Is Belief In God Rational

Okay

salatu salam ala rasulillah

Allah

we start, as always what praise the last kind of Allah and sending blessings upon our beloved prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Brothers, sisters, ladies, gentlemen,

relatives, colleagues, friends, is very, very nice to see you here, especially my non Muslim friends is absolutely fantastic that you guys can join us today.

It means a lot to us Muslims, for you guys to actually come here in order to engage engage with us and to learn more about Islam.

So, static awareness, we're just briefly going to go over some important points standard Awareness Week. Islamic Awareness Week

is an opportunity where Muslims can actually show you guys that we're not so bad. When we smile, we joke we we give the Jammie Dodgers boy pizzas. Although we are a bit late, sometimes, we will turn up eventually. Okay. So thank you. Thank you so much for your patience. today. The topic is his belief in Islam is his belief in God rational. his belief in God Russian. And today's guest speaker is Hamza Andreas door says, yes, you could tell I've been practicing that.

He is originally Greek. He converted to Islam, or accepted the original Islam around 13 years ago from correct.

And he's a very, very well known writer,

lecturer.

And since he's 13 years, you'd be doing absolutely fantastic stuff. So it's a pleasure for us to have him here. He's also debated and had discussions with many prominent academics and intellectuals, one of them being Professor Lawrence Krauss. So without further ado, I'll present to you Hamza Andres sources

Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim, Al hamdu Lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah. Brothers and sisters and friends, I greet you the warmest Islamic greetings of peace. Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

It basically means for those who don't know where the Peace and blessings of God be upon your own.

Today's topic is, Does God Exist? Or is the belief in God rational. So is the belief in God rational.

Now, from a sociological perspective, from a common sense perspective, or a popular culture perspective, we think that if something is not scientific, it's not rational. I just want to spend a few moments to really, to really dissect that and show you that's not really true, because science does not lead to atheism. This is the first thing we have to talk about. science does not lead to atheism. Many philosophers of science say, like, you know, to even make a claim that science is to atheism is irrational and illogical. Now, why do they make such a claim? Let me explain.

Science essentially, bases itself on a theory of knowledge called empiricism, empiricism. Now what's empiricism? empiricism is the knowledge thesis that basically says you can only have knowledge about something or concepts about something, if you have experience now that experience can translate into direct or indirect observation. So when we analyze this theory of knowledge, how does empiricism now implied God doesn't exist? Because by the very definition of God, he is not observed. He is not experienced a physical perspective. Such empiricism just uses observations just uses experience, then how can now empiricism denied that which cannot be observed? As a theory of knowledge, it is

quite limited. It's like me, for example, saying, I know there are two rooms, right. And when I observe things in this room, it tells me what's in that room. But that's not necessarily true logically from that perspective. So empiricism can never never ever deny, actually God's existence because it relies on observations or experience.

You may think Hamza, you are talking about a very crude definition of empiricism you're thinking it's direct observation? Well, fine. This take the other kind of liberal meaning of empiricism, which is indirect observation to, if we take indirect observation, then how can that ever negate God's existence, they actually entertain the reality that a deity does exist or a creator, for the whole universe exists, because when it's based on indirect observation is quite, you're quite loose in your thinking, you can have an observed event x, and you could infer from x, you can say, Well, if x exists, and something that created x exists, for example, this is why we use the design

argument. Sometimes when we say there are amazing laws in the universe, there are fine tuning of physical constants in the universe, if they were changed by heads breath, we would never have a life permitting universe. So if that's if that data is true, we can infer reason upon that data to conclude, well, maybe visit cosmic designer. So where did you take a crude version of empiricism or a

liberal is the wrong word, but a more coherent version of empiricism that is based on direct and indirect observation. Therefore, it can never deny God's existence. In actual fact, it should just stay silent, or maybe suggest some evidence we can infer upon to conclude that God exists. And this is very critical, because sometimes especially being brought up in the West, and in our country, Britain and on campus, we have this nonsensical notion that science actually leads to atheism, it doesn't. Because if it rests on empiricism, which is the theory of knowledge, that actually says that you can only form ideas about something, if they're experienced direct or indirect observation,

then that doesn't necessitate God doesn't exist, we have to use a different theory of knowledge because empiricism is restricted to the observer, to the domain of observations. This is why Professor Eliot soba, who's a philosopher of science in his essay called empiricism, he says, scientists at any moment are restricted to that which they can observe. So I know this is a bit of philosophical mumbo jumbo right? And it's a bit late, I do apologize. But let me just summarize a few in a very popular way.

Can there be a possibility of a feature observation that was currently unobserved?

Yes, we know the history of science shows us that we don't have all the observations or observations always limited, we don't have an infinite number of observations, we don't have the total number of observations of a particular phenomenon. So therefore, even if you were to claim that empiricism of science can deny God's existence, there should be always the question of actually not we, because we can have future observations that deny our current observations, because we never observed them properly. Or we're yet to observe them. That these this exposes the kind of limitations of empiricism and that empiricism can't conclude good does not exist. Let me give you another example.

Another example concerning size, that size is a thinking a certain thinking process called induction. Now, what's induction from a pragmatic perspective, induction is that you have a limited set of observations, and you conclude for the next observation makes sense? You have a limited set of observations. And you conclude for the next observation, or the entire set of observations. Let me give you an example. Say we all traveled to Wales, lovely Wales. And we had a question a testable idea. I hypothesis, what are the color of sheep? We don't know the color of sheep, we want to find out. So we go to Wales. And we count one sheep to 1000 2000. And we stopped at 5000. That's enough

data. And we realized that all of the sheep are whites. So using induction, we have a limited set of observations, which is 5000 sheep, we're going to conclude that the next sheep is going to be what color

whites, but because that's what we have, we have that limited observation.

However, that may not be true.

And we noticed, though true, was that the color of sheep?

Black on the black sheep of the family. The other color of sheep is black. Now, what is this exposed? Yes, it's a crude analysis of induction, but it is used just to stick into your mind. What he basically says is, is that there can be a future observation that denies previous conclusions. We've seen this in the history of science because the history of science

exposes the fact that it's not static. It's dynamic. And that's the beauty of science. We love science, right? Especially Muslims. Actually, if you look and study the history of science, you have the likes of David C. Lindbergh, who's a historian of science. And he quotes that the first rule scientists was who? Yes, it was a bearded Muslim, would you believe it? And his name was ebenen. Haytham and a belief he wrote the book on optics in the 10th or 11th century. And he was like the first manifestation of a real scientist that had a rule methodology with observations and analyzing the results, whereas the Greeks previously studied a little bit more theoretical from that

perspective. Okay. So what we're trying to say here is that, you know, Muslims love science, and you even hate them said All the way All those hundreds of years ago, he said, The reason I do the science because I'm motivated by the Quran,

would you believe it?

So the point is, site has limitations, and he's changing it static is rather it's dynamic. It's not static. And we see this in the history of science. For example, there was a disease called pellagra, for example, and that disease is like a skin disease. And the scientific community at the time said, No, it's to do with infection. And there was one side is that no, is to do actually, with nutrition. But because it was a consensus and a community that like, No, you're wrong, you're backward, you're like a flat earther. Right? You're wrong.

But after a few years, they found out that he was actually right. And that goes to show even though when we may have a consensus about something, consensus changes, we fought, for example, Newtonian physics and mechanics was absolutely applied to every scenario. But we know there are two non complimentary paradigms now between Newtonian physics and quantum physics. They haven't found the link yet. So the reason I'm mentioning these things is we to understand that there is no static nature to science. And that's the beauty of it. So when you look at induction and empiricism, you come to the conclusion that they can never deny the existence of God. And criticism, because it

deals with observation, God, by definition, is not observed. And induction because it's limited, you can always have a future observation that denies previous conclusions. I know spend some time on this. But just to try and open your mind. Basically, you don't have to take my word for it. Who am I never met me before. And if you have, I hope it was a good experience. But the thing is, forget me. Listen to what I'm saying. And refer yourself to epistemology, which in the philosophical discourse means the study of belief or study of knowledge, referred to the likes of Professor Alex Rosenberg. He's an atheist, but a scientist, refer to the likes of

Professor Eliot sober refer to the likes of I don't have to pronounce his name properly. goetsch, right. He's a very good

scientist, and a philosopher who wrote about the scientific method. So you have Western references for you to look at. I don't want to think, Hey, this guy is, you know, crazy. He's picking things up and making them sound like it's sophistry. No, I want you to do your reading yourself. Islam doesn't believe in fascism. I don't want to have this kind of intellectual fascism, that you think what I'm saying is absolutely true. I'm not saying that is as humble suggestion is to plant seeds in your mind. So you can awaken new realities. And you can think, you know, what, actually, Richard Dawkins is wrong? Because he has that kind of social narrative that science needs to atheism, which is not

necessarily true, as we just discussed. So moving on, now, do we have good reasons for the existence of God? Okay, and we will try and articulate some reasons. Okay. The first reason I want to talk about is you, I want to talk about you and me, I want to talk about us.

The very fact brothers and sisters and friends, that we the very fact that we have an internal subjective experience, I think is good reasons. For theism. For the fact that a deity exists, God exists a supernatural cause for the whole universe exists. Why am I saying this?

Take this for example. It's called fruit. Whoosh. Right? Apple and blackcurrant juice drink. Now if I were to take the straw

and basically put it inside and take a few sips Huh, very nice, right? There is a likeness to that reality. What is it like for him to do this? To have a fruit Whoosh.

What is it? Like? Does anybody know what it's like for Hamza to have a fruit wish? It's gone in a bit further. What is it like for Hamza

to feel embarrassed by being laid?

What is it like for Hamza to fall in love? What is it like for you to have a biscuit? What does that feel like a coffee? What is it like for you to feel pain? What is it like for you to say to your mother that you love her? What is it like for you to have a strawberry?

This question, brothers and sisters and friends, is simple but yet very profound. neuroscientists, philosophers of the mind are confused about this question, because

it forms something called the hard problem of consciousness. The Guardian recently voted by

the New Scientist magazine, and you have academic discourse from the likes of Professor Elton. Something right forgot his name now, Professor David Chalmers, professor and purebond CEO, and many others, even Dan Dennett, the famous new atheist, they're discussing and trying to find out how do we explain this hard problem of consciousness? And let me detail what this means. The hard problem of consciousness is that there is a likeness a subjective experience of meal you to have a fruit wish. The hard problem of consciousness also includes that why do we have subjective experience from physical biological processes? So there are two elements to the hard problem of consciousness?

Number one, was it like, what is it like 400? To have a fruit wish? Or is it like you to have a bar of chocolate? Number two? Why do we have subjective experience from physical processes? And if you look at biological explanations for this, and philosophical explanations for this, they cannot explain that reality says impossible as the French say, it's impossible. And this is why brothers and sisters have friends. theism is the best explanation that you may think, hold on a second, this sounds like God of the gaps. It's God of the gaps. You don't know what's going on. So you squeeze God in as an explanation. This has nothing to do with God of the gaps, brothers and sisters of

friends.

Because if we were to know everything about the human brain, everything, you knocked out all my neuro neuro chemical pathways, and there's not many of them, but you know, you met them all out right, you would still never be able to answer the hard problem of consciousness. Number one, even if you mapped out everything in my brain from a neuro chemical perspective, you will never be able to find out what it's like 400 to have a fruit wish. You will never be able to find out why Hamza has subjective experiences from code, irrational, unconscious, physical, biological processes. So it has nothing to do with God of the gaps. It's not due to a lack of scientific knowledge. Think of it

from a logical perspective. Even if we were to know everything about the brain, it will not give us an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. What is it like for you to have a strawberry why you have that subjective experience from cold immaterial, rather material, biological, unconscious processes. Why?

There have been some explanations on the biological explanations fail because they admit the kind of just the hard problem of consciousness, but there are some philosophical explanations. And Professor antiva wants to have in his book, consciousness, the science of subjectivity. He basically says the reason we have to look at the underlying philosophical assumptions is because they actually

manage if you like the biological explanations, they deal with the biological explanations, they are a foundation for the biological explanations. So I'm going to quickly go through some competing explanations and why I think theism of God's existence is the best explanation. The first type of explanation brothers and sisters code type A materialism big words, to worry about. Typing materialism basically says,

There is no subjective experience, the original hard problem of consciousness, the meaning we know everything about the brain is the minute we know everything about consciousness. So therefore, there is no hard problem.

There is no hard problem your subjective inexperience

is an illusion. We have biological zombies.

Professor Daniel Dennett, in his book consciousness explained, actually articulated this view. So it's published in 1981. And I know his views have changed since. But this is an interesting point. He says, essentially the original hard problem of consciousness because there is no subjective experience. It's an illusion. Your freewill is an illusion. You're you falling in love is an illusion. You having a sense of amazing subjective experience having an amazing chocolate is an illusion. And it is no wonder Professor Auntie Ron Ruben CO, he discusses other philosophers of the mind. And they argue that

Dan Dennett is only trying to explain away what requires explaining, which is the hard problem of consciousness itself. And that's why they said, his book shouldn't have been called consciousness explained, it should have been called consciousness explained away, because he's denying that thing which needs addressing, which is the hard problem of consciousness. So type A materialism is not a good explanation, because it denies your humanity. Frankly, it denies that you have subjectivity. But type B, materialism. Type B materials, brothers and sisters is quite interesting. Because it basically says there is a small epistemic gap is a big word. But what this basically means is, we

have a small gap of knowledge to gap between what's happening in the brain and your subjective experience. There is a small gap of knowledge, okay, there is a small gap of knowledge. Now, this is problematic because what they also assume is that the more you get to know about the brain is the more you get to know about subjective experience. Again, as we previously mentioned, this is not true. If I were to map out all of your neurochemical pathways, knock them out completely, I would never be able to find out what it's like for you to have a pint of milk.

I will never be to find out why you have a certain subjective experience, a result of having a pint of milk, so that type B materialism is not an answer. This type C materialism, type C material says there is a big epistemic gap, there is a wide gap of knowledge. And he basically says we don't have an answer. But we'll find out soon. That again, assume that the only answer you can have is a scientific explanation, which is not true, because we just discussed previously concerning type B materialism, that even if you knew everything about the brain, you would never be able to find out what it is like for someone to have a certain experience and why the experience comes from

cold, random if you like material unconscious processes. So this leads us to types of ABC, D, right? It leads to type D dualism, also known as Cartesian dualism. Cartesian Judaism basically says there is a subjectivity and mind and a brain, there's a physical thing called the brain. And there's the immaterial thing called the mind. This intuitively makes sense. Yeah, I have a mind and I have a physical brain. But there is a problem with type D. dualism or Cartesian dualism, which is called the interaction is the problem. Because the response from skeptics would be well, how on earth does an immaterial mind deal with or interact with the material brain? And they just say, we don't know,

there's not a really coherent explanation on its own without God. That leads us to type e

epiphenomenalism, big word. If you could say mango, I'll eat up my drink.

Oh, come have a drink.

So

epiphenomenalism Now, what is epiphenomenalism epiphenomenalism is that

let me get this the right way around that physical states affect subjective conscious states. But subjective conscious states do not affect physical states. I repeat,

physical states affect your conscious states, but conscious states not affect the physical states.

Let me give an example. I put my hand in the fire, the fire burns, okay. I have paid the subjective experience now.

But I move my hand not because of the pain, but because of some random accident. That's the nutshell of epiphenomenalism that you put your hand in the fire. The physical state of fire causes the subjective experience of pain which is fine, but the pain the subjective experience doesn't cool the physical state of moving

way it's just a random accident. Every time you put your you feel some pain you go out that out is this accidental has nothing to do with the subjective experience of pain. Crazy. I know check it out for yourself.

But you wouldn't be more spooky type f type F. explanation to consciousness is also known as Pan psychism sounds spooky, doesn't it? We'll call the gospel Ghostbusters. Now, you probably know born in the 80s via was I love the Ghostbusters right here with a green guy. What was his name?

Slimer. No, no Slimer this shows my age, I do apologize. I'm

older than you anyway, move that aside. So we have Pan psychism or type f monism. I think it's Billy is called. Now Pan psychism basically asserts, and this is the view of Professor David Chalmers and others. That Pan psychism is that a fundamental law of the universe is consciousness, and that everything is conscious. We have an electron that's conscious. Hi, electron, I love you. And he replies I love you back. I know that sounds really bizarre. But they think that this is a valid explanation for the fact that they can't explain the hard problem of consciousness that consciousness is everywhere. Now, what's interesting is, when we think of consciousness, we think of

a unified conscious entity. For example, how can you have thoughts without a thinker? So we have a unified conscious entity? So if this unified conscious entity is just an amalgamation of many small conscious entities, then how am I having a unified conscious experience?

For example, this design on this drink, and we'll see what individual elements and it has happened to transpose on my brain, I see a holistic, whole unified experience. But if parasitism was true, then I should not only be an amalgamation of different smooth conscious experiences, but when I experienced something like this design, on the drink, that I should just be experiencing all the different individual elements of what it makes all makes it conscious. For example, why am I having a unified sense of conscious experience? I should just be in a an amalgamation or accumulation of these small conscious experiences, but I'm not. I have a unified sense of conscious experience. Now,

you may think, Why on earth is he talking about? Don't worry if you don't understand anything? That's the whole point is that you go to your library, type in Professor David shammas, type in Professor Dan Dennett, type in professor and he wants you so you study further. I used to be like that in the past preach. I don't like doing that anymore. I like to plant seeds. I think that's the Quranic narrative, the Islamic narrative, because sometimes it doesn't give you answers. It just gives you questions to lead you in the right direction. So why is theism God's existence the best explanation? Number one, it explains conscious emergence, how we get subjectivity from non

subjectivity as the physicist Schroeder. He said, there's no real difference between the brain of Einstein and a lump of sand. It's just a rearrangement of carbonyl molecules, what makes it different is that conscious awareness, that subjectivity, so how do we explain that subjectivity arose from objective code, unconscious things,

it would follow that unconscious thing will come from an unconscious thing, a objective code, they will come from a objective code thing. How can you now argue that subjectivity

comes from something cold? How can we say that this subjective state of awareness

comes from something that is physical, and random, and blind and unconscious? It makes us all aware being that create the physical universe, with the ability for beings like us to have conscious awareness.

And this is why even if you study evolution, I believe there are a few academics in Portsmouth and Southampton who do amazing work on evolution. They would humbly say, we can't really explain consciousness, and we can't explain language either. So there are some gaping holes in many things, and that's the whole point of human progress. So, theism explains that theism also explains how you can have immaterial things like subjective experiences interact.

To the physical brain, that there was an old way of being with his old abiding will that basically enabled physical and non physical things to interact with one another.

So from this perspective, we start to understand now that actually consciousness makes sense of God. The fact that we have inner subjective states makes sense of God is the best explanation. And what's really fascinating, you could summarize it in the following way.

The minute you say, I am a Muslim, I am an agnostic, I am an atheist, is the minute

you actually indicate the existence of God? Because who is this? i? This RNA is me, you with a subjective in a conscious state? How is it best explained? No materialism? No, scientifically, we talked about the hard problem of consciousness is best explained by God. So the irony is the minute you define yourself, and you say, I is the minute that God exists. So that's one argument for God's existence. Let me give you one more. By the way, I would like to give you seven, but it's getting late. And I missed lunch. So I heard you had nice pizza, by the way, I liked it. We had pizza

was nice.

But we didn't like you to have pizza, in a subjective experience. Anyway,

the next argument I want to talk about is your brain, your rational faculties?

I want to give you a question.

Can you trust your mind?

On atheism?

Now, Charles Darwin, he wrote a personal letter. And he said, if we just evolved like monkeys,

then why should we trust our rational faculties?

Why should we trust our ability to reason? Why should we trust our own minds to form conclusions about so called truth? Because if we just evolved just like monkeys or any other species, then we shouldn't trust our minds at all. Because evolution via natural selection is about survivability, not truth value. It's about survivability, not truth value. So why do we trust our minds? Why do we trust our rational faculties? Which is a foundation for science? You can't say, oh, science can explain that? No, no, that's to be naughty. You need a rational brain before we have science in the first place. We're talking about the assumptions of science here. How on earth can you trust your

own

gray matter in this skull?

If you use evolution as an explanation, which I don't think is a good explanation,

because evolution dictates that

it's just about survivability, then you may think, well, to survive, we need to be clever. That's not true. Let me give you some examples.

Say for example, we went to the top of this university, we will all went together, and I split the room into one half and another half. So you have half as code a half as could be that you will go up to the roof. And I see if you guys jump off

a rational, they say, oversee not a need survive. This is the core instinct. Another jump off because no gravity works. I'm gonna splash on the floor. Now, the other half be no offense, by the way, the other half be, they have some issues, to say the least they forgot to take the pills this morning. So they thinking, Oh, yes, I know, I could fly because I know I have these metaphysical wings. So you're just about to jump. But then you realize, hold on a second. Hold on a second. I remember my mom, she only clicked my wings, and then I'm working today. So you survive. Based on irrationality, a rationality can lead to survival. For example, if I told all of you to cross the a

three, which is one of the crazy roads with no lamps, and you have to put your life is not right. It's very scary.

To come to Portsmouth from London. So if we were told all of you to cross the three blindfolded, what would you do? Group A would say, of course not. Because this traffic, this car speeding down 70 miles per hour, sometimes more than 70 miles per hour. If I get hit, I'm gone. But the other people say of course I can do it. Because I have these special powers and when sending fast hits me it just goes through me. But then you realize, Oh no, someone, some some someone called Slimer is my ghost friend.

He's super glued to my shoes to the floor, and I can't move.

That's an irrational

belief that's untrue, but yet he survives based on your rationality. So we can't claim that survivability is. You need truth for survivability. So survival doesn't really necessitate truth. But let me give another example in the in the animal kingdom, who likes cockroaches, nobody, right?

But there are good examples though because coaches, they survive and they reproduce, which is the driver of the pollution essentially, it's about survival and reproduction. cockroaches can reproduce more than anybody. cockroaches can even survive a nuclear holocaust. You know this. But yet, you don't see cockroaches, basically, sitting in this lecture theatre and writing notes about the hard problem of consciousness.

Because it's irrelevant to survival, reproduction.

And this is the whole point. Why on earth do we trust our brains? We shouldn't trust our brains and atheism on just evolution.

Now, there's something even more interesting. Not only do we have a rational mind that we trust, but the universe is conceivable, as Einstein famously said, What is inconceivable about the universe is that it's conceivable is that we can understand the universe. But how on earth do we understand this universe brothers and sisters? Isn't it interesting? The only not only do you have a rational mind that we trust, but we have the universe that can be rationalized, I repeat, isn't it interesting that we have a rational mind, but we also have a universe that can be rationalized. It's as if there is a lock and a key. The work is the rational mind. And the key

is a rational universe. locks and keys are not random.

The specific and the designed,

says if brothers and sisters we are designed to discover

we are designed to discover.

To this day there is no naturalistic, evolutionary scientific explanation for why we trust our own brains.

Because it doesn't necessitate that it had to lead to truth.

Because irrational beliefs, untruths, can lead to reproduction, and can lead to survival.

Isn't that interesting? So isn't it interesting, it makes sense of God who is an all aware being, all knowing being the creator universe with beings that can have awareness and knowledge and thoughts and rationality? And isn't it interesting that when you study the Quran, the Quran tells us to use our internet, affiliate app clean, do not use your intellect yet. karoon for those who reflect that God wants us to reflect upon His signs in the universe, in order for us to understand that he deserves to be worshipped.

Isn't that amazing?

Hello, isn't that amazing? Yes. For me, it's, it's fascinating. So let me just end. So given you some arguments, I'm talking about science. Let me do this, by the way, in in zero arguments for God's existence.

Explain why. I'm gonna explain why in the following way. Can everybody hear this?

Good. This is a table right? Is this a table?

Agreed? Good. Is this table real?

Is it extended to my brain?

Prove it.

I want you to prove that this table is real and it's external to my skull.

Guys, you're at university and you spent more than 30 seconds on this topic is embarrassing. Is this table outside of my brain is external to me. Is it real?

Prove it I'll just give you an answer. I said proof.

Wait one by one hands? Yes.

It's not attached to me.

How do you know?

Maybe you thinking it's not attached to me could just be in here. Right?

It's an object but that object could just be in here.

Yes, sir.

Is a ridiculous argument. No offense. The argument by consensus you must be Greek. It democratic

To give you

consistent doesn't mean anything because there's always changes we've seen that with the history of science.

Let me explain something I'll give you time off this so don't give me five hours Okay, you can sit in my car as well Don't worry. So this is this that consensus can just be my mind you can always say to me Hamza we're all saying is outside of your mind silly but me hearing how does that that's we're all say suffer your mind could just be in my mind

touching and feeling could just be here, bro. Even that feeling could be in here.

Yes, sir.

Ah, but that's not an answer. That's a sidestep. It's like a good pairing Wing Chun Kung Fu. Bansal. I agree. I'm gonna get to that. I'm gonna I totally agree with you. I'm gonna get to that. See, the point of this discussion is to show that there are some things that were required are fundamentally true, yet we don't have any evidence. In philosophy, this is called a basic belief. Or you could call it a self evident truth. And there are many self evident truths like for science requires a self evident truth of the real world being rules extended to my mind, that there are external causal things going on in the world. This is a necessary self evident truth. And that's so fascinating. Not

only that is a self evident truth. But even the belief that our minds are rational is also self evidently true. Also, the age of the universe is self evidently true. Because for all, you know, the universe could be just be five minutes years old, that it was created five minutes ago, with 18 years of memory. With you having 18 years of memory, you can't disprove that, at the end of the day, if you've seen the matrix, maybe you haven't taken the blue pill or the red pill.

Maybe my name is Neil.

Right? See, the point I'm trying to say here, brothers and sisters or friends is that there are some self evident truths, or also known as in the language of philosophy, basic beliefs. My argument is,

God is also self evident truth. God is also a basic belief. What we mean by God is the underlying

element of that definition, which is that there is a cause for the universe. That is a self evident truth. There are some objections, the objection number one

comes up. If you believe God is a self evident truth, I believe the grand fairy is a self evident truth, or the spaghetti monster is a self evident truth with huge meatballs. Why's that spaghetti thingamajiggy created the whole universe. And I respond and say, No, you're wrong for three major reasons. Number one, self evident truths do not require information transfer.

self evident truths don't require someone telling you it's true. For example, the fact that I know this table is real not because you told me is because I have my own intuition, internal experience my introspection, which in epistemology is a valid source of knowledge, by the way, my own introspection of that any information transfer, I know the table is real, just like within my own internal experience, I know that there is a cause for the whole of physicality. It's a self evident truth that doesn't require information transfer. But the belief in the spaghetti monster, I need information transfer, particularly of Italian cuisine.

Spaghetti, yeah. So that's why the spaghetti monster, the grand fairy can't be a self evident truth. The second point is

self evident truth. Brothers and sisters of friends have something called foundational, like you have a foundation to a house for the house to remain erect. foundational truths are truths that actually create other knowledge. Okay? They develop other knowledge and answer fundamental questions. For example, believing that the physical world is actually real allows us to have the scientific empirical worldview, the answers questions of the how things work, but interestingly, the cause for the universe the Creator is a foundation for why things work, science kind of adjust the wind By the way, we notice if my auntie media really beautiful cake now, and I said scientifically

explain it. You could just explain how it was cooked for what's inside it, the molecular structures, the peptide bonds, whatever things that are inside, but they've never told me why she made it. So God's existence is the foundation for the Y is the foundation for consciousness itself.

foundation for even trusting our own minds. So it's foundational, but the spaghetti monster is not foundational for anything, apart from a few laughs

The third point to reject this contention is that

self evident truths that God's existence and the physicality of the world, the world being real outside of my mind, outside of your mind, they're not culturally bound. They're not via culture. For example, a spaghetti monster, if you were to say that to I know, a Tibetan Buddhist, who'd be like, excuse me, a spaghetti, what is not part of his culture, because he's a culturally bound, myth, truth, reality, whatever. But God's existence and the world being real, they're not culturally bound, because they're cross cultural. They're not, they're not a product of culture.

This is why you have full 1000. Around 4000 names for God since 6000 PCs scenario.

A second contention is though, hold on a second needs to do this. Hold on a second.

What about the flat earth?

Didn't we believe the flat earth was self evidently true? By the way, the flat earth wasn't a basic belief or self evident truth, but some atheists or agnostics or skeptics for this as a question, I just want to address it. Fine. Let's maybe admit the flat earth was a self evident truth, and it changed in the future. The point here is the series.

So how does it refer to God? Maybe you can have future physical scientific evidence that denied you through his conclusions. That's excellent. That's the whole. That's the benefit of science, as we discussed in the beginning. But there's something fundamental here, which is, future observations can never contradict God's existence. Remember, we said in the beginning, do you remember hackathon that requires an observation as a methodology denied that which is not observed? Because God is distinct and disjoint from the universe? If I created this table, I don't become the table. Likewise, if God created the universe, he doesn't become the universe. So that question itself is

misapplied.

The third and final contention is you're wrong, Mr. Moses?

If it was so self evidently true, that God exists, then why do we have 50% of the Chinese people disbelieving in God? 40% of Germans? Why do we have around 750,000 nearly a billion atheists on the planet. Why?

So

self evident truths don't require universal consensus.

self evident truths can be individualized. For example, it's self evidently true for me from my own internal introspection experience that my mother gave birth to me, I have no proof.

I don't have a home DNA test case.

I just have the safety of my mother and my father.

Even if I have videos or photos, I don't look the same. So I've tried to believe that they said that was me.

For example, in the morning, I had breakfast, I had a banana sandwich. And I had nuts with raisins. And I had a chai latte.

So that's self evident truth to me by individualized to me not to you, you have to access the information. So some self evident truths can be individualized. And I would also argue that at the end of the day, if you look at the history of humanity, there is a broad consensus that there was a creator for the universe.

So from this perspective, the contentions do not actually break down this argument that God is a self evident truth. So where am I going with this? What I'm going where I'm going with this is the following.

You can't brothers and sisters deny God, because if you deny God, it's like denying the real world is external to your brain. The real world is real. Because the real world being real outside of your brain is a self evident truth. God is a self evident truth. If you reject one, it's like rejecting the other because they both have the same criteria. They're both foundational, they both are understood without information transfer, and the both universal from that perspective.

So

denying God is like denying reality. And this is in line with the Islamic concept of fitrah, the prophet Mohammed upon bpce. He said in a prophetic tradition that can be found in the compilation of Muslim It was a his mother was Muslim, but his name was Muslim as well. And this compilation, he basically collected a prophetic tradition as authentic, where the Prophet Mohammed upon whom he said, Every human being every child is

In the state of football, now fixed about the Arabic word comes from the trilateral stem factor, which you have words like Fatone and Fatah who, like something was created within you to acknowledge good and to worship him and love him and know him.

And this is in line with the self evident reality of who God is. And this is supported by anthropological evidence I have a lecture online is called denying God denying reality. If you've been on YouTube, denying God denying reality, I spent about 25 minutes on this particular issue. So hopefully, I've given you some food for thought planted seeds in your heart and mind to investigate and think about this very important question further, I have used relatively new arguments that haven't used before in the past, so you don't have to go on YouTube and check me out when I was like 30 kilos heavier as well. Right. So there you go. I really enjoyed being here. I mean, you could

tell that these talks like this, for me is all therapy. For me. I like expressing myself, right. As many of you are like this. We'll be talking about when we don't blame you. But you know what, I want you just to be inspired to think further and for you to know that you know what, Muslims are not stupid, right. To think we're autodidact. I would like to teach ourselves read around and maybe wrong, maybe right. But the good thing about universities and this is something I really want to focus on just the last one minute. The beautiful thing about universities is that we have a public space to articulate ourselves in a nuanced and compassionate way. And that's very important. We have

to maintain that even if we disagree with one another because I have to admit, the past 100 to this was a little bit overzealous, and it's going into trouble, right? some ridiculous statements, right? But the point is we learn and we grow British we maintain that narrative that we allow him to learn and grow, they will come together even if you're Muslim, ex Muslim, Jew, Christian, have that tolerance. I was an interfaith yesterday. You know what I felt so loved. By the way, I was in Leicester, interfaith with Christians. It was beautiful kids are running around those Muslims and non Muslims. And it just shows that we can discuss don't hate debate. Don't curse. Converse. God

bless you. Thank you very much for listening.

God bless you guys. It's so nice. You stay here. God bless you. See you very soon. Hopefully, take care yourselves and be safe.

Okay, thank you. Thank you guys. I

would like to thank Hamza for his beautiful lecture. Hope you guys benefited. Please, please keep an eye out for our next talks. I'm still mad at you. I'm still

keep an eye on our next talks. We've got another Greek convert coming tomorrow if you're interested, but he actually lived in Greece. I think you find an interesting case.