Full Debate vs Edward Tabash – Does God Exist – Part 1

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Topics: Comparative Religion

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:05--> 00:00:27

We're gonna begin with the recitation of the Quran. Just to remind us about Allah subhanaw taala has words, and that's how we're going to be starting this adventure Allah. I'll be reciting some ayat or some verses from chapter number 31 sora Lockman and these verses are going to be talking about the advice that milkman gave to his son

00:00:28--> 00:00:40

and not the man the scholars differ about who he was Some say that he was a prophet, Allah subhanaw taala talks about him as a wise person. So inshallah I will begin with the Arabic and that translated in English

00:00:45--> 00:00:50

it will be laheem ina Shea upon euro g

00:00:51--> 00:00:52

this middle

00:00:53--> 00:00:53

man

00:00:57--> 00:00:57

What the

00:01:00--> 00:01:02

heck matter anish score little

00:01:04--> 00:01:17

Whammy score effect in your school enough see. Woman cafaro fair enough in a law How funny you want me

00:01:19--> 00:01:23

Why is Paula Lupo man holy beanie he was

00:01:24--> 00:01:27

born a Yala to Shrek bill

00:01:29--> 00:01:37

yeah born a Yella to be lucky in California monogamy.

00:01:38--> 00:01:39

Well, while slain

00:01:41--> 00:01:45

son Abby, Lee de Hama Allah

00:01:47--> 00:01:48

Nana Allah wa

00:01:50--> 00:01:50

what you saw

00:01:52--> 00:01:58

mainly initially Bali Bali de la el mostly

00:02:00--> 00:02:01

want you

00:02:05--> 00:02:12

to shreeka Bhima la sala KB here in Fela tutor Houma la sua

00:02:13--> 00:02:15

dunya maroof

00:02:17--> 00:02:20

what Barris Abby lemon Anna, La

00:02:22--> 00:02:25

La Yamato je una boo

00:02:32--> 00:02:34

Yeah, buena yeah in

00:02:36--> 00:02:40

Turku Miss betim in hora Delhi

00:02:44--> 00:02:45

federal

00:02:46--> 00:02:59

law right in our office to fill or ugly DB law in law Hello, please phone hobby.

00:03:00--> 00:03:06

Yeah, buena yapi Mills, sala de la mano murottal v one

00:03:09--> 00:03:17

was berala saw back in the early camminare mill

00:03:21--> 00:03:21

Walla

00:03:25--> 00:03:27

Walla, she fill

00:03:29--> 00:03:33

in Allah, Allah Buccola mo

00:03:37--> 00:03:42

was also the fy machico board meeting. So dig

00:03:43--> 00:03:44

in

00:03:46--> 00:03:50

Swati lovesong to me.

00:03:55--> 00:03:58

So in these verses, Allah subhanaw taala begins

00:03:59--> 00:04:21

by talking about Lockman mentioning that And We have certainly given we referring to Allah subhana wa Tada. We have certainly given lokman wisdom, and said, Be grateful to Allah, and whoever is grateful is grateful for the benefit of himself. And whoever denies a loss favor, and indeed a loss free of neat and praiseworthy

00:04:24--> 00:04:45

and mentioned or Mohammed, when local man said to his son while he was instructing him, so now Look, man begins his advice to his son. He begins by saying, Oh, my son, do not associate anything with the law. Indeed, associating with him is a great injustice. So the first advice that he gives me is that he's already starting off with

00:04:46--> 00:04:59

the fact that associating anything with Allah subhanaw taala is one of the greatest atrocities someone can commit. And this is the foundation of his advice It begins with before telling him anything else is his belief in Allah subhanho wa Taala

00:05:02--> 00:05:15

And we have enjoyed upon man care for his parents, his mother carried him increasing her and weakness upon weakness, and his weaning, as in two years, be grateful to me and to your parents, and to me is the final destination.

00:05:17--> 00:05:56

But if they endeavor to make you associate with me that which you have no knowledge, do not obey them, but accompany him in this world with appropriate kindness, and follow the way of those who returned back to me and repentance, then to me will be your turn. And I will inform you about what you used to do. So that will last and now look man is giving advice to son about the importance of parents and how after having your belief in Allah subhanho wa Taala and understanding that you're not allowed to associate anything with him. The advice he gives them is having kindness towards your parents, regardless of what they tell you to do, or how they act towards you, with the exception of

00:05:56--> 00:06:02

them, nullifying the first advice that local man gave which was to associate partners with Allah subhanho wa Taala.

00:06:04--> 00:06:17

And local man said, Oh, my son, indeed, if wrong should be the way of a mustard seed and should be within a rock or anywhere in the heaven or in the earth, alone will bring it forth indeed a law subtle and acquainted.

00:06:19--> 00:06:39

Oh, my son established prayer and join what is right for bid what is wrong, and be patient over what befalls you. Indeed, all that is of the matters requiring determination. So now he's giving his son that the importance of our prayer that we have five times a day, and that we need to establish and make sure that we're keeping up with with our with our, with our daily prayers.

00:06:40--> 00:06:52

And the importance of when you see something that is good that you encourage that good and that you enjoy and and be part of that good and that when you see something evil you do everything in your power to stop what evil action is.

00:06:53--> 00:07:22

Do not turn your cheek and contempt toward people do not walk through the earth, Earth executively Indeed, Allah does not like everyone's self, deluded and boastful. Essentially warning a son from being arrogant and acting like he is something when in reality, all we are are the slaves of Allah subhana wa Tada. And be moderate in your pace and lower your voice. Indeed, the most disagreeable of sounds is the voice of donkeys. And indeed, Allah subhana wa tada spoken to truth star Martin warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

00:07:29--> 00:07:30

Salam Alaikum,

00:07:32--> 00:08:07

Salaam Alaikum. everyone, for coming, everyone. Thank you so much for coming. We really appreciate it. Welcome to the UC Davis, Muslim Student Associations very first debate. And we are very excited to be holding it today. And we're very honored that you all took the time on a weekday to come out and listen to this beautiful debate. We're extremely excited to be hosting these two amazing debaters who are very kind very knowledgeable and have spared their time in the middle of the week to come and speak to us. And with that we are going to be debate or they're going to be debating the concept or the use of the existence of God. And before I give them a proper well do introduction, I

00:08:07--> 00:08:12

will be passing off the microphone to Ali Dawa, who will be talking about Suriname

00:08:21--> 00:08:22

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.

00:08:25--> 00:08:31

Before I start, when I praise Allah subhanho wa Taala, the Most Merciful the most just, or praise His glory and gratitude belong to him for everything that we do.

00:08:33--> 00:09:13

Salaam stands for sharing and affection, love and mercy. And that's what we're here to do inshallah, specifically, at the time of age that we live, where Haiti has been hate, it's being spread by the label given freedom of speech. And this sometimes comes at the cost of innocent people dying. And we saw that Christchurch, we saw that in London, where we're from innocent people getting killed Muslim or non Muslim, and we want to put an end to this. And one of our objectives is to deconstruct false narratives and reconstruct pure minds, and that's our main objective. And I just want to thank every single one of you guys for coming, you can check our website solando home.uk. inshallah, we're

00:09:13--> 00:09:31

planning on setting up a team in California. This is a beautiful country, we absolutely loved it. The food's set the macros, raspberry flavor, absolutely amazing and I want to fund it primarily in the team. Every time I create it, they get it for me So Michelle can be successful debate inshallah. And we want to thank her

00:09:33--> 00:09:37

I'm not gonna say uncle cuz he looks quite young. Mashallah Brahma Yes.

00:09:48--> 00:09:59

I want to thank him. I want to thank our teachers who have supported us supported us along the way we shall not entirely successful debate and home praise belongs to Allah subhanho wa Taala Thank you for listening. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.

00:10:08--> 00:10:08

All right.

00:10:11--> 00:10:13

Thank you very much for that.

00:10:14--> 00:10:16

So first we'll be introducing Brother

00:10:17--> 00:10:56

Mohammed Your job is a debater and public speaker who engages in discussions and polemics on a wide variety of topics including religion, politics and society. He completed a politics degree and a master's in the history in history from Queen Mary University. He has taught and instructed courses on humanities and languages in many contexts. He has come he has numerous advisors in some Islamic sciences, and his study in numerous Islamic seminaries, including the Champlain Institute, which employs the traditional meridian style of teaching of the sacred sciences. Edward Edie tabash, is a constitutional lawyer in the Los Angeles area. He graduated from UCLA in 1973 Magnum comb Laude with

00:10:56--> 00:11:31

a bachelor's bachelor's degree in political science. He graduated from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles in 1973. He is the son of an orthodox Rabbi from Lithuania and an Auschwitz surviving mother from Hungary. After decades of spiritual reflection and seeking he has determined that the universe is natural, with no supernatural being or beings, no god or gods involved in the creation or perpetuation of our existence. He chairs the board of directors of the center of inquiry transnational, a worldwide organization of secular humanists and scientific skeptics. He's also known for his legal work in separation of church and state cases, and which we seek to preserve the

00:11:31--> 00:11:50

equality before the law of both believers and non believers. He promotes a secular society based in science, reason and inquiry, maintaining strong conviction in this he's an integral leader to several associations, which exists to separate church and state, a part of his work in separation of church and state has specifically been in opposing Trump's Muslim ban.

00:11:51--> 00:12:29

And Mashallah, they're both extremely qualified and we're very, very excited to have them both in this debate. And for this reason, we would like to also request a certain level of boundaries and guidelines for the event inshallah to make sure that it goes as smooth as possible for both of our speakers. And then we ask that everyone be as as respectful as possible to build on our speakers by doing a number of few things so we would like everyone to please if possible, please do not shout Heckle boo screen cause any form of ruckus against either speakers in order to respect their time, their knowledge and everything that they're doing for us today. If people are causing issues

00:12:29--> 00:13:02

unfortunately, we will have to have security escort you out in a respect for both of our speakers. Also another request that we have is that if you would like to clap please feel free to but only after the speaker is completed with their what they're saying simply because there is a time frame that each of them has to be able to get their points across and we do not want to disadvantage either speaker by limiting the other speakers amount of time through copying and waiting for people to stop talking. And with that said, Please do not go Okay. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you, everyone. We really appreciate it and then I will be passing off our microphone to our moderator,

00:13:03--> 00:13:04

which is admin for was

00:13:15--> 00:13:28

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us. As I mentioned, I will be moderating moderating the debate. We will start off with opening statements each speaker will have 20 minutes to give theirs and we will begin with Brother Mohammed hijab.

00:13:42--> 00:13:44

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah cancel.

00:13:46--> 00:14:02

First of all, I want to thank every single one of you for coming down here, I want to thank the university and of course, I want to thank editor bash, who's a really prolific, you know, formidable opponent, and a very experienced atheist opponent for many years. And so I'm very happy that all of you are here today. To proceed.

00:14:04--> 00:14:07

There's no doubt that there is existence.

00:14:09--> 00:14:12

There is no doubt that there is existence.

00:14:14--> 00:14:27

existence is divided into two things, possible existence, and necessary existence. Possible existence, is existence that otherwise doesn't need to exist.

00:14:29--> 00:14:33

And its existence that could be arranged in any other way.

00:14:35--> 00:14:43

its existence which is dependent, for example, on wearing a blue blazer, this is a possible existence doesn't have to exist.

00:14:44--> 00:14:46

It could be arranged in another way.

00:14:47--> 00:14:47

And

00:14:49--> 00:14:53

it's dependent upon materials that are created, used to create it.

00:14:54--> 00:15:00

Necessary existence on the other hand, is existence which is couldn't be any other

00:15:01--> 00:15:09

existence which could not be any other way is independent, self sufficient and could not be out of existence.

00:15:11--> 00:15:20

Now, the main argument today is this, there cannot be a world with only possible existences, that is the main argument.

00:15:22--> 00:15:28

There cannot be a world with only possible existences. Why, because if it was only possible existence is

00:15:30--> 00:15:46

going to be using the board a little bit, it is only possible existences, you'd have dependent things depending upon other dependent things. Now, this can be reasoned, metaphysically, ontologically, and cosmological. For example, we said series

00:15:52--> 00:15:54

dependent one dependent two dependent three,

00:15:56--> 00:16:01

this series existed in its by itself, it would require something outside of it

00:16:03--> 00:16:09

an independent thing in order for that series to exist. Now, what we say is an infinite series.

00:16:11--> 00:16:16

Let's say if it was an infinite series, we'll get to that in workflows.

00:16:17--> 00:16:18

Now,

00:16:21--> 00:16:22

let's use a cosmological example.

00:16:23--> 00:16:28

We have a tree, it's very beautiful trees here, by the way, in California,

00:16:30--> 00:16:51

are beautiful. That tree requires the sun to photosynthesize in order to exist, I think it's fair to say it's a tree that exists of the Sun didn't exist, the tree would not exist. Start to say this, yes, so long as the sun is required, also long as the tree exists, the sun will exist, even if that was for an infinite amount of time.

00:16:53--> 00:16:56

Now the sun itself is part of its own order.

00:16:59--> 00:17:00

And

00:17:01--> 00:17:14

its form its own sense. Now it requires other things in order to exist. And the end of this what is required, once again, is an independent thing, that this independent thing

00:17:16--> 00:17:30

can only be one, wait a minute. Why is that? Because if there was more than one necessary existence, it wouldn't be a necessary existence, because it could be conceived that it can be arranged in another way.

00:17:31--> 00:17:37

And you can't have two things which are independent, because which one is dependent on which

00:17:38--> 00:17:39

therefore,

00:17:41--> 00:17:57

whether you conceptualize this ontologically cosmologically, or materialism dualism, idealism, you must concludes that what is required in order for any existence to exist, is an independent thing.

00:17:59--> 00:18:00

That is one

00:18:01--> 00:18:10

that is always in existence. Why? Because if it wasn't in existence, if it could be conceived that this thing is not an existence, it wouldn't be necessary.

00:18:12--> 00:18:13

So it has to be eternal.

00:18:15--> 00:18:56

And it can't be made up of parts. Why? Because anything which is a compound is generated. Anything that's made up of parts, is dependent on those parts. that's point number one. And point number two, if it was a possible existence, if it's made up of parts, you can imagine those parts being arranged in a different way. Therefore, it falls into the category of possible existence. To summarize, you require an independent thing, outside of the series of dependent things in order for any existence to exist, this thing must be one, it cannot have parts, it must be immaterial in corporate

00:18:58--> 00:18:59

well suppose to be,

00:19:00--> 00:19:09

it must be eternal. Now this is what the Quran says in its basic definition of God. For who Allah Allah, say, Is God one and only Allah summit,

00:19:10--> 00:19:20

the one who is independent, self sufficient, everything depends upon him, and he depends upon nothing. Let me tell you that he begets not nor is he forgotten.

00:19:21--> 00:19:32

He is the eternal, one pre eternal, post eternal. Well, I would love to have one I had, and there is nothing like him is immaterial is not composed of parts isn't copro.

00:19:34--> 00:20:00

So you see, this is the argument. If this argument is tracked, I have lost in debate. This is my main argument. Everything goes back to this argument, which goes back to the basic definition of God. What must be presented is a formulation whether it's a cosmological one, or an ontological one, which shows us how it's possible that only possible existences can exist without

00:20:00--> 00:20:03

be independent. If that's done, I'm ready to be an atheist today.

00:20:04--> 00:20:09

Now, the Quran says in chapter 53, verse 30 5am, fully human

00:20:11--> 00:20:12

and human Hollywood

00:20:16--> 00:20:39

was created from nothing. Where they themselves the creators of themselves, did they create the heavens and the earth? Suddenly they have no certainty. saying that the atheistic position is one of mere speculation, you can never achieve certainty with atheism. Why? Because in this logical disjunction, you have four options. Either the universe came from nothing, which is impossible.

00:20:40--> 00:20:45

ontologically mathematically and cosmologically. It's not possible. No one has argued this really.

00:20:47--> 00:20:51

It's a weak argument. I don't think my interlocutor with his experience will go there.

00:20:52--> 00:20:54

He's very prominent and very experienced, you won't go there.

00:20:56--> 00:21:00

And Oh, is it a channel? Can it be a turn?

00:21:01--> 00:21:11

Well, let's say it is, wait a minute, what did you say? Did you consider that? Yes, no problem. Even if it was a tunnel, for the sake of argument, it is dependent or independent.

00:21:12--> 00:21:14

You still have the problem.

00:21:15--> 00:21:15

But

00:21:17--> 00:21:22

my interlocutor is a naturalist. So he believes in the beginning of the universe. So that's not a problem for us.

00:21:25--> 00:21:46

What other options do we have? Is it self created? Like my friend Hamza also says, Is it possible for something to exist or not exist? At the same time he gives the example of a mother giving birth to herself? Is that possible? No, it's not possible. It's not possible. So the other thing is, it was put into existence by something which had the ability to do so.

00:21:48--> 00:21:56

Now, the question is, what are the attributes of that thing, which had the ability to put the universe into existence?

00:21:58--> 00:22:05

How do we reason this by inference? We say, Well, if it had the ability to put the universe into existence, it must have power.

00:22:06--> 00:22:12

Because that is required for that kind of thing. It must have creative capacity, it must have

00:22:14--> 00:22:14

knowledge.

00:22:16--> 00:22:17

It must have knowledge.

00:22:19--> 00:22:22

So you see, we start to have a formulation.

00:22:23--> 00:22:25

A question now we have to ask,

00:22:27--> 00:22:31

is, why is the universe one way? And not another way?

00:22:32--> 00:22:48

It's conceivable, for example, you see, you have celestial spheres in the universe. They're rotating in one direction, we can conceive and imagine of the possibility of all of the celestial spheres in the universe going the other way. For example, we can imagine that.

00:22:49--> 00:22:52

So why is the universe one way rather than another way?

00:22:54--> 00:23:29

I will tell you that the only rational explanation for that is that there is an external particularize of the universe, say that one more time, that there must be an external ticular riser of the universe to choose between different options, possible options, because then you have no explanation for why the universe is one way, rather than another way. You have to have an external sorting agent. You have to have an external sorting agent that decides x rather than y. Otherwise, the question will be

00:23:31--> 00:23:41

to the atheist, how can you prove on naturalism? or How can you explain on naturalism that the universe is one way rather than another way? It's a very straightforward question.

00:23:42--> 00:23:43

Now, here's the thing.

00:23:45--> 00:23:52

If we know that there is an external sorting agent, this implies we'll have this agent

00:23:53--> 00:23:58

and if there was more than one will there be a chaotic universe as the process by the

00:24:01--> 00:24:03

low gana v Hema

00:24:08--> 00:24:09

festival will

00:24:10--> 00:24:11

be launching?

00:24:13--> 00:24:30

Soon, if there was more than one of them, the universe would have been corrupted the heavens and the earth would have been corrupted chapter 21 verse 22. How? Because if there's more than one will ultimately which one is steering the ship? There would be chaotic order.

00:24:31--> 00:24:33

Says law law.

00:24:35--> 00:24:48

In chapter 23, verse 91, if there was one more than one Almighty, they would have outstripped one another, attempted to outstrip one another's power. So in other words, you can't have more than one of those things for those reasons as well.

00:24:51--> 00:24:55

And this brings me to my third point, which is

00:24:57--> 00:24:59

the argument of the physical coherence of the US

00:25:00--> 00:25:03

Reverse, which is a chronic argument, because today I'm just gonna be sticking with

00:25:06--> 00:25:07

the process.

00:25:09--> 00:25:10

A lot easier

00:25:11--> 00:25:12

to

00:25:14--> 00:25:14

manage.

00:25:22--> 00:25:24

Whoa,

00:25:31--> 00:25:31

whoa,

00:25:35--> 00:25:39

Chapter 67 verse three, look at the universe, look up in the sky.

00:25:41--> 00:25:42

Look at the sky.

00:25:44--> 00:25:47

Look at the coherence of the universe, do you see any inconsistencies?

00:25:48--> 00:25:49

Look again?

00:25:51--> 00:25:53

Look again, let me look, let me see.

00:25:54--> 00:26:06

Is there any inconsistency and I thought about this verse. And this verse is telling us that there is a uniformity of nature, a consistency of nature, a coherence of nature.

00:26:08--> 00:26:30

The fact that the universe is uniform and coherent, it is not known by science is presupposed by science. Wait a minute, what did you say? Let me say one more time. If you look, for example, at any introductory guide to the scientific method, like you go, he wrote The Illustrated Guide to the scientific method. He said that the fact that you have rushed analyzable actors that can see the universe and see its consistency

00:26:31--> 00:26:39

means that there's a presupposition of science. And what is that presupposition that science is uniform, that the universe is uniform, is rationalized.

00:26:40--> 00:26:44

By size, that means let us to solve him. He said, the most

00:26:46--> 00:26:50

incomprehensible thing about the universe is that is comprehensible.

00:26:52--> 00:27:11

So I'm not making a fine tuning argument today, because we've heard enough of that every atheist and every atheist is fine tuning argument was just fine tuning arguments. The argument is, look at the constants of nature, yes, you have these constants, which are in a Goldilocks zone

00:27:12--> 00:27:59

of life, permitting range. If there were any way this way or that way they would not. The universe would not exist, and life will not be in a possible universe, like lotteries, roads, numbers, and he says n which is capital N, a number talking about, you know, the natural forces, he says is a billion billion billion billion and had any zeros been taken away? Yes, then that would have been the universe would have been completely different. He is another letter that he talks about the conversion of hydrogen into helium. He says that this conversion is 0.007 hadn't been 0.006 or 0.008. We would not exist. This is exactly what he writes. It's not what I'm writing. I'm not a

00:27:59--> 00:28:29

cosmologists. Right, is what he writes. That's an argument from probability. That's an interesting argument. I think the interesting thing is that many people see as a non theists, atheists, except the fine tuning of the universe, Stephen Hawkins accepted it. Richard Dawkins accepted it. So it's not really an area of controversy. My argument is about the uniformity of nature, the coherence of nature, which is presupposed by the Universe by the by scientific method.

00:28:30--> 00:28:32

The question is, therefore, on naturalism

00:28:34--> 00:29:00

on naturalism, how can you account for the coherence of the universe? You can't say, well, the universe just is like Bertrand Russell said, because that is a circular argument. Frankly, it's a cop out. I'm asking for an external explanation. We're rational people we should be able to explain, right? If, if naturalism hasn't been ability to, to give us these answers, that surely we should be entitled to such answers.

00:29:01--> 00:29:03

Now, I've got five minutes left.

00:29:05--> 00:29:22

And I've made my arguments. To reiterate. My main argument today is the argument from contingency. And it's not one that live in it's formulated, it's a different kind of argument from contingency that many Western people are not familiar with, is from our tradition.

00:29:24--> 00:29:24

And frankly,

00:29:26--> 00:29:40

the main question is this. The question is, how can you explain the world's either ontologically or cosmologically? Naturally, that only has possible existences.

00:29:42--> 00:30:00

That's the question. If you can prove it, you've cracked the argument. Now, I know I've been watching his videos. He's an incredible speaker. And because he's a lawyer, he's got that charisma, that if when he starts speaking, I might have to run away actually incredible speaking, but I know I have a feeling

00:30:00--> 00:30:06

He's going to talk about, and I think it's going to be the problem of evil. Right? Now, Epicurus,

00:30:08--> 00:30:13

an old Hellenistic philosophy, he had the logical form of the problem of evil

00:30:14--> 00:30:26

and the logical form and as follows that if God is omnipotent, and all good, then if he's omnipotent, why does he not stop the evil? If he's all good than Hong Kong evil exists?

00:30:29--> 00:30:35

The answer that question is as follows. I'm gonna give it to you right now. God is not just those two things. He's also always we're always.

00:30:36--> 00:30:52

So in order for the problem of evil, from an Islamic traditions perspective, to be unlocked. Or to make sense, from a logical perspective, you have to show logically or naturalistically or cosmologically or mathematically or inductively, objectively, any way possible, how?

00:30:53--> 00:30:58

How evil, the existence of evil contradicts the Divine Wisdom.

00:31:00--> 00:31:10

That's how it goes, if we don't believe in a God with three attributes goodness, or two attributes in and omnipotence only, that's not the God we believe in. So you have to show otherwise, it's an emotional argument.

00:31:11--> 00:31:59

Now, the other thing he talks about is the divine hiddenness. Why is God hidden from us? Now, we believe in the fifth or as Muslims, the immediate knowledge of God, the intuitive knowledge of God. And by the way, this is a Muslim specific belief. We believe that we are born believing in God's we have the immediate knowledge of God. And that society strays us away from that knowledge of God. So the Quran, for instance, or the prophets come to reinforce what we already knew primordially if you like primordially, from a psycho spiritual perspective, so God is not hiding, in fact, he's reminding us and the for us is Omar Khan, Mo, Vina Hatton avasarala, if an atheist dies as an

00:31:59--> 00:32:07

atheist. And, according to us, he dies an atheist is not the message of Islam, he does not go to hell straight away. We can't say this. It's not our belief.

00:32:08--> 00:32:17

So God is not hiding, according to us. So these are the two things I'm anticipating is going to be raising up some pre empting it. And finally, what I want to say.

00:32:19--> 00:32:35

And we'll talk about this by the way that fits on the immediate knowledge of God because there is empirical evidence of that, by the way, Justin Barrett made an interesting has many interesting books on this. He says that there is a there is a divine receptivity to God, and he doesn't,

00:32:36--> 00:32:45

you know, studies with children cross culturally and found that children naturally believe in God. So atheism on this idea is a social construct. atheism was a cultural construct.

00:32:46--> 00:33:03

So finally, I want to say that the Quran promises us in chapter number 41, that Allah will show us all the way. In other words, his science, he says, what are the blemishes? He said only him? Jean Jean Pierre, happy

00:33:04--> 00:33:05

to see him.

00:33:10--> 00:33:11

He

00:33:16--> 00:33:16

had,

00:33:19--> 00:33:20

we'll have

00:33:21--> 00:33:46

that we will certainly show them our science in the horizons and in themselves, until it's made patently clear that this is the truth. I hope today we can be as sincere as possible, and be open to this. And I hope now that we go back to that question of how there can be only possible existences. I leave it to Edward for the response. Thank you very much.

00:34:14--> 00:34:17

Is there some other mic I'm supposed to be? Okay.

00:34:19--> 00:35:00

Good evening, everybody. I want to thank the Muslim Student Association for putting on this debate. And I want to thank Mohammed for debating me. I will respond to his arguments in my rebuttal. But I will now present my positive arguments for why it is more likely than not, that the evidence in our physical universe clearly makes it so that a supernatural conscious personal being, that is an all good all knowing and all powerful deity. The standard issue god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not exist. argument one, the argument that from the way of

00:35:00--> 00:35:45

Our world operates, it is much more likely that there is nothing beyond the physical. The evidence shows that it is much more likely that the universe is not impacted by any invisible realms, or by intentional actions by immaterial beings. The history of scientific discovery has shown that whenever we attributed phenomenon to paranormal creatures or gods further examination showed such beings did not cause what was happening. We learned that lightning is not caused by an angry god or gods diseases are not caused by evil spirits and by germs, and demonic possession has nothing to do with mental illness. as humanity has gone forward. Natural explanations have always evicted,

00:35:45--> 00:36:33

previously believed supernatural ones, it has never been the other way around. There's no verifiable evidence of anything supernatural, which there should be if the supernatural existed. Since we have no background information of supernatural beings or events, there is a very low prior probability of them. This means that for instance, if we were to use Bayes probability theory, we would be predicting only natural explanations for phenomenon. Though we have never seen a Quark, we know that the category of subatomic particles particles do exist. evidence for the existence of quarks has been steadily increasing one indication of the soundness of the Quark model is its success in

00:36:33--> 00:37:19

predicting the outcome of high energy collisions of an electron and positron, there are no such equivalent empirically verifiable indications of God's existence. So we cannot infer the supernatural from a mere observation of the natural number to the argument from the non occurrence of miracles. claims of miracles have the initial problem of bearing witness against themselves, since by their very content they are violations of the laws of nature that are not supposed to be violated. All the supposedly miracles that are claimed to verify God's intervention in human affairs allegedly took place in a pre scientific era. Why don't we moderns have the same opportunity to

00:37:19--> 00:38:07

observe these miracles today? No verifiable events in today's world correspond to the types of miracles that monotheistic religions claim happened in ancient times. Thus, the probability that a miracle happened regardless of which religion makes the claim will always be lower than the probability that a miracle has not occurred. Number three, the argument from the dependence of conscious minds on a physical body and brain, there is overwhelming evidence that conscious thought and awareness cannot occur without a functioning physical brain, with operative cortical neurons and synapses. Believing in a disembodied super intelligence and in life after death creates a serious

00:38:07--> 00:38:47

dilemma. If even Alzheimer's disease can destroy conscious awareness, how can that very same conscious awareness survive the destruction of the entire body and brain at death? This would entail believing that of certain portions of our physical brains are damaged, we lose the awareness contained in those portions. But if you destroy the entire brain by death, your a well wareness will somehow reappear fully intact in some immaterial form, highly unlikely, if consciousness could survive independently of the brain, diseases, brain injuries and anesthetics would not Eclipse consciousness like they do.

00:38:48--> 00:39:20

Since the evidence shows, there is no conscious self awareness or thought. Without a functional brain with operative cortical neurons and synapses. We cannot be expected to believe in any god that is supposed to have a disembodied thinking mind. Number four the argument from evolution. Though many theists believe in evolution, because of its sloppiness, and trial and error features, evolution by natural selection is more likely if there is no God.

00:39:21--> 00:39:59

More than 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. This is wasteful. We have useless components in our bodies that indeed do more harm than good like the appendix, known to most of us only when it's about to burst. evolution by natural selection is established by the weight of the evidence. For instance, there is a 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudo gene region of beta globin. That is proof that humans and gorillas had a common ancestor. Number five, as Mohammed predicted in his prophetic wisdom, the argument

00:40:00--> 00:40:42

from evil, the evidential argument from evil, God can make whatever he wants happen and prevent anything he doesn't want from occurring. So why are their Holocaust extremely dangerous and violent people, horrible diseases, extreme poverty and destructive natural disasters. If we humans need discipline, we could benefit from a military style training camp, not a concentration camp, there was no benefit from my mother's having been in Auschwitz. Another example, Malaria is a terrible disease. There is a gene though that provides an effective defense against malaria. It works by destroying any red core puzzles that have been occupied by any of the types of parasitic protozoans

00:40:42--> 00:41:25

that caused malaria. But if one has inherited this gene from both parents, it also causes sickle cell anemia. Why did God have to set it up this way or allow it to work this way? to attempt to justify or explain the horrendous evil and suffering in the world. The theist must be able to show that God even with unlimited power, could not have prevented an even greater evil, but for the horrible evil and suffering he actually created or allowed, or with unlimited power, God could not have brought about a very great good, but for the horrible evil and suffering God actually created or allowed. Here, the theist must also be able to show that the very great good that could not but

00:41:25--> 00:41:46

for this horrible evil and suffering take place was indeed such a great good as to morally justify subjecting the victims to the agonizing pain they have to endure. If we take the concept of God's omnipotence Seriously, this is a very high burden for a supposedly omnipotent being to meet

00:41:48--> 00:42:30

the argument number six from divine hiddenness, a God that wants us to know that this God exists and wants a relationship with us would not withhold evidence of the Divine existence, and would understand just what evidence many of us would need in order to be able to believe if God exists and created me, God knows my mind and knows that right now, I couldn't believe in God, regardless how much I wanted to, just like I couldn't believe in space alien visitations to Earth, because of the absence of any evidence showing these things to be true. God's not being forthcoming with the evidence that would enable me to believe that God exists, while knowing that I can't believe in the

00:42:30--> 00:43:08

absence of such evidence is more consistent with God's non existence, than with the existence of a God that wants me to know him or her or it. If your mother told you that your father whom you've never met, or spoken to loves you married very much, and wants a father child relationship with you, but just has been too busy to ever come to see you ever since you were born, let's say around your 18th birthday, you would probably conclude that your dad really doesn't want a relationship with you, we can actually see the reality of human fathers on a daily basis. So even if the dad in the above scenario is always absent, we can believe he exists. We don't have the same evidence that a

00:43:08--> 00:43:50

god exists. So if we are told there was a God who loves us, and wants relationship with us, but that God never provides us with direct evidence that it exists. When such an all powerful God could easily provide that direct evidence. We are justified in doubting the existence of that God and doubting the desire of any such God to want the relationship with us. Divine hiddenness also furthers the argument from evil. If God exists such a being with no that unanswered questions about why there is so much evil and suffering prevent many of us from believing in such a God, we have a right to expect that a perfectly good God would not allow such horrendous evil and suffering without

00:43:50--> 00:44:03

morally sufficient reasons. If we are not told what those morally sufficient reasons are, then it is more probable that a perfectly good god that wants to be believed in in worship does not exist.

00:44:04--> 00:44:51

6.1 the argument from religious confusion, a subset of divine hiddenness there is so much agreement disagreement over which religion is true, and even if over which branch of a given religion is true. If God exists, and wants us to know its will and follow divine decrees, we are justified in expecting that this deity would not allow so much confusion over who that God is what that God wants us to believe in, and what that God wants us to do. The presence of such rampant confusion is more likely if a God that wants us to know its will does not exist. So Catholics believe that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he's infallible Protestants reject the concept of a pope. If only one of

00:44:51--> 00:44:56

these is true, God should make clear to Christians, which one it is

00:44:58--> 00:44:59

Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

00:45:00--> 00:45:48

began to disagree over whether Mohammed successor should be chosen by qualifications alone or need to have direct bloodline to Mohammed. Shiites believed that the 12th Imam in the 10th century was taken into hiding by God in a process called occultation and will return at the end of time, in a full messianic capacity to facilitate the final and full understanding of the Quran and the prophets message. Sudanese do not accept this. Now, even though the Sunnis and Shiites share the Quran, they have different versions of the Hadith, which are very important to Islamic interpretation of the deeds and traditions of the Prophet. So if one of these is true, and the other is false, God should

00:45:48--> 00:46:03

make clear to Muslims which one it is. Now the other, also derived from divine hiddenness argument from unreliable revelations and translations from defects and errors in the Bible, and the Quran.

00:46:05--> 00:46:54

If God exists, we are justified in expecting to this God will provide us with a reliable revelation. If there are problems with the revelation, then it's more consistent with a God that is not perfect. Both the Bible and Quran, talk clearly about male dominion over women. Genesis 316 says, and I desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over the Surah 434 pitfall says men are in charge of women because Allah have made the one of them Excel the other? Well, we modern humans have learned that there is no reason for men to be in charge of women, because women are the intellectual and moral equals of men. So this itself, this itself shows that both the Bible and the Quran are

00:46:54--> 00:47:07

incorrect. Insofar as they vest the man with more power over the woman than the woman is vested over the man. Also, both the Bible and the Quran, talk about

00:47:09--> 00:48:04

hell eternally. For those who don't believe in the religion each revelation is promoting, well, they can't both be true, it can't be true that you'll go to hell forever. If you are not a Christian, and you will go to hell forever if you're not a Muslim. So if in fact, there is a God, that basis, our eternity on whether we choose Christianity or Islam, then that God should tell us which one, and not let us make the honest and sincere mistake of picking the wrong one, and falling through the trap door into eternal horror. So the very fact that God doesn't make this clear to us and give us a clear choice is more consistent with there not being a God that wants us to find the truth. Now

00:48:04--> 00:48:32

also, if Islam is true, those of us who do not speak Arabic, and those of us who can't read the Quran, in its original should be given a clear and ambiguous translation, which is the functional equivalent of Arabic or God should have revealed the Quran. In every major language. Mohammed pitfall was one of the most prominent translators of the Quran into English in the

00:48:33--> 00:49:19

20th century. And in his translators, forward, it's a direct quote, The Quran cannot be translated. Every effort has been made to choose befitting language, but the result is not the Glorious Quran. It can never take the place of the Quran in Arabic. But then, if God wants me to be a Muslim, God should provide me with the proper translation, so I don't make any errors. Now another argument from divine hiddenness a subset as the argument for moral confusion, so many people acting in good faith. Even members of the same religion disagree about what is right and what is wrong in a bewildering variety of situations. Both the Bible and the Quran.

00:49:21--> 00:49:28

condemn gay sex. But most of us know gay couples. And our reason and experience tell us

00:49:30--> 00:49:58

that same sex relationships are no worse than heterosexual relationships. Just like a reason and experience tell us there is no reason for men to be in charge of women or rule over women, as opposed to women being in charge of men and ruling over men. So if either or both the Quran and the Bible were infallibly True, and in errant they wouldn't say these things

00:49:59--> 00:50:00

are

00:50:00--> 00:50:50

Given seven arguments from scale, or the argument from human insignificant 68% of the universe is dark energy 27% is dark matter. So a scan 5% of the universe is even conceptually accessible by us of that 5%. Virtually all of it is comprised of empty space, which is instantly lethal to human beings. So 99 point 35 nine, so the universe is basically off limits to humans, our galaxy contains around 300 billion stars. Our galaxy is one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. And we have no access to any of this. Mathematically, we are just one part in 100, followed by 39 zeros of the universe. There are 20 septillion planets in the universe, that's 20, followed by 24 zeros.

00:50:50--> 00:51:20

Why would God need such a literally astronomical number of excess planets? If we are the core of God's creation and concern? The universe is 13 point 7 billion years old, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We humans have been around for maybe 200,000 years. If we are at the center of creation, and of God's concern, why did God wait 13 point 7 billion years for us to appear, and all powerful engineer would not have needed

00:51:22--> 00:52:06

to suffer this kind of inefficiency. Remember, we are speaking of a god, that's supposed to be all powerful. argument number eight, the argument against the existence of a transcendent person, a person is by very definition of being who thinks and performs actions, and that in turn requires being in time. So how could God have deliberately created anything if there wasn't an environment of time and space in which to operate sequentially? So a could cause B. If the theist says that God exists in and functions in some unknowable metaphysical time, for which of course there is no proof, then the theist is conceding that God is not completely transcendent, since God operates in some

00:52:06--> 00:53:00

nebulous context, which corresponds to time of being out that is outside space and time is not working within a framework in which anything can be caused by anything else. So we can see that the overwhelming weight of the evidence in our physical universe makes the predictive power of atheism much stronger than that of theism. We see, for instance, that the universe is not perfect, most of it is lethal. We also see that within 5 billion years, the sun will burn out, which means the earth will seek to exist, I don't see much perfection in that. So probabilistically taking the totality of the evidence, it's far more likely than not that we live in a natural not a supernatural universe,

00:53:00--> 00:53:06

and that and all powerful all good all knowing self conscious God does not exist. Thank you.

00:53:14--> 00:53:33

Thank you so much for both of our speakers in the next section will be the rebuttals section. Each speaker will have 10 minutes to counter the other speakers argument that was presented during the open state opening statement. We will begin with Muhammad hijab and then Edwards about so Amitabh

00:53:47--> 00:53:49

are we gonna win everyone's quiet?

00:53:54--> 00:54:30

All right, so I will make a points arguments I'm gonna respond to each and every single one of them. The first one the verifiable evidence of something which is supernatural, which leads to the second point, which is the non evidence of miracle. I'm going to prove today that Edward believes in miracles What did you say? Let me say it again. Edward believes in miracles. What is the miracle according to Edward, according to David Hume is a violation of the laws of nature. It's a violation of the laws of nature. What is a miracle something which goes outside the five senses which can be really detected by science, because naturalism, according to the Oxford concise companion, is a

00:54:30--> 00:54:35

philosophy is something which can only be seen by science, the response it says,

00:54:41--> 00:54:43

Call me, you.

00:54:50--> 00:54:51

d.

00:54:58--> 00:54:59

e says they say to us

00:55:01--> 00:55:13

They say he strict structure example. And they say, who's going to raise the fence? When it becomes dust? The one who gave it life the first time. Now let's think of this.

00:55:14--> 00:55:50

Have we ever seen the transition from chemistry to biology? No. This is referred to as angiogenesis. Yes. When chemistry becomes biology, every study of biology presupposes this. Because if there's no such thing, as a movement, from chemistry to biology, they cannot be biology. Therefore, the dead became the living. Have you seen that? No. Have you sensed that? No. Is it scientific? No. Do you believe in it? Yes. It's a miracle. Just like Jesus raising the dead. It's a miracle. Just like the death resurrection. It's a miracle. So just as all of those things will happen,

00:55:51--> 00:56:05

the Quran says, you can believe in all of that is premised on the movement from a nonliving chemistry to a biology you believe in it. We all believe in miracles, if that is how it's defined. And that's how he defined it. Number three,

00:56:06--> 00:56:21

the dependence of conscious minds on the brain, which is a philosophical discussion, frankly, Raymond Tallis wrote a book called aping mankind. He's a neuroscientist. He asked the question, if consciousness is in the brain, where is it in the brain?

00:56:23--> 00:56:26

What's the natural explanation for where consciousness is in the brain?

00:56:27--> 00:56:32

Really, frankly, the idea that you can lose consciousness through anesthetic and then

00:56:33--> 00:56:38

being not in a state of consciousness is refuted by dreams, the existence of dreams.

00:56:39--> 00:56:42

You know, I close my eyes, you know? Why? See?

00:56:45--> 00:56:55

How can you explain dreams? This is the problem of hard consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness, you can't bypass the academics. This is something that philosophers has been talking about since time began.

00:56:57--> 00:56:58

Number four,

00:57:00--> 00:57:09

that the argument for evolution, evolution doesn't contradict theism. But which evolution are we talking about Darwinian evolution after the 1960s? One thing will refute

00:57:10--> 00:57:39

this, the problem of induction. Science has the problem of theory lateness of induction, interpretation, all of these things. You can't say that it's definite, and he didn't say that he was careful in his wording says most likely, but that can be reformulated. If new data is found, it could be reinterpretation that has been re interpreted. In fact, there's more likelihood that our evolutionary conceptions will change. So you can't really use this as an argument.

00:57:40--> 00:58:10

The argument from evil, what is evil? Here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen, on naturalism evil does not exist. It's a powerful concept. It's a social construct. Look at the works of Bertrand Russell of nature. Post modernists, even Richard Dawkins in the blind watchmaker, he says, There's no such thing as good. There's no such thing as evil. So bitness indifference, that's what he says. Why? Because on naturalism, you cannot put morality under a microscope.

00:58:11--> 00:58:23

There is no way of ascertaining that there is any morals on naturalism. There is no objective morality. Why even when you're talking about for the sake of argument, say, okay, even just

00:58:24--> 00:58:29

what we said it's not incompatible with wisdom of God. The Quran says again,

00:58:37--> 00:58:48

he's the one who has created life and death to see which one of you is best. Indeed, if there was no evil, there would be no just, if there would be no evil, there'll be no free will. What's the point of life then? What is the purpose of this?

00:59:02--> 00:59:03

Why Elaine?

00:59:05--> 00:59:07

Everyone's gonna die.

00:59:08--> 00:59:12

Everyone's gonna die. I'm gonna die and he's gonna die. You're gonna die.

00:59:14--> 00:59:22

And we will test you with good and evil as a as a test. And then you come back to us. It's a test without even the remote test.

00:59:24--> 00:59:43

Next, divine hiddenness we've already covered this, the fifth one. We're all born with a predisposition of God. There is evidence for this. Paul bloom, Justin Barrett, many people have already said, we have seen we have analyzed empirical evidence of children, how they, what is their natural instinct.

00:59:44--> 00:59:45

They is mentioned

00:59:46--> 00:59:49

just embarrasses. They have a natural receptivity.

00:59:51--> 00:59:59

They have a natural receptivity to divine to the divine and non anthropomorphic gods, not Jesus. Not Buddha.

01:00:00--> 01:00:13

They have a net, we have natural inclination to go. And then that's reinforced by the prophets. That's the Islamic narrative. The process came to remind us of what we already knew. It says, The Quran is a reminder.

01:00:14--> 01:00:24

Just like if you were separated from your parents, or your mother, and then you're reunited with his by natural instincts, and the same thing with God.

01:00:25--> 01:00:36

So it talks about divine confusion, or unreliable revelations. I agree with this point. There are unreliable revelations. But I would want to see how that is the case with the one.

01:00:37--> 01:00:38

There was no argument then.

01:00:39--> 01:01:00

Chapter Four, verse 34, is a bad translation man in charge of woman, there's only one translation, I think, it's men are maintainers and protectors of women. And frankly, if you didn't believe this, you wouldn't draft men to the army in America. Men protect women, and they have done so. It's not saying that they're better than them the Quran and the Prophet said in them and discipleship, I apologize. Men are equal to women.

01:01:03--> 01:01:05

So I mean, the Quran says,

01:01:07--> 01:01:08

in, in the law,

01:01:11--> 01:01:37

that God does not lead to waste any action of a man or woman both of you. But anyways, go back to the idea of natural selection on natural selection. The patriarchy on feminism is justified. Because if men can dominate women, that's a natural thing. What's the problem on naturalism? How can you justify feminism second wave feminism, on naturalism? That's an impossibility. You can't do it.

01:01:38--> 01:02:04

Why not? third wave feminism? Why not the works of Judith Butler? Why not queer theory? Why not LGBT? Why has to be second wave equal? The Eurocentric understanding of equality? How is that natural? naturalistic? I want to see how he mechanistically shows us that hell eternity. Well, both of us can be Muslims and Christians can be both right the right about that. But that doesn't solve any issue doesn't create any problem, the translation problem, only one way to understand the language.

01:02:05--> 01:02:17

Is translation problem with mathematics. Is mathematics false, therefore, the language. If that translatable thing it becomes false because of its content, and has to be translated in mathematics is false?

01:02:19--> 01:02:26

more confusion? I mean, yes, there's more confusion. But just because there's controversy of something. It doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy.

01:02:27--> 01:02:42

argument from scale. He says 99% 99.9% of the universe is not suitable to human life. He's made the fine tuning argument for me. We're in the 0.01. So what is the possibility of that for real? I agree with you.

01:02:43--> 01:02:44

transcend transcending person,

01:02:45--> 01:02:54

a transcendent person. He defines person in a certain way says God controls time and space. Simple as that. I mean, it's not really an argument. And I think

01:02:56--> 01:02:57

I've got a minute left,

01:02:58--> 01:02:58

left.

01:02:59--> 01:03:00

Well,

01:03:01--> 01:03:02

well, well, well,

01:03:04--> 01:03:05

you know,

01:03:06--> 01:03:14

here's the thing, guys, don't be swayed by the red herring. The red herring is a moral red herring. The Quran says this about men.

01:03:15--> 01:03:20

Here's the thing on naturalism. No one is born equal.

01:03:21--> 01:03:45

Yes. Why? Because actually, liberalism is an outgrowth of something which is called the state of nature. It's a fictitious mythological construct, which john Locke and Thomas Hobbes wrote in their books, it's not scientific, we came out of the state of nature. And we became, we became connected socially contractually into the state. This so the whole of liberalism and human rights by extension is a myth. It's a liberal myth.

01:03:47--> 01:03:58

Show me on naturalism, how liberalism is true, how we're all born equal. In fact, I'm told, you know, your average height, we're all different on naturalism, we're all different. Thank you very much.

01:04:11--> 01:04:58

Mohammed initially said that his main point tonight was the argument from contingency. The problem is to say that there must be a necessary being, for everything that is contingent requires that the necessary contingent situation plays out in environment with cause and effect. And yet Mohammed has always said that the universe had a beginning, and there was nothing before and that God created the universe out of nothing. Here is the problem. You cannot analogize from cause and effect, and necessary and contingent beings from within time and space.

01:05:00--> 01:05:48

As opposed to the very coming into being of time and space in the first place, if in fact, the Big Bang, as is most likely, nothing preceded it, there was no time and space, you can have no cause and effect. And we can't even speak of cause and effect, because there was no environment for a to cause B. Now, with respect to the notion of a necessary and contingent being, there is a problem with the concept of unnecessary being. The problem is that unnecessary fact cannot explain a contingent fact without introducing a new contingent fact in need of explanation. Now, let's see why this is so if a necessary fact cannot explain a contingent fact, except by entailing it, because any fact entailed

01:05:48--> 01:06:39

by a necessary fact must itself be necessary. However, the necessary fact does not entailed the contingent fact than the explanatory connection that has to the contingent fact must be a contingent one, which introduces a new contingent fact in need of explanation. And if the fender of the argument replies that this new contingent fact can also explain by the necessary fact, then the same reasoning will apply introducing yet another new contingent fact in need of explanation, and so ad infinitum. But the whole reason for introducing necessary fact, in the first place was to avoid an infinite regress of explanations. Now, Mohammed said that we cannot even call something evil, unless

01:06:39--> 01:07:30

we have a moral Foundation, implying that objective moral values can only exist with a supernatural being. But he doesn't explain what the connection is. For instance, I've shown you in the Bible and the Quran, where though Muhammad resistant men are supposed to be in charge of women, I've showed you in both the Bible and the Quran, where people are sent to hell forever, for not just choosing the right respective religion, to say that we are in no position to judge whether God's doing that is right or wrong, totally eclipses human reason. And there's another problem with that, to say objective moral values depend on God, you have to ask is something good? Just because God says it

01:07:30--> 01:08:21

is, then it's arbitrary, and even sending sincere people to hell forever, for not believing in the right religion? would be okay, just because God said it. Or they'll always tell us to do what is good, but the standard of the good is independent of God, then it means that objective moral values exist without being created by God, by God recognizes them. And you can't get out of it by saying, Well, no, the good comes from God's perfect nature, because we don't see that perfect nature. Now, as far as the dependence of consciousness on the physical brain is concerned, nothing mental happens without anything physical happening, there is no thought or awareness that comes into the human

01:08:21--> 01:09:21

brain without a physical event in the brain. This is very, very important. Again, if consciousness could exist apart from the brain, then diseases and anesthetics wouldn't Eclipse consciousness. Now he talks about the coherence of the universe. And he thinks the argument from scale is not a problem. But it certainly is. If as a somebody who believes in the Quran, because he quotes the Quran, Allah, He believes in a god for whom humans is central in concern, then why all these excess Sep trillions of planets also, if in fact, the universe is so perfectly put together? Why will the star upon which we depend the sun burned out in a very short span of time, and then after that, we

01:09:21--> 01:10:00

will die because the earth will no longer have the sun, and there can't be life on earth without the sun. Also, with respect to the whole concept of naturalism, Mohammed can't just like I saw in one of his tapes, he tried to say that we can infer the existence of God from the functioning of the universe, just like we can infer the existence of gravity from the way gravity operates. But you see, definitionally gravity as I dropped something, it hits the floor or hits the table, but that doesn't show that there is a story

01:10:00--> 01:10:52

Supernatural source behind it in terms of the laws of nature, the constants in the fine tuning. As far as that's concerned, well, the laws of physics as they appear cannot be violated. But if they are, and if you change one constant and the other studies have shown you can still have life for instance, there was a study that showed that you can eliminate the weak nuclear force one of the four forces and stars could still form if good form and explode becoming supernova, then planets could still come about. We've also seen that there is a argument from cosmic inflation, which has been demonstrated the cosmic microwave background. And the way inflation works with quantum

01:10:52--> 01:11:46

mechanics that there could be a multiverse numbers are numbers of individual universes, each with their own pockets of different physical laws. This hasn't been established by proof. But yet it is a better argument than theism because it has a basics in physics, and it has natural laws that are explainable. The other thing that Mohammed has not yet addressed, is he would have to admit that in 99%, of all instances, in human technological process, when science has looked for an answer, it has found a natural answer. So what would be those instances that differentiate the need for a natural answer to a super natural one? In other words, if we look at a cell, or a bacteria, the way it

01:11:46--> 01:12:38

behaves, natural explanation, but we look at something else? And our answer is only God did it. There's a world of difference between looking at the fact that planets revolve around the sun. And that stars don't fall out of the sky, except when they explode a supernova. And going outside right now, and seeing the constellations saying, Eddie and Mohammed, you're both wrong, you better become Mormons. There's a world of difference between those two, that would be a supernatural event. Also, Mohammed has never been able to, and I don't blame him because no one can, can show how if in fact, consciousness depends on a physical brain, how the greatest intelligence in the universe can exist

01:12:38--> 01:13:32

and think and function without a physical brain? How can there be a God that doesn't have cortical neurons and synapses? How does God think when all the evidence shows that the occurrence of thought requires cortical neurons and synapses, and also, if God is outside of space and time, God cannot be a personal being, because by very definition, a personal being is defined as something within space and time that has limits. So again, naturalism prevails over supernaturalism by the weight of the evidence, and we can see that there has never been any verified supernatural occurrences. And we have seen no evidence of any mental process that can exist in a disembodied state. So the evidence

01:13:32--> 01:13:39

to date makes it more likely than not, the universe is natural, not supernatural, and there is no God. Thank you.

01:13:50--> 01:14:01

Thank you very much to both of the debaters both brother Muhammad hijab and Edward tabash. So the next session would be the question and answer between them both. However, just because of the timing, and because now that I've had