Intelligent Atheist vs Muslim

He saw it.

With Jimmy I.

Look.

It's a really it's a beautifully said.

I'm saying that the universe is very complex.

If you look at the properties of the universe, as documented by theistic and atheistic cosmologists, they refer to a fine tuning of the universe. So I've caught you before I said,

Stephen Hawkins in a brief history of time, or he refers to this reality, he says he calls a fine tuning.

And I suppose about Martin Rees, who wrote a book called just six numbers. And I want you to just one more time Think about it. He details six numbers, all of these numbers, he says, describe the reality of the universe.

These numbers are massive. I mean, they have so many digits, he said, has one of these numbers been different?

The universe would not be able to facilitate human life. And there would not be a fine tuning of the universe or the universe could not exist in the way it does it

in the complex way does.

So we've agreed really that for the universe to have been around. Yeah. At first to suggest that was a random generation would be really tantamount the probability of zero

the probability of 0.0 like so many digits.

You said for the universe to be around? I don't think that's the case. I think you'll be fine. as we understand it.

Yeah, yes, that's exactly the point. So what I'm saying is what I want to discuss this with atheists, the point I was saying is that if we look around and see the intelligent design,

then that must, I would say,

That must be it must really follow that we say that must there must be an intelligent designer, you see, I mean, I see. I mean, yeah. So I would say that we that that assumes that humanity is the point about design, I would have thought, which isn't the one that is this. So yeah, so the point of this

universe is human life, which I don't think is supported by the vastness of the rest of the illness. And my point about the probability thing was, in the similar way, I said it before, I know the probability is way higher than a lottery tool. And as you said, the problem is way higher.

Any probability of any numbers coming out is infinitesimally small. Yeah, if it were a million numbers in the lottery would be even smaller. Just because one happened in one draw, doesn't mean it could it wasn't random, and it wasn't chunks. And I say that, I think to say that this, to say that this is the situation in which humans can exist, suggests that humans is the point which I think is an assertion.

So you're saying that because my argument rests on the fact that human being is the sentient creature, who is looking around himself, and coming to conclusions? You're saying, really, it doesn't fit the bill, to suggest that this human being? Is the only sentient creature perhaps, in the vastness of the universe? No, not necessarily. I'm saying that I'm working slightly different. The sixth one of the six numbers slightly different. Yes, everything could have been different. And that's, that's fine. It doesn't require

it doesn't require humanity to

explain that very well. I'm saying that humans being alive is no evidence that things should couldn't have been different. Yeah, no, I would have gotten and I don't disagree with your point. I mean, I'm not talking about Look, when we talk about human beings. We're talking about biological creatures. Yeah. Physiological creature psychological creatures. In the context of the, of the of the cosmos. Yeah. My argument is about because it's an argument based on like the natural world we see around us.

Human beings are the creatures, which basically, as we are doing now, we can't get around to consider considering it the universal analyzing, evaluating universe trying to find out how we fit into the universe.

So really, what I'm saying is, when we do do that, we realize that there's an incredible there's an incredible pattern here.

Had it been different, there would not be in the fine tuning according to the physicist and cosmology, we couldn't exist and human life or life wouldn't be wouldn't exist. To me. I don't think that doesn't necessarily follow. I think human life wouldn't exist, or any life. I don't think that necessarily.

There's no reason to think that there are many other probably that's not what I'm saying, by the way, these are the these are the references. I mean, so as a physicist, you

know, I realized that I think our life could not exist as it is now. But I think there there's no reason to suggest that life is the point

universe. I mean, there might be many other possibilities where things are different in which other things could happen. The whole universe could be different if just because it happened this way is not evidence to suggest that you chose this way it happened this way. And this way, facilitated human life. How did it not happen this way? Yes, life wouldn't be facilitated. So what I'm saying had the numbers been different. We wouldn't be around to talk about this. Yeah, yeah. So the fact that you've got such a probability that suggests that the universe couldn't be a random generation, is tanta is really an evidence is a testament to the reality that the universe could not have been a

random generation is you? I mean, I see what you're saying. But I would reject it for the same reason, because you're saying that if things were otherwise we wouldn't exist, we do exist? Therefore, someone to those conditions, something designed to those conditions? Yeah. So now I'm saying.

So you're saying so? So my understanding is that if everything was different, yeah, then the then we couldn't exist? Yes. Because we do exist, he suggests an intelligent tuning of those circumstances. You know what, let me just, yeah. No, because we do exist. Because the conditions, the conditions in the cosmos, allow human humans to exists. Right? Which is a little bit different. So we don't need to exist. Right. Right. But the conditions were such they can facilitate human beings living on planet earth or any other planet. So I mean, yeah. So that is what I'm talking about. So it's not i'm not talking here about the philosophical reality of human being. I'm talking about the physical

reality of the universe. Yeah, so this argument is strictly a mathematics.

Physics argument, you could say, looking at nature around you and say, and deducing probabilistically, almost, as we said, impossible for this to be a random generation. And you agreed with that.

necessarily, I think.

I think this is one, one result of a million different probabilities like he's more than a million a million million million different years.

So we're talking about multiverse theory. No, no, not again. No. Sorry. I said not again. Last year. I don't mean that at all. I mean, that's similar to the lottery draw a lottery draw with a million numbers.

There was a million million universes. No, I'm saying there's, I'm saying there's one lottery draw. Okay, so one universe, one one lottery draw. Your probability of it coming out in any order was infinitesimally small. Yes. But that doesn't imply that someone fixed the drawer. That just means the probability.

Yes, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, saying there were a million knows.

Was improbable. So do you want to live your life? Yeah. I mean, really, really, really? This is my question, because you seem like a reasonable person. Honestly.

I like your argument. It makes sense.

It's one of the better ones. Okay, thank you. But why is a very simple argument while saying is that what I've heard that you just said now? Is that the universe? Yes. Really, you compare it to a lottery ticket? So the fact that the universe could have been randomly generated the way is, it's like the same thing as going going and basically doing the lottery and getting all your numbers, right. Well, we know men knew that the actual probability is much greater than that. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So um, so saying, if it were a lottery, yeah, and there were a million numbers. Yeah. Just just six or seven. Lori.

But you see, yeah, you see the point? Yeah. Well, you're living your life. Okay. Think about this, please. Yeah, you're living your life as an atheist, suggesting that very thing that there was a big lottery number of a million numbers, not just 12. Yeah. And that someone gets to one of those numbers. Right. That's tantamount to what you believe in? I guess. Yeah, yes. Okay. Now, do you see that? I'm sorry. If I may. Just quickly, I'm someone guessed. I'm saying that a draw happened. Yes. Yes. Yes. And just because the draw. Sorry.

Yes, sir. Say, calculation.

Time 500

times five.

to the power of 500.

Yeah, I'm saying it. I'm not I'm not I'm disagreeing.

Now, because anything else? No, I'm not saying it's a mistake. I'm agreeing that the probability is infinitesimally small. But I'm saying just because it doesn't imply

redraw. Yes, it implies. What I'm saying is you're

small, but then you're saying that it must have happened anyways.

But doesn't that isn't that quite sorry. But

isn't that quite ridiculous? Because Wouldn't it be? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say instead of believing in it, you know

Because we like this if I have a big bag, yeah. Have a million, a billion letters, different letters. Yeah.

Yeah. And it becomes like Shakespeare. Shakespeare's Macbeth monkeys. And this is, you know, I'm saying, Yeah, now, if I said I got a big bag of a billion letters, I'm gonna throw it on the streets. Yeah, I'm gonna do it right now. One second. Let me throw it. And then it actually becomes a Macbeth, would you would you, Macbeth and maybe Hamlet as well, Angela, Romeo, Juliet, and all of it and all that. And you know, the way he said it word for word, let's have a letter. You know, it would not be something you would put your money on, right? No, but I would say if you did throw the same bag of letters, yeah. Any combination in which they landed? Is, is as probable as it landing in

Shakespeare's

even if it's random, any any order? Yeah. Well, that's not that's not what I'm saying.

So to believe that?

We don't make sense, either. Yes. So

you wouldn't take this kind of probability? No, but I would

put your life on this widget? Or it was also in hand. Yeah, of course, you would not know. So okay, if you wouldn't put your life on it.

So I will put you off.

Because what you're doing is you're implying that we are as designed and detailed and complicated as as him. And I reject that idea, I'm saying.

But what I'm saying is, when you throw the sack of letters, it's going to land in an order. And each one of those orders is make some as No, doesn't make sense. Not necessarily, oh, you can land in a random area. And each one in any order could land in the probability is very small. Yes. But it did land. Yes. Just like

that. But that's that's not an argument against what I'm saying at all.

Not, let me tell you why it's not. If I say to you look, the lottery numbers are, you know, 1215 964568. But then, you know, someone says it could have been 1349789. And the probability of it being this, and this is like this

is the same. But it doesn't mean, I'm not talking about the fact that they've all got the same probabilities. I'm saying, Yeah, what's the probability of the numbers being this? Right, you see what I'm saying? I don't care about the rest of the population. I'm just talking about one variable here, which is the universe. So it's very small. The fact that in the first instance, now all of the possibilities are the same over and over landing in whatever sequence doesn't negate the fact that the probability is so small, over landing on a particular sequence. So I'm talking about a particular this particular Yeah, which is the universe here. And this one this analogy.

According to, as we said, cosmologists and physicists, the probability of it being a random generation is infinitesimally small. So we have to think to ourselves now, how did the universe come to be what it is? Now we have two or three different options. One option is to maintain that it was a random generation, which is, as we said, a ridiculous kind of like impossible option to either.

Forget what ridiculous well say almost impossible. You we agreed for it to be random. Yeah.

Human life? No, it's almost impossible that it did end up like this. Yeah. So that doesn't mean it's impossible. But it was round. Yeah. So I'm saying that I'm saying the probability of any results was as tiny as this result. Okay. But we're talking about, of the things that we're talking about is fine tuning of the universe. Yeah. So I'm saying that what is the probability that universe was fine tuned for, for any human life or any life to exist? And we're saying that the probability of that reality which would, which would, which would mean that we assume

they've studied, and they study, and they, they said they might be like, the only solution they have now even believe in God, or believe there is other other planets like our planet. And this is a probability a large number 16 million

zeros, man zeros.

We have same planet like ours. And we don't have just because they don't want to believe that there is creation. If the world was created one second faster than it is. It wouldn't we wouldn't have a planet that was like him late one second. We wouldn't have done it.

We would have had three choices. Yeah. Anything? No, we would have something else something else would have. could have. It could have been imploded upon itself. That's why he said as

probable as anything else. Yeah, as I'm saying is, so you've got this probability randomness. Yeah. This suggests that it was a random generation, which is tantamount to believing in impossibilities. Number two, you can say evolved, which is a biological thing. Which people like Richard Dawkins or scientists to favor that because they realize the difficulty in saying it's random, they really do. Atheists realize the difficulty in saying that the universe was a was a random generation. People like Richard Dawkins come in, and actually aside to posit a theory

With the universe evolved. Now, biology and physics are two separate sciences. He's a biologist, he's superimposing his field onto another field, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was evolved. So we couldn't use that as an argument unless we found evidence for it. The third thing is to suggest that there was an intelligent designer

that had the creative potential to change the situation, and to and to align the universe the way it's been aligned. So now, what I'm saying is that this of the three choices that we have, is the most logical, rational choice that we can go for. You see what I mean? Do you think the intelligent design of those three options is the most? Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think it's a really strong argument. But for me, I think you feel too soon to dismiss the random thing for the same reasons I've said before.

And then if I were to ask another thing, which everywhere? Yeah, well, I was gonna say another one. Yeah. Which was, so you've got that you've got the, the statistically random, but then you've got another problem as well. The question is, we know from the we know, right,

from the empirical reality that zero plus zero can never equal one. In other words, something can never come from nothing.

You see what I mean? Yeah. So we've got a problem here. One problems No, Shakespeare's King. Nothing can come from. Again, we're talking about Shakespeare. First, we'll talk about Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet.

But what I was gonna say to you really was

the Francaise. Chapter number 52. Verse number 36 says, Hola, como enviroshake? ambul? Hollywood, have they been created from nothing? Or are they themselves the creators of themselves?

So in other words, do you maintain? Would you maintain that we are the universe came from nothing? When I kind of maintain that? It's a no question, because I believe that time started at the same time the universe starts. So to say what was there before? Doesn't make sense, because there was no time to be before. Okay, if that makes sense, in philosophy, there are two theories of time. There's a theory of time. And there's the B theory of time.

The theory of time suggests that before the universe there was time, yes. And that this was linear, etc. The B theory of time, doesn't suggest the same notion for you to now say that there wasn't time before the universe. Why is required from you is evidences.

You see what I mean?

Yeah.

theory says everything has a reason. Everything in this world has a reason if this like, tree went up, because of the reason because of the water because of that.

Every effect has a cost basis. Yes. Yeah.

So my, my evidence for the idea that time is not linear, is that it changes dependent on other things like position in space and speed. Yeah, but that's in the context of the universe. Yeah. So we're talking about something which is outside of the context universe, which we have no knowledge of. Sorry? Anything before? Yes. Yeah. So why because we are limited as as, as human beings, to the five senses and empiricism is limited to those five senses. But when you come up with the universe, you've got complete different contexts.

Nothing that can come from nothing is an excellent, yes. And I would not extend similarly to God, if nothing had been God's created the universe, which is fine, but then where did God come as a nice argument, I was happy that you said that.

I would say that it was necessary for there to be a deity or MSM entity, right? Because deity has religious connotations. It was necessary for that to have been an entity that was the first candidate to not be the universe, an entity not be the unit. I'm just saying that that entity had to have certain qualities which we'll discuss before talking about fine tuning design and yet intelligence, the creative capacity to change the situation etc. Remember, when you said to me, can you prove God according to the Quran? I was completely honest with you, I said that, you know, there's so many attributes of God and

the loving merciful Rahman Rahim, the great most gracious the most, but I cannot deductively prove each of those. Yeah. In fact, we believe that this is something which cannot be proven from the, from the intellect, that has to be taken from the text. But there are some things

some of God's attributes like his or his knowledge, like his his or her strength, or his ability to change yet to that we can conclude our deductible. So I mean, I yeah. So I'm not saying to that look, I'm was that you here was that the ones or the attributes that we can conclude safely? rational must conclude double things have to say is that God is Oh, no, oh, God is has knowledge has not enough knowledge to change the situation.

That he had the capacity to change that situation? And yes, that he had

ability as well. Now these are all required. And he was the first that he was the first and then there was nothing before him. These are the confer, I would say, surely again, nothing can come from nothing if you if that argument is acceptable.

But now I could say that the universe was always there. And but that's something which is unscientific

singularity posits that the universe had a beginning,

at the same time.

So we know, because of the fact that the universe is expanding, that the universe must have had a beginning. Therefore, the universe was not the first thing that wasn't existence, because there must have been something before the universe. And the question is, therefore, was that was there nothing before the universe? Because if there was nothing for the universe, and you're saying zero plus zero equals one, if we're not saying that there must have been, so we're saying there must have been something before the universe? What was that thing? That must have been something before God? No, we're saying that that is necessarily isn't necessarily the case that there has to be an entity with

no beginning. That was the first

universal offset to this young man. I would say the same. I would have.

I might talk to you

next Sunday,

and do one thing for next Sunday, like a homework

to do.

And

I'll tell you what to read as well. Yeah. Because it's

read from chapter 55. Zero. Yeah, yeah. Chapter 57. I'll come back and come back into me. No, don't read it from chapter one. Chapter 15 chapter 52 chapter 57. That will take you about 15 minutes. 20 minutes to read.

Thank you very much. Come back next Sunday and we'll talk again