Transcript for:
Debate on 'Islam explains reality better than Atheism'

okay thank you everyone for coming and thank you to Corpus Christi for allowing us to use the auditorium I'll get straight to it and introduce the speakers so on my far right is Collin brewer he's a retired psychiatrist an ex research fellow at Birmingham he's a medical journalist and author of several books he's written for The Spectator The Guardian and the new humanist journal and he has a keen interest in history in the history and origins of religions alexsei corner to my right is an Oxford University student here with us he's got an extremely popular YouTube channel and on which he discusses politics philosophy science and religion to my far left is Mahanagar job he's an academic researcher and so asked in London and he's also studied in multiple Islamic institutions I see Mohammad is a kind of public debater he roams around London locking horns with Jews Muslims Christians and atheists alike and as I'm sure you know will attest have you seen his YouTube channel and there's a most productive conversation who's had Abdullah an hour and the Lucy is an international activist for Islam analyst and Affairs he's given extensive talks and written articles rationally critique critiquing secularism liberalism's secular democracy and materialism he's also the co-founder of the public discussion forum the Muslim debates initiative and that promotes open dialogue and critical thoughts and without further ado I'll ask one of the proposition to step up supporting the motion Islam explains reality better than atheism okay [Applause] the name of God the gracious the merciful like to faint Knox's forum and my fellow panelists for facilitating this debate and everyone here for attending I used to be Christian my mother was Catholic and my father was secular I went to a Church of England school and learned the basics of Christian belief however with there being so many belief systems I asked myself a question how did I know I was born into the correct one would I have been something different if I was born and raised elsewhere I then studied every belief claim or worldview I could find to discover the ultimate explanation for all things in doing so I found that many explanations couldn't account for many things that I could observe or prove themselves false or fell apart due to their own self contradictions or contradictions between what they say and reality for example I encountered Trinitarian Christianity which argues that God is both one and three and that the infinite immortal God is also a finite mortal man I encountered polytheists who argued that there are many gods some eternal some who popped out of nothing who are all infinite but have created and finite human or animal forms suffer ignorance tiredness and even injury some Pacific island religions consider volcanoes who created their Island and whose sent sediments make the ground highly fertile for cultivation to be also eternal and divine I've also found that many atheistic positions are not any more special or more coherent than these for example many materialistic worldviews argue that the universe which we see is for which is finite limited and changing is also somehow infinite and eternal at the same time you just can't see it other atheist positions argue that the universe ultimately popped out of nothing or b8 with precisely measured amounts of energy but no cause to determine that measure of course there are also atheistic world views like types of Buddhism which goes to show that atheism doesn't preclude spirituality just God when I encountered Islam I found something different that Islam describes God as a being of infinite or inexhaustible power and who possesses intentionality or will he has no human or animal attributes forms nature's or appetites Aslam teaches that God is genderless does not experience Tidus or ignorance and exists without peer surah a class of the cry makes clear miss Merriman rahim who Allah who I had say God is one Allah who summit their self-sufficient lamby Allah dwell amulet he does not reproduce nor was he reproduced while an Akula who could for one I had there is nothing like him which means he is without partner because if there were other infinite gods they would all limit each other and would not be infinite or gods at all this is the Islamic concept of God a pure indivisible oneness a cause and initiator for all things a divine unity behind the multitude of created things and it is the only explanation that is without contradictions and circular reasoning and does not need to appeal to any mystery to hide faults it simply doesn't have its lom's message to mankind is to avoid the error of mixing the infinite and the finite together and creating false idols by attributing to limited and finite things the attributes that belong only to the Creator and vice-versa instead Islam asked mankind to recognize the infinite alone as the ultimate creator of all things who is separate from his creation and not like it is this a god peculiar to Islam no anyone on earth today or in history who worships an infinite unlimited creator who willed all things into existence and it does not resemble any finite things or creatures worships the same God we do whatever religion they call themselves islam teaches that it is not something new but mean a reiteration of the same message that has been repeatedly sent down to mankind throughout different times and places producing commonalities in many religions throughout history now to retire to the debate Islam explains rarity better than atheism some might say well atheism doesn't seek to explain anything it's only a lack of belief of God or rejection thereof but atheism is denial of the existence of God carries the minimum corollary that reality is completely explainable without God and they'd be wrong in my estimation there are four aspects of reality they're only Islam's concept of God can ultimately and soundly explain while atheism cannot do so without falling into self contradiction and these aspects are change matter finitude and specificity atheism rejects the only sound explanation for change if this moment depended on an infinite number of previous moments and movements we'd never exist or get here if I were to say that my opponents can begin their speech after an infinite amount of time they would never have the chance to start their speeches as an infinite amount of time can't end or even begin if you could think about it likewise if I asked a poor student my point they know in particular for one pound and he didn't have it and he asked another who was equally poor and so on and so on I'd never get that one pound until the chain of students found at least one student who had one pound to begin the chain of lending and eventually get to me now this is known as the infinite regress fallacy which is the same as asserting a beginning and no beginning at the same time it is a contradiction and therefore impossible the existence of change and movement requires a first mover there's no way around that and if there is and if it is the first mover it means it chose to move things without being moved by anything else therefore it has a will this is the key characteristic of God whose name is al moob T in the the initiator in the Quran to atheism rejects the only sound explanation for the ultimate basis behind matter if matter gets is at and characteristics because it is made from something more fundamental than it let's just say subatomic particles and forces ultimately quarks and bosons and these things are made of let's say quantum vacuum energy or fluctuations and in such thing or super strings one of the other for the sake of argument what is quantum vacuum energy or what are super strings if they even exist made of if something else and that's made of something else where does it stop if it has no end then nothing would exist it's like saying a branch is held aloft from the ground by an infinitely tall tree or a pond has no bottom to hold up the water despite the water being at a specific level the fact that anything exists and continues to exist proves there must be something fundamental that is supporting all these things that itself isn't made of anything else and has no parts and therefore is self-sustaining the Quran calls God a Razak the sustainer at hearted the preserver our summered the self-sufficient 3 atheism rejects the only sound explanation for finite things if something has size shape charge or a specific characteristic what determined these limitations in the first place if it were determined by a finite thing outside itself an efficient cause going on forever it's an infinite regress fallacy if it was determined by the building blocks inside itself a material cause going on forever into smaller and smaller blocks it's another infinite regress fallacy the only possibility left is that all forms and limited characteristics of all finite things were ultimately created by something that has no finite limitations itself as ie something infinite which has no limits that need determining by something else and therefore is the ultimate or necessary thing and it creates all other things the Quran calls god al Halep the creator for atheism rejects the only sound explanation for the specificity of finite things things in the universe including the magnitude of the forces of gravity strong weak inner force and electromagnetism and the amount energy contained in the universe are specific to a certain magnitude sized quantity and quality considering that the universe could have one quark more than it has the question is what determined it would be one way and not another perhaps the conditions prior to the universe's emergence shall we say led to the conditions we see now but this only shifts the burden of explanation further along the chain what then determined that precise pre-existing conditions before the universe that led to our universal media the way it is if we invoke an infinite chain of pre-existing conditions to explain our current condition or the condition or the emergence the universe this is yet again another infinite regress fallacy I'm afraid the only remaining explanation is that something ultimately chose or determined by its will all things to be the way they are the Quran calls God al misawa the shaper Islam posits that God ultimately created and sustained all things he is infinite unlimited and self-sustaining and he along he alone measured out the numbers of things and apportioned all the regularities or what you call natural laws behind all things it is the Islamic concept of God that not only explains reality better than atheism but it is the only explanation ultimately that can explain reality that we see which does not possess self-contradictions circular logics or appeals to mystery or blind faith the arguments of a theist in my experience are no different to those I've encountered from polytheists Trinitarians or volcano worshippers atheists just call their God the universe which essentially is just a bigger volcano thank you [Applause] thank you Abdullah can I have someone from side opposition to go and speak thank you [Applause] well good evening everyone I'd also like to extend my gratitude a also farm for making this happen I did have some things to say in preparation but one thing that we have to understand before we can even begin this discussion is a core is the concept of the burden of proof I did have some things to say like like like I'd like I mentioned but I think I'd rather just tackle some of the misrepresentations I think we've just seen of the position of atheism the first is a rather important case which is do we actually have anything to prove as as non believers in God atheism as Abdullah quite rightly suggests is thought of by many as simply a lack of belief in God and the point was raised that no that can't be the case because a lack of belief in God entails some belief in the opposite or at least a belief in in a universe that can be explained without God this isn't the case atheism is a claim to belief a it comes from the Greek a meaning without the Oz meaning Ghana simply means living a life without the influence of a God it's not an active position to hold many people would call it agnosticism because we're simply saying well there's no good reason to believe in a god but we're not saying that we believe there isn't one but agnosticism is a claim to knowledge Gnosticism is knowledge theism is belief I simply say I don't know therefore I don't believe whereas the propositions seem to be an obscene thing to have to say that they also don't know because nobody can know for certain and yet they do believe and what we need to see tonight in order to agree with the proposition and have them win the debate is the reason why they're able to take that extra step that we simply can't so let me explain with an analogy that comes from a friend of mine called Matt Dillahunty who has given the example of a Gumbel a jar of gumballs what is it what's essentially happening here is we've got a jar of gumballs and we have no idea how many gumballs are in the jar and the people to my right are pointing it and saying there are an even number of gumballs in that jar I say you have no good reason to believe that I don't believe you and they say oh so to you money that entails that you think there's an odd number well of course it doesn't it just means I don't believe that there's an even number just because I don't believe that there's a god doesn't mean I do believe it there's not one and that's an important point to make clear because it demonstrates the fact that the burden proof lies with the proposition if you ladies and gentlemen are not convinced by either side and the debate this evening then the default position has to be atheism the default position has to be there's no good reason to believe either way and so we simply don't believe in Islam that's why the title of the debate is something of a false dichotomy but the burden of proof certainly lies with the proposition but that's not a problem because there was some there were a number of arguments but forward in an attempt to try and fulfill that proof which it's worth briefly briefly touching on for instance when you bring up the point Abdullah about matter you ask the question what are super strings made of talking about I presume the kind of quantum strings that are thought to be according to string theory at the basis of the universe and you say essentially or one of these made of them and what would that be made of them would that be made of well the answer is quite simple it's I don't know and neither do you and that's the point neither of us know and so I'm simply saying that because we have no reason to know what's at the basis of this reality what's at the basis of matter the best thing we can do is throw up our hands and say until good evidence comes along to believe that it is due to some kind of divine supernatural creator let's not do so and certainly that's not instill that that supernatural creator with certain qualities that are naturally for faith that you can't even you can't take that extra step before you've made made the first also in point of on the point of change you talk about infinite regress which is problematic of course the problem of everything needing a cause everything needing an explanation for his existence whether you frame it as a contingency argument or a cosmological argument of course trivially applies to the creator himself or course the creator of course unless you adopt something of a Kalam cosmological argument that says that well we're not talking about everything needing a cause because of course like I say it would trivially trivially include the creator of the universe instead it's things that begin to exist they need a cause it's things that have some kind of that that have some kind of cause that brings them into existence fact of the matter is we have no experience with that you say that there are there are atheists who believe that things can come out of nothing there's no good reason to think that something can't come out of nothing people often say it's ridiculous to suggest that something can come from nothing you're not all worried that a hippo has just materialized in your living room while you're out here but your living room isn't nothing in fact there's no nothing in the universe Lawrence Krauss has shown that if you take away or written that if you take away every piece of matter from a finite space and you remove not just the matter but the radiation and and everything that we can conceivably call matter it still weighs something now that might be a practical limitation perhaps there is nothing somewhere and we just haven't been able to access it or or create it by removing the sufficient matter in the universe but the fact of the matter is we have no experience with nothing and so to say something can't come from nothing is an unjustifiable claim we've never had any nothing to try it with in fact the only time there was nothing if there was nothing ever at all must have been before the universe was created and so the only thing that has actually begun to exist in any meaningful sense is the universe itself and if the argument is that everything that begins to exist has some kind of cause and so the universe must have some kind of cause well everything that begins to exist is the universe so when you say everything that begins to exist needs a cause you're just saying the universe needs a cause and the conclusion is of course that the universe has a cause and that's the definition of a circular argument now that's the first point the the second thing I'd like to do I'm not sure how long I've been up in now I haven't got over a good time five minutes okay so about halfway through so let me let me put you some of the things that I was thinking of putting forward did I not have anything to respond to in the propositions case I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of discussion of metaphysics this evening there's going to be a lot of discussion of arguments for the existence of God the existential arguments let's call them and so I wanted to take a brief moment to bring up what might seem like in a relevancy but is certainly not Islam teacher so there is an objective basis to morality in the world that when you say something is right or wrong that is a true statement and that's as true as something like the the proposition that the Earth orbits the Sun it is a matter a fact and that means that part of the reality that we're trying to describe with the Islamic world view is moral realism there has to be moral truths that are as real as the metaphysical claims that it's making well that means ladies and gentlemen is that if you find moral claims within the doctrines of Islam that you don't agree with then you don't agree with Islam so I want to consider some of the moral elements of this religion and see if it's something that you would be able to throw away behind there are of course many many examples that I that I could choose from but one of the most important areas and one of the most often spoken about areas is the treatment of women now this is problematic because a lot of the time people will point to practical examples they say look at Saudi Arabia women weren't able to drive until very recently but this is ridiculous Saudi Arabia can quite easily be shown to not be a real is Islamic state and it's very easy to make a case that that's the state and not the religion so let's turn to the doctrine itself let's turn to the scripture what do we find well there's a very famous verse in the Quran and I'm sure this is nothing that the proposition hasn't come up against before but I'd like to hear some kind of justification for these things and I'm sure they'll be able to provide them the in the Quran Sura 4 verse 34 I'm sure you're familiar with is the verse which I'll quote you and men in men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth so righteous are women who were devoutly obedient guarding in their husband's absence what Allah would have them guard but those wives from whom you fear arrogance first advise them then if they persist forsake them in bed perhaps this isn't the thing about women perhaps this is just a thing about violent behaviour just about striking people who were disobedient and they're not even disobedient to the husband but disobedient to God if someone's being disobedient to God then they need to be set right and perhaps the only way to do that sometimes is with physical violence well okay if that's the case then let's look at a comparison from hadith reported by al Hakim on disobedient men so this is in reference to why it's talking and talking about their husbands she should not beat him in case she is stronger than he if he is more if he is more in the wrong than she she should plead with him until he is reconciled if he accepts her pleading all well and good and her plea will be accepted by Allah well if he is not reconciled with her her plea will have reached Allah in any case so if a woman is disobedient to a man or disobedient to a god whichever frame you whichever framework you want to think about it the first thing that the wife should do if the man is disobedient is to try and talk him out of it and if that doesn't work it's not a problem because I was gonna hear it anyway but if a wife's disobedient to a husband then surely he should she should still try and talk her out of it but if that doesn't work well then you can strike them seems to be a bit of an inequality here and that in quality in equality is only highlighted when we look at the rest of that same hadith it's preceded by the following it is not lawful for a woman who believes Allah to allow anyone it is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah to allow anyone in her husband's house while he dislikes it okay well back in the times that this book was written men were primarily the owners of wealth so it makes sense if the man is Ian's property perhaps it should be his decision he was allowed on the property that's not so much a problem but let's continue she should not go out of the house if he dislikes it and should not obey anyone who contradicts his orders it's getting a bit more questionable now and to finish off at the very next sentence says she should not refuse to share his bed and you can take that to mean what you will I'll remind you that if you find any of this objectionable then you should find objectionable the doctrines from which they spring another thing I'd like to talk about and I'm certain because I've certainly seen this in each I'll respond to this in the past and is something I'd love to dive into it's the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha as certainly the Muslim members of our audience this evening will be aware of but perhaps not everybody Muhammad while in his 50s married a young girl called Aisha and I say young she was six at the time 16 or 60 but six now of course he didn't he didn't consummate the marriage when she was six years old that would be quite outrageous he waited another three years until she was nine the proposition has to defend the idea that was ever morally permissible and I think that's my time is that my time well that's all I've got but believe me I have more so we'll leave it for the rebuttal station first day of Ramadan for us and we're happy to have you now come here Mian Abdullah lacks you've come here to refute magic wait a minute what did you say let me say that one more time we've come here to refute magic it's actually a an interesting magic trick where there is no bunny there's no Hat and in fact there's no magician at all it's the proposition that something can come from nothing not only from nothing ladies and gentlemen but from nothing and by nothing the Koran says I'm holy comb in Whalley shade in a moon holy porn I'm Holocaust are aware tea well a ballet opinion what they created from nothing or were they themselves the creators of themselves now we've heard Alex today for the second time I've heard him say this he says that the universe may have come into existence from nothing minute 14 to 15 in his video does the universe have a cause he says when the universe came into existence it well and truly came into existence from nothing now wait a minute ladies and gentlemen I have a challenge that's an active claim he said I'm here to make any active claims sorry that is an active claim look at the syntax of that particular sentence you're saying the universe came into existence from nothing don't don't pretend to be passive oh I don't know no you do know you're making a statement either you know what you're saying when you don't tell me how the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing exnihilo I want to know tell me how that's possible metaphysically ontologically cosmologically from first principles give me the answer please but it's interesting because in his other video something from nothing where he was debating the contingency argument with a fellow American or an American man minute 48 he says this listen to this he agrees with the the radio guy that was speaking to him that the universe is a necessary existence who a a minute wait a minute what's going on here ladies and gentlemen what does necessary existence mean and necessary of a necessary fact is a fact that cannot be any other way two plus two equals four that's eternally going to be the case so a necessary existence is a turn it cannot be any other way so even if the universe is eternal how could it come from nothing contradiction it's a contradiction you can't have it both ways my friend this is what atheism leads you to contradictory set of propositions either you have your cake or you want to eat it what you're going to do with it tell me now that the universe come from nothing if so how so that's an active claim is the universe and necessary existence if so how so that is an active claim is it eternal just come up please don't pretend to be innocent and agnostic number two you could say no there's a multiverse or there's an eternal fabric or there's an eternal universe what a multiverse has the propensity of being any other way and I'm sure you study philosophy you know what you're talking about a possible existence or in a contingent existence is defined by being able to be rearranged in any other way if it can be arranged in another way it's not necessary it's possible or contingent it's not necessary so a multiverse cannot be necessary existence because it can be arranged in another way it can be out of existence so wait a minute this is very important guys hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on you agree that there should not be ought to be unnecessary existence if you agree with me on that then you're not an atheist because the necessary existence is the Islamic definition of God Paul who Allah who I say he is one and only the self-sufficient be independent meaning the necessary existence lamian it well emulates he baguettes not nor is He begotten meaning he's eternal if you say that there's a necessary existence you cannot say you're an atheist from an Islamic perspective and from a philosophical one moreover we have to ask a question now we're talking about Islam so why is Islam Allah different from any other religion because Islam talks about one necessary existence one independent one self-sufficient not 3 & 1 1 & 3 not a triune God not a multiplicity of gods a plethora of God's not a pantheism and by the way I have to make this clear now it was a bit of a straw man argument because Alex came up and says Abdullah said and the universe has a cause he never said that in the statement but he had this pre you know written things we never used the word course you can have a necessary existence you can make it ontological argument for a necessary existence without causation at all there's a difference between possibility and contingency on the one hand or Nessen necessity and causation you don't even need to you can have it you don't you don't believe in causation food universe a fallacy of composition have it no problem you have to explain how there can be a world with only possible existences how can there be a world with only possible existences if you say there can't be and we're happy to say there's a necessary distance you're no longer an atheist or an Islamic perspective because you believe in it independent self-sufficient thing that everything depends upon and that is the ultimate explanation for all of all of existence now a secondary point we need to make is that Islam the concept of God the Tao hate the monotheism is something not only intuitive but is something as we've seen that can be reasoned from first principles ladies and gentlemen and that's why already when we just look at the concept of God so many of the major world religions are ruled out Christianity is ruled out Hinduism is ruled out I would say Sikhism is ruled out why because of that pure monotheism that that respectable monotheism that Islam has to offer but in addition to that as Abdullah alluded to the meta-narrative of there being many prophets aforetime many of them with the same message of Islamic monotheism believing in one God worshiping one God it's something which can be seen in the religious books what Abraham said what Moses said what do they come and say even according to Old Testament literature calling the people to monotheism so aslam also has an inbuilt system of falsification works in a similar way to science in many ways for challenges which I'm happy to take questions on the questions of artha or in a cross-examination one if this book was from other than God the for ancestor by itself there would have been many contradictions chapter 4 verse 92 number 2 the inevitability challenge try and produce something like it and there is a quantifiable way of doing so much we can talk about in the question analysis number 3 that Islam makes predictions about the future and specifies time in place and it's this is my claim it's the only religion to make a series of predictions about the future none of which have not materialized whereas it was anyone you want to mention who makes predictions of the future at least some of their predictions will be falsified and I'm willing to be tested on this test it is falsifiable and in fact this falsifiability is even stronger than a scientific one why because in scientific falsifiability m thing is susceptible to falsifiability everything that's done now if I do a scientific experiment now it can be falsified but with a retrospective perspective a hindsight perspective if predictions have been made of the future we can see whether those predictions are right or wrong and we could talk about those predictions of there's a book coming out called the forbidden prophecies by IRA that's going to be something which details that case in detail now the interesting thing is you have a nihilist someone who does not believe in existing - he's leaked substantial nihilist whose cosmic skepticism existential nihilist amoral - he is an epistemological Nilus he doesn't even believe the morality and he's making a moral case today I mean I don't know how this works I really don't know he says I subjectively value my liberty in one of his videos the moral argument one hour 16 minutes tell me how from first principles Liberty works is it not based and predicated on a fictitious hypothetical mythological state of nature detailed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and those individuals where's the scientific evidence for that why do you believe that why'd you bring the quality John Locke established his equality on the hedonistic principle and on a theory of God now you're an atheist trying to find from first principles why I believe in equality we as Muslims don't believe in second wave feminism simple as that yeah there's some things in Islam which are different for men that women why do I say just find myself to you you have to justify why that equality of the six that Eurocentric understanding of equality of second wave feminism in the 60s that emerged is the objective morality that's you that's an active claim that you've made you have to substantiate it but listen to what he says in his video my problem with Sam Harris the morality can I finish off if you go to Somalia and tell those women why do you put those women in bags they'll accuse you of cultural imperialism so why you asking the women if they've been put in bags what kind of discussion is that what kind of sanctimonious Orientals understand Authority is that you have to first prove your morality your objective your subjective Morales believe in objective morality don't ask me about morality you don't believe in it prove it there's an active claim and with that guys I want to say one last thing which is that he made an egregious claim in one of his videos called the liberal hypocrisy of Islam he said Islam is a racist religion and I will tell you that Islam is the only religion in the ancient religion in the world which completely negates racism look at chapter 49 verse 13 of the Quran look at the Prophet said there's no virtue of a black man or a white man I will not Arab now he's got three options option 1 to retract the statement option 2 yes option 2 to provide the evidence or face public humiliation today and there's no fourth option so don't make plans about variety and about Islam if you haven't even read the Islamic literature and you don't know what is in its contents sorry for the and or its acquire you know performance but it's a very strong it's a passionate topic for us I hope I'm thanking everyone here and I also thank cosmic skeptic for coming and for once speaking to the Muslim community rather than about them thank you very much for listening [Applause] [Applause] I'm a bit of an amateur at this these guys are all more less professional I wish I was a certain of anything as the people on this side of the table seem to be oh absolutely everything I won't start by not singling out Islam particularly because Islam is just one of those monotheism's that seems to find atheism terribly worrying they all whether whether the theistic religions believe in one God or many gods they're terrified of people who don't believe in any gods and when they have the power to do so and in the case of Christianity when they had the power to do so they routinely tried to silence people like me by at best by censorship at worst by imprisonment exile or execution and there's nothing particularly Islamic about this Christianity was executing people just for being the wrong sort of Christian before Islam was a twinkle in in Mohammed's eye and they continued to do so until 1826 which was when the Spanish Inquisition executed its last victim here I want to approach you a couple of worried Christians talking about atheism in the 17th century one of them was a both French theologians one of them said I am afraid that atheist writings will disclose thoughts to me that would throw me into a fear from which I would not be able to return and his contemporary Andre Babi Yar said that for such skeptics there is no punishment violence at our for so dark a crime even in our own relatively tolerant country when Parliament was open to people who were not members of the Church of England yes who came last first of all they let Catholics in about 1829 they let the Jews in about 1850 they let atheists in about 1880 so Christianity no longer has any power to liquidate people who question it and almost everybody in Britain and most civilized countries is pleased about that I'll explain what I mean by civilized in a moment Islam has not lost that power not only that but many people in Islamic countries and in some Islamic countries most of the people are very pleased that it has the power to do very nasty things to atheists the Islamic countries were the only ones who refused to side in the part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that said that that deals with freedom of religious belief including the freedom to change your religion or not to have one and that's why I think that such countries are in one very important sense not totally not altogether civilized last year I was asked by the professor of English at the University and one of the more liberal Arab countries if I would write an article for his small Arab language departmental journal on Sigmund Freud's use of language it will be published soon and I'm very proud it'll be my first work to be published in Arabic but it has one very important their mission soon after I started writing it I thought I'd better check with him whether it was ok to mention that Freud was an atheist he said if you do that they will immediately closed down the journal and possibly my department as well you don't really persuade me that you get a better grip on reality when you spend your time trying to stop people from giving their views on various aspects of reality and when you outlaw discussion about what reality might mean and whatever we mean by reality yes there are two broad types around see what is historical reality which means an attempt to find out what really went on in the past and the other sold reality is current reality things that we can examine question now so let's deal with historical ones first a few years guys on holiday in Morocco and we hired a driver to take us around and it was quite a long drive he was he'd been to University in Britain his English was excellent and naturally enough we the discussion turned to Islam and he was very keen to tell us in his thoughts and I learned from him that it is completely wrong that Jesus was the son of God and that he died on the cross now these are the fundamental tenets of Christianity you don't get any more fundamental than that and he said that probably and this is a certain amount of debate about this in my Islamic scholars but it may be actually Judas suitably disguised to died on the cross now not being not being a theist I I don't particularly care which of them is right they cannot both be right either Jesus died on the cross or he he does not die of the process of either he was Jesus or he was Judas but they cannot both be right they can however both be wrong and that that is the problem when you start insisting that things written in ancient documents must be believed without any question there is actually a lot of questioning to be done about the origins of the Quran there is very little documentary evidence about for about two hundred years Christianity is bad enough because there is nothing about Christianity dates from earlier at about forty to six years after the crucifixion and we know how difficult it is to be certain about events that happened 20 30 years ago people have ferocious arguments about the Second World War about various other wars that have happened since so when you're making claims with the kind of certainty we have seen from this side of the table about historical events when even the history of the Koran is shrouded in quite a lot of mystery and when you threaten people with with serious sanctions if they try and do research on it that to me does not say very much about your desire to get to grips with reality it was not permitted to do serious historical research on the Bible until about the end of the 18th century you could still be sent to prison in Britain for denying the Trinity as late as about 1812 but eventually in the 19th century serious higher criticism as it was called of the Bible appeared and now people are very much less certain that everything said in the nude in the older New Testaments is actually true in every respect put it mildly the Catholic Church didn't allow that until about 1941 and Islam does not allow it still Islamic scholars have found their careers seriously threatened if they really tried to get to grips with some of the mysteries of the early versions of Koran and so forth so let's turn now to how am i doing for time that way oh all right I didn't hear the halfway mark let's turn very quickly then to reality as is current a few yes I got into some discussion with a doctor magic at me describes himself as spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association of the United Kingdom our medical ethics and we I was interested about Islam's line on abortion and he wrote to me saying because obviously what are the issues in abortion is when when does the fetus become become human when does the fetus be gained the kind of status where his destruction becomes increasingly important and he said at six quoting him directly at six to seven weeks of pregnancy the soul is breathed in in the body of the fetus divine human life starts when the embryo turns into a fetus okay so that's readily clear it's not a human being until until it turns into inter fetus at this critical stage is absolutely forbidden to interfere with this new sacred life one can call the fetus here a person a human in divine however there's wide muslim opinion in the muslim world considered by many muslim scholars in the past and some of them say that insolvent occurs 120 days after conception personally I and other Muslims do not agree with this view based on the wrong Arabic interpretation of one sake of the Prophet and then he said this important saying of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him when 42 nights have passed over the the north not far the fertilized egg Allah sends an angel to it who shapes it and makes a tearing vision skin flesh and burns and then he says o Lord is it male or female and your Lord decides what he wishes and the angel reportedly gives the reference and they had it so there it is forget all that ludicrous stuff about Y chromosomes and gender it's Allah what does it it and maybe someone should ask the Muslim Council of Great Britain if they really want someone like that advising the modern medical matters yes I will intercept thank you [Applause] [Music] so so basically I think maybe my colleague is used to debating perhaps some certain Christians and what-have-you I'd like to think that perhaps we were a slightly different breed in terms of our approach or flocek approach I don't think he dressed actually what I said and I think straw man my argument but for example I'll give example so I never said everything that begins to exist has a cause I never used that because the you can always say well how do you know everything does begin to exist and that would require empirical verification which is what I never that's why I never said it in the first place I merely posited that ultimately and I don't know where the where this ultimately is I just said ultimately there will be a cause I don't know how old the universe is maybe we've been through a couple of you know six or seven big bangs and big Crunch's and until getting to this point of course universe is everything that exists I merely said that at some point it has to start somewhere because an infinite regress would mean there would be no change no creation nothing and the same for things like what matter is composed of I never made an assumption that it is quantum vacuum energy or super strings which lobby a lot of scientists now doubt the idea of super string theory bit of fantastical but but I just posit those those two let's say whatever you want the question all can always be asked what are they made out of what are they made out of if their attributes come from what's something what they made out of for example then what can you you can what can they made out of until you get to the point where there must be something that's fundamental fundamental substratum that supports all year at his existence and if it's fundamental and it's necessary then it wouldn't be limited and it would be self sufficient because it wouldn't require anything prior to it or underneath it or further more fundamental than itself so these are kind of the arguments I made but I guess just to kind of reframe this discussion in terms of what I mean by atheism while I mentioned the term atheism you're right atheism isn't a belief but I posited that it carries a necessary corollary something attached to it which is if you don't believe in God's existence not that you may be just it's just your default no if you don't believe it's God's existence that means that your worldview does not require you to posit God to explain things I mean really posited that reality imposes certain problems if you want to keep God out of that discussion because ultimately you can't explain cause matter specificity or limited finite things and my explanation isn't one where I've known I know stuff because I've observed it is that God is the only explanation to avoid self-contradictions and that's pretty much it like like I'm saying if we take two and we add two I know that this will equal four because taking the premises the conclusion must follow so likewise I know that the premises are the existence of finite things that's the premises so I know that eventually at some point it must follow that there must be a beginning point a creating point start point and a fundamental subscribe him that's supporting all things even though I don't know where there is where the boundary that is that's my argument you could you put that into the doctor form in the deductive form Wow so two plus two equals four is a deductive for Miss apprentice and a conclusion it's not deductive form to say there is matter and matter must have a beginning what's the what's the deductive argument there well for example well it's the avoidance of contradiction because Judas plane so if I was to say two plus two equals six right and six meaning what we what we conventionally understand six to be we know that was wrong because of contradiction so my point was that if you were to say well before before this point in time there was an infinite number of moments or movements I would say we would never reach this point in time because it would be a contradiction asked the I think you know what I'm saying you're trying to say you want us to say everything that begins to exist has a cause no that's not necessarily the kalam that's not what I'm going with saying is that if you the reason why you can say the two plus two equals six is false is because you're right at least to a logical contradiction the reason for that is because it's essentially a logically valid argument with premises and conclusions and you can identify exactly how it contradicts you can put it into a truth table and show that yes it's tables precisely is it is a tautology in you and you can prove that deductively but there's no can you highlight precisely what the premises are and the conclusions are of your argument here so it does it because it does if you're going to say that it leads to contradictions if you don't agree with well it does because a new uniform of an infinite regress is basically saying that there was no beginning and yet we're explaining although there was no cause and we're explaining the course of things were explaining the beginning of things or explaining movement so there was no first movement but there is movement so it creates a contradiction in terms because in essence we rely on a pre-existing state or pre-existing conditions of movement and here ultimately there is no business you're saying there is no beginning to this pre-existing thing there's just eternal an eternal chain that there is no start and therefore it's the same as say nothing actually I'm trying to prove that we regret so I've got one statement too that can kind of summarize it for you anything susceptible to additional subtraction cannot be infinite okay okay so that's it doesn't need to be a deductive three-stage deduction that makes it right so now I'm just given one statement he what he's saying is that if you have an infinite thing and you add to it then there's the absurdity of adding to an infinite physical quantitative thing so you'd have to disprove that statement now we've made the statement anything susceptible to additional subtraction cannot be right cannot be infinite so in order for you to to prove your infinite regress if you wanted to prove it you have to prove or you have to show how it's demonstrably possible for something to have infinity as equality as well as addition and subtraction there as well no idea so then you can't really make anything I don't know but I'm not making a claim that's the thing so then why I were having this discussion because I'm opposing your claims well you can't oppose your claim is that it the all claim is that it requires it and I'm just asking you why that's I'm saying anything that is logical the idea that it is logically necessary to have causation or that they call they can't be an infinite regress no no I've just said the wife says this the same when I make anything susceptible to addition or subtraction cannot be quantitative quantitatively infinite yes you have to you if you're reducing that you have to disprove that how is it physically mathematically or otherwise how is it possible to have a quantifiable infinite which is susceptible to additional subtract as we have to do I've just made the claims brief the true and you failed to do the answer the answer is that you're right like these things are required okay according to the laws of logic and physics that are predicated on the existence of the universe and we're talking about the universe why is it pretty clear on the existence of us because can you prove it well no okay so it's a possibility right nonetheless an active claim which then it's not as amazing possibly so you know it's not a possibility if it's possibly true no it's not possible true why is it not possible because if the universe of possible existence then it cannot explain the existence of other possible existences if if there is a necessary did you gather Jonas on the page yes I'm asking if there's no you can you just that first this one friend to again if there is a necessary being or occurrence and that entails and which is what you admit and that M and that entails yet another occurrence no it doesn't intend if it does if I may just say I think the confusion is firstly I don't think all things require putting into a logical syllogisms yes I think it's necessary do it I'm saying that it does when you're making contrary propositions you don't doesn't a sentence could say that this sentence is false it creates a contradiction within the sentence without it being a logical syllogism you like that that I'm merely I'm merely pointing out that there are ultimately only two possibilities to two basic anything that you might observe which is finitely but they don't what have you which is either it was it was the result of something more fundamental than it or something with that that that is prior to it and if you ask well what was prior to and anything or is more fundamental to anything either it's something that's like itself as insight finite limited as well or something not the case not finite and not limited so I'm saying if we go down the pathway of just constantly insisting on there's a continual chain prior to this existence of finite limited things nothing would exist because that would cause an infinite regress fallacy went there by the competition is manifest as opposed to ultimately at some point saying well actually you know what at some point I don't know where but at some point there was a beginning of there was something that was not finite where bride doesn't have limitations and just to kind of justify to you limitations requires explanation something doesn't have limitations doesn't require expenditure but there's no limits for it to be there's nothing to create its limits for it to be explained by something else it still so far as explanation simple observation if you say God created all the next obvious question of course is who created God please let me finish and the second one is as I say you are talking the language of certainty what we have learned in the course of my lifetime is that the origins of the universe have been pushed further and further back in time it's a fascinating study I don't pretend to understand more than the average man on the street about it but to say that we clearly understand the nature of creation seems to me extremely arrogant and to pretend that you can speak with certainty about something like that I think is good admire they're not justified well I think it's a little arrogant to actually dismiss what we actually said because we never actually claimed that we know every tiny particle in this universe or how big it is or where it began we never actually said that so it is the I'm just saying that yesterday just saying that shows that you weren't listening to what we were saying and some people might say that's a arrogant - what I'm saying is very simply this creation or causation or whatever you want to cause it is too limit something to defy limitation that when you draw a circle drawing a limitation so limitations require explanation but if something has no limitation then there's nothing that requires it to be determined cuz it has no there's not there's no boundaries that existed it is it is fundamentally unlimited positive necessary being and say it doesn't require it I didn't say necessary I said but that's the opposite of limited no because limitations require explanation not not black they're off and limitation as opposed to what what was the positive not not being limited and what is something what is something that's not limited it's necessary because if it's not necessary that it's limited what's for the functional necessary cuz you keep using it incorrectly what's your understanding or necessary existence well you know you were talking about contingent things it's the opposite of that something you give it something that cannot have been differently and there's no explanation for it what outside of itself well I suppose okay so can you can you can you tell us how there can be a world with no necessary existence well who says well you said we're living in a world of possible or you said that we have to claim that we're living in a world of possible existence is you do you agree that there could be a explain that do you accept that there is a necessary existence I would say that yes then that's good that doesn't have to that does not it does not have to be here for us a necessary existence is something which is this is the perfect couldn't be another way explains everything else that's our definition of explains everything else because without this necessarily couldn't be any other way Oh Alex all contingent things depend upon it yes give me an example the contingent thing and it's this car how is it contingent because it could have otherwise not been in existence do you know speaking to a determinist fun yeah okay so what is the term so if if you said your and your thing sorry what the terminal yeah yes let me ask you questions and volume isolated but it will make sense go ahead if P entails Q go he is necessary yes is Q necessary no it's not no no no it's not just doesn't have to be if necessary so look to me explain why what we're doing here is we've said that these dependent contingent things as you're defining them do you accept that this cup could have otherwise not been in existence no so okay this that's what to tell it isn't it wasn't do you believe in the determinism yes and you said in your you said in your speech in your thing a universe from nothing you said that determinism comes from the necessary existence right yes forty-eight minutes in you said that one necessarily leads from the other are in other words determinism leads from necessary existence yes or no you said you said determinism leads from necessary existence okay I think we were talking about a different thing no no you said this and I can show so you know you said the University says it is hardly a semantic point scoring exercise it's not anything different by what you're no problem but you said this you said and you said matter you said determinism comes from the necessary existence what did I mean by that I mean two days ago the guy asked you is the universe would you agree with Bertrand Russell that the universe just is yeah and you replied and said yeah the fact that universal necessary existence the I would agree with that in the first instance and then he said how would that tie in with determinism you then said determinism follows from is that which follows the term doesn't follows from the necessary existence right I tried remember I was taught so I was I was the person was debating with the guy cool camera patootie yeah making the ket he was making the case with the contingency argument right I'm saying that there are contingent things in the universe and therefore he was using that reasons there's a god and I said that if that were the case yes that necessary existence the contamination would follow from that I was making okay so I did agree minute does it listen Alex I didn't say that it will agree with you on that point so this is the thing you agree with us on more points than you think you agree with us on you believe in a necessary existence which explains everything else necessary existence be careful as you said and necessary existence you are you retracting it I said that the are you attracting the universe there's not one unified necessary you said that the universe wasn't necessary because the universe follows a necessary causal chain okay so they said no you said hold on you said the universe isn't necessary existence and then you said determinism follows from that now I'm saying that okay if I said that and I meant what you think I meant by yes I retract it but it's attractive but I don't think that's what I think what it is alex is that you people can go oh so you were very good at making arguments against things I used to believe in oh nothing's even it because okay now it's perfect no it's important because if you feel changing you and I have reason why you've changed your thank you I was wanted so they do created God yeah well we have to actually ask the question why does anything need creation in the first place right it's a more fundamental question yeah so I mean I could take this clock but I usually sometimes I just take a stone or something and I say how do you know that this actually think was create over quite it to be quite a creation so if this thing was let's say eternal or let's say uncreated then why is it in this particular shape form and so on so forth that it didn't to choose if something was uncreated and nothing determined its limitations then it wouldn't have limitations which is my point so therefore it's it's it's kind of ridiculous to argue that God requires creation when he has no limits that require defined by anything to be defined by all determined by something else and that's why we know that anything is created it's only because it has limitations how long do you think God's being around for eternity well okay what I'll say is that they you know God is outside of time so there's no there's no pre-existent time before him right he's the beginning how do you know but but I you know what what kind of just you mention you mentioned in your presentation I just want to just be touching it before we do anything else which is you said that Islam is terrified of of a people professing atheism alright again I think that's I don't know what experience you've had maybe with from reading European history books but I said I suppose you should read books from about Mesopotamia and it's time I say five million that's like if I may just finish I'll let you respond so the Prophet Mohammad Ahsan had a famous debate with a Bedouin atheist right there was no intolerance there the bet did Betty when I first became Muslim but there was no intolerance just because the guy initially profess to be atheist um Abu Hanifah famous classical scholar in medieval Iraq Baghdad actually had public open air debate with atheists presumably there's atheists were living in Baghdad all the time to actually be invited to open air debates and no one killed them all was intolerant to them at all whatsoever and when you say Oh Islamist is terrified of atheists I just want to say something you're not special we encounter polytheists we encounter Christian Tura Trinitarians we encounter zoroastrians for our history and from our perspective you're all arguing exactly the same thing which is somehow the the finite thing is this is also infinite eternal and we don't really we don't really see you as different actually you're just an just another yeah yeah it's not a flavor of ice cream that we are basically encountering so I don't don't make yourself out to be what else more special than you are from the our perspective and as for their issue of tolerance of atheists I think you should question your founders of the very ideology which pervades the West liberalism John Locke in his letter on toleration argued that you should tolerate different Christian sects Protestants typically but not yes because you can't trust what they say they don't believe in any higher moral value or then mainly what is expedient Rousseau made also the same argument and some people say that under the current you could say a theistic idea as opposed to the natural rights arguments of John Locke but the Benthamite arguments of utilitarianism really morality is only based on expediency and then people's rights are based on whether it's expedient to the state to even tolerate your right so then it's not related to debate itself but the guy brought it up and it's really disingenuous to bring up in that kind of debate yes yes I mean I used to jesting that someone like Socrates was a deeply immoral man no I'm not saying it I'm saying John interest you seem to be implying no no John Locke said that you that you can't look past a theory on this earth all the differences that the things the things which our world view a bit based upon which are the philosophies of these men we can say that those areas of their philosophies were wrong John Locke said some pretty egregious things the entire list how can you do anything the differences we'll get to that the difference it's not something that you're wrong no III think I actually don't believe it different the difference is the difference is that you can't do the same thing when there is something immoral or even when there is something immoral in the basis if when there is something immoral that comes from somebody who founded the worldview that we believe in and something else unrelated ly that he said that no longer applies was wrong can you prove you something we can say that we disagree with or do we have to we can say that we disagree what he had to do the same so can you do the same thing you're making Annapolis immoralities in the Quran you can't make the same look we have just allowed you to speak and there were there were many times I could have interjected and asked you similar questions and you're making your to cooperate fallacy and you smart enough to know it you can't just turn around and answer a question for being immoral nihilus especially since i'm not one anymore oh you've changed your mind yours as well what what statement the ones that you said you're more right now what do you think moral subjective isn't mentally and means to me what do you think or say you're saying you can't say this because you're a moral subject to this in tomorrow yeah you're making a moral clip your father mojo does what is moral subject yeah so you don't have a victim or ally it's not for it's not fixed it's not true or false despite human thoughts or convictions that morality is true so it's only first class yeah my questions had asked one question then you can answer it my question is he's made it very clear on his public profile that this man is does not believe an object of morality why and how can you say this in one breath and then starting passing moral judgments which are based on liberalism can you explain how a theism accounts for that or how it doesn't I say that's a two o'clock a palace it's not a different place I see you as well it's simply saying well you do this too so who are you to speak that's not not doing it we are working on it your worldview your worldview claims that morality is objective and your worldview has objective moral statements like the ones I've highlighted it's your job to prove yeah that those can be coherent with objective morality God is all-knowing God said so that's what we believe anything God says is although anything God says it's more yes okay refute that please I don't know that's why I'm not trying to change your mind I'm I'm kind of talk for the audience and if you want to find moral precepts within Islam that they disagree with they have to disagree but if you have an all-knowing agency as you have said and said if God says something is moral then it is moral as that's what I say yeah and so if the people here this evening disagree with the moral precepts of the socialization of Islam so let's talk about that unless absolutely how do you know what God said well okay here to go back to our argument I said that we said that you have revelations of full time the final revelation is the Quran as a falsifiability test I gave you four things preservation intimate ability contradictions and I also taught you about predictions of the Quran and Sunnah now in order for you to say that the Quran is false you have to falsify it like a scientist would have to falsify theory for in order for them to say that that is wrong now if you can't produce any evidence for that then really you can't remain agnostic on the issue how do you answer how do you know that the words contained in the Quran were the words that were actually supposed to have been spoken to the habit by the angel Gabriel supposing that any of those in the modern world can I believe it yeah okay so first and foremost with regards to morality it's actually completely irrelevant in this debate concerning when we're discussing explanation of reality if you don't believe in objective morality then there's nothing to compare the morality of Islam with right just say that just as discordant with it yes right so I think it's a massive red herring and I think I think that friend of yours will talk about a few fallacies concerning bringing up in the first place you have to first present to us objective right imagery and then compare it to Islam's morality and say there's that they don't they don't fit can't and that's my point and also the fact that you say well if we don't like some morality in the back in the past or some basis or for just affirm rights in the past we can change it well that's what's scary because in modern was at 21st century Europe and of what one 20th century Europe need i say more people thought that morality of people's protections of rights and things were no longer convenient for the nation that the nation's security and then they prejudicially in a persecute certain minorities because it was no longer beneficial from their estimation there's no objective basis to argue against other than you say what I don't like or find it distasteful oh he did so that's that is actually scary that you don't have objective morality because there's no actual promise of of Rights that you can actually under right now as for the well no well yes I mean there are I mean you're asking a questionnaire you just okay the restaurant statement look the subjectivity of morality doesn't lie at the level of the act itself it lies at the level of the motivations I can say to somebody like we I I am a psychological headedness in the same way that nil was I can say it says I I know what people's motivations are ultimately speaking and I and there are objective facts to be known about how to achieve a goal so it's not a case mile subjective as Mills mill demand swim all objective is emit more immoral I said I'm a psychological utilitarian okay so Terry in like Johnson mill not just a utilitarian okay well I hope the audience can notice the difference in the level of interjection here like I'm trying to really listen to what you have to say but you've got to let me respond okay good psychological utilitarianism means that we can know what people's motivations are and I think we can there are objective things to be known about how to achieve those goals if somebody thinks that something is right and I think it's wrong it's not a case of throw your hands up in the air and say it's everybody's opinion that's not what moral subjectivism is that's confusing model subjectivism with moral relativism that's not what we're doing hold on those are not the same thing that can respond alright so Mill in Chapter four of his book on utilitarianism he actually gave us an exact way of identifying what he called the principle of utility yes and through that he talked about desirability and how when you see that something is desirable for someone then that is it that is an evidence that it's something which sport to be done okay now hold on you can check I've just given you a reference yeah you're injecting me as I am because I saw into the title the title I didn't say the audience can notice I'm not interjecting I said any owners can notice the disparity in it actually needed in the interaction here is the title of that chapter there was a reason why the title that chapter yeah it's not the proof of utilitarianism it is it is not it's like the title now it's a book the title of that chapter is the kinds of proofs to which utilitarianism is susceptible of the chapter is proof of your it's not you get you can check it now okay it is the types of proof that utilitarian is which is acceptable to John Stuart Mill wrote the book himself you can get the copy from Waterstones now everyone in the area can google it yes it's actually the title is proof of your talent our chapter four that's what people call it that's not what mill wrote no who calls at its height mill mill that no no you say mill doesn't call it the proof utilitarian that's what it's title he avoids it he does not sin name of the chapter mice not the name of the Jat [ __ ] get up yeah if you like to okay so I know it's got you terian is amazing it's a good why that's important the reason no I okay so just consumer easy right it's not movers oh okay I can see that point of view if he's right I can see this because I don't care if you're right or wrong about that it the thing that matters is the point that he was making and the point that he was making is that you can't prove utilitarianism because he's a moral nihilus in a sense but he said that there are certain proofs to which I'm prove it why me okay so because you can't prove that the point of mill maybe so it's a subjective the point of the mill mate was a visible thing which you brought up is that the only evidence we have that something is visible is that it can be seen that's what you said now we we can't prove okay there's some proof visible and we can use the same reason to understand more okay it's not one thing it's an end up one thing for someone who said that there are many things that you know you don't know in the universe and things that you can't presume yes for you to claim that you now know people's motivations with the same kind of certainty enough to make it but it derives an objective moral system yes it's somewhat of a contradiction there because everyone's motivations might be unique or different yes unknowable to you anyway certainly we never understand the viewpoint of a psychopath of Israel who has the inability to empathize yeah but look the study of course but to make a claim that basically that you can understand everyone's motivations or there is some kind of unique template of motivations that all human beings subscribe to or kind of can fit into is really convicting what you said early one saying that you don't actually know you don't make claims to know things which you don't directly about I make those and I also didn't say I do I do make more I'll see that that's not a problem I never said that I didn't I also didn't say that I don't make morality is it I also didn't say that you have to see things to be able to prove them oh okay so are the illusionary for you I would agree with that statement and right I'm agreement I'm still waiting for an answer to my question how you can possibly be sure that what are supposed to be the words spoken by God or rather by the angel Gabriel pointed out to Mohammed are actually the words spoken if indeed they were spoken at all okay so a couple days ago I presented a lecture on how do we know Islam is true when there's so many different let's say couldn't conflicting or competing belief systems in essence from every aspect from the deployment concept of God being a main issue which is what my presentation was trying to focus on the Islamic concept of God is almost completely unique to Islam with the possible exceptions of variations of Judaism and philosophers who've you know reflected upon the possibilities of what could exist and what create all existence and they've all come to the same conclusion just like good old the Greek Gunnarsson often is that they must be an ultimate craters infinite and he's unlike created things nothing is a famous Greek philosopher who believed that if he rejected polytheism and rejected idols that look like human beings saying if a cow had a God it wouldn't make the the gods to look like a cows so he didn't he was an atheist he just rejected polytheism and so we would basically kind of siloed that view but there's something a very specific question yeah about yes what the angel Gabriel is supposed to have said just to Muhammad how can you possibly know how can anybody possibly know that that was actually what happened how and if I let me just finish my point which is Islam is basically if you when I encountered it I encounter and I took it as a hypothesis for how to explain reality as one possible hypothesis after looking at different belief systems including or lack thereof and let's say atheistic positions and belief system naturalism or materialism communism and such and such I basically you know found contradictions and things that didn't make sense and it kind of almost had a process of elimination that Islam was the only one left that actually didn't suffer internal conditions both compared to the observable reality as well as within itself and that's very tough thing too it's a very tall order to actually achieve if you're not explaining what everything quite literally everything so oh and caveat not the particularity zuv things like you know how quarks and bosons in case you actually say oh I don't you're claiming to explain everything no but what I am what I notice is that Islam was the only one left and then after further investigation after I thought maybe it could have been a different way maybe if one particularly silent auction didn't exist or if it was a different way and I realized that that produces contradictions to the point that I came to the conclusion that Islam was the only possible explanation to explain reality which is why I was very thrilled to do this debate in the first place but you know but without going to things like the you know hell's existence and all this other stuff the main key selling point users who say oh of Islam of the hypothesis of Islam except in reality was its concept of God which is almost virtually unique to itself and it's just rationally consistent and coherent I didn't ask you about Islam's concept of God I asked you very specifically about how you can possibly know that the concept of God whatever it is that emerges from the Quran can have been dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel I take it therefore that you cannot answer that question thank you well it's kind of like the equivalent kind of challenge or you'll say me now we can discuss how do we know the mess the messenger that related the message is how do we know from from analysis of that that it's accurate but I wanted just to kind of that's what I'd like to know I know I know and I want to do a kind of a different angle to that question which is what got me into Islam in the first place well that's right different there let me finish sir well go me into Islam in the first place wasn't me looking at the claims or trying to go back in the time machine to find out if the problem have existed all the angel Gabriel came to him I looked at the message itself and the consistency of the message itself with the universe I came again led me to a conclusion that they both come from the same author and that's why I became Muslim in other words you can't possibly know we'll leave it to the audience to gentleman in the middle the word of reality in the proposition is very big word I think he might be productive to discuss five of reality interesting phrase it goes begets not nor has we go now that honesty raises for adjustments about believers I'm going to see nobody in this room denies the life forms have over time in the big question is was an agency behind that and speaking focuses is faulty okay so there's two questions there do you agree with the theory of evolution okay so do I believe this agency behind it okay okay so so in essence as Muslims we don't dispute what we observe from the universe the Quran tells us to observe the universe and to understand the how how God instituted things the mechanisms God put in place to bring things about so that's not a problem and we have no issue we have no truck with animal evolution and evolution of what we see my quadratic life and things like this there's no problem like this and changing but now for you to claim that the process of copying and mutation that occurs which to claim and call it faulty copying is actually making an assumption of teleological of Telos as the Greeks would say of intention that life has an intention to create perfect copies alright but if you if a person is a materialist let's say that you say that all things happen out of necessity right things just occur out of necessity and what I'm positing or what we would let's say view it as everything that happens all the mechanisms in life as well as in inanimate objects throughout the universe inanimate matter let's just say all these mechanisms have been instituted by God so there's no problem or conviction that we have with that at all whatsoever wherever the case might be wherever the science reveals all mechanisms were instituted by God yes let's have one question one answer yes could you speak up a bit which was that atheists aren't special and that Muslims have been debating Christians and Jews or Zoroastrians for years I come from a Muslim hands arrest really family I'm sure the local Catholics they're all Hindus were Jews thing is with Islam and atheism is Islam make some flames and atheism says we're not making claims with Islam and Christianity or Islam and Judaism Islam is making a claim Christianity is making a different claim Judaism is making a different claim they all evolved at different times Islam and Christianity in Judaism all make a similar claims but there are significant differences which are of a nature that is very very important for Muslims in that for Islam to be true it has to be able to show that say Christian claims well say Jesus being the Son of God on true so rather than attempting to argue against atheism how do you propose to suggest that Islam is right that the Quran is right yes on this side of the house there are two leaps of faith you ask God the second he's not God okay so we've already shown from first principles how it can be conceived or can be reasoned that unnecessary existence which all other existence depend upon exists and is in fact necessary for existence but in terms of the specific claim of Islam I'll repeat the challenge and obviously there are people in the audience here I've said to you before and I'll say again that Islam makes specific claims and challenges which are not found in other texts and this makes Aslam and its texts open to falsifiability for example number one is the preservation challenge chapter 15 verse 9 it says in the National Rosella the crow in the La Jolla - we have certainly sent down the book and we will certainly preserve it chapter 4 verse 92 the contradiction challenge for you know Lalaji luffy ft laughs and cathy they would have found in him any contradictions a third the third thing is the intimate ability challenge and we said before that this has quantifiable measures and I'll give you one exam that Quran was a circumstantial revelation and it was revealed piecemeal right so for bit by bit but despite the fact that the Quran was a circumstantial revelation and it was revealed piecemeal you'll find that there is an incredible knitted togetherness a consistency of coherence of the Quranic text which make it almost impossible I would argue that it would be would have been from human authorship for example the Quran in chapter 3 verse 59 says in the math Allah I signed the law he cometh alia damaja l'homme interurban Thumma Kalla who come for a [ __ ] that certainly Jesus is like Adam God created him from dust and said three and he was now notice it says he is like Adam and if you count the amount of times Adam is mentioned the Quran is 25 times if you count a lot of times that Jesus mentioned Quran it's also 25 times now this is one of I would say a plethora of examples which if you were to turn this into a probability machine you'll find makes it highly doubt about unprovable that this could have been done from someone who is being asked questions and answering in the form of revelation the fourth thing I mentioned was to predict the predictions of the Quran so for example the fact that the Quran in chapter 30 verses 1 to 6 predicts that Rome would be the Roman Empire beat the Persian Empire from 6 to 9 years and we have corroborating evidence from this from non Islamic sources for example Theo fears in the 9th century writes this down and so on now the thing is if you find all other this is my claim my claim is if you look at all other religions world religions if our predictions are made I will be able to find you and it's a challenge I'll put out there for everyone I'll be able to find you a false prophecy from the major world religions if someone claims to be a fortune-teller Nostradamus Charles Russell from the you know whoever it may be those individuals made a series of predictions some of which came true some of which did not now what I'm saying is quite bold I'm saying that the Islamic position is you will not be able to find one thing that the Prophet of Islam or the Quran says will come true that does not come true and from that we predicate our cosmological understanding that ok the hereafter which is something we can't see just like the futures unseeable is also going to be actualize materialized in the same way that everything else has so we have falsifiability test this falsifiability test is not in other scriptures and in order for you to disregard or discard the Quran and the Sunnah you first have to go through the process just as a scientist would of falsifying our claims thank you I mean I'd rather brisk move on to other questions but I don't think that I'd say internal consistency is certainly required to say that the Quran as a cure but it's not a sufficient ya set for things tells one yeah okay I would agree with actually yeah I don't think you actually responded properly to that question which is how can you how can you demonstrate but what is written in the Bible for example is not true when if what's written in the Quran contradicts it I gave as an example in my address the Islamic view that it was not Jesus who died on the cross how can you possibly prove that how could you know it even if even if it were even if it were so how can you possibly prove it how can you claim that anything like that it can be known with certainty and how can you show that the people who reported in the in the in the Bible were a rock you prefer can I save the record I I don't I don't think that's necessary to do because I have to be very capped with a burden of proof here which is then the the proof nice lie with person making the claim right the Christians claim that Jesus died and was risen they need to prove that the fact that I can't disprove it doesn't mean that I can't have a case against it I wouldn't know I mean I don't I don't think that the Christian claim is necessary any more credible than the Islamic one I don't think they could they're the Christians can prove it either that's what they believe but I don't think you could you could disprove it or or give a credible opinion one way or the other what I would say is Sony in science there's many hypotheses and hypotheses I suppose is a protection or a claim based on previous theory and people like to check out the claim to see if they are consistent with what they can observe so I don't I never had a problem with actually checking out someone's claims and seeing if there was a any proof and also if there was if it was internally consistent and my claim against Trinitarian Christians with all due respect to any Trinitarian Christian hickel's isn't they're not represent on this power of course is that I believe that it has internal contradiction between infinite immortal God and a finite mortal man who is also gone at the same time as well as belief in one and God is one and three at the same time and the crucifixion is really inconsequential to that matter cause it's just a historical happenstance or a claim over happenstance but I suppose really and just to kind of answer that that person's point in an unloaded and very very briefly if I may be permitted is upon the question of discussion of is their burden of proof the burden of proof on Arce's but I'm proving them and they're not saying you're making any claim so this isn't the better proof meant to be only on us I would say that everyone here has a burden of explanation an explanation of reality at least ultimately right citing the whole point about science is to try to seek to chip away at reality to uncover a local explanation for things but we're talking about an ultimate explanation things and I'm gonna make a very strong claim which is that only that the idea of an infinite thing which has will that can initiate by choice is the only possible ultimate explanation for all things that avoids contradiction any other possibility possesses contradiction right including an explanation of reality that does not require God any any more the prospect does not make sense other than an infinite power and world creator and that's my claim and the only thing and my proof of that is it's only one avoids contradiction and yet explains reality okay one to two-minute closing statements and starting with okay well can start with happy to do it would be very brief there's an old Russian proverb that says it is good to know the truth but it is better to be happy and when you're talking about reality reality can be very unpleasant religion is very bad for talking about reality but it's quite good for talking about happiness so if happiness is more important to you than truth then Islam like any other religion can protect you against it against reality otherwise I suggest you stick with reality may be unpleasant but it is actually what should guide you both sides thank you very much for attending and I look forward to maybe future discussions with all of you so I'll just kind of finish off by saying that I don't think my arguments have been my fault kind of problems I have posed to atheists to have been it kind of addressed the explanation for change matter finitude and specificity these things haven't been explained if this moment depended on an infinite amount of pre-existing moments with no beginning no start point then we wouldn't get to this point and of course there is a start point then the question is what's making this starting thing begin the chain of call or creation or causality or whatever will continuously whatever you want to call it well if it's something else then it's not the first thing so if it's initiating then it can only do so out of choice and that's the only explanation avoids any contradictions and I think I've kind of finish up by saying that I'm glad that science wasn't invoked necessary on either side to prove either side's point but I will say this is just a slight kind of interesting observation in the Quran commands Muslims to observe the world to see how God made and instituted things and Islamic science while science within Islamic civilization flourished because of it with the Islamic scientists ITIN the Quran as their motivation to understand God's will more the second holy book of Islam the universe that I out of Allah but there's no command and atheism to do so in fact you could be a solipsist a nihilist or an existentialist and not believe there's even an external reality in the first place so I think with atheism is not a question of of you know some is attached to science provided that atheism can't even justify an external reality to even investigate in the first place whereas Islam is a short of one okay you can you can also be an atheist and a horse rider they have nothing to do with each other atheism doesn't entail certain beliefs and like that you don't you can be a solipsistic atheist but you don't have to be a solipsistic atheist your rights say that the issues that we that you bring up especially the four points you make haven't been addressed perhaps they could have been if we could have gone to the end of a sentence but I think that likewise the challenges that I proposed that my opening statements weren't fully address the problems of morality and I hate I'd hate to compel or expect you to do so now in a closing statement that would be unfair but I hope that it hasn't escaped people that that hasn't been discussed and I think one of the reasons for that is because it can't be justifiably addressed although certainly mr. Jabez has tried to honor to two channels so you should go and listen to what he has to say I just have to say that appeals to to the fact that for instance you say you know that America had had laws that said you could get married at ten it's like yeah America was wrong and so was your prophet like the difference is that whilst we can progress morally as a society if we if we base it upon constitutions and say that the the moral issues that are infused within them don't depend on the person who's saying it or the fact that it comes from God that's a hell of a lot easier than when you come up against the moral at the possibility for moral progress with statements that come from the unalterable Word of the Divine creator at the universe and that's why I'd probably leave he had to I want to say okay let me add - you said want us to here's what I wanna say ladies and gentlemen you see this is the reality of atheism where you have a claim first of all from a nihilist someone who does epistemological nihilist and existential - a moral nilus someone who does not believe in value judgments saying you're right and you're wrong that's unfair and it's unsubstantiated that is an active claim that has not been able to show from first principles you see the thing is with atheists they like to make claims that they substantiates he said himself who can be an atheistic solipsist which means you can by the way what that means is you can believe you're living in a matrix world so if you can't even prove the external reality or even an absolute reality or even that rational faculties are truths reliable then why are you making a claim that atheism or trying to suggest that atheism potentially is better than it is slamming in understanding reality if you don't make that claim then you're conceding that Islam offers something whereas atheism by virtue of the fact offers nothing and to be honest with you I have to say I have to say I am actually convinced you know I have some doubts after this debate there's some skepticism I doubt the existence of atheism for atheists because if a theist now seriously because if a theist means someone who's lacking or disbelieving in God what is a God a God is an object of worship what is worship worship is ultimate obedience to an entity and I don't believe that any human being is not ultimately obedient loving submissive to anything fact like Abdullah said there polytheist that's what the Quran says chapter 39 verse 29 Allah says in the Quran [Music] Oh chi-su Navarro Jocelyn neeraja yes Joey masala & Handling when Axl on in a Canadian eatin some and opium iti yi-dao become deaf Justin get along ERT mischievously yeah ladies a teenager and well-meaning caffeine so allah subhanaw taala says in the quran he says not a belong metal and Allah has struck a parable rajala fe should I care a man who has many different slave masters what are jewel and Salomon neeraja and another person another man with only one slave master are they the same in comparison with each other alhamdulillah praise be to Allah well axillary al-amin nay most of them do not know you're gonna die ie prefer Muhammad and they are gonna die then you will be presented to Allah disputing with one another I am the day of judgement Laden says and who is more oppressive than the one who denies God's science and persistently denies his evidences when they are presented to him is there not in the Hellfire a resting place for the oppressors atheists have many gods Muslims are just telling atheist to redirect their veneration admiration and their worship instead of to the many gods to the one God and that that is our case and thank you very much for listening [Applause] thank you everyone for coming it's your long night a very enjoyable one thank you very much if you believe that you are done thank you you're going to do here thank you that's - wait you answer my question no no no because I'm sure [Applause]