown that religion actually has a positive correlation to wellbeing, in contrast to the atheist worldview. I mean, if you were to reduce it
Maybe dunk bonkers disposition today in mind, you may
be angry today.
So, according to social religion, he has shown that religious people have better mental health, better physical health, lower criminality, higher levels of happiness and high levels of altruism, economic activities, academic results. So just I'm just feeling this right example number one in 2000 Schlicht in the Journal of the scientific study of religion and examine the data 73,000 adults in the general population, and he found religion involvement had no significant relation to depression. And he found that religiousness was a buffer against mental distress. Also in the Handbook of religion, health, and fire kindig, and others, those of you 2000 published experiments,
and they found that young people have significantly lower level of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal delinquency and attempted suicide, happiness. The Gallup civil religion in America concluded that people who agree with God agree that God is very important allies are twice as likely to put being very happy in contrast to atheists. So good measure.
So be happy people. Also political scientists, Robert Putnam, he surveyed 200 volunteer organizations and it showed there was a positive correlation between religiosity and membership of volunteer organizations, take the index of Global Philanthropy 2017 states, which you don't state, religious people are more charitable than not the non religious normally give us the wrong conditions, but also regardless of income and other demographic variables. So, you know, I think he's another outdated cliche from an atheist, again, with the apples and oranges. Again, I'm saying to you,
the I'm treating the universe as an object has a spatial temporal boundary, like we've discussed, we could argue this again to the cows come home, then you mentioned maybe select a multiverse, look for something in the multiverse to me. Does that make sense? But seven reasons. Number one, the multiverse remains a hypothesis and is very highly speculative. Okay, it's a highly specific mathematical exercise to, I would say, image show and his perspective three, we have difficulties. Three, if we can solve outcomes, Visa, multiverse, bloated universe, single God, floating universe single God, what's the most comprehensive explanation here? Also, spontaneous quantum fluctuations
create more questions than answers? How can of spontaneous quantum fluctuation create a universe? That's the question that you have to understand it lacks rational force. Also, the universe, the multiverse itself is described by specific physical laws. These laws themselves include constants and boundary conditions, which have to be fighting in the first place. So I think the Find the multiverse argument is an argument is basically an atheist wants to push God out of the question all the time. Also, I want to finally end with one argument in address, which was the problem of evil. The big atheist argument he just spent 20 minutes from now is a strong argument. And basically the
problem he was saying that God is all good, and he's all powerful, but there's a lot of evil, gratuitous evil, therefore he can't exist. I think there are some assumptions. So first and foremost, it assumes the good is just good, and just omnipotent. And just all powerful. But in loving theology, we have 99 names and attributes of God that we can reconcile in reality, what are these include is the wise. So there's wisdom behind these things, you may say, but I can't see the wisdom in the baby having cancer. That's fair enough. And we feel for this as well. But the issue is, it doesn't mean there was an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy argumentum ad
integration. Also, it assumes that God doesn't have any morally justified reasons to commit evil in the first place. And I think he does. First and foremost is our primary purpose is not to have a party is not to Boogie. Okay. So our primary purpose, I probably purpose is to basically know and worship God, that's the reality of who we are. Also good creatures for tests. And part of this test is to be tested and suffering and evil. The Quran says, the one who created death and life. So let me put you to test to find which one is best in needs. He's the Almighty, the old forgiving, also, God has given us free will. And this makes sense of personal human evil, because he has free will.
That is like good makes me feel good all the time. If you made a universe that all human beings are always doing good. Therefore, there is no morality anymore because like someone forcing you to to go to the time, which doesn't make sense of you being a moral agent in the first place. But I think the undercutting defeater to the problem of evil is actually, what do you mean by evil? Do you mean its objective is real? If that's the case, then it necessitates because existence is good, is the only metaphysical grounding that makes objective values objective, because God is the conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.
So
To claim that there is objective evil in a society whose existence that you say, well, it's not objective which I don't want to destroy
stuff. You don't believe in Objective anything. If that's the case, your argument is probabilistic Is that me? Which is not a very strong argument in the first place. And also,
I would like if you can, for us to really start to engage with the transmission the audience, especially the unique from the crowd because you didn't bring any undercutting defeaters to the unique literary forms of eating understandable sounds. You didn't bring any undercutting defeaters with regards to how the Klan talks about reality in a way that's not contingent on civil surgery via the example I gave you didn't address. You didn't even give any undercutting defeatist to the existence of God. You just have an issue about terminology which is not undercutting defeater, so really from a philosophical perspective, it didn't break down arguments. And the funny thing is, he
never constructed any arguments for your particular worldview. Now on the point of the posing threats with a class and very clear, let's be realistic when it says, Don't blame God, what happens to you metaphysically blame yourself is the cause and effect from a spiritual perspective. God is not threatening you with this actual fact the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. She was so worried about human beings, he was a true humanist, because he didn't want people to suffer in this life, or the hereafter. He didn't want people to go to help. This is why you wanted to spread a sum as much as possible to engage with human beings and just give them simply the message. And you have to read
the Quran is an intellectual and emotional text that intrudes in the inner dimensions of mind. And the wait does that is by asking questions, as I said before, when can
and must be explained in detail for those who reflect
when asked the question about
the underlying view of
rationalism or rational, which is some kind of commitment to edits?
And
so
you're concerned with with reasons for believing that
the grant is inexplicable, naturalistically. So there must be a non naturalistic explanation. Can you see the lack of agreement? Or the absence of a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe as both? Do you reasonably
need space for God? A little more in this god of the gaps that Dan brought up for what how you would react in the next five years
of astronomers and cosmologists reached consensus on a naturalistic explanation portion of the universe, they thought they had a good case for just natural causes explained.
Do you
want to which goes that the committee to reason or naturalistic explanations go or does your faith go?
This is a very good question. Because in choosing the dimension of my own personal environment,
in which we are asking each other I've seen
30 there's no differentiation between faith and reason, Eman which means actually comes from the word secure, and to secure the belief of a certainty. So in our belief, we believe our belief must be based on a form of settings. Now, that doesn't mean now you define rationalism as scientism there's a difference here. You don't believe in a very kind of logical positivist mind 60s out a view on everything must be verified. We don't have that. We take fascism to me something else. And the reason we reject scientism, not science itself, but just scientism is the only way to form conclusions about life is because, firstly, self refuting, because the statement itself. scientism
is the only way to go about life can't be proven using science. Yeah, also science concrete logical truths necessary to say mathematics, one plus one is equal to two. And you need logical, necessary truth in order to have scientism of science in the first place to argue around and be like a doctor.
So we don't we say it's useful, and it's necessary and is reality, but we have other aspects of methodology we use to focus of our life. Now coming to your main question.
There is no differentiation between what we say the occur and the number which basically means the interval
And the test itself like even one of the things customer scholars actually elaborate on is that if you do think carefully, and you look at reality, there's always a correspondence to the test. Anyway, that's our premise. That's an axiom, just like science, the axiom is the external world exists. And you can't even prove external exists because I know john Bach, his brain is not on Mars. And there's an alien with probes in it saying, You're in this room, and you must be angry today. Yeah, I you know, he's saying that I mean, you know, he's, you know, you don't you can't prove that it's an axiom, it's, it's a premium supposition, you need to build your worldview. So axiom is
there's no differentiation between the text and reason and text and reality in the first place. So the question is, so we'll go, it's like saying, both of them would go, do you see, so but I do take your point, I will say that
we have to cross the bridge when we get because of my accent, because there is no differentiation between some reason and the text itself. So if that is my accent, then when I see evidence, I have to approach it as it is when we get the best of Australia.
Thank you.
Well as similar similarly spirited question of dance, so you also are concerned with the responses to natural evidence, and the absence of anything whether it is remain
present, rejecting belief in God is rational. But beyond that, you said that if you were face to face with God, you would reject him on the grounds of the existence of hell and
the evil of the universe, right? You get mad.
And so you reject submission to God.
This is a different understanding of rational evidence responses, for moral reasons that you would project submission. And so I guess, I guess I wonder why you don't worry that
that the revulsion yield as
hell exists, why you don't worry that that makes you are
insensitive to the sorts of naturalistic explanations that Hamza wants to offer?
Yeah, I don't think
having moral reservation, to go back to the Quran is the same thing as being angry. It didn't exist, I might choose to be angry.
I think what's happening here is that what I say about the Quran
makes you angry. So you projected anger back on me? If you think that I'm angry, therefore, because you think what I'm saying makes you angry. So psychologically, I can be angry, something that doesn't exist? And to answer your question,
science is observation. basic sciences observation.
Science builds from the bottom up science contest hypotheses from the top down with the hypothesis falls if the observation doesn't fit. So if I did come face to face with a deity, and there was evidence and proof of it, I could shake his hand or whatever, then my acceptance of the existence of that beam could be very positive. It doesn't follow that I would necessarily respect and admire that being, I might say, okay, a lot exists. But he's beneath my dignity of worship, I would never bow down, I would never submit to them. I would rather spend an eternity in hell with the skin being burned off my arms and navy drone, that pretend to worship such a monster that would create a thing
like hell. And when I say something like that, a lot of you get angry, you think, oh, Dan's angry, right? But wouldn't you be angry? Would you be angry at somebody who used to read some violence to make their point? And listen earlier, any system of thought that contains a threat of physical violence is morally bankrupt? If you want to call that anger, fine, I just call that a moral outrage at the kind of thinking that has for a book that contains thoughts like that, so I think it was Richard Fineman who said
it was
the first principle in science is that you should not fool yourself and you're the easiest person to fool. If you come to a religion that you're born into, or that you adopt, you are fooling yourself. You're deluding yourself. Science is a way to externalize and get outside of that and say I'm going to follow science wherever it leads. Notice
Then Hamza did not actually answer the question. He said, we'll have to cross that bridge when it comes to it. But the question is very simple. Since we do know about thunder, lightning, four does not exist, Thor is gone, we have the day of the week, Thor does not exist. And if you're basing your evidence for Allah on a gap of lack of understanding about the origin of the Big Bang, which is the argument you presented today was your leading argument of why it's consistent with the law. His question is, what if that gap doesn't close? What if it turns out that there is evidence for the multiverse? And by the way, the multiverse is admittedly a hypothesis. But so it's not they're both
hypotheses. By the way, the multiverse is a simpler hypotheses, and then a creative being who has this complex mind that that takes more. That's if we're going to follow outcomes razor a multiverse is a similar idea than this idea of this being that exists without an explanation of its own. So you did not ask the question. And I think I didn't answer your question. I would believe Yes. If there were evidence, I would believe and I would say I was wrong, I would admit it. But it doesn't follow that I would admire or respect any of those dogs in the revealed religions.
Why would I depend on humans to spread the message?
Thank you for the question. Good question. Why would Allah depend on humans to spread this message? for them? Two things here. First and foremost, we believe that is we don't guide people, we don't bring people to the truth. I mean, we believe that, you know, between the fingers of allies, the hearts of man, and the word count, which is hard, we signed a waivers and in our hearts always weighed in, and we believe us in the control of God. So what we're saying is we don't really guide anyone, human beings, what we do as Muslims, we believe that it's a duty obligation of human human beings to present the truth. I mean, it's a natural thing that people do. If you really like your
soccer team, USA to everybody. He must support the soccer team. David Beckham is such a good guy. He's handsome. He's got a British accent.
Okay, sounds sometimes a compliment, but that's a different story. Yeah. But the point is, he used to play for Manchester United, you know. So you support a team. You know, the truth of that team. Similarly with people's worldviews that this is something more important because you purpose and meaning in life. So you're going to promote it to say, this is why we have groups like cash. I mean, why did it come together, discussing different ideas, maybe the particular vote, so it's a natural thing. So God is telling us, you will be rewarded spiritually, as resolved pulling people to this beautiful religion, and we believe, if you hope it is the values of Islam, you will solve things
like poverty, like the number one economic problem in this planet, is the problem of distribution of wealth. Capitalism is a sick disease, and in my humble opinion, must be eradicated intellectually, of course, and as best as possible, because, according to UNDP report, for example, there are 250 billion people or more wealth and 2 billion people on this planet, but we have enough resources. It's an outdated geopolitical myth, that there's not enough resources. According to the food and culture organization, there's enough calories on this planet to feed about three planets. What really
happens is don't force you know, the professor from Maryland University, Professor Koren actually says that the aspect of greed supports the capitalist model.
So the point is, when we compute religion, or is it saving you from this damnation, but also, it's actually solving human problems like poverty. This is why the Jews when Islamic
values like economics was implemented in history, the Jews came to our lands, for example, Rabbi, and you can find this letter in the book of Constantinople by Philip Mansell, and a rabbi writes from 1453. And he says, All my reference, all my Jewish brothers come to the land of the text, the land of the Muslims reach of the fruits of the oppressive heavy taxes, we have freedom, and we live in peace, as because some of the values of Islamic economic justice, the distribution of wealth was apparent,
as well. It's not just about this kind of metaphysical thing. We're going to save you from Hellfire to feel close to God on purpose, which is also very important, but it's also about dealing with human problems, and we believe we should be having discussions. So this one has to say about economics, you know, these kind of amazing things that we believe that we have the solution, which is solving the issue of distribution of wealth, if you look into this a caste system, the the arms giving and the Super captree giving of charity and the aspect of women interest and the resources of of a particular life belongs to the people, not just to the elite.
Do you see this principle, which is an amazing economic model? So we want to call people to these values to so to answer the question, which maybe the question is that God is asking us to hold people to peace, and that's the reality piece in this life, and peace in the hereafter. And this one, God uses human agents to do that. And that's the singer, which means the way the method of getting old always send messages to communicate and what better thing sit down another human being, and just communicate with each other. Imagine send an angel something can relate to an angel. Angel, surely, we relate to human beings, that's probably the most rational, logical thing to do.
Okay, next time for Dan. What is it? What is it? What is it that keeps your common man from committing crimes, it is not fear.
There are some people that do need the fear of punishment.
On the bell curve of human characteristics, there are some people over here on the tail end of the sociopaths and psychopaths who are not mentally healthy for either genetic or environmental reasons, we don't understand why at 4% of our species are sociopathic. We need to build jails and have systems of justice for those people. But the general body most of you in this room, I think
it's not the fear of punishment that's making the good are you trying to tell me that the word for God or for the law, you're going to go out and start raping and killing? Is that what you naturally are? We come prepackaged with instincts that are positive and negative from our ancestors, we come prepackaged with instincts toward altruism, empathy, we share that with other primates and other animals who also cooperate and share because it's good for the species. We're a social species, we evolved from ancestors and found that beneficial to cooperate and share and have these altruistic empathetic impulses. Why do you hold the door open for the person next to you? Why do you without
thinking reach to grab a baby? That's fine that happened to me once these are these are natural instincts were naturally good people on those, get where you fall in that bell curve. So we don't need laws for that we only need laws for the extremes. If you read the headlines, it makes it look like whoa, the human race is really violent, but actually Steven Pinker's new book, the better angels of our nature shows, we're actually less violent now than ever, leave human beings alone. We are a peaceful, loving, caring, sharing bunch of people. Those are headlines, because they're headlines. When you see a horrible headline of some horrible thing that somebody did a Christian or
a Muslim fundamentalist or Orthodox Jew or whoever, or an atheistic Stalin. You see them doing some horrible things. You say? What's the first thing you say? What an inhuman thing to do. We assume that the human thing to do is good, coming and sharing compassionate and altruistic, which comes with us through our evolutionary heritage. So
I can tell you right now, I'm not holding the door open for the person behind me because I'm afraid I'm going to be punished if I don't, or because I want reciprocal altruism from that person. If I don't do that, by the way, there are other studies that contradict your studies you show about charity and the religious, George Barna, for example, he's a born again, Christian is Sunday morning and Christians and he says there's no difference. In fact, atheists and agnostics are underrepresented in prisons. And besides, it's irrelevant. Some people do need religion to be good to be charitable, that kind of that kind of diminishes their, their moral impulse for being good
because they're afraid of committing going to hell or because they want to get rewarded in heaven forever. But
the average believer is kind of like saying, Oh, look at how the behavior of children improves dramatically during the middle months, during the middle of the month of December.
The promise of
look at how things improved, but if you need that, well then by all means, Let's believe in Santa Claus because Santa Claus, believe in Santa Claus improves the behavior of children. Does that mean Santa Claus is real? That's a totally different question. If belief in God doesn't prove people's morality, that doesn't mean that God is real, it just means they're
externally motivated to do good rather than internally motivated.
is another four columns a more natural explanation. So the question is the God does God influence people's lives?
In some kind of inherently measurable way, and he said the well being research that shows that people who participate in beliefs institutions, the question is, is there any religious participation? Right, because there's some reason to think that a lot
detectable, any detectable influence in the world?
And that's a very good question, which relates to the comment that Dan Barker was actually talking about boosting this evidence of Oregon Christians, or there's no correlation between differences of religious or atheist groups. But then again, I'll talk about when we can do studies that don't just include one again, Christian, but all religions, so you can't use you know, 1000s of academic studies and bring something that's very small, based on specifically within the Christian community that that hasn't fallen. And what I'm saying here is not that you need the motivation of fear of how to do good, always saying is the concept of God and loving him and want to come close to him?
Actually, that is an added motivation, because it takes already good people and makes them better. That's the point I'm trying to make. Now you got to know should does the belief in the law does it change human life? That's that's the point here. Well, he should essentially, you know, the belief in God or the belief and having an ultimate purpose and out of the ultimate vision, ultimate
meaning in life should change your life because you know, existential anxiety, because if you really think about the logical conclusion of an atheist worldview, then we have a self delusion, Crusade, I have purpose. I would be a preacher iotv dan Barker, I would be an engineer. I want to be a doctor. But it's self delusion, because it's basically saying, Let's pretend to have purpose, because the underlying reality of our life is almost purposeless. And this is why the French existentialist like john Paul Sartre and many others, we talked about the nausea of existence, our pajamas, the half French half the German philosopher said, existence is nauseating, because it's purposeless. Why is
he so often Schopenhauer? What did he say? He wrote an essay on suicide.
And, and basically, outcomes, Schopenhauer was off the Schopenhauer basically saying, I wish the universe existed because he really thought about existence itself. And I would argue that many of us, we will think about existence anymore what it means to exist. You know why? We have the iPhone, via email, we have Facebook, we have Twitter, we have kids, we have nine to five, or in America is like eight to eight. You guys work too hard, man. Yeah, you have capitalism, the drugs and more, more, more more, we can find ourselves by external things sometimes, unfortunately. So the point is, we have all these things that veil our thinking. There was a Times Magazine study done that took
normal professionals and said to them, think about your life at all hours, no work, no nothing think 80% of that 80% he broke down.
Because this is suspended those existential questions. What does it mean to be me? What does it mean to exist? And he talks about this existential question saying, if you reject God, God will make you reject your own self.
Because the worshiping God is so intrinsic to who you are, because you're gonna worship something anyway, you submit yourself to the pilot, when you're on the plane, you know, they're on the planes. And by saying, I don't want to submit to you, let me ride the plane.
Because you're gonna die, man. As I say, there's no atheists in the sinking ship, which is quite interesting, because it was a study done about the Titanic, right? And with whether people would like, basically on the boats and the freezing of that pneumonia, or whatever they go hypothermia
or doing some praying
to pray.
The five ad anyway,
BBC files, BBC British, something broadcasting anyway. So the point is good should have an effect on your life. And we believe adopting the concept of oneness of God should not affect your life. Think about it. If you accept that there's one powerful data being that you should worship, and that's your life that frees you from the shackles of creation, it shouldn't give you any further conflict anymore. It means that you don't have a lack of self esteem. It means that you can't blame aspects of the material world for your problem. You take responsibility. Now, you don't have this kind of abstract determinism that Oh, social conditioning always going to be like this. That's what the
crisis take responsibility existential point is trying to say. Now, think about this point that we believe in the crown, we say Hola, quwata illa builder, which basically means there is no true power power from the power of God. Imagine you internalize that image of what that can do to a human being. It means that everybody in this room or any material thing in the world cannot prevent you from doing the thing that you are
in your life,
that material doesn't have true power to efficacy. Usually the true power is God, because everything happens as a result is power and will. So that frees you the intellectual emotional space to create a new realm of possibility for yourself just by that concept,
image and internal is a concept, fine if you don't believe in it. And that's a different discussion. But conceptually, if you internalize such a concept, it can free from these kind of shackles. And this is called the blind spot. Because we have blind spots in our lives. We know what we know. Because if I know that I'm Greek, Pakistani, yes.
I know, for example, that I have a white shirt on, right? I know have gained weight recently. Yeah.
It's your pancakes. Beautiful diet. American diners have the best. Wake up in the morning, honey cakes over eat cakes, bread eggs over easy, beautiful capitalism
is good food.
I mean,
don't eat you know what the only thing I can
say is?
I know, I know that I know certain things. But I also know that I don't know. I don't know anything about rocket science. So I know that I don't know about rocket science. But there's an aspect of our life that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know. And that's pretty cool the blind spot in your life. And you could only free that if you have concepts like there is no true power. But God because it gives you a new realm of possibility to achieve things that you can achieve is an existential point is is is quite deep learning requires more discussion. But that's the
data
that are more on shortly, concise answers.
So is it for Dan, the question is so so you said that if something doesn't take up space, it doesn't exist? Do the following things exist? Time, human real numbers, gravity?
is so much fake video.
So who's the preacher?
You're so influential man.
We've barely touched on the answer. But I agree with you, I need a chance to create another region. The other word Reverend was a typo. But you know that the first letter was originally an N.
Time is not a thing. Time is not a time as a concept is a dimension. It's like, How tall is this podium? Well, we measure it we assign a zero point to this podium, and then we measure so many centimeters a year. But how long is this dimension is meaningless to talk about how long is that dimension, it's it, there is no such thing as a dimension. It's a concept in our brains, by which we make measurements. So time and space, those things are dimensions.
The other concepts that we talked about yet there are many concepts that exist. But a concept exists only within a brain. Just because I have a concept of something doesn't mean that it exists out there. That's called reification. When a brain is functioning, and is, is making labels to refer to objects or other functions of the brain, even the word mind is just a description of a function. There's no such thing as a mind, there's only the only thing is the brain, then these things can be measured. You can look at mental activity, you can look at neuron neurons firing, and you can say, Oh, yes, that person is having a concept within their brain, but things like like, you know, love
and justice and freewill. Those are labels for concepts that define actions. They're not actually you can't go out and buy love at a store, you can't go out and measure justice you can't you know, you can use you know, physically, but
if a god exists, and God is a being with a functioning mind of some sort, somehow his mind is functioning and functioning in a very complex way. This mind is functioning in a
in a way that you would say, Well, if you found a watch on the ground and it was functioning, you would have to say wow, how can I just be functioning without a designer? Well, this is the mind of the designer even more functional and more complex and the thing that is designed, if there is this all powerful a lot it's functioning brain has to be some kind of a thing up there and by by the own
you know, by
Do you design argument reasoning that God also has to have a god? Because otherwise, you're just explaining one mystery with another mystery. You haven't explained anything. What evolution does is explains complexity, not from more complexity, but compound complexity arises from simplicity. So I think it's a mistake, whoever asked the question, there's a tendency to reify a concept and turn it into a thing. And to think that in God is a concept, and it enhances mind that concept becomes a thing he actually think God exists in reality, somewhere, he actually thinks that that idea, it was in the mind of God is actually a being that exists somewhere outside reality is reifying, or D
applying the concept.
One more question. Again.
Authors Emily Dickinson, E. Cummings are very unique. Does this make them messengers of
a very good question? What do you mean by unique? That's the question. Now, I will argue that if you look at every single piece of literature, blueprint exists, you can emulate this literary form. For example, in English language, we have the am big pentameter. In Greek language, we have various forms, in the Arabic language, we have poetry, for example, that after hit the 16, different competitors come up, and so forth, and so forth. You have these literary forms of perception, how they use the rhetorical devices, where are the embellishments? Where's the eloquence? You know, we're not really talking about this? Well, that's an argument in itself, I am talking about the
structural features of a particular language. When you speak in English, there's only certain forms that you can speak in poetry, nor speak prose, half prose, etc. What forms you use, those are not entirely unique, you just have to use them, because you're expressing yourself in a particular language. What I'm saying is that the credits of these scopes, the Arabic language, every time you try to express yourself, you're never going to achieve the literary form of the plan. even know, you lose the finite grammatical rules, the finite letters of the Arabic language and the finite words, this we mean by natural possibility, because we go to the nature of the event, the event being the
Quran, and the nature being the Arabic language, with a closed all possibilities, and we can't bring the unique literary. And that's why I mentioned Western academics that even support this type of view. Now, the point is, if we're thinking human beings, and this is true, when it's thinking about this, it doesn't make an act of impossibility, it does, then it conforms to the description of America that I mentioned my presentation tonight in question, but even when you look at these types of works, you will see that there are particular forms that can be replicated. And we gave the example of Shakespeare and many others. So this is an interesting subject me For more information,
you go to my website, right? It's not selling anything is octopus, Hunter, calm and under exploring the CRAN there is a chapter called the challenge of the CRAN which has been authorized by scholars in Medina University in Saudi Arabia as well. And also if you have more information, go to the inimitable Corrado comm you can change it this question does have an emo dialogue, it's up for discussion. And we basically see the crowd for what it is weaknesses, linguistic and literary miracle. So I hope I answered the question give you more food for thought and maybe an avenue to to read around as well. And interesting book is new Robertson's book. Yeah, he was an orientalist. And
he was from Lancaster University in England and it's called the Qur'an, a contemporary approach to adult text. It's in the English language and it makes you understand the kind of uniqueness of the Quranic discourse and he actually converted to Islam as a result of that. I said highly academic study was also done in layman language with new roommates and the CRAN a unique a pillow Well, I said
it must be I don't know what is it?
That's it a bell? Take something. See what's happening now is your energy man.
And you're just typing
a contemporary text. There you go. Thank you. Anyway, very nice having you guys. Thank you for hosting me. I'm from Britain. I went for immigration, which was a great thing to hear.
cash into building blocks into Dan hands up with a fun night