Mohammed Hijab – Neil deGrasse Tyson on God – Response

			Have you? Are you wasting your time on social media again? Your brothers and sisters in Islam net
from Norway are establishing a masjid a Dawa center. Establishing a masjid to convey the message of
Islam is one of the best deeds a Muslim can do. There's a huge need for an annoying, you know this
and I know this, so that makes it even greater. So give generously and Allah azza wa jal give you
even
		

			a Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh How are you guys doing? I recently came across a video a
very short video of a popular atheist who I've refuted in the past many of you have seen those
refutations Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about God, let's take a look at that video and come back and
comment. Do you believe in God? Me? So? Yeah, so I'm the more I look at the universe.
		

			Just the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on. So if you if if your
concept of a creator is someone who's all powerful, and all good, and I look at
		

			disasters that afflict Earth and life on Earth, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes,
disease, pestilence,
		

			congenital birth defects, you look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on Earth by
natural causes.
		

			And I just ask, how do you deal with that?
		

			So philosophers rose up and said, if there is a God, God is either not all powerful,
		

			or not all good. I have no problems. If as we probe the origins of things, we bump up into the
bearded man, if that shows up, we're good to go. Okay, not a problem.
		

			There's just no evidence of it. Now, there are two things that one can spot really with this video,
the first thing I would say is, he makes an argument really against God. And this is a very famous
argument, the problem of evil. Now, I've covered the entire problem of evil with the Institute, the
Sapiens Institute, and you can put my name in Sapiens Institute on YouTube, and you'll find an
entire video where we speak about this at length. But suffice it for me to say at this point, when
he says that philosophers have risen up and spoken, you know, put the following proposition forward.
		

			That if God is omnipotent, all powerful and all good, then how could that be evil because it would
negate one of the two attributes. And obviously, I'm simplifying here.
		

			That this is kind of an argument for him and undercutting argument for God's existence. Now, I'll
just put two or three things to you, maybe just to make you think about the matter. Number one, how
would you define evil from a scientific perspective being a naturalist being a physicalist, being an
materialist, being an individual who doesn't see anything above and beyond the physical world,
meaning if something was not empirically verifiable, something that you cannot put under a
microscope with some kind of form matter of substance, then it really doesn't exist as a figment of
one's imagination. Now, I want to know from Neil deGrasse Tyson, this evil that he speaks of this
		

			evil, or this, this these disasters that he speaks up all these negative things that he speaks off,
can you put this thing under the microscope?
		

			Can you put evil under the microscope when he says that God is how can evil exist in the world is he
is citing Epicurus, a Hellenistic philosopher
		

			and sees when he says the philosophies he means this particular philosophy, because this is the
person who brings forward this organ. Can you put evil under the microscope? So therefore does evil
exists on your physicalist materialist paradigm?
		

			This is the first question. And if it doesn't exist, of course, then what is this question worth?
It's worth nothing at all. There's no currency in the questioning. But let's assume for the sake of
argument that evil does exist, and somehow maybe you can put it under your microscope. Okay. Why do
you assume that theists like Muslims, for example, or others, or even Christians, to be fair, all
Jews believe in a God with only two attributes, omnipotence, and goodness? Why do you assume that
that's what we believe? We believe in a God with many attributes and of course, one of them is
wisdom. We as Muslims believe that Allah is Al Hakim, which means the most wise and what is wisdom,
		

			wisdom from the Islamic perspective is what are shaping McKenney? So he or appropriately the idea of
putting some
		

			thinking its rightful place, meaning as the Quran says something, which is negative, which you don't
like could be good for us. And Takahashi and Mahayana, como Allahu Allah, were and to lead to Allah
moon, that you could hate something, but it's good for you. So all these disasters that you've
cited, which, of course, are not limited to, for example, the earthquake that we saw in Turkey and
of course, in Syria, which we make up diet for Allah subhanaw taala, for the relief of those people,
how do you know that it's not either a test or an elevation of those individuals who have been
murdered or who have sort of been killed in the earthquake, or we believe as Muslims, they have been
		

			martyred. slideable had him as one of the things in the Hadith As mentioned, the person who has been
of a collapse building on them, is one of the martyrs is actually a hadith in our tradition. So it
could be that there is a wisdom behind some of the things which we as individuals find negative. And
of course, if we assume a god with only two attributes, we are eliminating this possibility. So I
think we're done here with Epicurus is,
		

			you know, conundrum or dilemma, which quite frankly, even atheist philosophers, of course, you're
not one of them because you're an astrophysicist, who's delving into things or fields which are not
his own, have even admitted like William row that this is an intellectually bankrupt case anyway,
that this problem of evil objection or interrogation, to the theist is something which is not really
effectual is intellectually bankrupt. But that's something else that he nonchalantly or say
audaciously, mentioned at the end of his video that if you have evidence and bring it forward, but
if you've got some good evidence, bring it, bring it, bring it, bring it, it's as if he doesn't know
		

			that there have been evidences put forward by
		

			the likes of even Aristotle all the way up to present day enlightened figures, and beyond, from all
traditions for the for the existence of God. ontological arguments, teleological arguments, fine
tuning arguments, cosmological arguments, you have not engaged with those arguments. Anybody even an
R ri student in GCSE level knows Aquinas is five ways Thomas Aquinas is five ways to prove in God's
existence. Everybody, most people now understand what a fine tuning argument is, and what kind of
permutations is taken. William Paley is fine tuning argument of the watchmaker argument you got to
watch and you know, and what is it as a contrivance, he calls it, is there some creation? Or Is
		

			there none?
		

			Or the argument that you've got all these elector, you've got these constants, you've got the
electromagnetic constant something more on your wavelength, and you've got the gravitational
constant and that they are in a life permitting range and had that these constants not been a you
know, a particular way, in the in Richard Dawkins own words, the Goldilocks zone, then there would
not be any life at all says if you don't know these arguments,
		

			so don't say present the evidence? Because of course, what do you mean by evidence? And this is the
thing, you have the audacity to reject types of evidence we present a cosmological type of argument,
then, maybe it's not satisfactory to present an ontological type of argument is not satisfactory. So
what kind of evidence will you be willing to accept? And let me just end this conversation really,
because it's as if I need to explain this to you in other places, in debates, in other
presentations, I've outlined the contingency argument for God's existence, the cosmological
argument, fine tuning arguments, I'm not going to do that now. Because that will take too much of my
		

			space and time, but suffice it for me to say one thing in terms of this whole question of evidence,
one thing only, that the universe is a certain way has certain physical properties that we can all
agree on, right? Okay, if the universe is a certain way and has certain physical properties, the
physical properties of the universe, okay, allow life to exist, we all agree, no problem. Now, tell
me what is a better explanation, that you have an intelligence or knowledge that has brought forth
this reality? Or that you have no knowledge? There is no there is no mover, there is no intelligence
on mind for you, which is it if you say the latter than that, itself requires an explanation, which
		

			of course the atheist is deplete, have any kind of explanation atheism itself has no it doesn't have
any explanatory scope or power. So with that, I'll let you think. From whence did the uniformity the
regularity and the stability of the universe that is allowing human beings or any other life form to
exist come from? Did it come from a life permitting force or an intelligence or
		

			Some knowledge or did it come from no such thing? Be honest with yourself and answer this question.
And I believe if you're being honest with yourself, you will look at yourself in the mirror and
realize that it is the former rather than the latter. If you don't want to live with that
realization that no, that you are lying to yourself deluding yourself, the atheist delusion, it will
be for you. Or Santa Monica.
		

			The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told us to ever build a mosque for Allah, Allah
were built in a similar house in Jannah.
		

			We know the great reward that will not only be gained but rather will feel your grave after your
death. Whenever someone prays that whenever someone gives shahada in the masjid whenever someone
learns something in the masjid, yes, that will be something that you will have on your scale.