Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© 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.
Okay, thank you everyone for coming. And thank you to Corpus Christi for allowing us to use the auditorium. I'll get straight to it and introduce the speakers. So on my far right is Colin Brewer. He's a retired psychiatrists and ex research fellow at Birmingham. He's a medical journalist and author of several books. He's written for the spectator, The Guardian, and the new humanist journal. And he has a keen interest in history in the history and origins of religions. Alex O'Connor to my right is an Oxford University student here with us. He's got an extremely popular YouTube channel, on which he discusses politics, philosophy, science, and religion. To my far left is Mohammed who
job. He's an academic researcher, and so as in London, and he's also studied in multiple Islamic institutions. I see Mohammed is a kind of public debater he roams around London, locking horns with Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists alike. And as I'm sure you all will attest, if you've seen his YouTube channel, those are most productive conversations he's had. Abdullah Al andalusi is an international activist for Islam and Muslim affairs. He's given extensive talks and written articles rationally critique, critiquing secularism, liberalism, secular democracy and materialism. He's also the co founder of the public discussion forum, the Muslim debate initiative, and that promotes open
dialogue and critical thought. And without further ado, I'll ask one of the proposition to step up.
Supporting the motion. Islam explains reality better than atheism.
The Name of God, the Gracious merciful, like the fabulous forum and my fellow panelists for facilitating this debate, and everyone here for attending. I used to be Christian. My mother was Catholic and my father was secular. I went to a Church of England school and learn the basics of Christian belief. However, with there being so many belief systems, I asked myself a question, how did I know I was born into the correct one? Would I have been something different if I was born and raised elsewhere? I then started every belief claim or worldview I could find, to discover the ultimate explanation for all things. In doing so I found that many explanations couldn't account for
many things that I could observe, or prove themselves false or fell apart, due to their own self contradictions or contradictions between what they say and reality. For example, I encountered Trinitarian Christianity, which argues that God is both one and three, and that the infinite immortal God is also a finite mortal man, I encountered polytheists, who argued that there are many gods some eternal some who popped out of nothing, who are all infinite but have created and finite human or animal forms, suffer ignorance, tiredness, and even injury. Some Pacific Island religions consider volcanoes who created the island and whose sent sediments make the ground highly fertile
for cultivation, to be also eternal, and divine. I've also found that many atheistic positions are not any more special or more coherent than these. For example, many materialistic worldviews argue that the universe which we see is full, which is finite, limited and changing, is also somehow infinite and eternal at the same time. You just can't see it. Or the atheist positions argue that the universe ultimately popped out of nothing, or be it with precisely measured amounts of energy, but no cause to determine that measure. Of course, there are also atheistic worldviews like types of Buddhism, which goes to show that atheism doesn't preclude spirituality, just God.
When I encountered Islam I found something different. That Islam describes God as a being of infinite or inexhaustible power, and who possesses intentionality or will. He has no human or animal attributes forms nature's or appetites. Islam teaches that God is genderless does not experience tightness or ignorance, and exists without peer sorella loss of the crime makes clear misma Rahman Rahim Allahu Ahad say God is one allaahu summit, the self sufficient Lem gelegt Willem ulit he does not reproduce nor was he reproduced, while Nicola who Khufu one ahead, there is nothing like him, which means he is without partner, because if there were other infinite gods, they would all limit
each other and who would not be infinite or gods at all. This is the Islamic concept
Of God a pure indivisible oneness, a cause and initiated for all things, a Divine unity behind the multitude of creative things. And it is the only explanation that is without contradictions and circular reasoning and does not need to appeal to any mystery to hide faults. It simply doesn't have Islam's message to mankind is to avoid the error of mixing the infinite and the finite together and creating false idols by attributing to limited and finite things, the attributes that belong only to the creator and vice versa.
Instead, Islam asks mankind to recognize the infinite alone as the ultimate Creator of all things, who is separate from his creation and not like it? Is this a god peculiar to Islam? Know, anyone on earth today or in history, who worships an infinite unlimited creator, who will all things into existence does not resemble any finite things or creatures worships the same God we do whatever religion they call themselves. Islam teaches that it is not something new, but merely a reiteration of the same message that has been repeatedly sent down to mankind for at different times and places, producing commonalities in many religions throughout history.
Now to the title the debate, Islam explains it better than atheism. Some might say, well, atheism doesn't seek to explain anything. It's only a lack of belief of God or rejection thereof. But atheism is denial of the existence of God carries the minimum corollary, that reality is completely explainable without God, and they'd be wrong. in my estimation, there are four aspects of reality, the only Islamic concept of God can ultimately and soundly explained while atheism cannot do so without falling into self contradiction, and these aspects are change matter, finitude and specificity. atheism rejects the only sound explanation for change. If this moment depended on the
infinite number of previous moments and movements, we'd never exist or get here. If I were to say that my opponents can begin their speech after an infinite amount of time, they would never have the chance to start their speeches as an infinite amount of time can end or even begin if you think about it. Likewise, if I asked a poor students point any one particular for one pound, and he didn't have it, and he asked another who was equally poor, and so on, and so on, I'd never get that one pound until the chain of students found at least one student who had one pound to begin the chain of lending and eventually get to me. Now this is known as the infinite regress fallacy, which is the
same as asserting a beginning and no beginning at the same time, it is a contradiction and therefore impossible.
The existence of change in movement requires a first mover, there's no way around that and if there is an if it is the first mover it means it chose to move things without being moved by anything else. Therefore, it has a will. This is the key characteristic of God, whose name is Al moved it in. The initiator in the Quran, to atheism rejects the only sound explanation for the ultimate basis behind matter. If matter get his attributes and characteristics because it is made from something more fundamental than it, let's just say subatomic particles and forces, ultimately quarks and bosons. And these things are made of, let's say, quantum vacuum energy or fluctuations in such thing
or Superstrings. One or the other. For the sake of argument, what is quantum vacuum energy or what are Superstrings if they even exist made of if something else, and that's made of something else? Where does it stop? If it has no end, then nothing would exist. It's like saying a branch is held aloft from the ground by an infinitely tall tree, or a pond has no bottom to hold up the water despite the water being at a specific level. The fact that anything exists and continues to exist proves there must be something fundamental that is supporting all these things that itself isn't made up anything else and has no parts and therefore is self sustaining. The Quran calls God a
result the Sustainer and halted, the preserver of Samad the self sufficient. Three, atheism rejects the only sound explanation for finite things. If something has size, shape, charge, or a specific characteristic. What determine these limitations in the first place. If it were determined by a finite thing outside itself and efficient cause going on forever. It's an infinite regress fallacy. If it was determined by the building blocks inside itself a material cause going on forever into smaller and smaller blocks. It's another infinite regress fallacy. The only possibility left is that all forms and limited characteristics of all finite things were ultimately created by something that
has no finite limitations.
itself is something infinite, which has no limits that need determining by something else and therefore is the ultimate or necessary thing. And it creates all other things. The Quran calls God alcoholic, the creator for atheists and rejects the only sound explanation for the specificity of finite things. Things in the universe, including the magnitude of the forces of gravity, strong weakened, force and electromagnetism and the amount of energy contained in the universe are specific to a certain magnitude, size, quantity and quality. Considering that the universe could have one quote more than it has, the question is what determine it would be one way and not another? Perhaps
the conditions prior to the university's emergence, shall we say led to the conditions we see now, but this only shifts the burden of explanation further along the chain. What then determine the precise pre existing conditions before the universe that led to our university the way it is, if we invoke an infinite chain of pre existing conditions to explain our current condition, or the condition of the events of the universe, this is yet again another infinite regress fallacy, I'm afraid. The only remaining explanation is that something ultimately chose or determined by its will or things to be the way they are. The Quran calls God a muscle where the shaper
Islam posits that God ultimately created and sustained all things. He is infinite, unlimited and self sustaining. And he alone, he alone measured out the numbers of things and apportion all the regularities or what you call natural laws behind all things.
It is the stomach concept of God, that not only explains reality better than atheism, but it is the only explanation ultimately, that can explain reality that we see, which does not possess self contradictions, circular logics, or appeals to mystery or blind faith. The arguments of atheist in my experience are no different to those I've encountered from polytheists trinitarians, or volcano worshipers. Atheists just call their god the universe, which essentially is just a bigger volcano. Thank you.
Can I have someone from side opposition?
Good evening, everyone. I'd also like to extend my gratitude to the Oxford forum for making this happen.
I did have some things to say in preparation. But one thing that we have to understand before we can even begin this discussion is, is the concept of the burden of proof.
I did have some things to say like, like, like I like I mentioned, but I think I'd rather just tackle some of the misrepresentations I think we've just seen of the position of atheism. The first is a rather important case, which is do we actually have anything to prove as as non believers? in God, atheism, as Abdullah, quite rightly suggests, is thought of, by many as to be a lack of belief in God. And the point was raised that No, that can't be the case. Because a lack of belief in God entails some belief in the opposite, or at least a belief in in the universe that can be explained without God. This isn't the case. atheism is a claim to belief. A it comes from the Greek a meaning
without the meaning God, it simply means living a life without the influence of a god. It's not an active position to hold. Many people would call it agnosticism, because we're simply saying, well, there's no good reason to believe in a God. But we're not saying that we believe there isn't one. But agnosticism is a claim to knowledge. Gnosticism is knowledge. theism is belief. I simply say, I don't know, therefore, I don't believe whereas the proposition seem to be seem to have to say that. They also don't know because nobody can know for certain, and yet they do believe and what we need to see tonight, in order to agree with the proposition and have them win the debate, is the reason
why they're able to take that extra step that we simply can't. So let me explain with an analogy that comes from a friend of mine called Matt dillahunty, who has given the example of a gumball a jar of gumballs.
What is what's essentially happening here is we've got a jar of gumballs. And we have no idea how many gumballs are in the jar. And the people to my right, are pointing it and saying there are an even number of gumballs in that jar. And I say you have no good reason to believe that I don't believe you. And they say Oh, so you might say that entails that you think there's an odd number? Well, of course it doesn't. It just means I don't believe that there's an even number. Just because I don't believe that there's a God doesn't mean I do believe that there's not one. And that's an important point to make clear because it demonstrates the fact that the burden of proof lies with
the proposition. If you ladies and gentlemen are not convinced by either side and the debate this evening, then the default position has to be atheism. The default position has to be there's no good reason to believe either way. And so we simply don't believe in Islam. That's why the title of the debate is something of a false dichotomy.
But the other
The pri certainly lies with the proposition. But that's not a problem because there was a there were a number of arguments put forward in an attempt to try and fulfill that proof which it's worth. Briefly, briefly touching on. For instance, when you bring up the point of delivery about matter, you ask the question, What are Superstrings natives talking about? I presumed the kind of quantum strings that are thought to be according to string theory of the basis of the universe, and you say, essentially, are one of these made of and what would that be made of? And what would that be made of? Well, the answer is quite simple. It's I don't know, and neither do you. And that's the point,
neither of us know. And so I'm simply saying that because we have no reason to know what's at the basis of this reality, what's at the basis of matter, the best thing we can do is throw up our hands and say, until good evidence comes along to believe that it is due to some kind of divine supernatural creator, let's not do so. And certainly, let's not instill that that supernatural creator with certain qualities that are an extra leap of faith that you can't even you can't take that extra step before you've made made the first.
Also in the point of the point of change, you talk about infinite regress, which is problematic. Of course, the problem of everything needing a cause everything needing an explanation for its existence, whether you frame it as a contingency argument or cosmological argument, of course, trivially applies to the Creator Himself, of course, the creator, of course, unless you adopt something of the Kalam cosmological argument that says that, well, we're not talking about everything needing a cause. Because of course, like I say, it would trivially trivially include the creator of the universe. Instead, it's things that begin to exist, they need a cause it's things
that have some kind of, that have some kind of cools, that brings them into existence. Fact of the matter is, we have no experience with that you say that there are there are atheists who believe that things can come out of nothing, there's no good reason to think that something can't come out of nothing. People often say it's ridiculous to suggest that something can come from nothing, you're not all worried that a hippo has just materialized in your living room while you're out here. But your living room isn't nothing. In fact, there's no nothing in the universe. Lawrence Krauss has shown that if you take away or return that if you take away every piece of matter from a finite
space, and you remove not just the matter, but the radiation, and everything that we can conceivably cool matter. It's always something. Now that might be a practical limitation, perhaps there is nothing somewhere and we just haven't been able to access it or, or create it by removing the sufficient matter in the universe. But the fact of the matter is, we have no experience with nothing. And so to say something can't come from nothing, is not justifiable claim, we've never had any nothing to try it with. In fact, the only time there was nothing if there was nothing ever at all, must have been before the universe was created. So the only thing that has actually begun to
exist in any meaningful sense, is the universe itself. And if the argument is that everything that begins to exist has some kind of cause. And so the universe must have some kind of cause, well, everything that begins to exist is the universe. So when you say everything that begins to exist needs a cause. You're just saying the universe needs a cause. And the conclusion is, of course, that the universe has a cause. And that's the definition of a circular argument. Now.
That's the first point. The second thing I'd like to do, I'm not sure how long I've been up an hour, I haven't got a good track on time. Five minutes. Okay, so about halfway through. So let me let me put to you some of the things that I was thinking of putting forward, did I not have anything to respond to in the propositions case?
I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of discussion of metaphysics this evening, there's going to be a lot of discussion of arguments for the existence of God, the existential arguments, let's call them. And so I wanted to take a brief moment to bring up what might seem like an irrelevance II, but it's certainly not is one teaches that there is an objective basis to morality in the world, that when you say something is right or wrong, that is a true statement. And that's as true as something like the proposition that the Earth orbits the Sun, it is a matter of fact. And that means that part of the reality that we're trying to describe with the Islamic worldview, is moral realism, there has
to be moral truths that are as real, as the metaphysical claims that it's making. Well, that means Ladies and gentlemen, is that if you find moral claims within the doctrines of Islam, that you don't agree with, then you don't agree with Islam.
So I want to consider some of the moral elements of this religion, and see if it's something that you would be able to throw your weight behind.
There are, of course, many, many examples that I could choose from, but one of the most important areas and one of the most often spoken about areas is the treatment of women. Now, this is problematic, because a lot of the time people will point to practical examples that say, look at Saudi Arabia, women weren't able to dry it until very recently, but this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia can quite easily be shown to not be a real Islamic State, it's very easy to make a case that that's the state and not a religion. So let's turn to the doctrine itself. Let's turn to the Scripture. What do we find? Well, there's a very famous verse in the Quran and I'm sure this is nothing that
the proposition hasn't come up against before but I'd like to hear some kind of justification for these things, and I'm sure they'll be able to provide them.
The in the Quran surah four, verse 34, I'm sure you're familiar with is the verse which I'll quote you
Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other, and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous are women who were devoutly obedient guarding in their husbands absence, what Allah would have them guard but those wives from whom you fear arrogance, first advise them, then if they persist, forsake them in bed. And finally,
if you are
sick, nobody is against them. Indeed, a lot is the ground. So we have a situation where the speaker goes first.
Perhaps this isn't a thing about women, perhaps this is just a thing about violent behavior. It's just about striking people who were disobedient, and not even disobedient to the husband but disobedient to God. If someone's being disobedient to God, then they need to be set, right. And perhaps the only way to do that sometimes is with physical violence. Well, okay, if that's the case, then let's look at a comparison from Hadeeth. Report by Al Hakim, on disobedient men. So this is in reference to wives talking and talking about their husbands, she should not beat him in case she is stronger than him. If he is more if he is more in the wrong than she, she should plead with him
until he is reconciled, if he accepts her pleading all well and good, and hopefully it will be accepted by a lot. Well, if he is not reconciled with her, her plea will have reached Allah in any case.
So if a woman is disobedient to a man or disobedient to a god, whichever frame you whichever framework, you want to think about it, the first thing that the wife should do, if the man is disobedient, is to try and talk him out. And if that doesn't work, it's not a problem, because I was going to hear it anyway. But if a wife's disobedient to a husband, then surely he should, he should still try and talk her out of it. But if that doesn't work, well, then you can strike them seems to be a bit of an inequality here. And that inequality, inequality is only highlighted. When we look at the rest of that same video. It's preceded by the following.
It is not lawful for a woman who believes Allah to allow anyone. It is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah to allow anyone in her husband's house while he dislikes it. Okay, well, back in the times that this book was written, men were primarily the owners of wealth. So it makes sense if the man has the property, perhaps it should be his decision who's allowed on the property, that's not so much a problem. But let's continue. She should not go out of the house if he just likes it, and should not obey anyone who contradicts his orders. It's getting a bit more questionable now. And to finish off, the very next sentence is, she should not refuse to share his bed. And you can take
that to me and what you will, I'll remind you that if you find any of this objectionable, then you should find objectionable the doctrines from which they spring. And other thing I'd like to talk about, and I'm certain, because I've certainly seen this in his response to this in the past, and it's something I'd love to dive into.
Is the marriage of the prophet to Ayesha, as Certainly, the Muslim members of our audience this evening will be aware of, but perhaps not everybody. Mohammed was in his 50s, married a young girl called Ayesha, and I say young, she was six at the time for 16 or 16. But six. Now, of course, he didn't, he didn't consummate the marriage when she was six years old, that would be quite outrageous. He waited another three years until she was nine. And the proposition has to defend the idea that that was ever morally permissible. And I think that's my time. Is that my time? Well, that's all I've got.
So we'll leave it for the raffle station.
If the next speaker on proposition.
everyone for coming today. Thank you very much for coming is first day of Ramadan for us. And we're happy to have you
come him in Appalachia. We've come in through a few magic. Wait a minute, what did you say? Let me say that one more time. We've come here to refute magic. It's actually a an interesting magic trick where there is no bunny.
There's no hot and in fact, there's no magician at all. It's the proposition that something can come from nothing, not only from nothing Ladies and gentlemen, but from nothing and by nothing. The Quran says I'm hula comb in the way Rishi in ambu. Holla. Khun am holla Casa
Bella you can own what they created from nothing, or they themselves the creators of themselves. Now we've heard Alex today. For the second time I've heard him say this, he says that the universe may have come into existence from nothing. minute 14 to 15. In his video, does the universe have a cause? He says when the universe came into existence, it well and truly came into existence from nothing. Now wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen.
I have challenged that's an active claim. He said
I'm here to make any active claims. Sorry, that is an active claim. Look at the syntax of that particular sentence. You're saying the universe came into existence from nothing? Don't Don't pretend to be passive. Oh, I don't know. No, you do know you're making a statement. Either. You know what you're saying? We don't tell me how the universe came into existence from nothing. And by nothing ex nihilo. I want to know, tell me how that's possible. metaphysically ontologically cosmologically. from first principles Give me the answer, please. was interesting, because in his other videos, something from nothing, where he was debating the contingency argument with a fellow
American, or an American man.
minute 48. He says, just listen to this. He agrees with the the radio guy that was speaking to him that the universe's unnecessary existence, who is a minute, wait a minute, what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen, what is necessary existence mean? and necessary a necessary fact is a fact that cannot be any other way. Two plus two equals four. That's eternally going to be the case. So unnecessary existence is eternal.
It cannot be any other way. So wait a minute, if the universe is eternal? How can it come from nothing? contradiction? It's a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. My friend, this is what atheism leads you to? contradictory set of propositions. Either you have your cake, or you want to eat it, what are you going to do with it? Tell me now, did the universe come from nothing? If so, how? So that's an active claim. Is the universe unnecessary existence? If so, how so that is an active claim is eternal.
Just come on, please don't pretend to be innocent and agnostic. Number two,
you could say no, there's multiverse, or there's an eternal fabric, or there's an eternal universe. But a multiverse has the propensity of being any other way. And I'm sure you study philosophy, you know what you're talking about, a possible existence, or in a contingent existence is defined by being able to be rearranged in any other way. If it can be arranged in another way, it's not necessary. It's possible or contingent.
It's not necessary. So a multiverse cannot be necessary existence, because it can be arranged in another way. It can be out of existence. So wait a minute, this is very important guys. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on,
hold on, hold on.
You agree that there should not be ought to be unnecessary existence.
If you agree with me on that, then you're not an atheist. Because the necessary existence is the Islamic definition of God.
called who Allah has said, he has one and only the self sufficient the independent, meaning the necessary existence. lemmya Mueller as he begins to not notice if you've got him, meaning he's eternal. If you say that there's a necessary existence, you cannot say you're an atheist, from an Islamic perspective, and from a philosophical one.
we have to ask a question. Now, we're talking about Islam. So why is Islam any different from any other religion? because Islam talks about one necessary existence, one independent, one self sufficient, not three in one, one in three, not a Triune God, no, a multiplicity of Gods a plethora of gods.
Not a pantheism.
And by the way, I have to make this clear now,
it was a bit of a strawman argument, because Alex can often says that Abdullah said, the universe has a cause. He never said that in the statement. But he had this pre, you know, written things we never use the word cause. You can have
a necessary existence, you can make an ontological argument for unnecessary existence without causation at all. There's a difference between possibility and contingency on the one hand, or necessity and causation. You don't even need to you can have it you don't you don't believe in causation for the universe, called a fallacy of composition, have it No problem. You have to explain how that can be a world it's only possible existences.
How can there be a world with only possible existences? If you say there can't be and we're happy to say this unnecessary distance, you're no longer an atheist from Islamic perspective.
Because you believe in an independent, self sufficient thing that everything depends upon.
And that is the ultimate explanation for all of all of existence. Now.
A secondary point we need to make is that Islam, the concept of God
The Tao hate. The monotheism is something not only intuitive, but it's something as we've seen that can be reasoned from first principles, ladies and gentlemen.
And that's why
already when we just look at the concept of God, so many of the major world religions are ruled out. Christianity is ruled out. Hinduism is ruled out, I would say Sikhism is ruled out.
Why? Because of that pure monotheism, that that respectable monotheism that Islam has to offer. But in addition to that, as Abdullah alluded to, the meta narrative of there being many profits or full time, many of them with the same message of Islamic monotheism, believing in one God worshiping one God is something which can be seen in the religious books, what Abraham said, what Moses said was, they come and say, even according to Old Testament literature, calling the people to monotheism
Islam also has an inbuilt system of falsification works in a similar way to science in many ways. For challenges, which I'm happy to take questions on the questions and also on the cross examination. One.
If this book was from other than God, the Quran says about itself, they would have been many contradictions, chapter four, verse 92. Number two, the inevitability challenge, try and produce something like it. And there is a quantifiable way of doing so which we can talk about in the question analysis. Number three, that Islam makes predictions about the future. And it specifies time and place. And it's this is my claim. It's the only religion to make a series of predictions about the future, none of which have not materialized, whereas it was anyone who wants to mention who makes predictions of the future, at least some of their predictions will be falsified. And I'm
willing to be tested on this test. It is falsifiable. And in fact, this falsifiability is even stronger than a scientific one. Why? Because in scientific falsifiability, everything is susceptible to falsifiability.
Everything that's done now, if I do a scientific experiment, now it can be falsified. But with a retrospective perspective, a hindsight perspective. If predictions have been made of the future, we can see whether those predictions are right or wrong. And we can talk about those predictions of there's a book coming out called the forbidden prophecies by IRA. That's going to be something which details that case in detail.
Now, the interesting thing is you have an idealist someone who does not believe in existential
he's an existential nihilist, who's cosmic skeptic he's an existential nihilist or moralize. He is an epistemological nihilist. He doesn't even believe in morality, and he's making a moral case today. I mean, I don't know how this works. I really don't know. He says, I subjectively value my liberty in one of his videos, the moral argument, one hour, 16 minutes. Tell me how from first principles, Liberty works, is it not based and predicated on a fictitious hypothetical mythological state of nature, detailed by john Locke and Thomas Hobbes and those individuals? Where's the scientific evidence for that? Why do you believe that? Why do you believe in equality? JOHN Locke
establishes equality on the hedonistic principle, and on a theory of God. Now you're an atheist trying to find from first principles, why believe in equality? We, as Muslims don't believe in second wave feminism. Simple as that. Yeah, there's some things in Islam, which are different for men, the tune was actually just for myself to you, you have to justify why that equality of the sixth that Eurocentric understanding of equality of second wave feminism in the 60s emerged is the objective morality. That's you, that's an active claim that you've made, you have to substantiate it. But listen to what he says in his video. My problem with Sam Harris's morality,
Can I finish off?
If you go to Somalia until those women, why do you put those women in backs, they will accuse you of cultural imperialism.
So why are you asking the women if they've been put in bags? What kind of discussion is that what kind of sanctimonious Orientals understand about it is that you have to first prove your morality, your objective, your subjective analysis, you don't believe in objective morality? Don't ask me about morality, you don't believe in it? Prove it. That's an active claim.
And with that, guys, I want to say one last thing, which is that he made an egregious claim in one of his videos called deliberate hypocrisy on Islam. He said Islam is a racist religion. And I will tell you that Islam is the only religion in the ancient religion in the world, which completely negates racism. Look at chapter 14 verse 13 of the Quran. Look at the Prophet said, there's no virtue of a black man or a white man, I will not Arab. Now, he's got three options, option one to retract the statement, option two. Yes, option two to provide the evidence after three phase public humiliation today and there's no fourth option so don't make
claims about morality and about Islam. If you haven't even read Islamic literature, and you don't know what is in its contents, sorry for the enosis choir, you know, performance, but
it's a very passionate topic for us. I hope I'm thanking everyone here. And I also think cosmic skeptic for coming, and for one speaking to the Muslim community rather than about them. Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you very much.
Now, can we hear from Colin Brewer.
I'm a bit of an amateur at this, these guys are all more or less professional.
I wish I was a certain of anything, as the people on this side of the table seem to be of absolutely everything.
And I want to start by not singling out Islam, particularly because Islam is just one of those monotheism that seems to find atheism terribly worrying at all, whether whether the theistic religions believe in one God or many gods, they're terrified, and people who don't believe in any gods, and when they have the power to do so. And in the case of Christianity, when they had the power to do so, they routinely tried to silence people like me, by at Best Buy censorship at worse by imprisonment, exile or execution.
And there's nothing particularly Islamic about this, Christianity was executing people just for being the wrong sort of Christian before Islam is a twinkle in Mohammed's eye. And they continue to do so until 1826, which was when the Spanish Inquisition executed its last victim. Here, I want to quote you a couple of worried Christians talking about atheism in the 17th century. One of them was both French theologians one of them said, I am afraid that atheist writings will disclose thoughts to me that would throw me into a fear from which I would not be able to return. And his contemporary Andre that'd be your said that for such skeptics, there is no punishment, violence and are for so
dark of crime.
Even in our own relatively tolerant country, when parliament was open to people who were not members of the Church of England, guess who came last? First of all, they left Catholics in about 1829. They let the Jews in about 1850, they let atheists in about 1880. So
Christianity, no longer has any power to liquidate people who question it, and almost everybody in Britain, and most civilized countries is pleased about that. explain what I mean by civilized in the moment. Islam has not lost that power.
Not only that, but many people in Islamic countries and in some Islamic countries, most of the people are very pleased that it has the power to do very nasty things to atheists. The Islamic countries were the only ones who refuse to sign the part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. That said, that deals with freedom of religious belief, including the freedom to change your religion or not to have one. And that's why I think that such countries are in one very important sense not totally, not altogether civilized.
Last year, I was asked by a professor of English at the university and one of the more liberal Arab countries. If I write an article for his small Arab language departmental journal, on Sigmund Freud's use of language, it will be published soon. I'm very proud to be my first work to be published in Arabic. But it has one very important admission. Soon after I started writing it, I thought I better check with him whether it was okay to mention that Freud was an atheist.
He said, If you do that, they will immediately close down the journal and possibly by department as well.
You don't really
persuade me that you get a better grip on reality, when you spend your time trying to stop people from giving their views on various aspects of reality. And when you outlaw discussion about what
Reality might mean, and whatever we mean by reality, I suggest there are two broad types around you. One is historical reality, which means an attempt to find out what really went on in the past.
And the reality is current reality, things that we can examine. Question now.
So let's deal with historical ones first.
Few years guys on holiday in Morocco, and we, we hired a driver to take us around and it was quite a long drive he was, he'd been to university in Britain, his English was excellent. And naturally enough we are discussion turned to Islam. And he was very keen to tell us his his thoughts. And I learned from him that
it is completely wrong that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he died on the cross. Now these are the fundamental tenets of Christianity don't get any more fundamental on that. And he said that, probably and this is there's a certain amount of debate about this in my Islamic scholars, that it may be actually Judas suitably disguised to died on the cross now, not being
not being a theist.
I don't particularly care which of them is right? They cannot both be right. Either Jesus died on the cross, or he did not die on the cross, and either he was Jesus, or he was Judas. But they cannot both be right. They can, however, both be wrong.
And that that is the problem when you start insisting that things written in ancient documents must be believed without any question. There is actually a lot of questioning to be done about the origins of the Quran.
There is very little documentary evidence about for about 200 years, Christianity is bad enough, because there is nothing about Christianity, the dates from earlier that about 40 to 60 years after the crucifixion.
And we know how difficult it is to be certain about events that happened 2030 years ago, people have ferocious arguments about the Second World War about various other wars that have happened since. So when you're making claims with the kind of certainty we have seen from this side of the table, about historical events, when even the history of the Quran is shrouded in quite a lot of history. And when you threaten people with,
with serious sanctions, if they try and do research on it, that, to me, it does not so very much about your desire to get to grips with reality.
It was not permitted to do serious historical research on on the Bible until about the end of the 18th century, you could still be sent to prison in Britain for denying the Trinity as late as about 1812. But eventually, in the 19th century, serious higher criticism as it was called of the Bible appeared. And now people have a much less certain that everything said in the nude in the Old and New Testaments is actually true in every respect, put it mildly. The Catholic Church didn't allow that until about 1941. And Islam does not allow it still.
have found their careers seriously threatened if they really tried to get to grips with some of the mysteries of the early versions of karate, and so forth.
So let's turn now to how am I doing for time?
I didn't hear the halfway mark. Let's turn very quickly then to reality as is current.
A few years ago, I got into some discussion with a doctor Margie cat may who describes himself as the spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association of the United Kingdom on medical ethics. And we I was insistent about Islam his line on abortion. And he wrote to me saying because obviously one of the issues in abortion is when when does the fetus become become human? When does the fetus gain the kind of status where it's disruption
becomes increasingly important.
And he said, At six, quoting him directly six to seven weeks of pregnancy the soul is breathed in in the body of the fetus. Divine human life starts when the embryo turns into a fetus. Okay? So relatively clear, it's not a human being until, until it turns into a fetus. at this critical stage is absolutely forbidden to interfere with this new sacred life. One can call the fetus here a persona, human and divine. However, there's white Muslim opinion in the Muslim world, are considered by many Muslim scholars of the past.
And some of them say that encirclement occurs 120 days after conception, personally, I and other Muslims do not agree with this view, based on the wrong Arabic interpretation of one saying of the Prophet, and then he said, this important saying of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, when 42 nights have passed over the loft, not further fertilized egg, Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its hearing vision, skin, flesh and bones? And then he says, oh, Lord, is it male or female, and your Lord decides what he wishes and the angel records it, he gives the reference and they had it. So there it is, forget all that ludicrous stuff about Y chromosomes and gender. It's
Allah, what does it and maybe someone should ask the Muslim council Great Britain, if they really want someone like that, advising them on medical matters?
Thank you very much.
Is there any argument on this side that you particularly want to address from these two? Gentlemen, am I right?
Yeah, well, I'll just go with the contents of myself.
basically, I think maybe my colleague is used to debating perhaps some certain Christians and what have you. I like to think that perhaps we're a slightly different breed in terms of our approach or political approach. I don't think he dressed actually what I said and I think strawman my argument, for example, I'll give you example. So I never said everything that begins to exist has a cause I never use that. Because you can always say, Well, how do you know everything does begin to exist? And that would require empirical verification, which is why I never that's why I never said it in the first place. I merely posited that ultimately, and I don't know where the where this ultimately
is, I just said, ultimately, there will be a course I don't know how old the universe is. Maybe we've been through a couple of, you know, six or seven big bangs and be conscious until getting to this point. Of course, universe is everything that exists. I merely said that at some point. It has to start somewhere because an infinite regress would mean there would be no change, no creation, nothing. And the same for things like what matters composed of I never made an assumption that it is quantum vacuum energy or Superstrings, which a lot a lot of scientists now doubt ideas superstring theory of fantastical, but but I just posit those those two, like say whatever you want, the
question will always be asked, what are they made out of? What are they made out of? If their attributes come from? What's something that they're made out of? For example, then what can you eat? What can they made out of until you get to the point where there must be something that's fundamental substratum that supports all realities existence. And if it's fundamental, and it's necessary, then it wouldn't be limited, and it would be self sufficient because it wouldn't require anything prior to it or underneath it or further, more fundamental than itself. So this is the kind of the arguments are made. But I guess, just to kind of reframe this discussion in terms of what I
mean by atheism, and why I mentioned the term atheism. You're right, atheism isn't a belief. But I posited that it carries a necessary corollary, something attached to it, which is if you don't believe in God's existence, not that you may be just, it's just your default. No, if you don't believe in God's existence, that means that your worldview does not require you to posit God to explain things. And I'm really positive that reality imposes certain problems, if you want to keep God out of that discussion, because ultimately, you can't explain calls matter specificity are limited to finite things. And my explanation isn't one where I've known I know stuff, because I've
observed it is that God is the only explanation to avoid self contradictions. And that's pretty much it like like I'm saying, if we take two when we add two, I know that this will equal four because taking the premises, the conclusion must follow. So likewise, I know that the premises are the existence of finite things. That's the premises
So I know that eventually at some point, it must follow that there must be a beginning point A creating point, a start point and a fundamental substratum net supporting all things, even though I don't know where that is where the boundary of that is. That's my argument, you could you put that into deductive form into deductive form. So two plus two equals four is a deductive form. It's a premise and a conclusion. It's not deductive form to say there is matter and matter must have a beginning. what's the what's the deductive argument that? Well, for example? Well, it's the avoidance of, of contradiction, because, explain so if I was to say two plus two equals six, right,
I'm six meaning what we what we conventionally understand 60 B. We know that was wrong, because of contradiction. So my point was that if you were to say, Well, before us, before this point in time, there was an infinite number of movements or movements, I would say, we would never reach this point in time, because it would be a contradiction.
One of the longest I've ever been asked the
I think you know what I'm saying, you're trying to say, you want us to say everything that begins to exist has a cool, no, that's not necessarily the Kalam that's not what I'm going for. What I'm saying is that if you the reason why you can say that two plus two equals six is false is because you're right, at least a logical contradiction. The reason for that is because it's essentially
a logically valid argument with premises and conclusions. And you can identify exactly how it contradicts you can put it into a truth table and show that.
precisely is a tautology, and you and you can prove that deductively. But there's no. Can you highlight precisely what the premises are? And the conclusions are of your argument here?
Because it does, if you're going to say that it leads to contradictions, if you don't agree with the conclusion, well, it does. Because an infinite regress, is basically saying that there was no beginning. And yet we're explaining, although there was no cause. And we explaining the cause of things or explaining the beginning of things or explaining movements, there was no first movement, but there is movement. So it can it creates a contradiction in terms because in essence, we rely on a pre existing state or a pre existing conditions of movement. And yet, ultimately, there is no there isn't, you're saying there is no beginning to this pre existing thing. There's just an eternal
and eternal chain that there is no stop. Therefore, it's the same as saying nothing. Actually, I'm trying to prove that we regret so I've got one statement that can kind of summarize it for you. Anything susceptible to additional subtraction cannot be infinite.
Okay. Okay. So that's, it doesn't need to be an adoptive three stage deduction that that makes it right. So I'm just giving one statement. He, what he's saying is that if you have an infinite thing, and you add to it, then there's the absurdity of adding to an infinite physical, quantitative thing. So you'd have to disprove that statement. Now, we've made the statement, anything susceptible to addition or subtraction cannot be right, cannot be infinite. So in order for you to, to prove your infinite regress, if you want it to prove it, you have to prove or you have to show how it's demonstrably possible for something to have infinity as as equality, as well as addition and
subtraction. There is one No, I did. So then you can't really make any I don't know, but I'm not making a claim. That's the thing. So then why we're having this discussion, because I'm opposing your claim. Well, you can't oppose your claim, is it your claim is that it requires it and I'm just asking you why that's I'm saying anything that is logical form the the idea that it is logically necessary to have causation or that there
can't be an infinite regress? No, I've just said this, we just have a final statement from you. Yeah, at
the same time as anything susceptible to addition or subtraction cannot be quantified quantitatively infinite. Yes, you have to you if you're rejecting that, you have to disprove that how is it physically, mathematically or otherwise? How is it possible to have a quantifiable infinite, which is susceptible to additional subject as well you have to do is another issue of burden proof is not on me to prove that I've just made the claim, prove the true and you fail to do
if you allow me to answer the question that the answer is leave it after this one. Yeah, yeah, the answer? The answer is
that you're right. Like these things are required. Okay. According to the laws of logic and physics that are predicated on the existence of the universe, and we're talking about the universe. Why is it predicated on the existence of universe? Because Can you prove it? Well, no. Okay. So are you
to claim it's a possibility, right, nonetheless, an active claim which and it's not possible, it's possible.
If it's possibly true, no, it's not possible to what's in opposite because if the universe of possible existence, then it cannot explain the existence of other possible distances if if there is a necessary,
Jonathan, that is almost you couldn't return if there's nothing you can do just that first, if this one, if there is a necessary being or occurrence and and that entails, which is what you'd met and that and, and that entails another occurrence. Now, it doesn't tell us and if it does,
I think the confusion is, firstly, I don't think all things require putting into a logical syllogisms
Yes, it's necessary. I'm saying that. No, it does when you're making country proposition you don't it doesn't a sentence could say that this sentence is false. It creates a contradiction within the sentence without it being a logical syllogism.
Merely merely pointing out that there are ultimately only two possibilities to to basically anything that you might observe which is finite limited, or what have you, which is either it was it was the result of something more fundamental than it or something that that is prior to it.
And if you ask, Well, what was prior to anything, what is more fundamental to anything, either it's something that's like itself as in like, finite limited as well, or something, not the case, not finite and not limited. So, I'm saying if we go down the pathway of just constantly insisting on, there's a continual chain prior to this existence of finite limited things, nothing would exist, because that would cause an infinite regress fallacy, and thereby, the contradiction is manifest, as opposed to ultimately at some point saying, Well, actually, you know, what, at some point, I don't know where, but at some point, there was a beginning of there was something that was not finite,
whereby I didn't have limitations. And just to kind of justify to you limitations requires explanation. Something doesn't have limitations, doesn't require explanation, but there's no limits for it to be, there's nothing to create its limits for it to be explained by something else, as explanation. Let's
jump in. Yeah, I want to make a very simple observation. If you say God created all the next obvious question, of course, is who created God?
And he has given a very satisfactory, please let me finish, let me finish.
And the second one is, as I say, You are talking the language of certainty. What we have learned in the course of my lifetime, is that the origins of the universe have been pushed further and further back in time, it's a fascinating study, I don't pretend to understand more than the average man was read about it. But to say that we clearly understand the nature of creation seems to me extremely arrogant, and to pretend that you can speak with certainty about something like that, I think is put it mildly not justified? Well, I think it's a little arrogant to actually dismiss what we actually said, because we never actually claimed that we know every tiny particle in this universe or how big
it is, or where it began, we never actually said that. So he did.
I just say yes, just saying that it shows that you weren't listening to what we were saying. And some people might say that's arrogant to what I'm saying is very simply this creation or causation or whatever you want to cause it is to limit something to defies limitation that when you draw a circle drawing the limitation, so limitations require explanation, but if something has no limitation, then there's nothing that requires it to be determined cuz it has no there's no there's no boundaries that exists in it is it is fundamentally unlimited.
Necessary being and say, it doesn't require it.
I didn't say necessary, I said, but that's the opposite of limited. No, because limitations require explanation, right? Not not lack thereof, and limitation, as opposed to what was not not being limited. And what is what is something that's not limited? Well, it's necessary because if it's not necessary, then it's limited. What's your definition of necessary because you keep using it incorrectly? What's your understanding of necessary existence? Well, you know, you're talking about contingent things. It's the it's the opposite of that. Can you give us something that cannot happen differently? They cannot
explanation for what outside of itself? Well, I suppose. Okay, so can you can you can you tell us how there can be a world with no necessary existence? Well, who says well, you said we're living in a world of possible Are you said that we have to claim that we're living in a world of possibilities Do you agree that there could be an
Do you accept that there is an unnecessary existence?
I would say that
yes. Then that's God does that doesn't have to
do that does not have to be God
the Son of God It does not have to be there for us and necessary existence is something which is this is the perfect couldn't be any other way explains everything else. That's our definition of explains everything else because without cause necessarily couldn't be any other way all contingent in any other way.
Alex, all contingent things depend upon it. Yes, give me an example of contingent thing and this cup, how is it contingent because it could have otherwise not been in existence. Do you know speaking to a determinist fun Do you know speaker okay. So what is determinism? So if if you said your your thing, sorry? What the terminology. Yeah. Yes. Let me ask you a question later, but it will make sense. Go ahead. If P entails Q is necessary. Yes. Is q necessary? No. It's not no.
No, no, it's not. It doesn't have to be if necessary. Let me explain why. What we're doing here is we've said that these different
And contingent things as you're defining them. Do you accept that this cup could have otherwise not been in existence? No. So okay, this that's what determinism to believe in determinism. Yes. And you said in your you said in your speech in your thing, a universe from nothing, you said that determinism comes from the necessary existence.
Yes, 48 minutes in, you said that one necessarily leads from the other. In other words, determinism leads from necessary existence, yes or no.
You said, you said determinism leads from necessary existence. Okay. I think we were talking about a different thing. Well, no, no, you said this, and I can show it for eight minutes.
So you know, you said the universal semantic word scoring exercise. It's not anything different by no problem. But you said this, you said and you said, you said determinism comes from the necessary existence. What did I mean by that? I mean, I,
just two days ago, the guy asked you is the universe would you agree with Bertrand Russell, that the universe just is? Yeah. And you replied and said yeah, the fact that universe necessary existence? The I would agree with that in the first instance. And then he said, how would that tie in with determinism, you then said, determinism follows from is that which follows determinism follows from the necessary existence? Right, which I remember I was taught, so I was I was the person I was debating with the guy who came up with, yeah, making the cake. He was making the case for the contingency argument, saying that there are contingent things in the universe, and therefore he was
using that to reason that there's a God and I said that if that were the case, yes, that necessary existence that contained the determinism would follow from that I was making my case. Okay. So I did agree that it does exist. And Alex, I didn't say that. We agree with you on that point. So this is the thing you agree with us on more points than you think you agree with us on? You believe in unnecessary existence, which explains everything else. Necessary existence. Be careful, as you said, unnecessary existence, you are you retracting it. I said that the you're attracting the universe, that there's not one unified necessary. You said that the universe was unnecessary.
The universe follows unnecessary causal chain. Okay, so now you said, Hold on, you said the universe isn't necessary existence. And then you said determinism follows from that. Now, I'm saying that, if I said that, and I meant what you think I meant by saying, Yes, I retract it. But But I don't think that's, I think what it is Alex is
very good at making arguments against things I used to believe in. Oh, nothing's even it because Okay, now is perfect.
It's important, guys, because if you feel changing, you're
the only reason why you've changed your argument. Thank you.
Yeah, well, we have to actually ask the question, why does anything need creation in the first place? Right, it's a more fundamental question. Yeah. So I mean, I could take this club, but I usually sometimes I just take a stone or something. And I say, How do you know that this actually thing was creative require it to be required creation. So if this thing was, let's say, eternal, or let's say uncreated, then why is it in this particular shape, form, and so on and so forth, that it didn't choose? if something was uncreated, and nothing determined its limitations, then it wouldn't have limitations, which is my point. So therefore, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that God
requires creation when he has no limits that require defined by anything to be defined by or determined by something else. And that's why we know that anything is created is only because it has limitations. How long do you think God's been around for? eternity? Well, okay, what I'll say is that, that God is outside of time. So there's no, there's no pre existing time before him. Right. He's the beginning. But But I know what you want to kind of just
you mentioned, you mentioned in your presentation, I just want to just briefly touching before we touch anything else, which is, you said that Islam is terrified of, of a people professing atheism. Right. Again, I think that I don't know what experience you've had maybe with from reading European history books. But I suppose you should read books from about Mesopotamia and civilization experience the Prophet Muhammad.
If I may just finish, I'll let you respond. So the Prophet Mohammed had a famous debate with a Bedouin atheist, right. There was no intolerance there. But when he became Muslim, but there was no intolerance just because the guy initially profess to be atheist, Abu hanifa, famous classical scholar in medieval Iraq, Baghdad actually had public open air debates with atheists. Presumably, there's atheists were living in Baghdad all the time to actually be invited to open debates, and no one killed them or was intolerant to them at all whatsoever.
And when you say, oh, Islam is terrified of atheists. I just want to say something. You're not special. We encounter polytheists we encounter Christian trinitarians we encounter Zoroastrian
For our history, and from our perspective, you're all arguing exactly the same thing, which is somehow the the finite thing is also infinitely eternal. And we don't really, we don't really see you as different actually, you're just just another.
Yeah, just not a flavor of ice cream that we are basically encountering. So I don't don't make yourself out to be more special than you are, from our perspective. And as for the issue of tolerance of atheists, I think you should question your founders of your very ideology which pervades the western liberalism. JOHN Locke, in his letter on toleration, argued that you should tolerate different Christian sects, Protestants,
but not atheists, because you can't trust what they say they don't they don't believe in any higher moral value other than merely what is expedient, Rousseau made also the same argument. And some people say that under the current, you could say, atheistic ideas, as opposed to the natural rights arguments of john Locke, but depends on my arguments of utilitarianism. Really, morality is only based on expediency. And then people's rights are based on whether it's expedient to the state to even tolerate your rights so that it's not related to the bait itself. But the guy brought it up. And it's really disingenuous to bring up in that kind of debate. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, are you suggesting that someone like Socrates was deeply immoral man?
No, I'm not saying it. I'm saying, You seem to be implying, no, no, john Locke said that you that you can't cross a theist.
By default, the differences are the things the things which are worldview a base upon which are the philosophies of these men, we can say that those areas of their philosophies were wrong. JOHN Locke said some pretty egregious things. How can you say anything to differences? We'll get to that the difference is that you're wrong. I think I actually
don't believe the difference is the difference is that you can't do the same thing. When there is something immoral even when there is something immoral in the basis when there is something immoral that comes from somebody who founded the worldview that we believe in and something else unrelated Lee that he said that no longer applies was wrong. Can you prove it? Some we can say that we disagree with you? On your world? We have to we can say that we disagree? What do you have to say? So can you repeat the same thing you're making? immoralities in the Quran, you can't make the same look, we have just allowed you to speak and there were many times I could have interjected and asked
you similar questions and you're making it too cold a fallacy and you smart enough to know it. You can't just turn around as a question for being a moral nihilist. Especially since I'm not one anymore. Oh, you've changed your mind. Yes.
What statement the ones that you said you were more or less? What do you think moral subjectivism meant to me and means to me? What do you think?
What subjects don't say you're saying you can't say this? Because you're a moral subjectivist and a moral? Yeah, you're making a moral claim to false images? What is moral subject? Yeah, so you don't have objective morality? It's not it's not fixed. It's not true or false, despite human thoughts or convictions that morality is is true. So his only
answer to that, yeah, my question that I asked one question, then you can answer. My question is he's made it very clear on his public profile that this man is does not believe in objective morality. Why? And how can you say this in one breath, and then starting passing moral judgments which are based on liberalism? Can you explain how atheism accounts for that? Or how it does? As I say, that's a fallacy? It's not a fallacy? It is it is it is. As well as simply saying, well, you do this too. So who are you to speak that's not doing it? We are working on it your worldview. Your worldview claims that morality is objective. And your worldview has objective moral statements, like
the ones I've highlighted, it's your job to prove that those can be coherent with objective morality. God is all knowing God. So that's why we believe anything. God says, Oh, no, God says more. Yes.
Please, I don't need to Well, I need to do it. That's why I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to talk to the audience. And if the moral precepts within Islam that they disagree with, they have to disagree with if you have an agency, as you have said,
If God says something is moral, then it is morals. So if the people here this evening, disagree with the moral precepts,
as well. So let's talk about that. Let's see.
If I heard you correctly, anything that God says is moral. Absolutely. How do you know what God said? Well, okay, go back to our argument. I said, that we said that, we have revelations of full time the final revelation is the Quran as a falsifiability test. I gave you four things preservation inadmissibility contradictions, and I also told you about predictions of the Quran and Sunnah. Now, in order for you to say that the Quran is false, you have to falsify it, like a scientist would have to falsify theory for in order for them to say that that is wrong. Now, if you can't produce any evidence for that, then really you can remain agnostic on the issue. How do you how do you know that
the words contained in the Quran were the words that were actually supposed to have been spoken to the hammered by the angel Gabriel supposing that in the modern world can I leave? Yes. Okay. So, first and foremost, with regards to morality, it's actually completely irrelevant in this debate.
Concerning we'll be discussing explanation of reality. If you don't believe in objective morality, then there's nothing to compare the morality of Islam. We'll just say that discordant with it. Right. So I think it's a massive red herring. And I think I think that friend of yours will talk about a few fallacies concerning bringing up in the first place. And you have to first present to us objective, what is the majority and then compare it to Islamic morality and say, there's that they don't they don't fit. You can't and that's my point. And also the fact that you say, Well, if we don't like some morality in the back in the past or some basis of justify right in the past, we can
change it. But that's what's scary, because in modern Was it 21st century Europe and on 20th century Europe Need I say more? People thought that morality of people's protections of rights and things would no longer convenient for the nation that the nation's security and then they prejudicially persecute certain minorities because it was no longer beneficial from their estimation, and there's no objective basis to argue against the new say, Well, I personally don't like or find it. distasteful he did. So that that is actually scary that you don't have objective morality, because there's no actual promise of of rights that you can actually underwrite. As for the Well, no. Well,
yes, that I mean, there are asking a question, are you just okay, the restaurant statement, look,
the subjectivity and morality doesn't lie at the level of the act itself. It lies at the level of the motivations. I can say to somebody, like we I am a psychological headedness in the same way that mill was, I can say it is I know what people's motivations are, ultimately speaking and AI and there are objective facts to be known about how to achieve a goal. So it's not a case most objective is a moral objectivism, more moral, I said, I'm a psychological utilitarian. Like john Stuart Mill, not just a utilitarian Okay, well, I hope the audience can notice the difference in the level of interjection here. Like I'm trying to really listen to what you have to say, but you've got to let
me respond. Okay, good.
Psychological utilitarianism means that we can know what people's motivations are. And I think we can there are objective things to be known about how to achieve those goals. If somebody thinks that something is right, and I think it's wrong, it's not a case of Throw your hands up in the air and say it's everybody's opinion. That's not what moral subjectivism is. That's confusing, moral subjectivism with moral relativism. That's not what we're doing. No, hold on, those are not the same thing. It can respond. Alright, so a mill in chapter four of his book on utilitarianism, he actually gave us an exact way of identifying what he called the principle of utility. And through that, he
talks about desirability, and how when you see that something is desirable for someone, then that is that is an evidence that is something which ought to be done.
The whole time, you can check I've just given you a reference
title, the title, I didn't say the audience connection, I'm not interjecting I said, notice the disparity in
the introduction here is that the title
title of that chapter, there was a, there was a reason why the title of that chapter is not the truth of utilitarianism. It is located it is not
the title of his book, The title of that chapter is the kinds of proofs to which utilitarianism is susceptible to hold on the title of the chapter is proof of utilitarian it's not, you know, you can check it now. It is the types of proof that utilitarianism is susceptible to john Stuart Mill wrote the book himself, you can get the copy from Waterstones now everyone in the audience can google it? Yes, it's actually the title is proof of utility. That's what people call it. That's not what mill wrote. No, who calls it the title mill mill. The mill. mill doesn't call it the proof utilitarians. That's what its title, he avoids it, he does not the name of the chapter, the name of the chapter,
get up yet if you'd like to. Okay, so no one's going to tell
why it's important. why it's important the reason?
It's sort of descending into chaos.
Okay, so just to continue, I said,
zero is not. Okay. I'll concede that point. If he's right, I can see this. Because I don't care if you're right or wrong about that is the thing that matters is the point that he was making the point that he was making it that you can't prove utilitarianism, because he's a moral nihilist in that sense, but he said that there were certain proofs to which women consume because you can't prove the point the male subject.
The visible thing, which you brought up is that the only evidence we have that something is visible, is that it can be seen. That's what he said, Now, we can't prove
prove it was reasonable.
To understand more, okay, it's not one thing, it's an in depth
thing for someone who said that there are many things that you know, you don't know in the universe and things that you can't presume Yes, for you to claim that you now know people's motivations with the same kind of certainty enough to make it to derive an objective moral system. Yes, it's somewhat of a contradiction there because everyone's motivations might be unique or different, yes. unknowable to you anyway, certainly we never understand
the viewpoint of a psychopath who has the inability to empathize.
Yeah, but the study, of course, but to make a claim that's basically that you can understand everyone's motivations, or there's some kind of unique template of motivations that all human beings subscribed to or can fit into, is really convicting what you said earlier. One thing that you don't actually know, you don't make claims to know things which you don't directly.
I also didn't say that from Alex. On the last question, I open up to audience I do I do make things that
I never said that I didn't. I also didn't say that I see morality.
I also didn't say that you have to see things to be able to prove. Oh, okay. So illusionary for you? I would agree with that statement.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how you can possibly be sure that what are supposed to be the word spoken by God, or rather by the angel Gabriel pointed them to Mohammed are actually the words spoken if indeed, they were spoken at all.
Okay, so a couple days ago, I presented a lecture on how do you know Islam is true, when there's so many different, let's say, conflict, conflicting, or competing belief systems, in essence, from every aspect from the Islamic concept of God being a main issue, which is what my presentation was trying to focus on. The summit concept of God is almost completely unique to Islam with the possible exceptions of variations of Judaism, and philosophers who've, you know, reflected upon the possibilities of what could exist and what create all existence. And they've all come to the same conclusion, just like good old Greek, Xenophon is that there must be an ultimate creator is
infinite. And he's unlike creative things. There's nothing there's a famous Greek philosopher who believed that if he rejected polytheism, and rejected idols that look like human beings saying, if a cow had a god, it would make the the gods to look like cows. So he didn't, he wasn't atheist. He just rejected polytheism. And so we would, basically kind of siloed that view. But there's something very specific question about Yes, what the angel Gabriel is supposed to have said to Mohammed, how can you possibly know how can anybody possibly know that that was actually what happened? How,
let me just finish my point, which is, Islam is basically if I, when I encountered it, I encountered it. And I took it as a hypothesis for how to explain reality, as one possible hypothesis. After looking at different belief systems, including, or lack thereof of, let's say, atheistic positions in belief system, naturalism or materialism, communism and such, and such, I basically, you know, found contradictions and things that didn't make sense. And he kind of almost had a process of elimination that Islam was the only one left that actually didn't suffer any internal contradictions, both compared to the observable reality as well as within itself. And that's a very
tough thing to it's a very tall order to actually achieve if you're not explaining everything, quite literally everything. So caveat, not the particularities of things like, you know, quarks and bosons in case you actually say, Oh, I don't you're claiming to explain everything? No. But what I what I noticed is that Islam was the only one left and then after further investigation, after I fought, maybe it could have been a different way, maybe if one particular Simon doctrine didn't exist, or it was a different way. And I realized that that produces contradictions. So the point that I came to the conclusion that Islam was the only possible explanation to explain reality, which is why I was
very thrilled to do this debate in the first place. But without without going into things like you know, health existence and all this other stuff. The main key selling points used to say, of Islam of a hypothesis of Islam, excuse me, it was its concept of God, which is almost virtually unique to itself. And it's just rationally consistent and coherent. I didn't ask you about Islamic concept of God, I asked you very specifically about how you can possibly know that the concept of God whatever it is, that emerges from the Quran, can have been dictated to by hammered by the angel Gabriel, I take it therefore that you cannot answer that question. Well, it's kind of like the equivalent kind
of challenge what you're saying me now we can discuss how do we know the message the messenger that related the message is how do we know from from analysis of data, it's accurate, but I want to just come on, that's what I'd like to know. I know. I know. And I want to do a kind of a different angle to answer that question, which is, what got me into Islam in the first place was a different let me finish. What got me into Islam in the first place wasn't me, looking at the claims or trying to go back into time machine to find out if the problem existed or the angel Gabriel came to him. I looked at the message itself and the content
system C of the message itself with the universe, I came again led me to a conclusion that they both come from the same author. And that's why I became Muslim. In other words, you can't possibly know.
We'll leave it to the audience.
audience questions, gentlemen in the middle.
The word reality in the proposition is a very big word. I think it might be productive to focus a little bit away from cosmology for a while and discuss biological reality, raise mounting points.
I mentioned that mystery is interesting property phrases that God gets not, nor is the God that obviously raises hoary chestnuts about biological evolution, I'm going to assume that nobody in this room denies that life homes have evolved over time in
the known universe. The big question is, what's the agency behind that? And just it's clear to me that one of the driving forces behind what I consider to be evolutionary
is faulty copy, which occasion opportunistic results in
preparation, that Gee, the big question is, assuming we all accept that black holes have evolved, was that agency?
Is the agency delivering faulty coffee? Okay, so these two questions that Do you agree with the theory of evolution? Okay. So what do I believe this agency behind it, okay. Okay, so So in essence,
as Muslims, we don't dispute what we observe from the universe of crime tells us to observe the universe and to understand the how, how God instituted things, the mechanisms God put in place to bring things about. So that's not a problem, and we have no issue. We have no truck with
animal evolution and evolution of obviously microbiotic life and things like this, there's no problem that doesn't change. But now for you to claim that the process of copying and mutation that occurs, which you to claim and call it faulty copying, is actually making an assumption of teleology of Telos as the Greeks would say, of intention, that life has an intention to create perfect copies. All right. But if you if a person is a materialist, let's say that you say that all things happen out of necessity, right? Things just occur out of necessity, and one positing of what we would, let's say view it as everything that happens, all the mechanisms in life as well as in inanimate
objects throughout the universe, inanimate matter, let's just say, all these mechanisms have been instituted by God. So there's no problem or condition that we have with that at all whatsoever, wherever the case might be, wherever the science reveals. Do you agree with evolution and the driving forces God?
All men, all mechanisms were instituted by God. Yes.
Let's have one question one answer, because otherwise, that's fine.
So this debates about Islam and atheism, could you speak up?
Which was that atheist on special and that Muslims have been debating Christians and Jews or Zoroastrian. For years, I come from a Muslim and Zoroastrian family, and surely Roman Catholics, they are Hindus, or Jews. thing is with Islam and atheism is Islam make some claims, and atheism says, We're not making claims with Islam and Christianity, or Islam and Judaism. Islam is making a claim, Christianity is making a different claim. Judaism is making a different claim. They all evolved at different times, Islam and Christianity and Judaism who make similar claims, but there are significant differences which are
of a nature that is very, very important for Muslims and not for Islam to be true. It has to be able to show that say Christian claims about say Jesus being the son of God on trip. So rather than attempting to argue against atheism, how do you propose to suggest that Islam is right? That the Quran is right and not the Bible?
on this side of the house, there are two leaps of faith first God The second is not good. Okay, so we've already shown from first principles, how it can be conceived or can be reasoned that unnecessary existence which all other existence depend upon.
exists and is in fact necessary for existence. But in terms of the specific claim of Islam, I'll repeat the challenge. And obviously there are people in the audience here. I've said to you before, and I'll say again, that Islam makes specific claims and challenges which are not found in other texts. And this makes a slam and it's texts open to falsifiability. For example, number one is the preservation challenge challenge. Chapter 15, verse nine, it says in the national agenda, a decrease in the level of halftone, we have certainly sent down the book and we will preserve it, chapter four, verse 92, the contradiction challenge for you know, lower to 50 efficacy, they would have
found in many contradictions. A third, the third thing is the inevitability challenge. And we said before, that this has quantifiable measures and I'll give you one example. The Quran was a circumstantial revelation, and it was revealed piecemeal, right so for bit by bit, but despite the fact that the Quran was a circumstantial revelation, and it was revealed piecemeal, you'll find that there is an incredible knitted togetherness, a consistency or coherence of the Quranic texts, which make it almost impossible I would argue that it would have been would have been from human authorship. For example, the Quran in chapter three verse 59, says in the masala Isaiah in the logic
emissary, Adama, Holloman turabian, pseudoscalar, Lowcountry akun, that certainly Jesus is like Adam, God created him from Dustin's had been he was. Now notice it says he's like Adam, and if you count the amount of times Adam has mentioned, the Quran is 25 times, if you count a lot of times that Jesus mentioned the Koran is also 25 times. Now this is one of I would say, a plethora of examples, which if you were to turn this into a probability machine, you'll find makes it highly doubtful and probable, that this could have been done from someone who is being asked questions and, and answering in the form of Revelation. The fourth thing I mentioned was to predict the predictions
of the Quran. So for example, the fact that the Quran in chapter three verses one to six predicts that Rome would be the Roman Empire would be the Persian Empire from six to nine years. And we have corroborating evidence from this from non Islamic sources. For example, the Orpheus in the ninth century, writes this down, and so on. Now, the thing is, if you find all of this is my claim, my claim is if you look at all other religions, world religions, if there are predictions are made, I will be able to find you and it's a challenge out there for everyone, I'll be able to find you a false prophecy from the major world religions. If someone claims to be a fortune teller Nostradamus,
Charles Russell from the you know, whoever it may be, those individuals made a series of predictions, some of which came true, some of which did not. Now what I'm saying is quite bold, I'm saying that the Islamic position is you will not be able to find one thing that the prophet of Islam or the Quran says will come true that does not come true. And from that we predicate cosmological understanding that okay, the Hereafter, which is something we can't see, just like the futures unseeable is also going to be actualized materialized in the same way as everything else has. So we have falsifiability test, this falsifiability test is not in other scriptures. And in order for you
to disregard or discard the Quran and the Sunnah, you first have to go through the process, just as a scientist would have falsifying our claims. Thank you
dictated piecemeal over time, how is it not that there's been a higher order dictating things? I mean, I'd rather briskly move on to the questions, but I don't think that I'd say internal consistency is certainly required to say that the Quran is accurate, but it's not sufficient. Yes, it for things. That was one. Yeah. Okay. I would agree with that. Yeah, it's good. Another question.
I didn't I don't think you actually responded properly to that question, which is, how can you How can you demonstrate that what is written in the Bible, for example, is not true. When if what's written in the Quran contradicts it I gave as an example, in my
address, the Islamic view that it was not Jesus who died on the cross. How can you possibly prove that How could you know it, even if it even if it were, even if it was, so how can you possibly prove it? How can you claim that anything like that it can be done with certainty? And how can you show the people who report in the in the Bible were wrong? can I save the record? I don't, I don't think that's necessary to do. Because I have to be very careful the burden of proof here, which is that the proof needs to lie with the person making the claim right, the Christians claim that Jesus died, and there isn't they need to prove that the fact that I can't disprove it doesn't mean that I
can't have a case against it. I wouldn't know. I mean, I don't I don't think that the Christian claim is necessarily any more credible than the Islamic one. I don't think they could. Christians can prove what they believe. But I don't think you should
Could disprove it or, or give a credible opinion one way or the other.
I mean, what I would say is, certainly in science, as many hypotheses and hypotheses, I suppose is a prediction or claim based on previous theory, and people like to check out the claims and see if they are consistent with what they can observe. So I don't, I never had a problem with actually checking out someone's claims and seeing if there was any proof. And also if there was if it wasn't totally consistent, and my claim against Trinitarian Christians, with all due respect to any Trinitarian Christians, because it's not represented on this panel, of course, is that I believe that it has internal contradiction between a infinite, immortal God, and a finite mortal man who is
also God at the same time, as well as belief in one, God is one three at the same time. The crucifixion is really inconsequential to that matter, because it's just a historical happenstance or a claim of a happenstance. But I suppose really, and just to kind of answer that person's point in another angle, and very, very briefly to maybe be permitted, is upon the question of this question of is their burden of proof the burden of proof analysis, but improving them and they're not seeing them or making any claim? So isn't about improvement beyond illness? I would say that everyone here has a burden of explanation, an explanation of reality, at least ultimately, right? The whole point
about science is to try to seek to chip away at reality to uncover a local explanation for things but we're talking about an ultimate explanation things. And I'm going to make a very strong claim, which is that only that the idea of an infinite thing which has will, that can initiate by choice, is the only possible ultimate explanation for all things that avoids contradiction. Any other possibility possesses contradiction, right, including an explanation of reality that does not require God, any any border policy does not make sense, other than an infinite power and world creator. And that's my claim. And the only thing, my proof of that is is the only one that avoids
contradiction, and explains reality. Okay, with that, one to two minute closing statements. And starting with Colin
wasn't really expecting that, okay, well start with
that, I'm happy to do it, it'd be very brief. There's an old Russian proverb that says it is good to know the truth, but it is better to be happy. And
when you're talking about reality, reality can be very unpleasant.
Religion is very bad for
talking about reality, but it's quite good for talking about happiness.
So if happiness is more important to you than truth, then Islam like any other religion can protect you against against reality.
Otherwise, I suggest you stick with reality, maybe unpleasant, but it is actually what should guide you.
Okay, well, first, thank my interlocutors in both sides, thank you very much for attending. And I look forward to maybe future discussions with with all of you. So I'll just kind of finish up by saying that I don't think my arguments have been my forte kind of problems that I've posed to atheists have been kind of addressed. The explanation for change matter finitude and specificity, these things haven't been explained, if this moment depended on an infinite amount of pre existing moments with no beginning no stop point, then we wouldn't get to this point. Of course, there is a start point. And the question is what's making this starting thing, begin the chain of call or
creational, causality, whatever, or continuously, whatever you want to call it? Well, if it's something else, then it's not the first thing. So if it's initiating, then it can only do so out of choice. And that's the only explanation that avoids any contradictions. I think I've kind of finish up by saying that I'm glad that science wasn't invoked necessarily either side to prove either side's point. But I will say this and just a slight kind of interesting observation in the Quran, commands Muslims to observe the world to see how God made and instituted things and Islamic science. Well, science within Islamic civilization flourished because of that with Islamic scientists citing
the Quran as their motivation to understand God's will more the second Holy Book of Islam, the universe, the act of Allah, but there's no command in atheism to do so. In fact, you could be a solipsist a nihilist or an existentialist and not believe there's even an external reality in the first place. So I think with atheism, it's not a question of, of, you know, atheism is attached to science, but rather that atheism can't even justify an external reality to even investigate in the first place, whereas Islam is a short one. Okay. You can you can also be an atheist and a horse rider. They have nothing to do with each other. atheism doesn't entail certain beliefs and like that
either. You can be a solipsistic atheist, you don't have to be a solipsistic atheist.
You're right to say that the issues that we that you bring up especially the football
You haven't been addressed.
Perhaps they could have been if we could have gotten to the end of the sentence. But I think that Likewise, the challenges that I proposed my opening statements were fully address the problems of morality. And I'd hate I'd hate to
compel or expects you to do so now and the closing statement, that would be unfair. But I hope that it hasn't escaped people. But that hasn't been discussed. And I think one of the reasons for that is because it can't be justifiably addressed. Although, certainly Mr. jabbers has tried to on his YouTube channel, so you should go and listen to what he has to say, I just have to say that appeals to to the fact that, for instance, you say, you know that well, America had had laws that said you can get married at 10 is like, yeah, America was wrong, and so was your profit, like, the difference is that whilst we can progress morally as a society, if we if we base it upon constitutions and say
that the moral issues that are infused within them don't depend on the person who's saying it, or the fact that it comes from God, that's a hell of a lot easier than when you come up against the moral possibility for moral progress with statements that come from the unalterable word of the Divine Creator of the Universe, and that's why probably,
I want to say,
Okay, let me add.
Here's why I want to say Ladies and gentlemen, you see, this is the reality of atheism or you have a claim First of all, from a nihilist, someone who does epistemological nihilist an existential nihilist, a moral nihilist, someone who does not believe in value judgments, saying you're right, and you're wrong. That's unfair, and it's unsubstantiated. That is an active claim that he's not been able to show from first principles. You see, the thing is with atheists, they like to make claims that they cannot substantiate, he said himself, you can be an atheistic, solipsist, which means you can, by the way, what that means is you can believe you're living in a matrix world. So if
you can't even prove the external reality, or even an absolute reality, or even that rational faculties are truth reliable, then why are you making a claim that atheism or trying to suggest that atheism potentially is better than Islam? And in understanding reality, if you don't make that claim, then you're conceding that Islam offers something, whereas atheism by virtue of the fact offers nothing? And to be honest with you, I have to say, I have to say, I am actually convinced, you know, I have some doubts after this debate.
There's some skepticism. I doubt the existence of atheism for atheists, because of atheists. No, seriously because an atheist means someone who's lacking or disbelief in God. What is God a god is an object of worship. What is worship? worship is
ultimate obedience to an entity. And I don't believe that any human being is not ultimately obedient, loving, submissive to anything. Fact like Abdullah said their policies that's what the Quran says chapter 39 verse 29, Allah says in the Quran, it says
Jolla Suleiman near
my tip, beacon def Delson, M and
Shireen So, Allah subhanaw taala says no Quran it says, not have a long westerland Allah struck a parable, or julienne fish or a cat, a man who has many different slave masters. Why don't you learn Solomon neeraja and another person another man with only one slave master? Are they the same in comparison with each other Alhamdulillah Praise be to Allah. Well xo whom Allah Allah, ne most of them do not know
You're gonna die. I prefer Muhammad and they are going to die. Then you will be presented to Allah disputing with one another, ie on the Day of Judgment, Levin says
and who is more oppressive than the one
who denies God's science and persistently denies evidences
when they are presented to him?
Is there not in the Hellfire, a resting place for the oppresses atheists have many gods Muslims are just telling atheists to redirect their veneration admiration and their worship instead of to the many gods to the one dot. And that is our case. And thank you very much for listening.
Thank you everyone for coming. It's been a long night, but a very enjoyable one.
Thank you very much.
If you believe that your your Thank you. Thank you.
No, no, no, because Oh, sure.
In the middle