Mohammed Hijab – Piers Morgan vs Richard Dawkins (Response)

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

			As Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato, how you guys doing and Ramadan Mubarak to all of you,
the blessed month of Ramadan is upon us a month of fasting, a month of sacrifice, a month of
charity, a month of prayer, a month of self discipline, and in sha Allah month, where we recite the
Quran and read it as well. We believe in one God worthy of worship. And this is a month where we can
do our purpose the most because our purpose is to worship this one god worthy of worship someone
who's negated this purpose, or any kind of purpose relating to a deity, or indeed, the existence of
any deity at all, is none other than Richard Dawkins, whose arguments have become so labored and
		

			tired and repeat it that now I have to say, the whole Richard Dawkins effect, as well as the new
atheist phenomena has almost withered away to a state of non existence. Despite this being the case,
he has come and done an interview with Piers Morgan, let's take a look at some segments of this
interview, which are pertinent to the god discussion and come and respond in kind.
		

			What happened before? So you go for the big bang? What was there before? What is What does nothing
look like physicists are debating this, I'm not a physicist, but they're debating it. My point is
that they don't know. And I don't know and you don't know. And it doesn't help to postulate a God
that did it. You're certainly not a God. And yet you admit you don't know. No, I'm, I'm certain that
it doesn't help to postulate something very complicated at the outset, because what we've got is
primeval simplicity. And from that stems, everything you see the first thing here, there's two
aspects, which I find quite interesting about this discourse here. First, we've heard this before
		

			from Richard Dawkins ad nauseam. Okay. But the second is this presupposition here that whether or
not there is a before the Big Bang, that that has any bearing or relevance or it's crucial to the
idea of God existing or not, because of course, you can make arguments for God's existence, which
are timeless, in other words are not restricted to time, which are not, for example, related to a
before or an after. This is one aspect, which is extremely important, because it may be assumed,
especially for those followers of all those people who have known, you know, Thomas Aquinas is first
way, or even Aristotle's argument for the prime mover, that if there's then there's and then before,
		

			before, before before, and then you have to have a prime mover that kind of moves everything into
existence, that this is the only argument for God's existence, you can have arguments for God's
existence, which don't relate to time in that sense. So that's, that's a very important point
whether or not there was even the beginning of the Big Bang, or whether or not the universe was
eternal. And of course, we don't believe that the universe was eternal, the science, Richard
Dawkins, believe it most I would say, maybe scientists today don't believe in that. But despite that
being the case, it doesn't mean that in order for us to make arguments for God's existence, now we
		

			have to happen before the universe existed scenario. This is the first thing because of course, as
he kind of alluded to by he kind of restricted it to physics. It's not the case. Richard Dawkins
mentioned that this is an argument for physicists actually, philosophers have been discussing this
as well, philosophers and physicists have been discussing different theories of time, you know, you
got a series B series, you have dynamic versus static, you have different timed notions, you have
quantum fluctuations and times relating to the quantum physics. So what is time in the first place?
I mean, time is speed over distance, and speed over distance from a physics perspective, it's really
		

			just movement, and which is why, as I say, it lends itself to some arguments for God's existence. So
that's the first thing it doesn't need to, although it can do, it doesn't need to be a prominent
feature of the discourse in order for any kind of argument for God's existence to be made. However,
did you know it's a Richard Dawkins when he was discussing with Piers Morgan? He says, I don't know
when you don't know. How do you know that he doesn't know if you don't know I mean, this doesn't
make sense to me. And he does this all the time. If you're an ignorant person, if you're ignorant of
something that how do you know that someone else's ignorance is identical to your ignorance if
		

			you're ignorant, it's this kind of having your cake and eating it both having your epistemological K
		

			cake and eating it as well. At the same time, how can you have both? If you're ignorant that don't
be an arrogant, ignorant person? Because if you're an agnostic, which of course you call yourself an
atheist, I mean, Richard Dawkins calls himself an atheist. He has been categorized as a strident
atheist, someone who flagrantly talks about the non existence of God, but in reality isn't agnostic.
So the most, you know, flagrant atheist strident atheist. The symbol of atheism, especially in the
UK, in the West, is actually like Gnostic. This is actually interesting. He's saying, I don't know,
but you don't know as well. But then if you don't know, how do you know that he doesn't know if you
		

			don't know? This doesn't make sense. It's just really let's call it what it is. It's arrogant
ignorance. This is cool you what you are Richard Dawkins, you're an arrogant man, because you're
postulating what other people do or do not know. But also, you're an ignorant man, because
agnosticism is basically ignorance, that's all is? Well, you're saying, I don't know, you're saying
I am ignorant. So you're combining the worst of the two vices together. So just to summarize this
point, arguments for God's existence don't require a time condition. You can you can make arguments
for God's existence without time being a factor. And in fact, he's going to make an argument for
		

			God's existence was going to lead to one, which we should watch now, actually. But before we do so,
the second thing is, which I want to summarize is that you can't say you don't know and I don't know
and you don't know. Or you don't know. And I don't know. Because if you don't know, you don't know
what other people know. So don't try and combine arrogance and ignorance in this manner, because
you'll make a comical fool out of yourself. Let's take a look at the second. Let's take a look at
the second video. We are a tiny tiny.in The universe Exactly. So you don't know what else is out
there really, other than what scientists have already established? No, I think it's highly likely
		

			that there are other beings out there which are much cleverer than we are super human, not
supernatural, but superhuman. And I would love to meet them. Okay, you see, I mean, if you watch
this carefully, I thought this was actually very good strategy from Richard Dawkins. And this is
from someone who's written a book about him and and the New Atheists. I've written a book called The
scientific delusions of the New Atheists, which is free of charge, you can get it from PDF, and the
Sapiens Institute. So someone who's read all of his works practically, what and I've seen his
strategy and his debates I have seen and known this is a good strategy from Richard Dawkins, I have
		

			to give him credit, because Piers Morgan asked him a question, which related, although not
explicitly, to the fine tuning of the universe, Richard Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens,
and many of the New Atheists are fully aware of the difficulty of the task of responding to this
argument is on the record, in fact, Richard Dawkins himself in the book, The God Delusion refers to
as the Goldilocks zone, he refers to himself, he agrees to the fine tuning, he can't deny it, and
then he has something called the anthropic principle, and then he's different, you got the weak and
the strong, he doesn't go into this. Instead, he just diverts the entire discussion, I find that
		

			quite intelligent strategically, Piers Morgan didn't follow this, because obviously, he's not in
tune with these things kind of things. As a journalist, you can't hold him to account too much.
Although he asked the first question, which was, I think, a good question. What is the probability
he's asking, right, but let me rephrase the question in a way which maybe the viewers will will
understand. Okay. Number one, whether or not the humans are super humans, because he started talking
about super humans, Richard Dawkins, whether or not there's humans or super humans or life of the
animal life or human life, whatever life form there is, my question is as follows. You have a
		

			universe Correct? No one's going to say no, yes. You have a universe. Yes. Okay. We Yeah, we have.
Yes, we have a universe. Is he gonna deny? Is Richard Dawkins? gonna deny no is not is crystal isn't
always easy, because I know, we have a universe. Yes. We have life in the universe. Yes. Whether
it's human life or superhuman life, animal life, okay, fine. There are laws in the universe which
are consistent, which allow continually forced life to exist in the universe. Say that again, just
say it again. There are laws in the universe, which consistently allow for human or any kind of life
to exist in the universe. Is that a fact? Yes, it is a fact.
		

			Whether you want to have a nominalist or conceptual view of laws, I'm not talking about a substance
but the conditions of the universe are such that it allows Yes, it allows the continued existence
for some time of the or for some for some period of time. For of what, of life. What is the
explanation of this? Yes, my question, Richard Dawkins, he's gonna say I don't know. And you don't
know. We don't know.
		

			No, I'm gonna say that's not an answer. That is you. purporting that I don't know anything. The
question is, what is the best explanation ha
		

			For this, what is the best explanation for the fact that the conditions of the universe continually
allow life to exist within it? What's the best explanation for that?
		

			That's all the question I'm asking.
		

			Think about it for a second. I'm not gonna give you the answer. You're clever enough to think about
it think about it, is the best explanation that came from nothing, which Piers Morgan correctly
identified as something really unintelligible nothingness doesn't really, there's no evidence it
exists in the real world in the first place. The absence of something. Okay, where did it come from?
Randomness? We don't we don't believe in randomness. randomness is just your ignorance, you don't
understand something you call it random. That's what randomness is. So where did it come from? Where
did these conditions are? How are these conditions so that they allow for the continued existence of
		

			life and the universe? That's all the question I have. And if you're saying that, well, the best
explanation is X, Y, and Zed. Let's hear it. Let's say whatever explanation you have. What we're
proposing is that laws come from a lawmaker and intelligent one at that one with knowledge. One was
the ability to change the situation. Because Had that not been the case as your vision would not
have been changed? It's a fine, simple answer to a very simple question.
		

			And we don't have time to watch the video, but I will mentioned something interesting. In the same
interview, he was mentioning,
		

			you know, in the in the in the sick bed, if you are dead, most of you are gonna die. And you are
being a Richard Dawkins, fascinatingly admitted. Okay, he fascinatingly admitted that it would be
much harder for him than for a religious person. And that's interesting. I'm not saying therefore
God exists, nor saying, therefore God exists. But essentially, this is interesting. Why would
someone choose this way of life when number one it doesn't answer for it has no explanatory scope.
Atheism doesn't explain the complexity of the universe. The fact that the conditions of the universe
allow life to exist within it continually. Nor does it allow, does it explain the purpose of life?
		

			Atheism is a vacuous nonsense claim. That doesn't explain anything, which is why Richard Dawkins
himself, although he calls himself an atheist, and people call him that is not actually it is he's
an agnostic, which means really, he's an ignorant person. So why are people so fascinated and had
been so fascinated in this country, for example, of following an ignoramus with his own self
admission? I say, that is best for not for us not to follow this struct and in fact, to follow
something else, the Quran, which is the book we were talking in the beginning about the Quran as the
following question. If I sibutramine number halacha Nechama Abbath and when the company Lena, Allah
		

			toto down, this is a question have you do you believe that you are created aimlessly and that you
will not be returned to us?
		

			Is that really your presupposition? Do you believe that
		

			a hospital in San au troca so that is the individual belief that he's going to be left aimless.
		

			Think about those questions or Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
		

			the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told us to ever build a mosque for Allah, Allah
will build for him a similar the house in Jannah. And we know the great reward that will not only be
gained but rather will fill your grave after your death. Whenever someone prays, 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.