Channel: Mohammed Hijab
I would love him in a shaytani r rajim
Bismillah hero of man you're walking hommy Chang Jean Okita we mean a law in law Z's in hacking in
to one out Deena I in many in offi
the economy you own
wealth Do you live in a new one?
A lot homie and I
in Alibaba demo t ha What else?
What else? reinfusion? Yeah, Tony homie
DeLuca to LA Hina aloha la Kevin Hart con fabby a
la who I
You know, usually when we do debates with atheists
or when we talk to atheists, we use very mechanical reasoning sometimes and we will go into straight arguments, you know, we'll go into cosmological argument, teleological argument, fine tuning argument, contingency argument, ontological argument.
And we just hope and wait.
Give them one argument after the other and hope and wait to see how they respond to the arguments and to be honest with you. From my experience, sometimes it can be quite positive not to say that these arguments are not good arguments. These arguments are not effective arguments or even that those arguments are not true arguments.
But the point is this is that what I've noticed is I've been paying more attention to the Quran, and how the Quran, whether directly or in, directly
Now, I don't think it's fair to say that the Quran specifies or addresses atheists in any part of the Quran. Why?
How comes when the Quran addresses Christians, Jews, Muslims and people directly? How comes Allah subhanho wa Taala does not choose atheists and talk to them because they don't they claim not to believe in him.
So it's not something which Danny they would pay particular attention to.
So Allah subhanho wa Taala is far above and beyond
lowering himself to that kind of a discourse.
instead of looking at where in the Quran,
atheists are addressed because I can tell you they're not addressed in the second person at all. In the Quran.
I looked at in the Quran, where atheism may be indirectly addressed and I thought about these ideas that I've just recited. This isn't sort of suggests here.
Chapter 45 of the Quran.
And I just wanted to spend a little bit of time
going through some of those verses, because they're quite interesting.
So Allah subhana wa tada says, In the facility without law is in limbo, meaning that for surely in the heavens and the earth, there are signs science, for those who believe.
What are the signs so Allah continues and he says, Well, if you help him and in your own creation,
why am I assuming dab button
and whatever creatures are scattered around the Earth.
To Nicole me up noon, there are Signs for those individuals who have certainty, you can
walk the left allele on the hub
and the alteration of day and night.
fcls allele on the heart is important and I'll come to it in a second because we're going from the biological
To the cosmological, and I want you to bear that in mind okay?
On my ends on alumina semi mid risk and what Allah has sent down from the heavens from provision
for heavy lava natya so he raised the earth after his death was reef Rhea, and the alternating winds.
I add to nicomachean. This time the operational word here is Yaki loon, there are Signs for those individuals who have actual intelligence, intellect
tilka to LA, these are the signs of Allah.
Let's ruhollah Kevin Huck. We, we narrate them to you in truth. And this is a very powerful part of the verse, Allah Allah is very powerful for ba Hadith. So after what speech after Allah, by the law, what is he you mean? After what speech after Allah and His science will they believe? Now this really struck me because
it's reasoning to what you call epistemic reasoning. Now what what I mean by this is, the question is, what standard of truth?
Are you going to accept? Because people believe in things on a daily basis, we have beliefs.
Philosophers use the word belief, to reference our thoughts, and its correspondence with reality. This is belief. This is what Bertrand Russell wrote, in his book, The problems with philosophies. Everyone has some kind of belief, it can be true belief and it can be false belief. It does not necessarily mean that if you have belief
that you must be a religious person, for example, as someone who is who believes in metaphysical realities.
The verses though, are very powerful because they reference teleological realities. What does this mean?
They reference the fact that Allah subhanaw taala has created things, and he has made them or he has tailored them, to human use. In other words, not only is the universe find tuned, fine tuned for human existence,
which is an argument very much used by every theist that wants to argue their case is one of the most powerful arguments.
Not only is that the case, though, but the things that the universe exhibits are useful to the living creatures within them.
So there is a reciprocal relationship between the biological living creatures and the cosmological inanimate celestial bodies.
Allah is showing us look, alternating winds, look at this, all of these things. How can you explain this and Allah, He says something beautiful, and another verse.
This is a level of the asset accumulation Hall aka
Oh, Hulk is to Christ, He is the one who
in the creation
and this means to say,
look at it, look at the creation.
Number one, point number one,
the fact that the creation exists and is maintained.
How is this explained? How can this best be explained?
Now, the complexity of the universe is not just the first thing we can say, because someone said, well, complexity depends on your definition of complex,
we will say,
exhibited in the universe.
And this is what the manifest your own say, of this verse.
Then is on the order of the universe, and the fact that there is a harmonious relationship between different aspects of the universe, such that and this is an important point, the universe continues to exist. underline this point, the universe continues to exist. This is the question that needs to be asked. In other words, how comes
the universe continues to exist.
How can we best explain the fact that the universe continues to exist?
Because we know
from physics and other disciplines,
and this is actually almost, this is almost agreed upon from all sides,
that the chances of the universe existing from chance, or literally zero. And obviously Martin Rees has written a book, just six numbers, many different things have been written on this, which show literally, that the forces of the universe,
the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, had these things been adjusted.
in a minor way, the universe would not continue to exist.
Because the fine tuning argument is that the universe allows life to exist. And there is a very narrow life permitting range.
And that had any of those things that had aforementioned being any different than the universe simply wouldn't exist, and there will be no life on the universe? So there are two things to question. Why does the universe continue to exist? Despite
of it not existing being infinitesimally small?
And how could and why does the universe allow life to exist? Now, these are the classical arguments that we use. And this is more like the fine tuning argument.
But it is connected to the Quranic discourse.
It is connected to the Quranic discourse, because the question is,
how can you best explain this?
Now a lie it takes more faith,
to believe that the universe came from chance than it does to believe that there was some intelligence behind it. Let me tell you something. I've spent a lot of time reading books on this topic.
And to be honest with you the most, I would say powerful, or I wouldn't even call it that, to be honest with you. But the most vehement
opposition to this kind of argument comes from a man called David Hume. Now, he was a philosopher, Scottish philosopher. And he said, But hold on. This was his argument. And by the way, he is one of the heavyweights of the Enlightenment period. So we're not talking about Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, which literally would be little boys in the School of David Hume, little boys, little boys, we're talking about David Hume himself.
So what did he say? How did he, how did he come to this hypothesis? He said, Look,
he says, Yeah, I understand
what you're saying, but the universe could have been created from chance.
And then he realized what he was saying was a little bit far fetched. And he said, and even if it wasn't created by chance, how can you make a logical leap and say that God is the one who intelligently designed the universe? Okay, fine. They don't need to call him God. Call him whatever you want the entity the thing. You still have a problem here. Then he said, but then how can you explain the evil in the world? We say, listen, we're not talking about morals here. We're talking about organization, physics,
and laws of nature.
So really, and truly and to be honest with you, even David Hume was
refuted by his contemporaries on this. This is a thorn in the side.
This is this argument here. It's a very simple argument. Look at the designs of harleigh. Very simple. Look. Fairchild bussel, holtermann photo, go look again. Do you see any gaps in creation? Do you see any? This is a very simple argument, but it's one which is what lies a thorn in the side
of atheists, and they cannot deal with it. Now,
this is one thing. Another thing which is interesting, Allah subhanaw taala says in the Quran,
but avalanches origem Cave attack, Verona, Villa hirakud.
come from Miami to come.
He comes from LA he
says, How can you disbelieve in Allah when he when you were dead, and he brought you to life? And well, I had a conversation with Abraham yesterday. And he brought this to my attention because I'm trying to bring forward some interesting Quranic arguments. And he was saying, Look at this verse.
It shows and this is true Subhanallah it shows as a producer premise here, you are dead, lifeless, and life was given to you. Now the question is where does life come from?
Can something which is lifeless, endow something else with life? Or is it necessary for something which has life to give life? This is the question. Now, we're not going to go into a biogenesis, which is something these
some chemists and some biologists talk about.
Because our biogenesis is unproven. It's speculative. And there are so many theories. And this idea that chemistry became biology really, in a nutshell, chemistry somehow became vital. We don't know how it happened. We were looking at the fossil record and RNA into DNA, but we don't know how it happened. But just it happened. Somehow.
Like, what the hell is this?
What kind of pseudoscience is this? What kind of pseudoscience is this? Allah subhanaw taala says in the Quran,
Ash had to call Kasama wa t when I have not let them see the creation of the heavens in the earth. They weren't there witnessing the creation of the heavens. And yet
we had some fun this morning with Abraham, we were talking about this. Well, I this complex of when, you know, when the man comes, will I assign to pseudo scientific approach? Just someone comes with a laboratory jacket? Just because he represents science? He says, Yes, we have an idea of when the universe started and, and this and this. And they changed the idea from the, from this from the statics state theory to Big Bang and this and they keep changing it. And so yeah, we changed our minds on it, but we're still working on it. As if they really know exactly what's happening. The 13 point 9 billion years ago as if they can see exactly what's going on. And 4 billion years ago,
before the earth was created, they can see everything.
But putting that to the side. The question is, how could something
with no life give something give life to something? Simple? Have we ever observed physics turning into biology in this way? inanimate objects turning into objects, animate life objects, we don't see this. This is kind of theories that seriously, they are desperately clutching at straws.
And then they'll cite Darwinian evolution and say, Look, we know now. Okay, just for the sake of argument, you're right, was Darwinian evolution, which is on biology got anything to do with physics, the Hulk was similar to adverum unhealthiness. A loss of power.
That certainly the creation of the heavens and the earth is bigger than the creation of the human being. So let's start with the big and then we can go micro, let's start macro on that we can go micro
Darwinian evolution doesn't help you because it doesn't have anything to do with physics.
proving God is not what we're aiming to do because we as Muslims believe that you're born with a cooler malu malu than eurodollar. Every minute everyone who is born is born in a predisposition to believe in God.
But here's what I will say is that if you do want Aachen, if you do want rationality, as the Quran says, uses the word yaqeen and it uses the word arkell. And it uses the word
yaqeen, and Eman.
These are things that you will get from looking at the creation with sincerity.
Whether you are philosopher or physicist or a common man looking at the sky and the stars should lead you to Allah that's it.
Should be that should be as simple as this.
we'll continue and say play. Someone might argue and David Hume did argue this he said okay, and you know, you can see his ramblings or like, even though he's a massive philosopher, he said, How do you know it's one god it could be more than one creator that created this universe and these things.
By the Quran has three interesting verses one and Surah Surah one and sudo to NBA and one in sorbitan Moon which explains to us why it's a beautiful logical these are beautiful logical arguments the best you don't need to go anywhere else except for the Koran Everything is there. All the arguments are there.
Why is necessarily true that it has to be one God.
It sorted So Alice Montana says hello Canada who le Hutton kimata Kowloon isn't lava Tahoe la de la Shi Sevilla. If there were many gods with him, as you say, then they would have all been competing to the arch. In other words, some of our students say they will be trying to get closer to Allah and other professors don't say they will be competing in strength. As soon as a moment on it says Lala Baba Humala, but they will
have been competing with each other, ie the two gods.
And in social ambia, it says that the heavens and earth left has said that they would have been destroyed. Now, here's the point, there are three things which have to be unitary and cannot be many. One of them is creative ability or control of the creation. Number two is will you rather and number three is power. Now, let me give you an example of this easily Yeah.
If you have two individuals, or you have two entities that claim to be God, you have three choices, either they will fight each other, they will fight each other. And they will both it will be like a draw a stalemate, in which case we will say how can you be God all powerful, and both of you are
cannot be the other one, right? option two, they will compromise with each other democratically say, Listen, you have Monday, I will rule on Tuesday, you know, we'll share the dominion.
And if this was the case, it implies weakness, because why do you need to compromise as an all powerful creator.
And the third thing, which is the obvious one, the third thing, which is the obvious one is that one will prevail over the other. And if this is the case, then that one which prevails over the other is the powerful one is the God and the one who has been subordinated is the is the subjugate in this case is subjected one. So here is very simple, is necessarily true, because
of the fact that there cannot be multiple wills that cannot be multiple creative capacities, and they cannot be more than one or powerful entity. And by the way, this completely debunks the Trinity completely destroys the Trinity. If you want an easy way to destroy the trinity of the Christians, this is the one of the best logical ways they say that all three are God.
But that they're all unified in the Trinity, right? That Jesus is God that the Father is God, the Holy Spirit's got, if that is the case, is Jesus all powerful? Yes, yes. Is the father all powerful? Yes, yes.
If they go against each other, who's going to win in a fight? You know, how he put it? How are they going to draw? No, no, they're not going to draw, who would fight who would win Jesus or the father, come on, ask the Christian.
If Jesus will something, and the father will something. And they are different, because they're two different persons, even according to who's going to win.
If you say both of them will come together and compromise, then they are both weak. So this is a very interesting argument.
Now, finally, I wanted to talk about something else. Now someone will say, well, these are all very fine logical arguments. These are very fine logical arguments. But
they will argue,
we don't want to be religious.
We've had enough of religion, look at what religion has done to society and these things. We don't want to believe in Gods say, Okay, no problem. Don't believe in God, we'll see what happens. Don't, don't you don't have to say no problem. mlo worship, don't do what you want. Come on chef, aluminum chef, for whoever wants to come believe whoever wants to come this believe we believe that if you have been given the message, and you deny it, then you will go to the hellfire. And you burn forever, actually, that's what will happen to you. And you know, there's only one way of finding out when we die, we're going to find out, we'll call you in here in La Jolla, tuna, dunya Namo tuna,
here, we are looking at a layaway
that they say is only our life of this world, we're going to live and die and only the time will
will the choice.
What kind of knowledge they have this in home Li of all known, they only guess and will lie.
Atheists can only be uncertain, it's actually a necessary part of the ideology. They can never be certain of their ideology. That's why actually, if you even if you look at what they describe themselves as they describe themselves, for those who know, negative atheists, they don't have any positive arguments against the existence of God. Some of them do, say the problem of evil like David Hume, whatever. But the majority of them say no, actually, no, we just don't I'm not convinced with the evidences. Now, I'll say to them, if you're not convinced with the evidence is fine, no problem. Don't believe in God. We'll see what happens after we die. No problem, no problem. But I will say to
the atheist this.
For example, if that atheist decides to embrace another secular ideology, and this is why it was useful during the liberalism and feminism discussion before I'm doing this one, because as they say, I'm not I'm not a religious person, but I am a feminist. Yes, I'm a feminist, or I am a liberal. So listen, you believe in liberalism. So yeah. So you've, you've left the cosmological argument, which is an inductive argument. You've left the fine tuning argument.
Which the chances of, you know leaving is tantamount to literally saying that the probability of the universe coming coming about is zero, but I'll accept this. You've left all of those strong arguments as first principle arguments.
And now you're going to feminism and liberalism, which don't even have arguments like this. They don't have argument, there is no equivalent of the cosmological argument to prove liberalism.
There is no equivalent of the teleological fine tuning argument to prove feminism. Therefore, if we're being epistemologically honest, you should not believe in any of those secular ideologies. And some people actually went down that line, they call themselves postmodernists Nietzsche
is a very interesting example. He wrote books, he said, You know, I don't believe in any of this, he didn't even believe in science. He was skeptical of everything. But that is an honest approach to the skeptical extremism that he believed that's that's how it should be. Every atheist should be like Nietzsche, if they're being intellectually honest.
They should read the books of Nietzsche and be like Him who, by the way, he went mad at the end of his life. And he went to a doctor, even though he did not believe in, and he was skeptical of science.
But the point is this.
The point is, if that is your standard of truth, that you're going to leave all these things, these abductive and inductive and deductive arguments, which really do
for atheists, and non atheists constitute a solid framework
for believing anything from first principles,
then you should leave everything else in terms of belief.
If an atheist says I'm an atheist, but do you believe in this, and if they start spouting moral moral things and say, I believe this was morally incorrect, and you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't do? Where is your moral anchorage? Where is your objective moral anchorage? Where do you get your morals from? How can you even justify anything? You've used such a skeptical method to deny the arguments for the existence of God, we expect you to use that same skepticism for everything else in your life. And if you use
that same skepticism for everything else in your life, you will simply have nothing, you will simply believe in nothing.
be a feminist, and believe in feminism, if you are an atheist, that rejects these arguments because feminism, as we've discussed, does not have any underlying principles, which, which root it from bottom up. Same thing with liberalism, same thing with communism.
They will have attempts but they don't have anything solid, certainly not as solid as the cosmological. So here the point is this.
The Quran is very clear. I'm Julio komen, hi, Russia in a human Holocaust, what they created from nothing. Were they themselves the creators of themselves, and Calico somehow it will be known, did they? Are they the ones who created the heavens in the earth? They have no certainty, that whenever Allah describes these individuals, he always describes for Parliament a beautiful premise, they can never be certain.
Because they apply an extreme skepticism, they might as well deny themselves as nature did. So I don't exist. I don't I don't actually exist. The self the me I don't I don't know. How do I know use the same philosophical inquiry? No, I don't know. Actually, the chances of me not being here is Satya, there is a chance, why don't you use the same belief and the same method of inquiry.
Because if you do it, you will deny yourself you'll deny everything.
So with that in sha Allah, I will conclude
I will conclude with what Allah subhanaw taala he said,
because what Allah Subhana Allah said, is quite powerful in referencing.
The fact that really, scientific inquiry, although is very important, and we respect it and everything, especially as it regards to knowing what happened before, in terms of and this is a big thing for people say evolution.
Evolution is something of the past, it's actually history,
a scientific history, they have to trace even This is Richard Dawkins. He said, you know, we have to come up with detectives, we're bringing all the things together we're trying to find out what happened.
By you did not witness this. You did not see species moving into other species, or becoming other species you have not seen this year. The atheist, for the most part will be an ardent evolutionist. Yes, I believe in evil, but you did not see this. And the theory of evolution continues to change.
So Allah says Mashhad to homolka similar to a lot, I have not
allowed them to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth,
what a whole confusion and not the creation of themselves.
Now, this is very powerful.
They have not seen things that they believe in
as almost anchor anchors, yet
they will use empirical arguments we have not seen God and these things to the night God. So here
when discussing with atheists sometimes Well, I I think it is a psychological thing. It's not it's no longer a, an intellectual inquiry. Because if we look at if we do, it's the crux of all of the philosophies that dealt with, for example, for Yani to the teleological argument or the fine tuning argument, you'll see that there's really weak arguments in opposition to these things.
And so it's not about intellectual ism. It's not really it's not it's about psychology.
It's about of what of the favors of Allah subhanaw taala. Will you deny? And so with atheists, I think the best approach, and this is after some time of debating with them and talking with them, is as the chef said in the previous lecture, just smile at them.
And maybe go and get some food with them and talk with them, be nice with them. Ask them how their parents are, and you never know, they might, they might change and become Muslim.