Islam vs Atheism || Oxford University Forum Debate (2019-05-15) ​

## Description

The debate was hosted by Oxford University Forum on 6th May 2019. The topic debated was "Does Islam explain reality better than Atheism?" and the arguments made were powerful, passionate and intense. Al-hamdulillah, the truth of Islam was demonstrated to be not only the best explanation of reality but the only explanation of reality that makes sense with what we can observe. On the other side, the Atheist's denial of God meant that they couldn't provide an ultimate explanation of reality without falling into self-contradictions.

The speakers were me (S.A.L.A.M Initiative), Abdullah al Andalusi (Muslim Debate Initiative) debating against Atheist speakers, Alex O’Connor, an international speaker and popular YouTuber “Cosmic Skeptic”, and writer for the New Humanist Journal, and Psychiatrist, Dr Colin Brewer.

Please make sure to support our work !!! :

https://www.launchgood.com/project/how_much_will_you_give_for_islam#!/

Forbidden Prophesies Book (Abu Zakarriyah) -

https://iera.org/shop/the-forbidden-prophecies/

Kalam Cosmological Arguments Book (Mohammed Hijab) -https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kalam-Cosmological-Arguments-Mohammed-Hijab/dp/1098544021/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2HXCQ0YE6SI7E&keywords=kalam+cosmological+argument&qid=1557916231&s=gateway&sprefix=kalam+%2Caps%2C127&sr=8-2

Summary of Islam vs Atheism || Oxford University Forum Debate ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 [01:00:00 ​

In the Oxford University Forum debate on Islam vs. atheism, the two sides discuss the issue of how reality can be explained. Islam argues that a divine creator is necessary to explain reality, while atheism denies this. In the end, both sides admit that the other has a point, but neither can explain reality without recourse to a divine creator.

00:00:00 The speakers discuss the difference between Islam and atheism and how each worldview fails to account for certain observations. Islam teaches that God is one, self-sufficient, and without partner.

• 00:05:00 The Oxford University Forum debate between Islam and atheism is focused on the issue of how reality can be explained, with Islam arguing that it cannot be explained without the existence of a divine creator, while atheism denies this and asserts that reality can be explained without a divine creator. The debate ends with both sides admitting that the other has a point, but neither side can convincingly explain reality without recourse to a divine creator.
• 00:10:00 The Oxford University Forum Debate discussed the pros and cons of atheism vs. Islam. Abdullah argued that atheism does not entail a lack of belief in God, and that the burden of proof lies with the proposition. Matt Dillahunty argued that because atheism is a claim to belief, it comes from the Greek a meaning without the Oz meaning Ghana, and is not an active position to hold.
• 00:15:00 Discusses various arguments between Islam and atheism, with the presenter pointing out that there is an objective basis to morality in the world, and that part of this reality is that there are moral truths. The presenter then goes on to present a verse from the Quran, which states that men are superior to women.
• 00:20:00 In this debate, Oxford University students discuss Islam vs. atheism. One student, Mian Abdullah, argues that the universe came into existence from nothing. Another, Alex, challenges Abdullah's claim, saying that the universe had a cause.
• 00:25:00 Discusses Islam's perspective on the existence of a necessary God. According to Islam, this God is an independent, self-sufficient being that creates and controls the universe. This contrasts with other religions, which typically view gods as beings with multiple aspects and origins. Furthermore, the video argues that, because the concept of a necessary God is different from that of other gods, an adherent to Islam is not an atheist or Islamic philosopher, but rather someone who believes in a separate, necessary God.
• 00:30:00 Oxford University Forum Debate participants discuss the similarities and differences between atheism and Islam. The presenter points out that, while atheism does not have a belief in a god, Islam does have a pure monotheism that can be reasoned from first principles. He also argues that Islam makes predictions about the future, none of which have not materialized, while other religions make predictions that sometimes turn out to be false. The presenter asserts that this falsifiability is stronger than a scientific one, as scientific theories are susceptible to falsification with retrospective perspective.
• 00:35:00 Discusses the importance of freedom of religious belief, and how Islam does not protect this right as much as Christianity does. then discusses the case of a professor in an Arab country whose journal was threatened after he published an article about Freud being an atheist.
• 00:40:00 Discusses how two different views of reality compete with each other. He discusses how Christianity and Islam differ in their views on abortion.
• 00:45:00 Discusses the concepts of atheism and the necessary corollary that if one does not believe in God, their worldview does not require the existence of a deity to explain things. He goes on to say that, ultimately, reality imposes certain problems on atheism if it is to be taken seriously.
• 00:50:00 In this Oxford University forum debate, two debaters argue whether anything that can be reduced or subtracted (i.e. quantitative) can be infinite. The debaters reach a conclusion that anything susceptible to additional subtraction cannot be infinite.
• 00:55:00 Discusses the idea of necessary existence, arguing that something must exist in order for other things to exist. He goes on to say that without necessary existence, there could be no contingent things, and that therefore, necessary existence is a necessary condition for everything else to exist.

01:00:00 [01:40:00 ​

discusses a debate between Muslims and atheists at Oxford University. The Muslims argue that atheists should redirect their admiration and worship to the one God, while the atheists argue that there are many gods. The debate ends with the Muslims stating that atheists will do well here if they believe in God.

01:00:00 Discusses a debate between Oxford University professors, one of whom argues that determinism follows from the necessary existence of the universe. The other professor argues that this is a false dichotomy, and that determinism and necessary existence can both be true at the same time. also discusses the debate between Muhammad Ahsan and a Bedouin atheist, in which Ahsan demonstrates that there is no intolerance or violence against atheists in Islam.

• 01:05:00 The Oxford University Forum debate between Islam and atheism revolves around the question of whether or not morality is objective or subjective. The atheist argues that morality is subjective, while the Muslim argues that morality is based on revelation from God. If morality is based on revelation, then it is not subject to change. If morality is not based on revelation, then the atheist has no ground to stand on.
• 01:10:00 argues that if one does not believe in objective morality, there is nothing to compare the morality of Islam with. He points out that, while the subjectivity of morality does lie in the motivations behind actions, there are many objective facts that can be known about how to achieve a goal. He also argues that, while Mill avoided using the name "the proof of utilitarianism," the chapter is actually a proof of the theory.
• 01:15:00 presents a lecture on how to know if Islam is true, and how it stands out compared to other belief systems. He points out that there are contradictions and problems with other belief systems, and that Islam is the only one that makes sense. He asks a question about how Islam's concept of God can be known to be accurate, and the speaker is unable to answer.
• 01:20:00 The Oxford University forum debate between Muslims and atheists revolved around the question of whether or not lifeforms have been created by an agency, and if so, whether or not that agency is divine. The atheists argued that the process of copying and mutation is faulty, and that teleological explanations for intentional life are unfounded. The Muslims maintained that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all make similar claims, but there are significant differences between them that prove Islam to be true.
• 01:25:00 The presenter discusses the challenges of Islam, focusing on its claims of supernatural accuracy and predictability. He points out that other religions also make claims which must be proven, and that the Christian claim is no more credible than the Islamic one.
• 01:30:00 argues that only the idea of an infinite thing which has will that can initiate by choice is the only possible explanation for all things that avoids contradiction. He also argues that atheism does not entail certain beliefs and that Islam is a way of life that protects against reality being unpleasant.
• 01:35:00 of the video discusses the various similarities and differences between Islam and atheism, pointing out that atheism offers nothing in comparison to Islam's claims of moral progress. He concludes by saying that he has doubts about atheism after the debate, and that most atheists are unaware of their own mortality.
• 01:40:00 , a debate between Muslims and atheists is held at Oxford University. The Muslims argue that atheists should redirect their admiration and worship to the one God, while the atheists argue that there are many gods. The debate ends with the Muslims stating that atheists will do well here if they believe in God.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:00 okay thank you everyone for coming and0:00:02 thank you to Corpus Christi for allowing0:00:04 us to use the auditorium I'll get0:00:07 straight to it and introduce the0:00:08 speakers so on my far right is Collin0:00:11 brewer he's a retired psychiatrist an ex0:00:14 research fellow at Birmingham he's a0:00:16 medical journalist and author of several0:00:17 books he's written for The Spectator The0:00:19 Guardian and the new humanist journal0:00:22 and he has a keen interest in history in0:00:24 the history and origins of religions0:00:27 alexsei corner to my right is an Oxford0:00:29 University student here with us he's got0:00:31 an extremely popular YouTube channel and0:00:33 on which he discusses politics0:00:35 philosophy science and religion to my0:00:38 far left is Mahanagar job he's an0:00:41 academic researcher and so asked in0:00:43 London and he's also studied in multiple0:00:46 Islamic institutions0:00:48 I see Mohammad is a kind of public0:00:50 debater he roams around London locking0:00:53 horns with Jews Muslims Christians and0:00:56 atheists alike and as I'm sure you know0:00:58 will attest have you seen his YouTube0:01:00 channel and there's a most productive0:01:02 conversation who's had Abdullah an hour0:01:05 and the Lucy is an international0:01:07 activist for Islam analyst and Affairs0:01:09 he's given extensive talks and written0:01:12 articles rationally critique critiquing0:01:14 secularism liberalism's secular0:01:17 democracy and materialism he's also the0:01:19 co-founder of the public discussion0:01:20 forum the Muslim debates initiative and0:01:23 that promotes open dialogue and critical0:01:25 thoughts and without further ado I'll0:01:28 ask one of the proposition to step up0:01:33 supporting the motion Islam explains0:01:36 reality better than atheism okay0:01:41 [Applause]0:01:51 the name of God the gracious the0:01:54 merciful0:01:54 like to faint Knox's forum and my fellow0:01:57 panelists for facilitating this debate0:01:59 and everyone here for attending I used0:02:02 to be Christian my mother was Catholic0:02:04 and my father was secular I went to a0:02:07 Church of England school and learned the0:02:09 basics of Christian belief however with0:02:13 there being so many belief systems I0:02:15 asked myself a question how did I know I0:02:18 was born into the correct one would I0:02:21 have been something different if I was0:02:23 born and raised elsewhere I then studied0:02:26 every belief claim or worldview I could0:02:28 find to discover the ultimate0:02:30 explanation for all things in doing so I0:02:34 found that many explanations couldn't0:02:36 account for many things that I could0:02:39 observe or prove themselves false or0:02:42 fell apart due to their own self0:02:44 contradictions or contradictions between0:02:47 what they say and reality for example I0:02:51 encountered Trinitarian Christianity0:02:53 which argues that God is both one and0:02:55 three and that the infinite immortal God0:02:57 is also a finite mortal man I0:02:59 encountered polytheists who argued that0:03:02 there are many gods some eternal some0:03:04 who popped out of nothing0:03:05 who are all infinite but have created0:03:08 and finite human or animal forms suffer0:03:11 ignorance tiredness and even injury some0:03:15 Pacific island religions consider0:03:17 volcanoes who created their Island and0:03:19 whose sent sediments make the ground0:03:21 highly fertile for cultivation to be0:03:24 also eternal and divine I've also found0:03:27 that many atheistic positions are not0:03:30 any more special or more coherent than0:03:32 these for example many materialistic0:03:35 worldviews argue that the universe which0:03:39 we see is for which is finite limited0:03:41 and changing is also somehow infinite0:03:45 and eternal at the same time you just0:03:48 can't see it0:03:49 other atheist positions argue that the0:03:51 universe ultimately popped out of0:03:52 nothing0:03:53 or b8 with precisely measured amounts of0:03:55 energy but no cause to determine that0:03:57 measure of course there are also0:03:59 atheistic world views like types of0:04:01 Buddhism which goes to show that atheism0:04:03 doesn't preclude spirituality just God0:04:06 when I encountered Islam I found0:04:08 something different that Islam describes0:04:10 God as a being of infinite or0:04:12 inexhaustible power and who possesses0:04:15 intentionality or will he has no human0:04:18 or animal attributes forms nature's or0:04:22 appetites Aslam teaches that God is0:04:24 genderless does not experience Tidus or0:04:27 ignorance and exists without peer surah0:04:31 a class of the cry makes clear miss0:04:33 Merriman rahim who Allah who I had say0:04:37 God is one Allah who summit their0:04:40 self-sufficient lamby Allah dwell amulet0:04:42 he does not reproduce nor was he0:04:45 reproduced while an Akula who could for0:04:47 one I had there is nothing like him0:04:49 which means he is without partner0:04:51 because if there were other infinite0:04:53 gods they would all limit each other and0:04:55 would not be infinite or gods at all0:04:58 this is the Islamic concept of God a0:05:00 pure indivisible oneness a cause and0:05:03 initiator for all things a divine unity0:05:06 behind the multitude of created things0:05:08 and it is the only explanation that is0:05:10 without contradictions and circular0:05:13 reasoning and does not need to appeal to0:05:14 any mystery to hide faults it simply0:05:17 doesn't have its lom's message to0:05:19 mankind is to avoid the error of mixing0:05:22 the infinite and the finite together and0:05:24 creating false idols by attributing to0:05:28 limited and finite things the attributes0:05:30 that belong only to the Creator and0:05:32 vice-versa0:05:34 instead Islam asked mankind to recognize0:05:37 the infinite alone as the ultimate0:05:39 creator of all things0:05:41 who is separate from his creation and0:05:43 not like it is this a god peculiar to0:05:46 Islam no anyone on earth today or in0:05:50 history who worships an infinite0:05:52 unlimited creator who willed all things0:05:54 into existence and it does not resemble0:05:56 any finite things or creatures worships0:05:58 the same God we do whatever religion0:06:00 they call themselves islam teaches that0:06:03 it is not something new but mean0:06:05 a reiteration of the same message that0:06:07 has been repeatedly sent down to mankind0:06:09 throughout different times and places0:06:11 producing commonalities in many0:06:13 religions throughout history now to0:06:16 retire to the debate Islam explains0:06:18 rarity better than atheism some might0:06:20 say well atheism doesn't seek to explain0:06:23 anything it's only a lack of belief of0:06:25 God or rejection thereof but atheism is0:06:28 denial of the existence of God carries0:06:30 the minimum corollary that reality is0:06:34 completely explainable without God and0:06:37 they'd be wrong in my estimation there0:06:40 are four aspects of reality they're only0:06:42 Islam's concept of God can ultimately0:06:45 and soundly explain while atheism cannot0:06:47 do so without falling into self0:06:49 contradiction and these aspects are0:06:51 change matter finitude and specificity0:06:56 atheism rejects the only sound0:06:58 explanation for change if this moment0:07:01 depended on an infinite number of0:07:02 previous moments and movements0:07:04 we'd never exist or get here if I were0:07:07 to say that my opponents can begin their0:07:09 speech after an infinite amount of time0:07:11 they would never have the chance to0:07:12 start their speeches as an infinite0:07:14 amount of time can't end or even begin0:07:17 if you could think about it likewise if0:07:20 I asked a poor student my point they0:07:22 know in particular for one pound and he0:07:24 didn't have it and he asked another who0:07:27 was equally poor and so on and so on0:07:29 I'd never get that one pound until the0:07:32 chain of students found at least one0:07:34 student who had one pound to begin the0:07:36 chain of lending and eventually get to0:07:38 me now this is known as the infinite0:07:41 regress fallacy which is the same as0:07:43 asserting a beginning and no beginning0:07:45 at the same time it is a contradiction0:07:47 and therefore impossible the existence0:07:50 of change and movement requires a first0:07:52 mover there's no way around that0:07:54 and if there is and if it is the first0:07:58 mover it means it chose to move things0:08:00 without being moved by anything else0:08:02 therefore it has a will this is the key0:08:05 characteristic of God whose name is al0:08:07 moob T in the the initiator in the Quran0:08:11 to atheism rejects the only sound0:08:13 explanation for the ultimate basis0:08:16 behind matter if matter gets is at0:08:19 and characteristics because it is made0:08:20 from something more fundamental than it0:08:23 let's just say subatomic particles and0:08:25 forces ultimately quarks and bosons and0:08:27 these things are made of let's say0:08:29 quantum vacuum energy or fluctuations0:08:32 and in such thing or super strings one0:08:35 of the other for the sake of argument0:08:36 what is quantum vacuum energy or what0:08:39 are super strings if they even exist0:08:40 made of if something else and that's0:08:43 made of something else where does it0:08:45 stop if it has no end then nothing would0:08:48 exist it's like saying a branch is held0:08:50 aloft from the ground by an infinitely0:08:52 tall tree or a pond has no bottom to0:08:55 hold up the water0:08:56 despite the water being at a specific0:08:58 level the fact that anything exists and0:09:01 continues to exist proves there must be0:09:04 something fundamental that is supporting0:09:06 all these things that itself isn't made0:09:08 of anything else and has no parts and0:09:10 therefore is self-sustaining the Quran0:09:13 calls God a Razak the sustainer at0:09:16 hearted the preserver our summered the0:09:19 self-sufficient 3 atheism rejects the0:09:23 only sound explanation for finite things0:09:25 if something has size shape charge or a0:09:28 specific characteristic what determined0:09:31 these limitations in the first place0:09:33 if it were determined by a finite thing0:09:36 outside itself an efficient cause going0:09:38 on forever it's an infinite regress0:09:40 fallacy if it was determined by the0:09:42 building blocks inside itself a material0:09:44 cause going on forever into smaller and0:09:46 smaller blocks0:09:47 it's another infinite regress fallacy0:09:49 the only possibility left is that all0:09:52 forms and limited characteristics of all0:09:54 finite things were ultimately created by0:09:57 something that has no finite limitations0:10:00 itself as ie something infinite which0:10:03 has no limits that need determining by0:10:05 something else and therefore is the0:10:07 ultimate or necessary thing and it0:10:10 creates all other things the Quran calls0:10:12 god al Halep the creator for atheism0:10:16 rejects the only sound explanation for0:10:19 the specificity of finite things things0:10:21 in the universe including the magnitude0:10:23 of the forces of gravity strong weak0:10:25 inner force and electromagnetism and the0:10:27 amount energy contained in the universe0:10:29 are specific to a certain magnitude0:10:30 sized quantity0:10:32 and quality considering that the0:10:34 universe could have one quark more than0:10:36 it has the question is what determined0:10:39 it would be one way and not another0:10:40 perhaps the conditions prior to the0:10:43 universe's emergence shall we say led to0:10:45 the conditions we see now but this only0:10:47 shifts the burden of explanation further0:10:50 along the chain0:10:51 what then determined that precise0:10:53 pre-existing conditions before the0:10:55 universe that led to our universal media0:10:57 the way it is if we invoke an infinite0:11:01 chain of pre-existing conditions to0:11:03 explain our current condition or the0:11:05 condition or the emergence the universe0:11:06 this is yet again another infinite0:11:08 regress fallacy I'm afraid the only0:11:10 remaining explanation is that something0:11:12 ultimately chose or determined by its0:11:14 will all things to be the way they are0:11:16 the Quran calls God al misawa the shaper0:11:20 Islam posits that God ultimately created0:11:23 and sustained all things he is infinite0:11:26 unlimited and self-sustaining and he0:11:29 along he alone measured out the numbers0:11:31 of things and apportioned all the0:11:33 regularities or what you call natural0:11:35 laws behind all things it is the Islamic0:11:39 concept of God that not only explains0:11:41 reality better than atheism but it is0:11:43 the only explanation ultimately that can0:11:46 explain reality that we see which does0:11:48 not possess self-contradictions circular0:11:51 logics or appeals to mystery or blind0:11:53 faith the arguments of a theist in my0:11:56 experience are no different to those0:11:58 I've encountered from polytheists0:11:59 Trinitarians or volcano worshippers0:12:02 atheists just call their God the0:12:04 universe which essentially is just a0:12:06 bigger volcano0:12:06 thank you0:12:08 [Applause]0:12:14 thank you0:12:16 Abdullah can I have someone from side0:12:19 opposition to go and speak thank you0:12:24 [Applause]0:12:28 well good evening everyone I'd also like0:12:31 to extend my gratitude a also farm for0:12:33 making this happen I did have some0:12:36 things to say in preparation but one0:12:38 thing that we have to understand before0:12:39 we can even begin this discussion is a0:12:41 core is the concept of the burden of0:12:42 proof I did have some things to say like0:12:45 like like I'd like I mentioned but I0:12:47 think I'd rather just tackle some of the0:12:48 misrepresentations I think we've just0:12:50 seen of the position of atheism the0:12:52 first is a rather important case which0:12:55 is do we actually have anything to prove0:12:57 as as non believers in God atheism as0:13:00 Abdullah quite rightly suggests is0:13:03 thought of by many as simply a lack of0:13:05 belief in God and the point was raised0:13:07 that no that can't be the case because a0:13:09 lack of belief in God entails some0:13:11 belief in the opposite or at least a0:13:12 belief in in a universe that can be0:13:16 explained without God this isn't the0:13:18 case0:13:19 atheism is a claim to belief a it comes0:13:23 from the Greek a meaning without the Oz0:13:24 meaning Ghana simply means living a life0:13:26 without the influence of a God it's not0:13:28 an active position to hold many people0:13:30 would call it agnosticism because we're0:13:32 simply saying well there's no good0:13:33 reason to believe in a god but we're not0:13:34 saying that we believe there isn't one0:13:36 but agnosticism is a claim to knowledge0:13:38 Gnosticism is knowledge theism is belief0:13:41 I simply say I don't know therefore I0:13:43 don't believe whereas the propositions0:13:46 seem to be an obscene thing to have to0:13:48 say that they also don't know because0:13:49 nobody can know for certain and yet they0:13:51 do believe and what we need to see0:13:52 tonight in order to agree with the0:13:54 proposition and have them win the debate0:13:55 is the reason why they're able to take0:13:58 that extra step that we simply can't so0:14:01 let me explain with an analogy that0:14:03 comes from a friend of mine called Matt0:14:05 Dillahunty0:14:05 who has given the example of a Gumbel a0:14:08 jar of gumballs what is it what's0:14:11 essentially happening here is we've got0:14:13 a jar of gumballs and we have no idea0:14:15 how many gumballs are in the jar and the0:14:17 people to my right are pointing it and0:14:19 saying there are an even number of0:14:20 gumballs in that jar I say you have no0:14:23 good reason to believe that I don't0:14:24 believe you0:14:25 and they say oh so to you money that0:14:27 entails that you think there's an odd0:14:28 number well of course it doesn't it just0:14:30 means I don't believe that there's an0:14:31 even number just because I don't believe0:14:32 that there's a god doesn't mean I do0:14:34 believe it there's not one and that's an0:14:36 important point to make clear because it0:14:37 demonstrates the fact that the burden0:14:39 proof lies with the proposition if you0:14:42 ladies and gentlemen are not convinced0:14:44 by either side and the debate this0:14:45 evening then the default position has to0:14:48 be atheism the default position has to0:14:50 be there's no good reason to believe0:14:51 either way and so we simply don't0:14:53 believe in Islam that's why the title of0:14:56 the debate is something of a false0:14:57 dichotomy but the burden of proof0:15:00 certainly lies with the proposition but0:15:01 that's not a problem because there was0:15:03 some there were a number of arguments0:15:04 but forward in an attempt to try and0:15:06 fulfill that proof which it's worth0:15:08 briefly briefly touching on for instance0:15:12 when you bring up the point Abdullah0:15:13 about matter you ask the question what0:15:16 are super strings made of talking about0:15:18 I presume the kind of quantum strings0:15:20 that are thought to be according to0:15:21 string theory at the basis of the0:15:22 universe and you say essentially or one0:15:24 of these made of them and what would0:15:25 that be made of them would that be made0:15:26 of well the answer is quite simple it's0:15:28 I don't know and neither do you0:15:29 and that's the point neither of us know0:15:32 and so I'm simply saying that because we0:15:33 have no reason to know what's at the0:15:35 basis of this reality what's at the0:15:36 basis of matter the best thing we can do0:15:38 is throw up our hands and say until good0:15:40 evidence comes along to believe that it0:15:42 is due to some kind of divine0:15:43 supernatural creator let's not do so and0:15:46 certainly that's not instill that that0:15:49 supernatural creator with certain0:15:50 qualities that are naturally for faith0:15:53 that you can't even you can't take that0:15:55 extra step before you've made made the0:15:57 first also in point of on the point of0:16:00 change you talk about infinite regress0:16:03 which is problematic of course the0:16:07 problem of everything needing a cause0:16:09 everything needing an explanation for0:16:10 his existence whether you frame it as a0:16:12 contingency argument or a cosmological0:16:14 argument of course trivially applies to0:16:17 the creator himself or course the0:16:18 creator of course unless you adopt0:16:21 something of a Kalam cosmological0:16:23 argument that says that well we're not0:16:25 talking about everything needing a cause0:16:27 because of course like I say it would0:16:28 trivially trivially include the creator0:16:30 of the universe instead it's things that0:16:32 begin to exist they need a cause it's0:16:34 things that have some kind of that that0:16:36 have some kind of cause that0:16:37 brings them into existence fact of the0:16:39 matter is we have no experience with0:16:40 that you say that there are there are0:16:42 atheists who believe that things can0:16:43 come out of nothing there's no good0:16:45 reason to think that something can't0:16:46 come out of nothing people often say0:16:48 it's ridiculous to suggest that0:16:49 something can come from nothing you're0:16:50 not all worried that a hippo has just0:16:52 materialized in your living room while0:16:53 you're out here but your living room0:16:55 isn't nothing in fact there's no nothing0:16:57 in the universe Lawrence Krauss has0:17:00 shown that if you take away or written0:17:01 that if you take away every piece of0:17:03 matter from a finite space and you0:17:06 remove not just the matter but the0:17:07 radiation and and everything that we can0:17:10 conceivably call matter it still weighs0:17:14 something now that might be a practical0:17:16 limitation perhaps there is nothing0:17:18 somewhere and we just haven't been able0:17:19 to access it or or create it by removing0:17:21 the sufficient matter in the universe0:17:23 but the fact of the matter is we have no0:17:25 experience with nothing and so to say0:17:26 something can't come from nothing is an0:17:29 unjustifiable claim we've never had any0:17:30 nothing to try it with in fact the only0:17:33 time there was nothing if there was0:17:35 nothing ever at all must have been0:17:36 before the universe was created and so0:17:38 the only thing that has actually begun0:17:40 to exist in any meaningful sense is the0:17:42 universe itself and if the argument is0:17:44 that everything that begins to exist has0:17:45 some kind of cause and so the universe0:17:47 must have some kind of cause well0:17:48 everything that begins to exist is the0:17:50 universe so when you say everything that0:17:51 begins to exist needs a cause you're0:17:53 just saying the universe needs a cause0:17:55 and the conclusion is of course that the0:17:57 universe has a cause and that's the0:17:58 definition of a circular argument now0:18:02 that's the first point the the second0:18:05 thing I'd like to do I'm not sure how0:18:08 long I've been up in now I haven't got0:18:09 over a good time five minutes okay so0:18:11 about halfway through so let me let me0:18:13 put you some of the things that I was0:18:14 thinking of putting forward did I not0:18:17 have anything to respond to in the0:18:18 propositions case I'm sure that there's0:18:21 going to be a lot of discussion of0:18:22 metaphysics this evening there's going0:18:23 to be a lot of discussion of arguments0:18:25 for the existence of God0:18:26 the existential arguments let's call0:18:27 them and so I wanted to take a brief0:18:29 moment to bring up what might seem like0:18:31 in a relevancy but is certainly not0:18:32 Islam teacher so there is an objective0:18:34 basis to morality in the world that when0:18:37 you say something is right or wrong that0:18:38 is a true statement and that's as true0:18:40 as something like the the proposition0:18:41 that the Earth orbits the Sun it is a0:18:42 matter a fact and that means that part0:18:46 of the reality that we're trying to0:18:47 describe with the Islamic world view is0:18:49 moral realism0:18:50 there has to be moral truths that are as0:18:52 real as the metaphysical claims that0:18:54 it's making well that means ladies and0:18:56 gentlemen is that if you find moral0:18:58 claims within the doctrines of Islam0:18:59 that you don't agree with then you don't0:19:02 agree with Islam so I want to consider0:19:05 some of the moral elements of this0:19:07 religion and see if it's something that0:19:09 you would be able to throw away behind0:19:11 there are of course many many examples0:19:14 that I that I could choose from but one0:19:15 of the most important areas and one of0:19:18 the most often spoken about areas is the0:19:20 treatment of women now this is0:19:21 problematic because a lot of the time0:19:23 people will point to practical examples0:19:24 they say look at Saudi Arabia women0:19:26 weren't able to drive until very0:19:27 recently but this is ridiculous0:19:28 Saudi Arabia can quite easily be shown0:19:29 to not be a real is Islamic state and0:19:32 it's very easy to make a case that0:19:33 that's the state and not the religion so0:19:35 let's turn to the doctrine itself let's0:19:36 turn to the scripture what do we find0:19:38 well there's a very famous verse in the0:19:40 Quran and I'm sure this is nothing that0:19:41 the proposition hasn't come up against0:19:43 before but I'd like to hear some kind of0:19:45 justification for these things and I'm0:19:47 sure they'll be able to provide them the0:19:50 in the Quran Sura 4 verse 34 I'm sure0:19:54 you're familiar with is the verse which0:19:56 I'll quote you and men in men are in0:20:00 charge of women by right of what Allah0:20:02 has given one over the other and what0:20:04 they spend for maintenance from their0:20:05 wealth so righteous are women who were0:20:07 devoutly obedient guarding in their0:20:09 husband's absence what Allah would have0:20:11 them guard but those wives from whom you0:20:13 fear arrogance first advise them then if0:20:17 they persist forsake them in bed perhaps0:20:42 this isn't the thing about women perhaps0:20:43 this is just a thing about violent0:20:45 behaviour just about striking people who0:20:47 were disobedient and they're not even0:20:48 disobedient to the husband but0:20:49 disobedient to God if someone's being0:20:51 disobedient to God then they need to be0:20:53 set right and perhaps the only way to do0:20:54 that sometimes is with physical violence0:20:56 well okay if that's the case then let's0:20:57 look at a comparison from hadith0:20:59 reported by al Hakim on disobedient men0:21:03 so this is in reference to why it's0:21:05 talking and talking about their husbands0:21:06 she should not beat him in case she is0:21:08 stronger than he if he is more if he is0:21:10 more in the wrong than she she should0:21:12 plead with him until he is reconciled if0:21:14 he accepts her pleading all well and0:21:16 good and her plea will be accepted by0:21:17 Allah well if he is not reconciled with0:21:19 her her plea will have reached Allah in0:21:21 any case so if a woman is disobedient to0:21:24 a man or disobedient to a god0:21:26 whichever frame you whichever framework0:21:28 you want to think about it the first0:21:30 thing that the wife should do if the man0:21:33 is disobedient is to try and talk him0:21:34 out of it and if that doesn't work it's0:21:36 not a problem because I was gonna hear0:21:37 it anyway but if a wife's disobedient to0:21:40 a husband then surely he should she0:21:42 should still try and talk her out of it0:21:43 but if that doesn't work well then you0:21:45 can strike them seems to be a bit of an0:21:47 inequality here and that in quality in0:21:49 equality is only highlighted when we0:21:51 look at the rest of that same hadith0:21:52 it's preceded by the following it is not0:21:58 lawful for a woman who believes Allah to0:22:00 allow anyone it is not lawful for a0:22:03 woman who believes in Allah to allow0:22:05 anyone in her husband's house while he0:22:06 dislikes it0:22:07 okay well back in the times that this0:22:10 book was written men were primarily the0:22:13 owners of wealth so it makes sense if0:22:14 the man is Ian's property perhaps it0:22:16 should be his decision he was allowed on0:22:17 the property that's not so much a0:22:18 problem but let's continue she should0:22:21 not go out of the house if he dislikes0:22:22 it and should not obey anyone who0:22:24 contradicts his orders it's getting a0:22:26 bit more questionable now and to finish0:22:28 off at the very next sentence says she0:22:30 should not refuse to share his bed and0:22:33 you can take that to mean what you will0:22:34 I'll remind you that if you find any of0:22:36 this objectionable then you should find0:22:38 objectionable the doctrines from which0:22:40 they spring another thing I'd like to0:22:43 talk about and I'm certain because I've0:22:46 certainly seen this in each I'll respond0:22:47 to this in the past and is something I'd0:22:48 love to dive into it's the marriage of0:22:51 the Prophet to Aisha0:22:52 as certainly the Muslim members of our0:22:55 audience this evening will be aware of0:22:56 but perhaps not everybody Muhammad while0:22:59 in his 50s married a young girl called0:23:01 Aisha and I say young she was six at the0:23:04 time 16 or 60 but six now of course he0:23:09 didn't he didn't consummate the marriage0:23:10 when she was six years old that would be0:23:12 quite outrageous he waited another three0:23:13 years until she was nine0:23:15 the proposition has to defend the idea0:23:17 that was ever morally permissible and I0:23:20 think that's my time is that my time0:23:21 well that's all I've got but believe me0:23:23 I have more so we'll leave it for the0:23:25 rebuttal station first day of Ramadan0:23:50 for us and we're happy to have you0:23:52 now come here Mian Abdullah lacks you've0:23:55 come here to refute magic wait a minute0:23:57 what did you say0:23:58 let me say that one more time we've come0:24:01 here to refute magic it's actually a an0:24:03 interesting magic trick where there is0:24:05 no bunny0:24:06 there's no Hat and in fact there's no0:24:10 magician at all it's the proposition0:24:13 that something can come from nothing not0:24:15 only from nothing ladies and gentlemen0:24:17 but from nothing and by nothing the0:24:21 Koran says I'm holy comb in Whalley0:24:23 shade in a moon holy porn I'm Holocaust0:24:27 are aware tea well a ballet opinion what0:24:30 they created from nothing or were they0:24:32 themselves the creators of themselves0:24:34 now we've heard Alex today for the0:24:37 second time I've heard him say this he0:24:39 says that the universe may have come0:24:41 into existence from nothing minute 14 to0:24:44 15 in his video does the universe have a0:24:46 cause he says when the universe came0:24:48 into existence it well and truly came0:24:51 into existence from nothing now wait a0:24:54 minute ladies and gentlemen I have a0:24:58 challenge that's an active claim he said0:24:59 I'm here to make any active claims sorry0:25:02 that is an active claim look at the0:25:05 syntax of that particular sentence0:25:07 you're saying the universe came into0:25:09 existence from nothing0:25:10 don't don't pretend to be passive oh I0:25:13 don't know no you do know you're making0:25:15 a statement either you know what you're0:25:17 saying when you don't tell me how the0:25:20 universe came into existence from0:25:21 nothing and by nothing exnihilo0:25:24 I want to know tell me how that's0:25:27 possible metaphysically0:25:28 ontologically cosmologically from first0:25:31 principles give me the answer please but0:25:33 it's interesting because in his other0:25:36 video something from nothing where he0:25:39 was debating the contingency argument0:25:41 with a fellow American or an American0:25:43 man minute 48 he says this listen to0:25:47 this he agrees with the the radio guy0:25:51 that was speaking to him that the0:25:54 universe is a necessary existence who a0:25:56 a minute wait a minute what's going on0:25:59 here ladies and gentlemen what does0:26:01 necessary existence mean and necessary0:26:03 of a necessary fact is a fact that0:26:05 cannot be any other way0:26:06 two plus two equals four that's0:26:09 eternally going to be the case so a0:26:11 necessary existence is a turn it cannot0:26:15 be any other way so even if the universe0:26:17 is eternal how could it come from0:26:20 nothing contradiction it's a0:26:23 contradiction you can't have it both0:26:25 ways my friend this is what atheism0:26:27 leads you to contradictory set of0:26:29 propositions either you have your cake0:26:31 or you want to eat it what you're going0:26:33 to do with it tell me now that the0:26:35 universe come from nothing if so how so0:26:37 that's an active claim is the universe0:26:39 and necessary existence if so how so0:26:42 that is an active claim is it eternal0:26:47 just come up please don't pretend to be0:26:50 innocent and agnostic number two you0:26:55 could say no there's a multiverse or0:26:57 there's an eternal fabric or there's an0:26:59 eternal universe what a multiverse has0:27:04 the propensity of being any other way0:27:06 and I'm sure you study philosophy you0:27:09 know what you're talking about a0:27:10 possible existence or in a contingent0:27:13 existence is defined by being able to be0:27:16 rearranged in any other way if it can be0:27:19 arranged in another way it's not0:27:20 necessary it's possible or contingent0:27:24 it's not necessary so a multiverse0:27:28 cannot be necessary existence because it0:27:30 can be arranged in another way it can be0:27:33 out of existence so wait a minute this0:27:35 is very important guys hold on hold on0:27:38 hold on hold on hold on hold on0:27:42 you agree that there should not be ought0:27:46 to be unnecessary existence if you agree0:27:50 with me on that then you're not an0:27:52 atheist because the necessary existence0:27:55 is the Islamic definition of God Paul0:27:59 who Allah who I say he is one and only0:28:01 the self-sufficient be independent0:28:03 meaning the necessary existence lamian0:28:07 it well emulates he baguettes not nor is0:28:09 He begotten meaning he's eternal if you0:28:12 say that there's a necessary existence0:28:13 you cannot say you're an atheist from an0:28:16 Islamic perspective and from a0:28:19 philosophical one moreover we have to0:28:24 ask a question now we're talking about0:28:26 Islam so why is Islam Allah different0:28:30 from any other religion because Islam0:28:32 talks about one necessary existence one0:28:35 independent one self-sufficient not 3 &0:28:38 1 1 & 3 not a triune God not a0:28:42 multiplicity of gods a plethora of God's0:28:45 not a pantheism and by the way I have to0:28:51 make this clear now it was a bit of a0:28:54 straw man argument because Alex came up0:28:55 and says Abdullah said and the universe0:28:57 has a cause he never said that in the0:28:58 statement but he had this pre you know0:29:01 written things we never used the word0:29:03 course you can have a necessary0:29:07 existence you can make it ontological0:29:09 argument for a necessary existence0:29:12 without causation at all there's a0:29:15 difference between possibility and0:29:16 contingency on the one hand or Nessen0:29:19 necessity and causation you don't even0:29:22 need to you can have it you don't you0:29:24 don't believe in causation food universe0:29:25 a fallacy of composition have it no0:29:28 problem0:29:28 you have to explain how there can be a0:29:31 world with only possible existences how0:29:35 can there be a world with only possible0:29:37 existences if you say there can't be and0:29:39 we're happy to say there's a necessary0:29:40 distance you're no longer an atheist or0:29:42 an Islamic perspective because you0:29:44 believe in it independent0:29:45 self-sufficient thing that everything0:29:46 depends upon and that is the ultimate0:29:49 explanation for all of all of existence0:29:52 now a secondary point we need to make is0:29:57 that Islam the concept of God the Tao0:30:00 hate the monotheism is something not0:30:03 only intuitive but is something as we've0:30:06 seen that can be reasoned from first0:30:08 principles ladies and gentlemen0:30:10 and that's why already when we just look0:30:14 at the concept of God so many of the0:30:17 major world religions are ruled out0:30:19 Christianity is ruled out0:30:21 Hinduism is ruled out I would say0:30:23 Sikhism is ruled out why because of that0:30:27 pure monotheism that that respectable0:30:29 monotheism that Islam has to offer0:30:30 but in addition to that as Abdullah0:30:33 alluded to the meta-narrative of there0:30:36 being many prophets aforetime many of0:30:38 them with the same message of Islamic0:30:40 monotheism believing in one God0:30:42 worshiping one God it's something which0:30:44 can be seen in the religious books what0:30:46 Abraham said what Moses said what do0:30:47 they come and say even according to Old0:30:49 Testament literature0:30:50 calling the people to monotheism so0:30:57 aslam also has an inbuilt system of0:31:00 falsification works in a similar way to0:31:02 science in many ways for challenges0:31:04 which I'm happy to take questions on the0:31:06 questions of artha or in a0:31:07 cross-examination one if this book was0:31:12 from other than God the for ancestor by0:31:14 itself there would have been many0:31:15 contradictions chapter 4 verse 92 number0:31:18 2 the inevitability challenge try and0:31:20 produce something like it and there is a0:31:23 quantifiable way of doing so much we can0:31:25 talk about in the question analysis0:31:26 number 3 that Islam makes predictions0:31:29 about the future and specifies time in0:31:33 place and it's this is my claim it's the0:31:36 only religion to make a series of0:31:39 predictions about the future none of0:31:42 which have not materialized whereas it0:31:44 was anyone you want to mention who makes0:31:46 predictions of the future at least some0:31:48 of their predictions will be falsified0:31:51 and I'm willing to be tested on this0:31:53 test it is falsifiable and in fact this0:31:56 falsifiability is even stronger than a0:31:58 scientific one why because in scientific0:32:01 falsifiability m0:32:03 thing is susceptible to falsifiability0:32:07 everything that's done now if I do a0:32:09 scientific experiment now it can be0:32:11 falsified but with a retrospective0:32:13 perspective a hindsight perspective if0:32:16 predictions have been made of the future0:32:18 we can see whether those predictions are0:32:19 right or wrong and we could talk about0:32:21 those predictions of there's a book0:32:23 coming out called the forbidden0:32:24 prophecies by IRA that's going to be0:32:27 something which details that case in0:32:29 detail now the interesting thing is you0:32:32 have a nihilist someone who does not0:32:33 believe in existing - he's leaked0:32:36 substantial nihilist whose cosmic0:32:38 skepticism existential nihilist amoral -0:32:41 he is an epistemological Nilus he0:32:44 doesn't even believe the morality and0:32:45 he's making a moral case today I mean I0:32:48 don't know how this works0:32:49 I really don't know he says I0:32:51 subjectively value my liberty in one of0:32:54 his videos the moral argument one hour0:32:56 16 minutes tell me how from first0:33:00 principles Liberty works is it not based0:33:02 and predicated on a fictitious0:33:03 hypothetical mythological state of0:33:06 nature detailed by John Locke and Thomas0:33:08 Hobbes and those individuals where's the0:33:10 scientific evidence for that why do you0:33:11 believe that why'd you bring the quality0:33:13 John Locke established his equality on0:33:16 the hedonistic principle and on a theory0:33:19 of God now you're an atheist trying to0:33:22 find from first principles why I believe0:33:23 in equality we as Muslims don't believe0:33:26 in second wave feminism0:33:27 simple as that yeah there's some things0:33:29 in Islam which are different for men0:33:31 that women why do I say just find myself0:33:32 to you you have to justify why that0:33:34 equality of the six that Eurocentric0:33:37 understanding of equality of second wave0:33:38 feminism in the 60s that emerged is the0:33:41 objective morality that's you that's an0:33:43 active claim that you've made0:33:44 you have to substantiate it but listen0:33:47 to what he says in his video my problem0:33:49 with Sam Harris the morality0:33:50 can I finish off if you go to Somalia0:33:55 and tell those women why do you put0:33:57 those women in bags they'll accuse you0:33:59 of cultural imperialism0:34:01 so why you asking the women if they've0:34:03 been put in bags what kind of discussion0:34:06 is that what kind of sanctimonious0:34:07 Orientals understand Authority is that0:34:09 you have to first prove your morality0:34:11 your objective your subjective Morales0:34:14 believe in objective morality don't ask0:34:16 me about morality you don't believe in0:34:18 it prove it there's an active claim and0:34:21 with that guys I want to say one last0:34:24 thing which is that he made an egregious0:34:27 claim in one of his videos called the0:34:28 liberal hypocrisy of Islam he said Islam0:34:31 is a racist religion and I will tell you0:34:33 that Islam is the only religion in the0:34:36 ancient religion in the world which0:34:38 completely negates racism look at0:34:40 chapter 49 verse 13 of the Quran look at0:34:43 the Prophet said there's no virtue of a0:34:44 black man or a white man I will not Arab0:34:46 now he's got three options option 1 to0:34:49 retract the statement option 20:34:51 yes option 2 to provide the evidence or0:34:54 face public humiliation today and0:34:56 there's no fourth option so don't make0:35:00 plans about variety and about Islam if0:35:02 you haven't even read the Islamic0:35:03 literature and you don't know what is in0:35:05 its contents sorry for the and or its0:35:08 acquire you know performance but it's a0:35:12 very strong it's a passionate topic for0:35:14 us I hope I'm thanking everyone here and0:35:17 I also thank cosmic skeptic for coming0:35:18 and for once speaking to the Muslim0:35:21 community rather than about them thank0:35:23 you very much for listening0:35:25 [Applause]0:35:36 [Applause]0:35:41 I'm a bit of an amateur at this these0:35:43 guys are all more less professional I0:35:48 wish I was a certain of anything as the0:35:52 people on this side of the table seem to0:35:54 be oh absolutely everything I won't0:35:59 start by not singling out Islam0:36:02 particularly because Islam is just one0:36:05 of those monotheism's that seems to find0:36:08 atheism terribly worrying they all0:36:11 whether whether the theistic religions0:36:15 believe in one God or many gods they're0:36:18 terrified of people who don't believe in0:36:20 any gods and when they have the power to0:36:24 do so and in the case of Christianity0:36:26 when they had the power to do so they0:36:29 routinely tried to silence people like0:36:31 me by at best by censorship at worst by0:36:36 imprisonment exile or execution and0:36:40 there's nothing particularly Islamic0:36:43 about this Christianity was executing0:36:45 people just for being the wrong sort of0:36:47 Christian before Islam was a twinkle in0:36:50 in Mohammed's eye and they continued to0:36:53 do so until 1826 which was when the0:36:57 Spanish Inquisition executed its last0:37:00 victim here I want to approach you a0:37:03 couple of worried Christians talking0:37:05 about atheism in the 17th century one of0:37:09 them was a both French theologians one0:37:11 of them said I am afraid that atheist0:37:14 writings will disclose thoughts to me0:37:16 that would throw me into a fear from0:37:18 which I would not be able to return and0:37:20 his contemporary Andre Babi Yar said0:37:24 that for such skeptics there is no0:37:26 punishment violence at our for so dark a0:37:29 crime even in our own relatively0:37:34 tolerant country when Parliament was0:37:37 open to people who were not members of0:37:39 the Church of England yes who came last0:37:42 first of all they let Catholics in about0:37:44 1829 they let the Jews in about 18500:37:48 they let atheists in about 1880 so0:37:54 Christianity no longer has any power to0:37:57 liquidate people who question it and0:38:00 almost everybody in Britain and most0:38:03 civilized countries is pleased about0:38:04 that I'll explain what I mean by0:38:07 civilized in a moment Islam has not lost0:38:10 that power not only that but many people0:38:14 in Islamic countries and in some Islamic0:38:18 countries most of the people are very0:38:20 pleased that it has the power to do very0:38:24 nasty things to atheists the Islamic0:38:28 countries were the only ones who refused0:38:30 to side in the part of the Universal0:38:32 Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that0:38:36 said that that deals with freedom of0:38:39 religious belief including the freedom0:38:41 to change your religion or not to have0:38:43 one and that's why I think that such0:38:46 countries are in one very important0:38:48 sense not totally not altogether0:38:50 civilized last year I was asked by the0:38:57 professor of English at the University0:38:59 and one of the more liberal Arab0:39:01 countries if I would write an article0:39:04 for his small Arab language departmental0:39:07 journal on Sigmund Freud's use of0:39:10 language it will be published soon and0:39:13 I'm very proud it'll be my first work to0:39:15 be published in Arabic but it has one0:39:18 very important their mission soon after0:39:21 I started writing it I thought I'd0:39:23 better check with him whether it was ok0:39:25 to mention that Freud was an atheist he0:39:30 said if you do that they will0:39:31 immediately closed down the journal and0:39:34 possibly my department as well you don't0:39:42 really persuade me that you get a better0:39:46 grip on reality when you spend your time0:39:49 trying to stop people from giving their0:39:53 views on various aspects of reality and0:39:57 when you outlaw discussion about what0:39:59 reality might mean and whatever we mean0:40:04 by reality0:40:06 yes there are two broad types around see0:40:08 what is historical reality which means0:40:10 an attempt to find out what really went0:40:13 on in the past and the other sold0:40:16 reality is current reality things that0:40:19 we can examine question now so let's0:40:25 deal with historical ones first a few0:40:28 years guys on holiday in Morocco and we0:40:31 hired a driver to take us around and it0:40:36 was quite a long drive he was he'd been0:40:38 to University in Britain his English was0:40:41 excellent and naturally enough we the0:40:45 discussion turned to Islam and he was0:40:48 very keen to tell us in his thoughts and0:40:51 I learned from him that it is completely0:40:56 wrong that Jesus was the son of God and0:40:58 that he died on the cross now these are0:41:01 the fundamental tenets of Christianity0:41:04 you don't get any more fundamental than0:41:07 that and he said that probably and this0:41:12 is a certain amount of debate about this0:41:15 in my Islamic scholars but it may be0:41:18 actually Judas suitably disguised to0:41:21 died on the cross now not being not0:41:26 being a theist I I don't particularly0:41:30 care which of them is right they cannot0:41:35 both be right either Jesus died on the0:41:38 cross or he he does not die of the0:41:39 process of either he was Jesus or he was0:41:42 Judas but they cannot both be right they0:41:45 can however both be wrong and that that0:41:49 is the problem when you start insisting0:41:52 that things written in ancient documents0:41:55 must be believed without any question0:41:58 there is actually a lot of questioning0:42:02 to be done about the origins of the0:42:04 Quran there is very little documentary0:42:09 evidence about for about two hundred0:42:11 years0:42:12 Christianity is bad enough because there0:42:15 is nothing about Christianity dates from0:42:18 earlier at about forty to six0:42:19 years after the crucifixion and we know0:42:25 how difficult it is to be certain about0:42:26 events that happened 20 30 years ago0:42:29 people have ferocious arguments about0:42:31 the Second World War about various other0:42:34 wars that have happened since so when0:42:37 you're making claims with the kind of0:42:41 certainty we have seen from this side of0:42:43 the table about historical events when0:42:46 even the history of the Koran is0:42:49 shrouded in quite a lot of mystery and0:42:51 when you threaten people with with0:42:55 serious sanctions if they try and do0:42:57 research on it that to me does not say0:43:00 very much about your desire to get to0:43:02 grips with reality it was not permitted0:43:07 to do serious historical research on the0:43:10 Bible until about the end of the 18th0:43:12 century you could still be sent to0:43:15 prison in Britain for denying the0:43:16 Trinity as late as about 18120:43:19 but eventually in the 19th century0:43:22 serious higher criticism as it was0:43:25 called of the Bible appeared and now0:43:28 people are very much less certain that0:43:30 everything said in the nude in the older0:43:33 New Testaments is actually true in every0:43:37 respect put it mildly0:43:38 the Catholic Church didn't allow that0:43:40 until about 1941 and Islam does not0:43:45 allow it still Islamic scholars have0:43:53 found their careers seriously threatened0:43:56 if they really tried to get to grips0:43:59 with some of the mysteries of the early0:44:03 versions of Koran and so forth so let's0:44:09 turn now to how am i doing for time that0:44:11 way oh all right0:44:15 I didn't hear the halfway mark let's0:44:18 turn very quickly then to reality as is0:44:22 current0:44:24 a few yes I got into some discussion0:44:28 with a doctor magic at me0:44:31 describes himself as spokesman for the0:44:35 Islamic Medical Association of the0:44:37 United Kingdom our medical ethics and we0:44:40 I was interested about Islam's line on0:44:43 abortion and he wrote to me saying0:44:47 because obviously what are the issues in0:44:49 abortion is when when does the fetus0:44:52 become become human when does the fetus0:44:56 be gained the kind of status where his0:44:58 destruction becomes increasingly0:45:01 important and he said at six quoting him0:45:08 directly at six to seven weeks of0:45:09 pregnancy the soul is breathed in in the0:45:12 body of the fetus divine human life0:45:15 starts when the embryo turns into a0:45:17 fetus okay so that's readily clear it's0:45:21 not a human being until until it turns0:45:24 into inter fetus at this critical stage0:45:27 is absolutely forbidden to interfere0:45:29 with this new sacred life one can call0:45:32 the fetus here a person a human in0:45:34 divine however there's wide muslim0:45:36 opinion in the muslim world considered0:45:39 by many muslim scholars in the past and0:45:43 some of them say that insolvent occurs0:45:46 120 days after conception personally I0:45:50 and other Muslims do not agree with this0:45:52 view based on the wrong Arabic0:45:54 interpretation of one sake of the0:45:56 Prophet and then he said this important0:45:59 saying of the Prophet Muhammad peace be0:46:00 upon him when 42 nights have passed over0:46:03 the the north not far the fertilized egg0:46:06 Allah sends an angel to it who shapes it0:46:10 and makes a tearing vision skin flesh0:46:12 and burns and then he says o Lord is it0:46:15 male or female and your Lord decides0:46:17 what he wishes and the angel reportedly0:46:20 gives the reference and they had it so0:46:23 there it is forget all that ludicrous0:46:25 stuff about Y chromosomes and gender0:46:28 it's Allah what does it it and maybe0:46:32 someone should ask the Muslim Council of0:46:34 Great Britain if they really want0:46:35 someone like that advising the modern0:46:37 medical matters yes I will intercept0:46:43 thank you0:46:50 [Applause]0:46:57 [Music]0:47:07 so so basically I think maybe my0:47:12 colleague is used to debating perhaps0:47:13 some certain Christians and0:47:15 what-have-you0:47:16 I'd like to think that perhaps we were a0:47:18 slightly different breed in terms of our0:47:20 approach or flocek approach I don't0:47:23 think he dressed actually what I said0:47:24 and I think straw man my argument but0:47:26 for example I'll give example so I never0:47:28 said everything that begins to exist has0:47:30 a cause I never used that because the0:47:32 you can always say well how do you know0:47:34 everything does begin to exist and that0:47:36 would require empirical verification0:47:37 which is what I never that's why I never0:47:39 said it in the first place I merely0:47:41 posited that ultimately and I don't know0:47:45 where the where this ultimately is I0:47:47 just said ultimately there will be a0:47:49 cause I don't know how old the universe0:47:50 is maybe we've been through a couple of0:47:53 you know six or seven big bangs and big0:47:55 Crunch's and until getting to this point0:47:56 of course universe is everything that0:47:58 exists I merely said that at some point0:48:00 it has to start somewhere because an0:48:03 infinite regress would mean there would0:48:04 be no change no creation nothing and the0:48:07 same for things like what matter is0:48:09 composed of I never made an assumption0:48:11 that it is quantum vacuum energy or0:48:14 super strings which lobby a lot of0:48:16 scientists now doubt the idea of super0:48:17 string theory bit of fantastical but but0:48:19 I just posit those those two let's say0:48:21 whatever you want the question all can0:48:23 always be asked what are they made out0:48:25 of what are they made out of if their0:48:26 attributes come from what's something0:48:29 what they made out of for example then0:48:31 what can you you can what can they made0:48:32 out of until you get to the point where0:48:33 there must be something that's0:48:35 fundamental fundamental substratum that0:48:38 supports all year at his existence and0:48:41 if it's fundamental and it's necessary0:48:43 then it wouldn't be limited and it would0:48:45 be self sufficient because it wouldn't0:48:46 require anything prior to it or0:48:48 underneath it or further more0:48:50 fundamental than itself so these are0:48:51 kind of the arguments I made but I guess0:48:54 just to kind of reframe this discussion0:48:57 in terms of what I mean0:48:57 by atheism while I mentioned the term0:48:59 atheism you're right atheism isn't a0:49:02 belief but I posited that it carries a0:49:05 necessary corollary something attached0:49:08 to it which is if you don't believe in0:49:10 God's existence not that you may be just0:49:13 it's just your default no if you don't0:49:16 believe it's God's existence that means0:49:18 that your worldview does not require you0:49:21 to posit God to explain things I mean0:49:23 really posited that reality imposes0:49:25 certain problems if you want to keep God0:49:29 out of that discussion because0:49:30 ultimately you can't explain cause0:49:32 matter specificity or limited finite0:49:35 things and my explanation isn't one0:49:37 where I've known I know stuff because0:49:40 I've observed it is that God is the only0:49:42 explanation to avoid self-contradictions0:49:44 and that's pretty much it like like I'm0:49:46 saying if we take two and we add two I0:49:48 know that this will equal four because0:49:50 taking the premises the conclusion must0:49:53 follow so likewise I know that the0:49:56 premises are the existence of finite0:49:58 things that's the premises so I know0:50:00 that eventually at some point it must0:50:02 follow that there must be a beginning0:50:03 point a creating point start point and a0:50:06 fundamental subscribe him that's0:50:07 supporting all things even though I0:50:09 don't know where there is where the0:50:10 boundary that is that's my argument you0:50:12 could you put that into the doctor form0:50:14 in the deductive form Wow so two plus0:50:17 two equals four is a deductive for Miss0:50:19 apprentice and a conclusion it's not0:50:21 deductive form to say there is matter0:50:23 and matter must have a beginning what's0:50:24 the what's the deductive argument there0:50:26 well for example well it's the avoidance0:50:29 of contradiction because Judas plane so0:50:32 if I was to say two plus two equals six0:50:34 right and six meaning what we what we0:50:36 conventionally understand six to be we0:50:38 know that was wrong because of0:50:40 contradiction so my point was that if0:50:43 you were to say well before before this0:50:46 point in time there was an infinite0:50:48 number of moments or movements I would0:50:51 say we would never reach this point in0:50:52 time because it would be a contradiction0:50:56 asked the I think you know what I'm0:51:00 saying you're trying to say you want us0:51:02 to say everything that begins to exist0:51:03 has a cause no that's not necessarily0:51:05 the kalam that's not what I'm going with0:51:06 saying is that if you the reason why you0:51:08 can say the two plus two equals six is0:51:10 false is because you're right at least0:51:11 to a logical contradiction the reason0:51:12 for that is because it's essentially a0:51:15 logically valid argument with premises0:51:17 and conclusions and you can identify0:51:18 exactly how it contradicts you can put0:51:20 it into a truth table and show that yes0:51:23 it's tables precisely is it is a0:51:26 tautology in you and you can prove that0:51:27 deductively but there's no can you0:51:29 highlight precisely what the premises0:51:31 are and the conclusions are of your0:51:33 argument here so it does it because it0:51:35 does if you're going to say that it0:51:36 leads to contradictions if you don't0:51:38 agree with well it does because a new0:51:40 uniform of an infinite regress is0:51:41 basically saying that there was no0:51:44 beginning and yet we're explaining0:51:46 although there was no cause and we're0:51:48 explaining the course of things were0:51:50 explaining the beginning of things or0:51:51 explaining movement so there was no0:51:53 first movement but there is movement so0:51:55 it creates a contradiction in terms0:51:58 because in essence we rely on a0:52:01 pre-existing state or pre-existing0:52:03 conditions of movement and here0:52:05 ultimately there is no business you're0:52:07 saying there is no beginning to this0:52:09 pre-existing thing there's just eternal0:52:11 an eternal chain that there is no start0:52:13 and therefore it's the same as say0:52:14 nothing actually I'm trying to prove0:52:16 that we regret so I've got one statement0:52:18 too that can kind of summarize it for0:52:19 you anything susceptible to additional0:52:22 subtraction cannot be infinite okay okay0:52:25 so that's it doesn't need to be a0:52:27 deductive three-stage deduction that0:52:30 makes it right so now I'm just given one0:52:32 statement he what he's saying is that if0:52:35 you have an infinite thing and you add0:52:36 to it0:52:37 then there's the absurdity of adding to0:52:40 an infinite physical quantitative thing0:52:41 so you'd have to disprove that statement0:52:44 now we've made the statement anything0:52:46 susceptible to additional subtraction0:52:48 cannot be right cannot be infinite so in0:52:52 order for you to to prove your infinite0:52:54 regress if you wanted to prove it you0:52:56 have to prove or you have to show how0:52:58 it's demonstrably possible for something0:53:00 to have infinity as equality as well as0:53:03 addition and subtraction there as well0:53:05 no idea so then you can't really make0:53:07 anything I don't know but I'm not making0:53:08 a claim that's the thing so then why I0:53:10 were having this discussion because I'm0:53:11 opposing your claims0:53:12 well you can't oppose your claim is that0:53:13 it the all claim is that it requires it0:53:15 and I'm just asking you why that's I'm0:53:16 saying anything that is logical0:53:18 the idea that it is logically necessary0:53:21 to have causation or that they call they0:53:25 can't be an infinite regress no no I've0:53:27 just said the wife says this the same0:53:35 when I make anything susceptible to0:53:37 addition or subtraction cannot be0:53:39 quantitative quantitatively infinite yes0:53:41 you have to you if you're reducing that0:53:43 you have to disprove that how is it0:53:44 physically mathematically or otherwise0:53:46 how is it possible to have a0:53:47 quantifiable infinite which is0:53:49 susceptible to additional subtract as we0:53:51 have to do I've just made the claims0:53:55 brief the true and you failed to do the0:54:01 answer the answer is that you're right0:54:05 like these things are required okay0:54:07 according to the laws of logic and0:54:08 physics that are predicated on the0:54:10 existence of the universe and we're0:54:11 talking about the universe why is it0:54:12 pretty clear on the existence of us0:54:13 because can you prove it well no okay so0:54:18 it's a possibility right nonetheless an0:54:21 active claim which then it's not as0:54:22 amazing possibly so you know it's not a0:54:23 possibility if it's possibly true no0:54:25 it's not possible true why is it not0:54:26 possible because if the universe of0:54:28 possible existence then it cannot0:54:30 explain the existence of other possible0:54:32 existences if if there is a necessary0:54:34 did you gather Jonas on the page yes I'm0:54:36 asking if there's no you can you just0:54:39 that first this one friend to again if0:54:41 there is a necessary being or occurrence0:54:43 and that entails and which is what you0:54:45 admit and that M and that entails yet0:54:48 another occurrence no it doesn't intend0:54:50 if it does if I may just say I think the0:54:54 confusion is firstly I don't think all0:54:56 things require putting into a logical0:54:59 syllogisms yes I think it's necessary do0:55:01 it I'm saying that it does when you're0:55:04 making contrary propositions you don't0:55:05 doesn't a sentence could say that this0:55:07 sentence is false it creates a0:55:09 contradiction within the sentence0:55:10 without it being a logical syllogism you0:55:12 like that that I'm merely I'm merely0:55:15 pointing out that there are ultimately0:55:17 only two possibilities to two basic0:55:20 anything that you might observe which is0:55:21 finitely but they don't what have you0:55:22 which is either it was it was the result0:55:26 of something more fundamental than it or0:55:28 something with that that that is prior0:55:30 to it0:55:32 and if you ask well what was prior to0:55:35 and anything or is more fundamental to0:55:36 anything either it's something that's0:55:38 like itself as insight finite limited as0:55:40 well or something not the case not0:55:42 finite and not limited so I'm saying if0:55:44 we go down the pathway of just0:55:45 constantly insisting on there's a0:55:47 continual chain prior to this existence0:55:50 of finite limited things nothing would0:55:53 exist because that would cause an0:55:54 infinite regress fallacy went there by0:55:55 the competition0:55:56 is manifest as opposed to ultimately at0:55:59 some point saying well actually you know0:56:00 what at some point I don't know where0:56:02 but at some point there was a beginning0:56:04 of there was something that was not0:56:06 finite where bride doesn't have0:56:07 limitations and just to kind of justify0:56:09 to you limitations requires explanation0:56:13 something doesn't have limitations0:56:15 doesn't require expenditure but there's0:56:16 no limits for it to be there's nothing0:56:18 to create its limits for it to be0:56:20 explained by something else0:56:21 it still so far as explanation simple0:56:30 observation if you say God created all0:56:33 the next obvious question of course is0:56:35 who created God please let me finish and0:56:45 the second one is as I say you are0:56:49 talking the language of certainty what0:56:51 we have learned in the course of my0:56:52 lifetime is that the origins of the0:56:56 universe have been pushed further and0:56:57 further back in time it's a fascinating0:56:59 study I don't pretend to understand more0:57:02 than the average man on the street about0:57:03 it but to say that we clearly understand0:57:07 the nature of creation0:57:09 seems to me extremely arrogant and to0:57:12 pretend that you can speak with0:57:14 certainty about something like that I0:57:16 think is good admire they're not0:57:18 justified well I think it's a little0:57:20 arrogant to actually dismiss what we0:57:21 actually said because we never actually0:57:23 claimed that we know every tiny particle0:57:26 in this universe or how big it is or0:57:28 where it began we never actually said0:57:30 that so it is the I'm just saying that0:57:33 yesterday just saying that shows that0:57:34 you weren't listening to what we were0:57:35 saying and some people might say that's0:57:36 a arrogant - what I'm saying is very0:57:39 simply this creation or causation or0:57:41 whatever you want to cause it is too0:57:44 limit something to defy limitation that0:57:46 when you draw a circle drawing a0:57:48 limitation so limitations require0:57:50 explanation but if something has no0:57:52 limitation then there's nothing that0:57:54 requires it to be determined cuz it has0:57:56 no there's not there's no boundaries0:57:57 that existed it is it is fundamentally0:58:00 unlimited positive necessary being and0:58:04 say it doesn't require it I didn't say0:58:06 necessary I said but that's the opposite0:58:08 of limited no because limitations0:58:11 require explanation not not black0:58:14 they're off and limitation as opposed to0:58:16 what what was the positive not not being0:58:20 limited and what is something what is0:58:21 something that's not limited it's0:58:23 necessary because if it's not necessary0:58:25 that it's limited what's for the0:58:26 functional necessary cuz you keep using0:58:27 it incorrectly what's your understanding0:58:28 or necessary existence well you know you0:58:30 were talking about contingent things0:58:31 it's the opposite of that something you0:58:33 give it something that cannot have been0:58:35 differently and there's no explanation0:58:37 for it0:58:38 what outside of itself well I suppose0:58:41 okay so can you can you can you tell us0:58:43 how there can be a world with no0:58:45 necessary existence well who says well0:58:47 you said we're living in a world of0:58:49 possible or you said that we have to0:58:50 claim that we're living in a world of0:58:51 possible existence is you do you agree0:58:52 that there could be a explain that do0:58:55 you accept that there is a necessary0:58:56 existence I would say that yes then0:59:01 that's good that doesn't have to that0:59:04 does not it does not have to be here for0:59:08 us a necessary existence is something0:59:10 which is this is the perfect couldn't be0:59:12 another way explains everything else0:59:14 that's our definition of explains0:59:16 everything else because without this0:59:17 necessarily couldn't be any other way Oh0:59:21 Alex all contingent things depend upon0:59:24 it yes give me an example the contingent0:59:26 thing and it's this car how is it0:59:29 contingent because it could have0:59:30 otherwise not been in existence do you0:59:31 know speaking to a determinist fun yeah0:59:34 okay so what is the term so if if you0:59:36 said your and your thing sorry what the0:59:37 terminal yeah yes let me ask you0:59:41 questions and volume isolated but it0:59:42 will make sense go ahead if P entails Q0:59:44 go he is necessary yes is Q necessary no0:59:48 it's not no no no it's not just doesn't0:59:53 have to be if necessary so look to me0:59:56 explain why0:59:57 what we're doing here is we've said that0:59:59 these dependent contingent things as1:00:02 you're defining them do you accept that1:00:03 this cup could have otherwise not been1:00:04 in existence no so okay this that's what1:00:07 to tell it isn't it wasn't do you1:00:09 believe in the determinism yes and you1:00:11 said in your you said in your speech in1:00:13 your thing a universe from nothing you1:00:15 said that determinism comes from the1:00:17 necessary existence right yes1:00:22 forty-eight minutes in you said that one1:00:27 necessarily leads from the other are in1:00:29 other words determinism leads from1:00:31 necessary existence yes or no you said1:00:33 you said determinism leads from1:00:36 necessary existence okay I think we were1:00:38 talking about a different thing no no1:00:39 you said this and I can show so you know1:00:45 you said the University says it is1:00:46 hardly a semantic point scoring exercise1:00:48 it's not anything different by what1:00:49 you're no problem but you said this you1:00:50 said and you said matter1:00:52 you said determinism comes from the1:00:54 necessary existence what did I mean by1:00:56 that I mean two days ago1:01:01 the guy asked you is the universe would1:01:03 you agree with Bertrand Russell that the1:01:05 universe just is yeah and you replied1:01:07 and said yeah the fact that universal1:01:09 necessary existence the I would agree1:01:10 with that in the first instance and then1:01:12 he said how would that tie in with1:01:14 determinism you then said determinism1:01:17 follows from is that which follows the1:01:20 term doesn't follows from the necessary1:01:21 existence right I tried remember I was1:01:23 taught so I was I was the person was1:01:26 debating with the guy cool camera1:01:27 patootie yeah making the ket he was1:01:28 making the case with the contingency1:01:29 argument right I'm saying that there are1:01:31 contingent things in the universe and1:01:32 therefore he was using that reasons1:01:34 there's a god and I said that if that1:01:35 were the case yes that necessary1:01:37 existence the contamination would follow1:01:39 from that I was making okay so I did1:01:41 agree minute does it listen Alex I1:01:43 didn't say that it will agree with you1:01:45 on that point so this is the thing you1:01:46 agree with us on more points than you1:01:48 think you agree with us on you believe1:01:50 in a necessary existence which explains1:01:52 everything else necessary existence be1:01:54 careful as you said and necessary1:01:56 existence you are you retracting it I1:01:58 said that the are you attracting the1:01:59 universe there's not one unified1:02:01 necessary1:02:03 you said that the universe wasn't1:02:04 necessary because the universe follows a1:02:06 necessary causal chain okay so they said1:02:09 no you said hold on you said the1:02:11 universe isn't necessary existence and1:02:12 then you said determinism follows from1:02:14 that now I'm saying that okay if I said1:02:16 that and I meant what you think I meant1:02:18 by yes I retract it but it's attractive1:02:20 but I don't think that's what I think1:02:21 what it is alex is that you people can1:02:22 go oh so you were very good at making1:02:24 arguments against things I used to1:02:25 believe in oh nothing's even it because1:02:28 okay now it's perfect no it's important1:02:33 because if you feel changing you and I1:02:35 have reason why you've changed your1:02:40 thank you I was wanted so they do1:02:43 created God yeah well we have to1:02:47 actually ask the question why does1:02:49 anything need creation in the first1:02:51 place right it's a more fundamental1:02:53 question yeah so I mean I could take1:02:55 this clock but I usually sometimes I1:02:56 just take a stone or something and I say1:02:58 how do you know that this actually think1:03:00 was create over quite it to be quite a1:03:02 creation so if this thing was let's say1:03:05 eternal or let's say uncreated then why1:03:07 is it in this particular shape form and1:03:09 so on so forth that it didn't to choose1:03:11 if something was uncreated and nothing1:03:14 determined its limitations then it1:03:16 wouldn't have limitations which is my1:03:17 point so therefore it's it's it's kind1:03:20 of ridiculous to argue that God requires1:03:23 creation when he has no limits that1:03:25 require defined by anything to be1:03:27 defined by all determined by something1:03:28 else and that's why we know that1:03:30 anything is created it's only because it1:03:32 has limitations how long do you think1:03:34 God's being around for eternity1:03:37 well okay what I'll say is that they you1:03:40 know God is outside of time so there's1:03:41 no there's no pre-existent time before1:03:44 him right he's the beginning how do you1:03:46 know but but I you know what what kind1:03:49 of just you mention you mentioned in1:03:52 your presentation I just want to just be1:03:54 touching it before we do anything else1:03:56 which is you said that Islam is1:03:58 terrified of of a people professing1:04:01 atheism alright again I think that's I1:04:04 don't know what experience you've had1:04:05 maybe with from reading European history1:04:08 books but I said I suppose you should1:04:10 read books from about Mesopotamia and1:04:13 it's time I say1:04:16 five million that's like if I may just1:04:17 finish I'll let you respond so the1:04:19 Prophet Mohammad Ahsan had a famous1:04:22 debate with a Bedouin atheist right1:04:23 there was no intolerance there the bet1:04:26 did Betty when I first became Muslim but1:04:27 there was no intolerance just because1:04:28 the guy initially profess to be atheist1:04:30 um Abu Hanifah famous classical scholar1:04:33 in medieval Iraq Baghdad actually had1:04:36 public open air debate with atheists1:04:38 presumably there's atheists were living1:04:40 in Baghdad all the time to actually be1:04:41 invited to open air debates and no one1:04:43 killed them all was intolerant to them1:04:45 at all whatsoever and when you say Oh1:04:47 Islamist is terrified of atheists I just1:04:50 want to say something you're not special1:04:53 we encounter polytheists we encounter1:04:56 Christian Tura Trinitarians we encounter1:04:59 zoroastrians for our history and from1:05:01 our perspective you're all arguing1:05:03 exactly the same thing which is somehow1:05:05 the the finite thing is this is also1:05:07 infinite eternal and we don't really we1:05:09 don't really see you as different1:05:10 actually you're just an just another1:05:12 yeah yeah it's not a flavor of ice cream1:05:15 that we are basically encountering so I1:05:17 don't don't make yourself out to be what1:05:18 else more special than you are from the1:05:20 our perspective and as for their issue1:05:22 of tolerance of atheists I think you1:05:25 should question your founders of the1:05:26 very ideology which pervades the West1:05:28 liberalism John Locke in his letter on1:05:31 toleration argued that you should1:05:33 tolerate different Christian sects1:05:34 Protestants typically but not yes1:05:37 because you can't trust what they say1:05:38 they don't believe in any higher moral1:05:40 value or then mainly what is expedient1:05:43 Rousseau made also the same argument and1:05:46 some people say that under the current1:05:48 you could say a theistic idea as opposed1:05:51 to the natural rights arguments of John1:05:54 Locke but the Benthamite arguments of1:05:56 utilitarianism really morality is only1:05:59 based on expediency and then people's1:06:01 rights are based on whether it's1:06:02 expedient to the state to even tolerate1:06:05 your right so then it's not related to1:06:06 debate itself but the guy brought it up1:06:08 and it's really disingenuous to bring up1:06:10 in that kind of debate yes yes I mean I1:06:14 used to jesting that someone like1:06:15 Socrates was a deeply immoral man no I'm1:06:20 not saying it I'm saying John interest1:06:22 you seem to be implying no no John Locke1:06:24 said that you that you can't look past a1:06:26 theory on this earth1:06:28 all the differences that the things the1:06:29 things which our world view a bit based1:06:31 upon which are the philosophies of these1:06:33 men we can say that those areas of their1:06:34 philosophies were wrong John Locke said1:06:36 some pretty egregious things the entire1:06:38 list how can you do anything the1:06:39 differences we'll get to that the1:06:40 difference it's not something that1:06:41 you're wrong no III think I actually1:06:43 don't believe it different the1:06:45 difference is the difference is that you1:06:47 can't do the same thing when there is1:06:49 something immoral or even when there is1:06:51 something immoral in the basis if when1:06:52 there is something immoral that comes1:06:54 from somebody who founded the worldview1:06:56 that we believe in and something else1:06:57 unrelated ly that he said that no longer1:06:59 applies was wrong can you prove you1:07:01 something we can say that we disagree1:07:03 with or do we have to we can say that we1:07:05 disagree what he had to do the same so1:07:07 can you do the same thing you're making1:07:09 Annapolis immoralities in the Quran you1:07:11 can't make the same look we have just1:07:13 allowed you to speak and there were1:07:14 there were many times I could have1:07:15 interjected and asked you similar1:07:16 questions and you're making your to1:07:17 cooperate fallacy and you smart enough1:07:18 to know it you can't just turn around1:07:19 and answer a question for being immoral1:07:21 nihilus especially since i'm not one1:07:22 anymore oh you've changed your mind1:07:24 yours as well what what statement the1:07:27 ones that you said you're more right now1:07:28 what do you think moral subjective isn't1:07:30 mentally and means to me what do you1:07:31 think or say you're saying you can't say1:07:35 this because you're a moral subject to1:07:36 this in tomorrow yeah you're making a1:07:37 moral clip your father mojo does what is1:07:39 moral subject yeah so you don't have a1:07:41 victim or ally it's not for it's not1:07:42 fixed it's not true or false1:07:44 despite human thoughts or convictions1:07:47 that morality is true so it's only first1:07:49 class yeah my questions had asked one1:07:53 question then you can answer it my1:07:55 question is he's made it very clear on1:07:57 his public profile that this man is does1:08:00 not believe an object of morality why1:08:02 and how can you say this in one breath1:08:06 and then starting passing moral1:08:08 judgments which are based on liberalism1:08:10 can you explain how a theism accounts1:08:12 for that or how it doesn't I say that's1:08:14 a two o'clock a palace it's not a1:08:15 different place I see you as well it's1:08:19 simply saying well you do this too so1:08:20 who are you to speak that's not not1:08:22 doing it we are working on it your1:08:23 worldview your worldview claims that1:08:25 morality is objective and your worldview1:08:27 has objective moral statements like the1:08:28 ones I've highlighted it's your job to1:08:30 prove yeah that those can be coherent1:08:32 with objective morality God is1:08:34 all-knowing God said so that's what we1:08:35 believe anything God says is although1:08:36 anything God says it's more yes okay1:08:39 refute that please1:08:40 I don't know that's why I'm not trying1:08:43 to change your mind I'm I'm kind of talk1:08:45 for the audience and if you want to find1:08:46 moral precepts within Islam that they1:08:48 disagree with they have to disagree but1:08:49 if you have an all-knowing agency as you1:08:51 have said and said if God says something1:08:53 is moral then it is moral as that's what1:08:55 I say yeah and so if the people here1:08:56 this evening disagree with the moral1:08:58 precepts of the socialization of Islam1:08:59 so let's talk about that unless1:09:08 absolutely how do you know what God said1:09:12 well okay here to go back to our1:09:14 argument I said that we said that you1:09:16 have revelations of full time the final1:09:18 revelation is the Quran as a1:09:19 falsifiability test I gave you four1:09:21 things preservation intimate ability1:09:23 contradictions and I also taught you1:09:25 about predictions of the Quran and1:09:26 Sunnah now in order for you to say that1:09:28 the Quran is false you have to falsify1:09:30 it like a scientist would have to1:09:31 falsify theory for in order for them to1:09:32 say that that is wrong now if you can't1:09:34 produce any evidence for that then1:09:36 really you can't remain agnostic on the1:09:38 issue how do you answer how do you know1:09:41 that the words contained in the Quran1:09:43 were the words that were actually1:09:45 supposed to have been spoken to the1:09:47 habit by the angel Gabriel supposing1:09:50 that any of those in the modern world1:09:51 can I believe it yeah okay1:09:54 so first and foremost with regards to1:09:57 morality it's actually completely1:09:58 irrelevant in this debate concerning1:10:00 when we're discussing explanation of1:10:02 reality if you don't believe in1:10:03 objective morality then there's nothing1:10:05 to compare the morality of Islam with1:10:06 right just say that just as discordant1:10:09 with it yes right so I think it's a1:10:10 massive red herring and I think I think1:10:12 that friend of yours will talk about a1:10:14 few fallacies concerning bringing up in1:10:15 the first place you have to first1:10:16 present to us objective right imagery1:10:18 and then compare it to Islam's morality1:10:20 and say there's that they don't they1:10:22 don't fit can't and that's my point1:10:24 and also the fact that you say well if1:10:27 we don't like some morality in the back1:10:28 in the past or some basis or for just1:10:31 affirm rights in the past we can change1:10:32 it well that's what's scary because in1:10:34 modern was at 21st century Europe and of1:10:37 what one 20th century Europe need i say1:10:39 more1:10:39 people thought that morality of people's1:10:42 protections of rights and things were no1:10:44 longer convenient for the nation that1:10:45 the nation's security and then they1:10:47 prejudicially in a persecute certain1:10:50 minorities because it was no longer1:10:51 beneficial from their estimation1:10:53 there's no objective basis to argue1:10:55 against other than you say what I don't1:10:57 like or find it distasteful oh he did so1:11:00 that's that is actually scary that you1:11:02 don't have objective morality because1:11:03 there's no actual promise of of Rights1:11:06 that you can actually under right now as1:11:08 for the well no well yes I mean there1:11:11 are I mean you're asking a questionnaire1:11:13 you just okay the restaurant statement1:11:15 look the subjectivity of morality1:11:17 doesn't lie at the level of the act1:11:19 itself it lies at the level of the1:11:21 motivations I can say to somebody like1:11:23 we I I am a psychological headedness in1:11:27 the same way that nil was I can say it1:11:28 says I I know what people's motivations1:11:30 are ultimately speaking and I and there1:11:32 are objective facts to be known about1:11:33 how to achieve a goal so it's not a case1:11:36 mile subjective as Mills mill demand1:11:37 swim all objective is emit more immoral1:11:39 I said I'm a psychological utilitarian1:11:41 okay so Terry in like Johnson mill not1:11:43 just a utilitarian okay well I hope the1:11:45 audience can notice the difference in1:11:46 the level of interjection here like I'm1:11:48 trying to really listen to what you have1:11:49 to say but you've got to let me respond1:11:51 okay good psychological utilitarianism1:11:54 means that we can know what people's1:11:56 motivations are and I think we can there1:11:58 are objective things to be known about1:11:59 how to achieve those goals if somebody1:12:01 thinks that something is right and I1:12:02 think it's wrong it's not a case of1:12:03 throw your hands up in the air and say1:12:04 it's everybody's opinion that's not what1:12:06 moral subjectivism is that's confusing1:12:07 model subjectivism with moral relativism1:12:09 that's not what we're doing1:12:10 hold on those are not the same thing1:12:12 that can respond alright so Mill in1:12:15 Chapter four of his book on1:12:16 utilitarianism he actually gave us an1:12:18 exact way of identifying what he called1:12:20 the principle of utility yes and through1:12:23 that he talked about desirability and1:12:24 how when you see that something is1:12:26 desirable for someone then that is it1:12:28 that is an evidence that it's something1:12:29 which sport to be done okay now hold on1:12:33 you can check I've just given you a1:12:34 reference yeah you're injecting me as I1:12:36 am because I saw into the title the1:12:39 title I didn't say the audience can1:12:41 notice I'm not interjecting I said any1:12:42 owners can notice the disparity in it1:12:44 actually needed in the interaction here1:12:46 is the title of that chapter there was a1:12:51 reason why the title that chapter yeah1:12:52 it's not the proof of utilitarianism it1:12:54 is it is not it's like the title now1:12:57 it's a book the title of that chapter is1:12:59 the kinds of proofs to which1:13:01 utilitarianism is susceptible of the1:13:04 chapter is proof of your1:13:05 it's not you get you can check it now1:13:07 okay it is the types of proof that1:13:10 utilitarian is which is acceptable to1:13:12 John Stuart Mill wrote the book himself1:13:13 you can get the copy from Waterstones1:13:15 now everyone in the area can google it1:13:17 yes it's actually the title is proof of1:13:20 your talent our chapter four that's what1:13:22 people call it that's not what mill1:13:24 wrote no who calls at its height mill1:13:26 mill that no no you say mill doesn't1:13:29 call it the proof utilitarian that's1:13:30 what it's title he avoids it he does not1:13:32 sin name of the chapter mice not the1:13:34 name of the Jat  __  get up yeah if1:13:36 you like to okay so I know it's got you1:13:37 terian is amazing it's a good why that's1:13:46 important the reason no I1:13:54 okay so just consumer easy right it's1:13:59 not movers oh okay I can see that point1:14:01 of view if he's right I can see this1:14:02 because I don't care if you're right or1:14:04 wrong about that it the thing that1:14:05 matters is the point that he was making1:14:06 and the point that he was making is that1:14:08 you can't prove utilitarianism because1:14:10 he's a moral nihilus in a sense but he1:14:11 said that there are certain proofs to1:14:12 which I'm prove it why me okay so1:14:14 because you can't prove that the point1:14:16 of mill maybe so it's a subjective the1:14:18 point of the mill mate was a visible1:14:20 thing which you brought up is that the1:14:21 only evidence we have that something is1:14:22 visible is that it can be seen that's1:14:24 what you said now we we can't prove okay1:14:26 there's some proof visible and we can1:14:30 use the same reason to understand more1:14:33 okay it's not one thing it's an end up1:14:35 one thing for someone who said that1:14:38 there are many things that you know you1:14:41 don't know in the universe and things1:14:42 that you can't presume yes for you to1:14:44 claim that you now know people's1:14:46 motivations with the same kind of1:14:48 certainty enough to make it but it1:14:50 derives an objective moral system yes1:14:52 it's somewhat of a contradiction there1:14:53 because everyone's motivations might be1:14:55 unique or different yes unknowable to1:14:58 you anyway certainly we never understand1:15:00 the viewpoint of a psychopath of Israel1:15:02 who has the inability to empathize yeah1:15:05 but look the study of course but to make1:15:08 a claim that basically that you can1:15:10 understand everyone's motivations or1:15:12 there is some kind of unique template of1:15:14 motivations that all human beings1:15:15 subscribe to or1:15:17 kind of can fit into is really1:15:19 convicting what you said early one1:15:20 saying that you don't actually know you1:15:22 don't make claims to know things which1:15:24 you don't directly about I make those1:15:26 and I also didn't say I do I do make1:15:32 more I'll see that that's not a problem1:15:33 I never said that I didn't I also didn't1:15:36 say that I don't make morality is it I1:15:40 also didn't say that you have to see1:15:41 things to be able to prove them1:15:42 oh okay so are the illusionary for you I1:15:45 would agree with that statement and1:15:47 right I'm agreement I'm still waiting1:15:52 for an answer to my question how you can1:15:54 possibly be sure that what are supposed1:15:58 to be the words spoken by God or rather1:16:01 by the angel Gabriel pointed out to1:16:03 Mohammed are actually the words spoken1:16:06 if indeed they were spoken at all okay1:16:10 so a couple days ago I presented a1:16:13 lecture on how do we know Islam is true1:16:14 when there's so many different let's say1:16:16 couldn't conflicting or competing belief1:16:18 systems in essence from every aspect1:16:21 from the deployment concept of God being1:16:23 a main issue which is what my1:16:24 presentation was trying to focus on the1:16:26 Islamic concept of God is almost1:16:29 completely unique to Islam with the1:16:32 possible exceptions of variations of1:16:34 Judaism and philosophers who've you know1:16:37 reflected upon the possibilities of what1:16:40 could exist and what create all1:16:41 existence and they've all come to the1:16:43 same conclusion just like good old the1:16:44 Greek Gunnarsson often is that they must1:16:47 be an ultimate craters infinite and he's1:16:49 unlike created things nothing is a1:16:50 famous Greek philosopher who believed1:16:52 that if he rejected polytheism and1:16:55 rejected idols that look like human1:16:57 beings saying if a cow had a God it1:16:59 wouldn't make the the gods to look like1:17:01 a cows so he didn't he was an atheist he1:17:03 just rejected polytheism and so we would1:17:05 basically kind of siloed that view but1:17:08 there's something a very specific1:17:09 question yeah about yes what the angel1:17:13 Gabriel is supposed to have said just to1:17:15 Muhammad how can you possibly know how1:17:18 can anybody possibly know that that was1:17:20 actually what happened how and if I let1:17:24 me just finish my point which is Islam1:17:27 is basically if you when I encountered1:17:29 it I encounter1:17:30 and I took it as a hypothesis for how to1:17:33 explain reality as one possible1:17:35 hypothesis after looking at different1:17:37 belief systems including or lack thereof1:17:40 and let's say atheistic positions and1:17:42 belief system naturalism or materialism1:17:44 communism and such and such I basically1:17:47 you know found contradictions and things1:17:50 that didn't make sense and it kind of1:17:52 almost had a process of elimination that1:17:53 Islam was the only one left that1:17:55 actually didn't suffer internal1:17:59 conditions both compared to the1:18:01 observable reality as well as within1:18:02 itself and that's very tough thing too1:18:04 it's a very tall order to actually1:18:06 achieve if you're not explaining what1:18:08 everything quite literally everything so1:18:10 oh and caveat not the particularity zuv1:18:14 things like you know how quarks and1:18:15 bosons in case you actually say oh I1:18:17 don't you're claiming to explain1:18:19 everything no but what I am what I1:18:21 notice is that Islam was the only one1:18:23 left and then after further1:18:24 investigation after I thought maybe it1:18:26 could have been a different way maybe if1:18:27 one particularly silent auction didn't1:18:29 exist or if it was a different way and I1:18:31 realized that that produces1:18:33 contradictions to the point that I came1:18:35 to the conclusion that Islam was the1:18:37 only possible explanation to explain1:18:38 reality which is why I was very thrilled1:18:41 to do this debate in the first place but1:18:43 you know but without going to things1:18:45 like the you know hell's existence and1:18:46 all this other stuff the main key1:18:49 selling point users who say oh of Islam1:18:51 of the hypothesis of Islam except in1:18:53 reality was its concept of God which is1:18:55 almost virtually unique to itself and1:18:58 it's just rationally consistent and1:19:00 coherent I didn't ask you about Islam's1:19:02 concept of God I asked you very1:19:04 specifically about how you can possibly1:19:07 know that the concept of God whatever it1:19:11 is that emerges from the Quran can have1:19:14 been dictated to Muhammad by the angel1:19:19 Gabriel I take it therefore that you1:19:21 cannot answer that question1:19:22 thank you well it's kind of like the1:19:25 equivalent kind of challenge or you'll1:19:27 say me now we can discuss how do we know1:19:29 the mess the messenger that related the1:19:31 message is how do we know from from1:19:34 analysis of that that it's accurate but1:19:35 I wanted just to kind of that's what I'd1:19:37 like to know I know I know and I want to1:19:40 do a kind of a different angle to1:19:42 that question which is what got me into1:19:44 Islam in the first place well that's1:19:46 right different there let me finish sir1:19:48 well go me into Islam in the first place1:19:50 wasn't me1:19:51 looking at the claims or trying to go1:19:53 back in the time machine to find out if1:19:54 the problem have existed all the angel1:19:56 Gabriel came to him I looked at the1:19:57 message itself and the consistency of1:20:00 the message itself with the universe I1:20:03 came again led me to a conclusion that1:20:06 they both come from the same author and1:20:08 that's why I became Muslim in other1:20:10 words you can't possibly know we'll1:20:14 leave it to the audience to gentleman in1:20:17 the middle1:20:36 the word of reality in the proposition1:20:39 is very big word I think he might be1:20:41 productive to discuss five of reality1:20:54 interesting phrase it goes begets not1:20:58 nor has we go now that honesty raises1:21:01 for adjustments about believers I'm1:21:05 going to see nobody in this room denies1:21:08 the life forms have over time in the big1:21:15 question is was an agency behind that1:21:18 and speaking focuses is faulty1:21:49 okay so there's two questions there do1:21:52 you agree with the theory of evolution1:21:53 okay1:21:55 so do I believe this agency behind it1:21:59 okay okay so so in essence as Muslims we1:22:05 don't dispute what we observe from the1:22:07 universe the Quran tells us to observe1:22:08 the universe and to understand the how1:22:11 how God instituted things the mechanisms1:22:14 God put in place to bring things about1:22:16 so that's not a problem and we have no1:22:18 issue we have no truck with animal1:22:21 evolution and evolution of what we see1:22:23 my quadratic life and things like this1:22:25 there's no problem like this and1:22:26 changing but now for you to claim that1:22:30 the process of copying and mutation that1:22:33 occurs which to claim and call it faulty1:22:36 copying is actually making an assumption1:22:38 of teleological of Telos as the Greeks1:22:42 would say of intention that life has an1:22:45 intention to create perfect copies1:22:47 alright but if you if a person is a1:22:50 materialist let's say that you say that1:22:53 all things happen out of necessity right1:22:55 things just occur out of necessity and1:22:56 what I'm positing or what we would let's1:22:59 say view it as everything that happens1:23:00 all the mechanisms in life as well as in1:23:03 inanimate objects throughout the1:23:05 universe inanimate matter let's just say1:23:06 all these mechanisms have been1:23:08 instituted by God so there's no problem1:23:09 or conviction that we have with that at1:23:11 all whatsoever1:23:12 wherever the case might be wherever the1:23:13 science reveals all mechanisms were1:23:21 instituted by God yes let's have one1:23:24 question one answer yes1:23:39 could you speak up a bit which was that1:23:44 atheists aren't special and that Muslims1:23:47 have been debating Christians and Jews1:23:48 or Zoroastrians for years I come from a1:23:51 Muslim hands arrest really family I'm1:23:52 sure the local Catholics they're all1:23:54 Hindus were Jews thing is with Islam and1:23:57 atheism is Islam make some flames and1:24:00 atheism says we're not making claims1:24:02 with Islam and Christianity or Islam and1:24:05 Judaism Islam is making a claim1:24:07 Christianity is making a different claim1:24:09 Judaism is making a different claim they1:24:11 all evolved at different times Islam and1:24:14 Christianity in Judaism all make a1:24:16 similar claims but there are significant1:24:17 differences which are of a nature that1:24:21 is very very important for Muslims in1:24:23 that for Islam to be true it has to be1:24:26 able to show that say Christian claims1:24:28 well say Jesus being the Son of God on1:24:29 true so rather than attempting to argue1:24:32 against atheism how do you propose to1:24:35 suggest that Islam is right that the1:24:38 Quran is right yes on this side of the1:24:44 house there are two leaps of faith you1:24:45 ask God the second he's not God okay so1:24:50 we've already shown from first1:24:51 principles how it can be conceived or1:24:53 can be reasoned that unnecessary1:24:56 existence which all other existence1:24:58 depend upon exists and is in fact1:25:02 necessary for existence but in terms of1:25:05 the specific claim of Islam I'll repeat1:25:07 the challenge and obviously there are1:25:08 people in the audience here I've said to1:25:10 you before and I'll say again that Islam1:25:12 makes specific claims and challenges1:25:15 which are not found in other texts and1:25:18 this makes Aslam and its texts open to1:25:22 falsifiability1:25:23 for example number one is the1:25:24 preservation challenge chapter 15 verse1:25:27 9 it says in the National Rosella the1:25:29 crow in the La Jolla - we have certainly1:25:30 sent down the book and we will certainly1:25:32 preserve it chapter 4 verse 92 the1:25:34 contradiction challenge for you know1:25:36 Lalaji luffy ft laughs and cathy they1:25:38 would have found in him any1:25:39 contradictions1:25:40 a third the third thing is the intimate1:25:43 ability challenge and we said before1:25:44 that this has quantifiable measures and1:25:46 I'll give you one exam1:25:47 that Quran was a circumstantial1:25:49 revelation and it was revealed piecemeal1:25:52 right so for bit by bit but despite the1:25:55 fact that the Quran was a circumstantial1:25:56 revelation and it was revealed piecemeal1:25:59 you'll find that there is an incredible1:26:01 knitted togetherness a consistency of1:26:03 coherence of the Quranic text which make1:26:06 it almost impossible I would argue that1:26:08 it would be would have been from human1:26:10 authorship for example the Quran in1:26:12 chapter 3 verse 59 says in the math1:26:13 Allah1:26:14 I signed the law he cometh alia damaja1:26:16 l'homme interurban Thumma Kalla who come1:26:18 for a  __  that certainly Jesus is like1:26:19 Adam God created him from dust and said1:26:21 three and he was now notice it says he1:26:23 is like Adam and if you count the amount1:26:25 of times1:26:26 Adam is mentioned the Quran is 25 times1:26:28 if you count a lot of times that Jesus1:26:29 mentioned Quran it's also 25 times now1:26:31 this is one of I would say a plethora of1:26:33 examples which if you were to turn this1:26:36 into a probability machine you'll find1:26:38 makes it highly doubt about unprovable1:26:42 that this could have been done from1:26:44 someone who is being asked questions and1:26:46 answering in the form of revelation the1:26:49 fourth thing I mentioned was to predict1:26:50 the predictions of the Quran so for1:26:52 example the fact that the Quran in1:26:53 chapter 30 verses 1 to 6 predicts that1:26:55 Rome would be the Roman Empire beat the1:26:57 Persian Empire from 6 to 9 years and we1:26:59 have corroborating evidence from this1:27:00 from non Islamic sources for example1:27:02 Theo fears in the 9th century writes1:27:04 this down and so on now the thing is if1:27:06 you find all other this is my claim my1:27:08 claim is if you look at all other1:27:09 religions world religions if our1:27:12 predictions are made I will be able to1:27:14 find you and it's a challenge I'll put1:27:16 out there for everyone I'll be able to1:27:17 find you a false prophecy from the major1:27:20 world religions if someone claims to be1:27:22 a fortune-teller Nostradamus Charles1:27:24 Russell from the you know whoever it may1:27:26 be those individuals made a series of1:27:28 predictions some of which came true some1:27:31 of which did not now what I'm saying is1:27:33 quite bold I'm saying that the Islamic1:27:35 position is you will not be able to find1:27:37 one thing that the Prophet of Islam or1:27:41 the Quran says will come true that does1:27:44 not come true and from that we predicate1:27:46 our cosmological understanding that ok1:27:49 the hereafter which is something we1:27:50 can't see just like the futures1:27:51 unseeable is also going to be actualize1:27:55 materialized in the same way that1:27:57 everything else has so we have1:27:58 falsifiability test1:28:01 this falsifiability test is not in other1:28:03 scriptures and in order for you to1:28:04 disregard or discard the Quran and the1:28:06 Sunnah you first have to go through the1:28:08 process just as a scientist would of1:28:10 falsifying our claims thank you I mean1:28:23 I'd rather brisk move on to other1:28:25 questions but I don't think that I'd say1:28:27 internal consistency is certainly1:28:28 required to say that the Quran as a cure1:28:30 but it's not a sufficient ya set for1:28:32 things tells one yeah okay I would agree1:28:35 with actually yeah I don't think you1:28:43 actually responded properly to that1:28:45 question which is how can you how can1:28:48 you demonstrate but what is written in1:28:50 the Bible for example is not true when1:28:54 if what's written in the Quran1:28:56 contradicts it I gave as an example in1:28:59 my address the Islamic view that it was1:29:05 not Jesus who died on the cross how can1:29:09 you possibly prove that how could you1:29:11 know it even if even if it were even if1:29:15 it were so how can you possibly prove it1:29:18 how can you claim that anything like1:29:20 that it can be known with certainty and1:29:22 how can you show that the people who1:29:26 reported in the in the in the Bible were1:29:29 a rock you prefer can I save the record1:29:31 I I don't I don't think that's necessary1:29:33 to do because I have to be very capped1:29:35 with a burden of proof here which is1:29:36 then the the proof nice lie with person1:29:39 making the claim right the Christians1:29:40 claim that Jesus died and was risen they1:29:42 need to prove that the fact that I can't1:29:44 disprove it doesn't mean that I can't1:29:46 have a case against it I wouldn't know I1:29:48 mean I don't I don't think that the1:29:50 Christian claim is necessary any more1:29:52 credible than the Islamic one I don't1:29:54 think they could they're the Christians1:29:56 can prove it either that's what they1:29:57 believe but I don't think you could you1:30:00 could disprove it or or give a credible1:30:02 opinion one way or the other1:30:06 what I would say is Sony in science1:30:10 there's many hypotheses and hypotheses I1:30:11 suppose is a protection or a claim based1:30:13 on1:30:14 previous theory and people like to check1:30:16 out the claim to see if they are1:30:17 consistent with what they can observe so1:30:19 I don't I never had a problem with1:30:21 actually checking out someone's claims1:30:22 and seeing if there was a any proof and1:30:24 also if there was if it was internally1:30:26 consistent and my claim against1:30:28 Trinitarian Christians with all due1:30:29 respect to any Trinitarian Christian1:30:31 hickel's isn't they're not represent on1:30:32 this power of course is that I believe1:30:33 that it has internal contradiction1:30:35 between infinite immortal God and a1:30:39 finite mortal man who is also gone at1:30:40 the same time as well as belief in one1:30:42 and God is one and three at the same1:30:43 time and the crucifixion is really1:30:45 inconsequential to that matter cause1:30:47 it's just a historical happenstance or a1:30:49 claim over happenstance but I suppose1:30:51 really and just to kind of answer that1:30:54 that person's point in an unloaded and1:30:56 very very briefly if I may be permitted1:30:58 is upon the question of discussion of is1:31:02 their burden of proof the burden of1:31:04 proof on Arce's but I'm proving them and1:31:05 they're not saying you're making any1:31:06 claim so this isn't the better proof1:31:08 meant to be only on us I would say that1:31:10 everyone here has a burden of1:31:11 explanation an explanation of reality at1:31:15 least ultimately right citing the whole1:31:18 point about science is to try to seek to1:31:19 chip away at reality to uncover a local1:31:24 explanation for things but we're talking1:31:25 about an ultimate explanation things and1:31:27 I'm gonna make a very strong claim which1:31:29 is that only that the idea of an1:31:32 infinite thing which has will that can1:31:34 initiate by choice is the only possible1:31:36 ultimate explanation for all things that1:31:39 avoids contradiction any other1:31:41 possibility possesses contradiction1:31:43 right including an explanation of1:31:46 reality that does not require God any1:31:49 any more the prospect does not make1:31:50 sense other than an infinite power and1:31:52 world creator and that's my claim and1:31:55 the only thing and my proof of that is1:31:57 it's only one avoids contradiction and1:31:58 yet explains reality okay1:32:01 one to two-minute closing statements and1:32:04 starting with okay well can start with1:32:13 happy to do it would be very brief1:32:15 there's an old Russian proverb that says1:32:18 it is good to know the truth but it is1:32:20 better to be happy and1:32:23 when you're talking about reality1:32:27 reality can be very unpleasant religion1:32:32 is very bad for talking about reality1:32:37 but it's quite good for talking about1:32:39 happiness1:32:41 so if happiness is more important to you1:32:44 than truth then Islam like any other1:32:47 religion can protect you against it1:32:49 against reality otherwise I suggest you1:32:53 stick with reality may be unpleasant but1:32:56 it is actually what should guide you1:33:04 both sides thank you very much for1:33:07 attending and I look forward to maybe1:33:10 future discussions with all of you so1:33:12 I'll just kind of finish off by saying1:33:13 that I don't think my arguments have1:33:16 been my fault1:33:16 kind of problems I have posed to1:33:18 atheists to have been it kind of1:33:20 addressed the explanation for change1:33:22 matter finitude and specificity these1:33:25 things haven't been explained if this1:33:27 moment depended on an infinite amount of1:33:29 pre-existing moments with no beginning1:33:31 no start point then we wouldn't get to1:33:33 this point and of course there is a1:33:35 start point then the question is what's1:33:36 making this starting thing begin the1:33:39 chain of call or creation or causality1:33:41 or whatever will continuously whatever1:33:42 you want to call it well if it's1:33:44 something else then it's not the first1:33:45 thing so if it's initiating then it can1:33:48 only do so out of choice and that's the1:33:51 only explanation avoids any1:33:52 contradictions and I think I've kind of1:33:54 finish up by saying that I'm glad that1:33:56 science wasn't invoked necessary on1:33:59 either side to prove either side's point1:34:01 but I will say this is just a slight1:34:03 kind of interesting observation in the1:34:05 Quran commands Muslims to observe the1:34:08 world to see how God made and instituted1:34:10 things and Islamic science while science1:34:12 within Islamic civilization flourished1:34:14 because of it with the Islamic1:34:15 scientists ITIN the Quran as their1:34:17 motivation to understand God's will more1:34:19 the second holy book of Islam the1:34:21 universe that I out of Allah but there's1:34:24 no command and atheism to do so in fact1:34:26 you could be a solipsist a nihilist or1:34:28 an existentialist and not believe1:34:30 there's even an external reality in the1:34:31 first place so I think with atheism is1:34:34 not a question of of you know1:34:37 some is attached to science provided1:34:38 that atheism can't even justify an1:34:40 external reality to even investigate in1:34:42 the first place whereas Islam is a short1:34:43 of one okay you can you can also be an1:34:46 atheist and a horse rider they have1:34:47 nothing to do with each other1:34:48 atheism doesn't entail certain beliefs1:34:50 and like that you don't you can be a1:34:53 solipsistic atheist but you don't have1:34:54 to be a solipsistic atheist your rights1:34:57 say that the issues that we that you1:34:59 bring up especially the four points you1:35:00 make haven't been addressed perhaps they1:35:03 could have been if we could have gone to1:35:04 the end of a sentence but I think that1:35:06 likewise the challenges that I proposed1:35:08 that my opening statements weren't fully1:35:09 address the problems of morality and I1:35:11 hate I'd hate to compel or expect you to1:35:15 do so now in a closing statement that1:35:16 would be unfair but I hope that it1:35:18 hasn't escaped people that that hasn't1:35:20 been discussed and I think one of the1:35:22 reasons for that is because it can't be1:35:24 justifiably addressed although certainly1:35:28 mr. Jabez has tried to honor to two1:35:30 channels so you should go and listen to1:35:32 what he has to say I just have to say1:35:33 that appeals to to the fact that for1:35:37 instance you say you know that America1:35:39 had had laws that said you could get1:35:40 married at ten it's like yeah America1:35:42 was wrong and so was your prophet like1:35:44 the difference is that whilst we can1:35:46 progress morally as a society if we if1:35:49 we base it upon constitutions and say1:35:51 that the the moral issues that are1:35:53 infused within them don't depend on the1:35:55 person who's saying it or the fact that1:35:56 it comes from God that's a hell of a lot1:35:58 easier than when you come up against the1:35:59 moral at the possibility for moral1:36:02 progress with statements that come from1:36:04 the unalterable Word of the Divine1:36:06 creator at the universe and that's why1:36:07 I'd probably leave he had to I want to1:36:17 say okay let me add - you said want us1:36:21 to here's what I wanna say ladies and1:36:23 gentlemen you see this is the reality of1:36:26 atheism where you have a claim first of1:36:28 all from a nihilist someone who does1:36:29 epistemological nihilist and existential1:36:32 - a moral nilus someone who does not1:36:34 believe in value judgments saying you're1:36:36 right and you're wrong that's unfair and1:36:38 it's unsubstantiated that is an active1:36:40 claim that has not been able to show1:36:42 from first principles you see the thing1:36:44 is with atheists they like to make1:36:47 claims that they1:36:49 substantiates he said himself who can be1:36:52 an atheistic solipsist which means you1:36:54 can by the way what that means is you1:36:56 can believe you're living in a matrix1:36:57 world so if you can't even prove the1:36:59 external reality or even an absolute1:37:02 reality or even that rational faculties1:37:05 are truths reliable then why are you1:37:08 making a claim that atheism or trying to1:37:10 suggest that atheism potentially is1:37:13 better than it is slamming in1:37:14 understanding reality if you don't make1:37:16 that claim then you're conceding that1:37:17 Islam offers something whereas atheism1:37:21 by virtue of the fact offers nothing and1:37:23 to be honest with you I have to say I1:37:25 have to say I am actually convinced you1:37:29 know I have some doubts after this1:37:31 debate there's some skepticism I doubt1:37:35 the existence of atheism for atheists1:37:37 because if a theist1:37:39 now seriously because if a theist means1:37:41 someone who's lacking or disbelieving in1:37:43 God what is a God a God is an object of1:37:46 worship what is worship worship is1:37:50 ultimate obedience to an entity and I1:37:54 don't believe that any human being is1:37:55 not ultimately obedient loving1:37:59 submissive to anything fact like1:38:02 Abdullah said there polytheist that's1:38:03 what the Quran says chapter 39 verse 291:38:05 Allah says in the Quran1:38:08 [Music]1:38:17 Oh chi-su Navarro Jocelyn neeraja yes1:38:23 Joey masala & Handling1:38:37 when Axl1:38:43 on in a Canadian1:38:48 eatin some and opium iti yi-dao become1:38:56 deaf Justin get along ERT mischievously1:39:17 yeah ladies a teenager and well-meaning1:39:26 caffeine so allah subhanaw taala says in1:39:31 the quran he says not a belong metal and1:39:34 Allah has struck a parable rajala fe1:39:37 should I care a man who has many1:39:40 different slave masters what are jewel1:39:43 and Salomon neeraja and another person1:39:45 another man with only one slave master1:39:47 are they the same in comparison with1:39:49 each other1:39:50 alhamdulillah praise be to Allah well1:39:54 axillary al-amin nay most of them do not1:39:58 know you're gonna die ie prefer Muhammad1:40:03 and they are gonna die then you will be1:40:06 presented to Allah disputing with one1:40:09 another1:40:10 I am the day of judgement Laden says and1:40:15 who is more oppressive than the one who1:40:20 denies God's science and persistently1:40:24 denies his evidences when they are1:40:28 presented to him is there not in the1:40:33 Hellfire a resting place for the1:40:35 oppressors atheists have many gods1:40:38 Muslims are just telling atheist to1:40:41 redirect their veneration admiration and1:40:44 their worship instead of to the many1:40:47 gods to the one God and that that is our1:40:51 case and thank you very much for1:40:52 listening1:40:53 [Applause]1:40:59 thank you everyone for coming1:41:01 it's your long night a very enjoyable1:41:03 one1:41:04 thank you very much if you believe that1:41:14 you are done thank you you're going to1:41:16 do here thank you that's - wait you1:41:18 answer my question no no no because I'm1:41:23 sure1:41:30 [Applause]