According to philosophical reasoning, absolute nothingness (the absence of everything including time, space, and potentialities) cannot give rise to something, because nothing has no ability or potential to produce anything; therefore, the universe must have had a cause or creator, as it cannot have come from nothingness.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Atheist Forced To Rethink All His Beliefs | Mansur | Hamza | Speakers CornerAdded:
You have a dice which has one 2 3 4 5 6, right? It's a normal dice.
>> Yeah.
>> And you throw it every time and every time it comes with one.
>> He looks at it normal one. Everyone here throws it at one. No magnet, nothing. If everyone did that and we did that 20 times, it's one. Would you say this is just a luck or there's something fishy going on?
>> They'd have to check what table.
>> Exactly. So that's when the Quran gets everything right. when the possibility is it should got all of it wrong by guesswork only one chance to get it right and it gets all of them right so it's something else going on there not guesswork >> I think my investigation then would rest on I'd like to know what his knowledge was of the time then >> excellent that's the pre that's our point >> that I would be looking for environmental >> exactly all environment all the knowledge of that time in Arabia in in in Rome in Persia all around and you'll find the information that we are presenting to You information was not known.
>> Okay. Yeah. No, no one's going to laugh.
I think we're all on the same page, right?
So the reason the reason I brought up the example of a bag >> um Daniel the reason I brought the example of a bag is an illustration of many atheists in our experience and our experience are limited. So I have to give you a disclaimer don't use critical thinking they may be very familiar with the Tik Tok and how they operate and then they have a following and so on but that's all it is. They lack what I call essential property of critical thinking.
human beings we need to use critical thinking. But I see atheists in in particular as well as many other religionists other than Islam they lack critical thinking. So if we had used critical thinking we have come to the conclusion that our universe is rational. We can rationally explain it and there is a cause behind our universe a a reason a grounding to explain the existence of our universe and that is not the universe. There is a necessary being that explains the universe is not a necessary being. It's a contingent thing. Yeah. Critical thinking will lead us to this point. But atheist somehow in my humble opinion and limited experience they switch off in discussing this matter.
>> Hopefully Dan will be an exception to the rule. He he seems like it because you seem like you recognize that there are impossibilities in the world. There are certain things that simply can't be reconciled because definitionally they're at odds with each other. Let's test the waters then. Can something come out of nothingness?
>> I don't know. That's a hard question.
>> You don't know?
>> I don't know. That sounds like something for >> if you're thinking critically, what would be the answer?
>> Something to come out of nothing.
>> What is nothing for you, by the way?
>> Again, colloally.
>> I couldn't even begin to guess. No.
>> Okay. The absence of the absence of everything.
>> Absence of everything.
>> So what do the rocks dream of?
>> The rocks dream. I don't think rocks dream. No, >> they dream of nothing. They don't dream.
That's the nothing I'm talking about.
Nothing.
>> I don't think they have a consciousness.
>> Yeah. Exactly. So they don't dream. So that >> that thing that they don't dream nothing is what I mean by nothing. Absence of >> Yeah.
>> something.
If we exist now, >> could there be a time or a moment or instance in the past where there was absolute nothingness?
>> Could have been. Yeah.
>> If there was nothingness which doesn't have anything, how does it give rise to something?
>> I don't know. That's hard to say.
>> I do know. Impossible.
>> Impossible. By science and philosophy both together. That's even more impossible than the actual things that we put we were putting to you and asking you whether something can exist and exist at at the same time. At least you have a conceptual thing there to consider. In this instance, there is no thing. There's nothing.
So if you were willing to grant a thing that exists being impossible in a particular situation that that should be by necessity are for even more true for something that absolutely doesn't exist whatsoever. So if you're saying one thing is impossible that which is even you know even a lesser of a thing because it's nothing you should acknowledge readily that that's impossible. There's a German philosopher, I've forgotten her name.
She describes nine levels of nothingness.
>> It's worth for you to look it up. It's well known. She's a scientist, philosopher. Nine levels of nothingness.
And level nine nothing is the absence of even potentialities.
Absence of divine entities and being, absence of abstract things, numbers, laws, potentialities. If I say >> you're saying they've discovered what enough meant nothing.
>> No, this is how we describe what meant nothing. For example, >> for example, imagine imagine Hamza gives you a box as a present. Okay, because you're being very nice and you open the box and there's nothing in there. You say, "Oh, look, there's nothing in there." But actually, it's not there's nothing in there. There's lots of things in there. Space, time, quantum fluctuation. Do you realize? So that nothing that you said initially is level one nothing. It doesn't mean absence of everything. That's only level one. So when we go there, okay, you know what?
Okay, let me vacuum out the air. So now you have no air. Okay, but you still have space. Let me take space out. So if you keep on removing eventually everything you remove, even potentialities, you're left with a concept of absolute nothingness. Level 9. from that level 9 nothing which is absence of everything if that thing existed you and I would never be here because that cannot do anything because it doesn't even have the potentiality >> did you say this was a philosopher or a scientist >> yeah his name is Robert Kun did you mention okay that's what Google brought up >> so >> okay I'll bring it up while you're talking >> so he's brought up the notion of nothingness i.e The nothingness cannot bring about something. We have another option that the universe has always been.
Now I found it interesting that you were speaking about your experiences in life and how you use >> to determine things >> in life.
As long as people can hear me assumption to go by because what else do we go by other than our the sum total of our experiences and the sum total of the experiences of our fellow human beings, right? We have to have some level of trust here.
>> Would it be fair to say that there are certain >> Robert Lawrence Kun? Yeah, that's him.
And he describes all the levels level 1 2 3 4 all the way level 9 nothing is this absolute nothingness the elimination of all possible realities potential and being from that if such a thing existed something will never arise. If something exists now the question is could there have been a level n nothing nothingness was absolute nothing >> is that a theory n >> this is concepts >> it's more philosophical >> concept philosophical I think I think >> it's a it's an idea >> yeah it's an idea but I think it's grounded in the sum total of our of our reality >> yeah it's a reasonable assumption to to make and then draw >> because it science itself is a subject not science itself is established upon the law of non law of causality.
>> So causes and effects bring about uh information that we can use extrapolate make predictions test make and if the tests don't hold up to scrutiny if the theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny because those tests are failing we throw the tests away. We go back to the inferences, we look at the world, make inferences, so on and so forth. Right? So wouldn't just as brother Mansour has demonstrated that the idea of nothing nothingness cannot bring about something. Would you say would you say that the present moment in time the present that we have that doesn't require any type of evidence that we all share the present moment?
>> Nothing nothing requires.
>> So putting aside nothingness, right?
Just as nothing just as it's so obvious that nothingness doesn't have the potential to bring about something, >> would it also be just as equally uh just as equally likely that the present moment we all share it? We all move through it. We don't time travel back in the past. We don't travel time travel into the future. Is it equally likely as nothing bringing about something?
>> I don't know. I'd say that.
>> Do you need evidence for it?
>> The fact that you're living it. Do you need evidence for the fact that the present moment is what we all occupy?
>> I think you would have a colloial understanding of what the present is to you. But going in more depth and having more detail to define what the present is, I would have to leave up to someone more in depth than experientially.
>> Experientially, colloally, the present for me is it as likely as No, no, no.
You get the likeliness is the is the is the present moment in time in our present moment >> experientially. Do you need evidence for that? any type of empirical evidence. Or is it so obvious that you'll take it as a given?
>> Uh, I don't think I'd need evidence. No, >> no. You just wake up in the morning, right? Each moment comes along, you just take it for granted and you carry on with life. No one needs to tell you >> that you need evidence for the present moment.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> So, yeah.
>> Okay. Do you believe the present moment could have come about without the past?
Um, without the past, what what landed me here on this?
>> Exactly. All those causes and effects that brought you here, your decision to wake up in the morning, put your clothes on.
>> I know. If I hadn't done any Tik Tok live last night, I wouldn't be here.
>> Yeah. Exactly. So, in other words, we we recognize certain obvious uh ways of deduction. We live in the present moment. We require the past to have brought us to the present moment.
Uh-huh.
>> Now, if the universe was eternal, >> would you agree that there would be an eternal number of causes extending back into the eternal past?
>> No beginning.
>> That's in terms of its age, though. I don't know if they would need eternal causes to eternally exist. No, >> because what we're doing is we're whittling down the options in relation to the universe. Universal's ex existence. Either the universe came about from nothing or the universe has always been here.
There is a third choice which is I don't want to think about it. Uh >> take the key out, throw it away and walk away.
>> Yeah.
>> But I don't think human beings should live like this.
>> Nothing or it's always been here. That's a good question.
>> What's your take?
>> I'm going to say I mean I can only this is my prediction for science. I'm going to say it did come out of nothing. How?
I don't know. But it came out of nothing.
>> Sure.
>> So nothing can make something.
>> I think so. Yeah. In that case I don't know how but I think it did. But nothing doesn't have the ability to make anything.
>> I don't know.
>> So how how how do you reason if something doesn't have the ability for example >> do you have the do you have the ability to speak udu >> speak Punjabi udu Hindi?
>> No no so if you don't have the ability can you speak?
>> No.
>> So if nothing doesn't have the ability to bring about anything how do you accept that nothing brought something? I mean I could take a stab maybe I'd if I took a stab at Punjabi and I hit the right word congratulations and I would imagine >> no speak to me fluently in Punjabi.
>> No no no but the point I'm trying to make is if there was nothing for a long amount of time imagine that you had a million chances to try and create from nothing.
>> There is no time and nothingness >> nothing doesn't have time. But >> I'm saying if I stood here for like a 100 days and said enough words you >> Daniel you missed the whole point.
>> This nothing doesn't have anything. No tense, no past, no present, no future.
No, this is the conceptually what we mean by nothing. Absolute nothingness is the absence of everything. That includes time, space, fabric.
That includes the white hole as well as the black hole.
>> I mean, my prediction is wrong. Then maybe there was something.
>> No, there cannot be nothing. There has to be always something because if you say there can be absolute nothingness then give us a reason that something that is absolutely nothing devoid of even time potentiality and ability how does it make about something how are we reasoning he >> he said just now that maybe I was wrong maybe there is something rather than nothing >> but it's not about maybe it's a question of definitely that's how we infer >> nobody knows yet >> nobody knows >> if something if you're saying that maybe I was wrong which is no which is a noble position Maybe, you know, he's backtracking. Maybe he's saying, you know what, nothingness is so so implausible that there has to be something. But this goes back to now the issue I brought up with you, which was that therefore the universe must be eternal. If there was something, it doesn't have an absolute beginning.
Therefore, it exists indefinitely.
>> What makes it have to exist indefinitely from the beginning of the universe?
because otherwise there would be a beginning to it an absolute beginning point which would which would then raise the question that Mansour brought up with you which was that nothingness is the explanation >> okay I mean by that logic then maybe it's eternal yeah >> yeah so I was saying to you that since the sum total of our experiences have it that the present moment couldn't have come about except through immediately past causes if the universe is eternal these causes have to extend back in mind one moment before another >> indefinitely in the past.
>> No beginning past, no beginning to that past.
>> Now, if there's no >> No, no, no. Not even circular. Uh an absurdity because if there's no beginning and you acquire one cause to bring about the next cause in time, which then brings about the next cause in time thereafter up until the point that we reach the present. Since there's no beginning, you can go back an infinite amount of time and you still have an infinite. Could could we have traversed those moments to reach the present moment in time?
>> I think it's um I think it's something that maybe could be self-creating maybe by having no beginning and uh and no end. But it's all >> I think it's remember there is no >> it's like self uh replicating replicating like I mean you could say it's I'm thinking of a different word but yeah it's sort of like selfactualizing that's the word >> selfactualizing yeah selfactualizing so so when you have things that exist in time >> can you in your experiences can you come across any type of can you give me any type of example where um something didn't require ire a cause prior to for its existence >> or causes.
>> I don't know. I I haven't got any examples for that.
>> I I don't have any either. the sum total of of my experiences and I'm hoping I talk on behalf of the Muslims here as well is that everything points to something preceding >> you know monetary law >> the existence of something being preceded by the existence of something before it that requires to come into existence or to carry or to come through to come into existence if you will right to transform I don't know of any example where something exists where it doesn't require any cause before it for its existence So if that's true, I think it's reasonable therefore to infer that if there's an infinite number of causes that extend into the past, we wouldn't have been able to reach the present because uh self-replicating causes don't exist in the world.
>> Should we should we give an example to illustrate that point?
>> No. No. If I could ask a question, it would be like what would then lead you if there was a cause to then lead it to be a divine being.
>> That cause would be necessary.
>> Sorry, >> that cause has to be necessary.
>> It would be outside the realm of causes that are dependent upon each other within the created world.
>> So you're imagining it would have to be spiritual outside.
>> It cannot be material.
>> Immaterial. Sorry.
>> No.
>> No. Sorry. What's the words you said?
>> So people think about space, time, matter. It cannot be any. It be unlike that it be necessarily different from contingent realities like us.
>> Is there not a word you would use to describe it?
>> Yeah. The great the greatest conceivable being or the greatest conceivable thing.
The reason why we say being is as follows.
>> And again this comes back to the experiences that we have in life. Can you think of anything in existence devoid of attributes?
Not off the top of my head. No can I. So the fact that something exists many philosophers and scholars will tell you requires at least one attribute.
Existence.
Okay. Uh the thing exists in time requires the attribute of time for instance right dimensions whatever. So if we recognize that as our experiences in life, the thing that brought the universe into existence has to have certain essential attributes.
>> And I think that's a reasonable assumption to come to based upon our experiences in life.
>> I I wouldn't jump to I mean if we can't explain it by using natural laws and whatever else that you're discussing, time and stuff.
>> Excellent. Natural laws.
>> Yeah. I don't think my jump would be to a divine.
>> Let's not jump. Let's not jump. We agree with him. Let's not jump.
>> Sorry, I won't use the word jump. That's >> No, no, I agree with you. We agree.
Let's jump.
>> We won't jump to the divine.
>> Natural laws are like codes and information tells you what to do and not to do. Like the laws of gravity tells you a bigger object will pull smaller objects or lesser heavy object towards it center. Yep.
That's what it does. That's why you're here on Earth rather than floating in space.
>> Yeah.
>> These laws, do you think they're conscious?
conscious laws. Uh >> I don't think they are.
>> Yeah. Neither do I. So the problem that now we both of us have if laws are not conscious, how do they operationalize these laws into reality into action that Lord that tells you okay I'm going to put it there in place and then the moment there are two objects bigger and heavier sorry and uh one lighter one heavier the heavier object will pull the lighter objects towards yourself.
It will be in operation.
>> How do the laws?
>> Yeah.
>> Make themselves in operation.
>> I think it would be a case of cause and effect.
>> Explain. I I don't understand anything about that.
>> Gravity became necessary. So, gravity was formed. That's how I would guess.
>> When we have a law highway, do you drive?
>> I do drive. Yeah.
>> Yeah. You've read the highway code?
>> No.
>> A long time ago.
>> Long time ago. It tells you like in motorway you can speed only up to this number of miles per hour 70 miles per hour in a dual car garageway and so on and when you see red light you have to stop green light go. Now all of these are precise instructions and informations which are really meaningful.
This highway code itself cannot really by itself put things in operation saying hey stop that's a red light. It doesn't even know it exists. These are pixels on a page of a book. It cannot do anything by itself. If you leave the highway code in the motorway, it cannot implement anything. It cannot say, you know what, this book tells you you can only speed up to 70 mph. Don't go exit. He can't do that.
>> So, the laws exist in our universe. How do the laws operationalize in reality?
>> Well, I think the highway code came around by cause and effect. like people driving over >> not cause and effect intelligent willful precision design. Do you think do you think causes and effects don't have attributes?
>> Well, typically laws are written in blood like that. No, that's why people don't ski in.
>> Sure. But do you think that the causes and effects that brought about the highway code don't have attributes?
>> Attributes like what? attributes like inference is referring to that the source having some level of power willing to bring the laws into existence. It having a certain level of knowledge to look at the world around them, the cars, the motorway and say, "Well, we need it to travel at a certain speed but not beyond it and certainly not less than a certain speed." In other words, the information that's contained within the highway code doesn't shouldn't it push you towards the conclusion that there has to be the cause and effects have to have certain necessary attributes >> according to your experiences in life.
>> I think the highway code was created by people who were interested in keeping the road safe.
>> Intelligent people with intelligence >> meaning so they have attributes.
>> Okay.
>> Attributes of knowledge.
>> Yeah. ability and will and self-awareness, four essential characteristics. The high code could otherwise not come into existence. So our universe have physical laws in operation.
>> Yeah, >> they don't know that they exist and yet they operate in our physical world. How?
So >> how do these natural laws come about?
>> Now you ask what come about? That's another question I could have asked.
>> How do they operate?
>> But how do they operate? Who operationalizes these laws into actions in reality? I think essentially themselves >> they're not conscious. There was a need and so they >> there was no need because they don't they're not conscious >> possibilities right >> I mean >> the laws are conscious right >> yeah but the mountains were created not by any conscious thought were they were caused by plates on the earth >> the the the something that came into existence at one point because of a law that directed it to be that way >> I mean there's plenty of things around us that have no consciousness and yet they are creating >> they're following the law give me an example that doesn't follow a law example Example out of zillions of examples, one just one.
>> What kind of laws are we talking?
Biological law.
>> Laws in operation. There are many laws in operation. Give me an example of a thing that happens. A transformation that happens, any transformation that doesn't follow a law that has been set in operation.
>> I think everything follows a law that we understand so far. Yeah.
>> Exactly. Exactly. To our knowledge, everything follows a law. But but here is the question. We're going back to the same question again. What operationalizes this law into action?
Because the laws themselves are not conscious in saying, you know what, I'm going to now exert this law, heavier object will pull a lighter object. No, they can't. They don't do that. They don't know they exist. Like, do you think the highway code knows it exists?
>> A piece of paper. No, >> exactly. So, you can't do anything.
>> It can't be nothing. And it can't be an infinite number of causes because otherwise the very laws that we required to make the highway code we wouldn't have been able to arise arrive at that point. The third option is that there was a being outside of this that must have the necessary attributes to implant within the universe the very laws for the universe to transform from a point of existence to the complicated universe we find today. So those essential attributes I think again we can infer but I think it's reasonable to say that these essential attributes have to be power because a thing that's powerless is as good as non-existent >> or ability if you want to say >> ability like power ability are synonyms knowledge the fact that it must have had some level of knowledge such that it implanted within the world what the scientists talk talk about you know the fundamental laws the weak strong electromagnetism uh gravity and so on and so forth right the nuclear forces and valition.
>> Will, will, right? We all do things through our will. A dog does it, a cat does it, a parrot does it, right? It will to bring the universe into existence. So for us that points to a very very strong plausible uh explanation of a of a creator.
I think the word creator fits these attributes that we attribute to this being.
>> Okay.
And I don't find that I don't think we don't we don't we can't think of any other explanation that's better than that.
>> The best explanatory scope of our existence is inferring an intelligent creator, an originator. Anything as an alternative doesn't have that explanatory scope.
>> And there's there's a verse of the Quran about this, isn't it?
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> There's a verse in the Quran that pretty much sums it up. It's a three-fold question, rhetorical in nature. It begins were they created by nothing or did they create themselves although they the creators of the heavens and the earth meaning the universe? No they have no certainty they don't have certain knowledge i.e. the atheists essentially or the agnostics who are sitting at the front. These three-fold questions should push them to the inevitable conclusion or there must be a creator of all things. And from there we can then ask the question if this creator is the greatest conceivable being i.e. It brought the universe into existence. It has to have attributes of the eenth degree. You can't get attributes that are greater than what it possesses.
So power, knowledge, wisdom, you can and look at it in a different way. If something exists always necessarily, they exist with attributes and the attribute is not acquired from anyone.
No one gave the attributes. So inherently possesses attributes always. So these attributes will not have any restriction because there's no one to restrict it. So the attributes will be perfect and free from any deficiencies and weaknesses. We can't say that that being what brought into brought it brought it into existence like some some people ask because if we ask that question the same question that what brought the universe into existence would now apply to that source and then we would have an infinite regress of causes being applied to how what caused that cause to bring the universe into existence. The only way out of this rationally speaking is that this force must have been eternal. And this is where Mansour says.
>> So that's why some atheist come to the point that the universe is actually eternal. Okay, grant that nothing cannot make something but our universe is eternal and its explanation of itself because you know anything that exists anything it has either of the two possible explanations. Either it is explaining its own existence, self-explanatory, or it needs an explanation external to it.
There's only two options. Either you are necessary and you don't need to depend on anything and everything. You explain your own existence or something else is grounding your ex existence. Something gave you into brought you into existence for example. So if the universe is thought of this way, the universe is own explanation of its existence.
It's a logical possibility but it doesn't show that it is something that is meaningful in explanator scope because anything that is necessary with its own explanation it has to have these essential characteristics of doing transformation it has to have a will ability knowledge and self-awareness when I was going to explain earlier on do you cook sometimes >> yeah I like to cook yeah >> what do you cook what's your favorite dish >> oh I do I do a decent Spaghetti pasta.
>> Spaghetti pasta.
>> Okay.
>> Do you drink wine or is it alcohol?
>> Alcohol's off.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We the mind.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We the mind. So our the the living guidance is stay away from something that is not better for you. Um you know eat healthy and pure.
Okay. Right. And then by the way um the consensus from the world health scientists and organization including who the safest level of consumption of alcohol is guess what >> I'm I'm guessing you're going to say zero >> zero zero >> out of more than 150 or 80 countries all countries together this is the current consensus current anyway that's not the point >> so you like spaghetti pasta spaghetti pasta imagine you want to cook spaghetti pasta in your kitchen Yeah.
>> And you were not conscious, >> you in a deep sleep. Would you be able to make >> spaghetti pasta?
>> It's not looking likely that way.
>> Very unlikely. I agree. Very unlikely.
But suppose you are conscious, but you don't intend to make it. You make coffee, tea, you make sandwiches, but you never intend to make as in your whole life spaghetti pasta. Would a spaghetti pasta be made by you?
>> If I never intended to make one?
>> Yeah. I mean, you could judge me and someone could puff at me like, >> "Yeah, if you don't want to willingly, it never never happened, right?"
>> Very unlikely. Never happened.
>> But suppose you intend to make it and you're conscious and you're willing, but you don't have the ability because your friend here Omar ties you up in the chair, solid tape, eyes covered, hands.
So, you can't even program your robot to make pasta.
>> Yeah.
>> What's the likelihood when you're incapacitated? When you have don't have the ability.
>> Pretty strong.
>> Very unlikely. Very unlikely. Yeah.
>> How many times you go to the gym?
>> Four, five days a week.
>> Right. Now, suppose suppose very unlikely, >> Daniel, suppose you have the ability and the will and the self awareness, but you don't know the knowhow. So, go into your kitchen, you take a glass and throw in the floor, pick up the small pieces and say, "There you go, pasta spaghetti."
Yeah, >> if it was a good spaghetti and Daniel presented it to us and we ate it without knowing Daniel gave it to us, we would know by necessity that there was a person there certain attributes very good cook who made a damn good spaghetti.
>> So that broken >> Yeah, I agree. I'm a great >> that broken glasses pieces of broken glass wasn't spaghetti. So you need to know what you're making. You need to know how. So what we've given you this four essential characteristics of any transformation self-awareness, will ability and knowledge there's more four is sufficient.
>> And I mean does this make sense so far?
Does it seem reasonable at the very least?
>> I see the analogy. Yeah. Just um when we come to the creation of the universe and we're presented with only three options, >> I'd probably create a fourth one for me >> which is what >> this is where you >> that's what we can um discuss about it.
Well, I think when we arrive in a gods and then we start looking at all the rules personally to me they seem a little arbitrary.
>> Forget the god explanation.
>> So what's your explanation for the universe exist existing with this laws in operation?
>> A coherent logical reasonable explanation with an explanation.
>> Yeah. But logically if we've excluded options one two and gods the third and created a fourth in which I don't know what goes there but that's the answer.
>> No I don't know. is never if you go to an exam >> I don't know is a fantastic answer.
LOOK, LOOK. IF YOU GO TO AN exam and I'm marking your paper, the 10 questions, >> multiple choice, >> and you just say, "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
>> What am I going to give you as a mark?
>> A zero.
>> Zero. Why?
>> Well, because when you >> I don't know is a good answer, right?
>> It is a good answer when you don't.
>> But why am I giving zero? Because that's not the correct answer.
>> Well, yeah. Well, if I don't have the answer, you can't demand it.
>> Yeah. I see where you're going with this.
It goes against everything that you said in the beginning which prompted us to have this discussion. A very very strong solid foundation which was experiences in life rationality.
Now I don't think that you Daniel dressed smartly the way you do being articulate having acquired an education go through life based upon >> I don't knows you go through >> a lot of my day on I don't know. Yeah, but not this wouldn't be the unreasonable I don't know where you just don't do anything. The fact that you've arrived at this point in life tells me that you're constantly weighing up the information that you have regarding life and you make the best explanation.
>> Let's give you an example and carry on your thoughts. You are hungry. You want some food. So you go to Oxford Street and you see all these restaurants and >> I don't know which one's best.
>> And you keep being so undecisive. I don't know this one. That one. Cheap, expensive, good. But >> is that what you're going to do? I don't know. You're going to be pragmatic and say, "I'm going to take that because I'm hungry. I'm going to eat it." Which one you going to do?
>> On a perfect day, I would be pragmatic.
Or on another day, if I diver and won't and then the restaurant's closed and there's no food.
>> Restaurant's open. All of the restaurants are open and you're really hungry and you're still singing, "I don't know." Is that what you're going to do?
>> I mean, I might. Yeah.
>> You might just give up and saying, "I don't know." And you don't eat. I might have to deliver if I truly am that locked in my head.
>> Yeah. So he goes to sit hungry today.
>> You would sit hungry, right?
>> I'd have to go hungry. Yeah.
>> Oh yeah. You'd have to go hungry, wouldn't you? And then you can't make a decision.
>> And what happens the next day? And the next day and the next day >> you'd be pretty hungry and then you die.
Yeah.
>> Oh, is that what we'll do?
>> And then you'd probably be >> Is this what will you do?
>> I mean, some people don't eat.
>> No. No. You You Daniel, is that what will you do?
>> I've never been driven to those limits.
I don't know.
>> Think about it. It's a It's a It's a thought experiment. What would you do?
>> I might die. I don't know.
>> I mean, no. Okay. Personally, I think I would eat.
>> You would eat, right?
>> You would try your best, wouldn't it?
Makes the most sense to pick. You pick.
>> Yeah. I don't think I'm that uh despondent about life that I would just leave myself to die.
>> I mean, that's reasonable.
>> Some people are.
>> Well, some people are, but they are the extreme exception of the rule.
>> They are exist though.
>> No problem. But we're not talking about the extreme exception when we talk about our life experiences.
>> We go by the majority the way the world lives. The fact that human beings don't just in the majority give up and die of starvation tells us that they are driven by the laws that we are speaking about ingrained within ourselves ingrained within nature quote unquote we are driven by looking at the world around us making prepundonderant decision m decision making we look look at the evidences before us we decide you know what rather than me dying I'm going to go if I don't have any money I'm going to beg it's better for me to beg than to die that's what the majority would I'm not talking about the we're not talking about the exception of the rule. So the point we're trying to make to you Daniel is that the sum total of your experiences, the way you live life pushes you towards deciding making decisions based upon the best explanation, the one that's most probable, most reasonable, >> most sensible, >> most sensible. Now, if that's true for the mundane things, like for instance, you deciding that you're going to use that lip gloss on your lips, you would rather it be wet rather than dry because going home to your wife or your girlfriend or whatever is not a good idea, right?
Unless you enjoy slaps or you wearing your clothes. All of that is based upon the very very daily day-to-day activities where we go around making mundane decisions. Now, what about the most important decisions in life? Ones that will that may affect our very moral uh makeup, how we decide what is good and bad. Okay.
>> I mean, I think I think it's obvious that if we're going to hold to certain the way we live life or certain seemingly unimportant things, it makes more sense that it should be that should be applied even more so to the most important things in order to how would I >> So, in other words, the I don't know the fourth option that you're coming with, I don't know, >> shouldn't be an option at all >> because >> I think it is when you >> such a fundamental mean either either unless you're scared. No, I think it is when there are people around you who have a better answer.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Sure. Okay. Then this is where you do your your educ you do your research.
>> Yeah.
>> Derive more education.
>> But you know, you know before everyone came and you were talking about science, right? Isn't that just other people with more evidence and you're just following them?
>> Isn't that the same thing here?
>> Based upon the explanation before you guys came, we were talking about like why he believes in what he believes in.
And u correct me if I'm wrong. You you were saying you were saying that how uh whatever scientists come to conclude you're just going to believe in that.
>> Yeah. Roughly. Yeah.
>> Right.
>> You're trusting if you're trusting the scientist person brings evidence forth and it makes sense and in the moment it makes the most sense out of everything else. Why wouldn't you?
>> Science itself just to just quickly jump in for us. Science itself isn't the be can't be the be all and end all of it all because the very basis of science takes into considerations philosophies that by the strictest definitions of science you would have to reject.
>> Okay.
>> You'd have to reject because there there are certain things that we infer that we don't see with our eyes.
>> Okay.
>> We haven't heard with our ears.
>> Yeah. They use like tools to detect gravity these days. They use tools or they use the information to gravitational waves, don't they?
>> No, no, that's magnetism. So, we we measure objects that experience gravity.
>> Yes. Gravity itself doesn't accelerate.
>> Um, but we don't actually >> I could have sworn I heard they detected gravitational waves.
>> That's purely theoretical in nature.
>> That's magnets.
>> There's no actual evidence of gravity as a force that you can put in a jar and measure like you can do matter. Okay.
>> Um, likewise time. Likewise, space.
There's no such thing as space. What we measure, what we determine a space is the measurement that we use through the use of an arbitrary means to determine one thing in relation to another.
Likewise, time. It's the measurement of a period in relation to one thing against another.
But and yet we still take those concepts into consideration to make good science.
Why? Because there are certain fundamentals that go beyond science and that are rooted in the human being itself. The human being psyche their knowledge like the law of non-contradiction, the law of balance, the idea that something exists and you take that as a truth claim and then you decide okay it exists that's true. It can't exist and not exist at the same time. Why? Because that's false. Or it exists or it doesn't exist and that's true.
This is the way we human beings have as as a law implanted within us by the lawgiver to determine certain fundamentals and science just takes that for granted.
It has to in order to make truth claims.
So in other words, science can't uh it can't how would you describe it? Make true. It can't verify the very bedrock that it requires to make truth claims about them.
>> Science have this philosophical assumptions already otherwise science won't work. began in a very accepting way that if you worry about what you don't know before you try and find out what you can but what you know right now I don't think you would ever move if you would stay in one place and I think that while science may not understand everything and it's based on something that they don't yet understand >> they accepted that and moved forward with what they did know and they would then circle back to it when they have >> but Daniel do you know critical think critical thinking scientists when they look at the evidence like for example the design in your DNA the information code all the pathways downstream DNA and looking at so much organization and harmony this pathway if it blocks it opens up another pathway this is evidence in front of us when you look at for example you know certain animals like crickets and like this how they have mechanism of gearing wow like cogs and it's like that this all this and then they jump or bactil flagagula how there's a rotor and a motor. It's amazing engineering and design. But we are told like this just came by millions of years of random mutation and chance probabilities and natural selection and so on. A lot of magic in in a nutshell.
That's what it is. But when you look at the cell itself, it's not magic. It's precision engineering. If you studied science and you look at it, if you studied genetics and you look at it, you will say this is the evidence of clear design and yet we don't see the design like oh I need to know who made this back to believe that the bug is made.
No, I don't. I can see I can see I can see design features. Look when I see the design features in the cell how ribosome play a part in say transcription and translation of DNA in the machinery and the ribosomes these are proteins which are made with the DNA coding one is required for the other and the other is required for the other catch 22 how does that happen it's not only that it's like this integral whole is a whole system and we don't see any design I mean what is design to you >> I I think Oh, go on.
>> Did you want to say something?
>> Oh, okay. Well, they were asking me about design. Um, I mean, personally, I think it's I don't mean this in an offensive way. It's a touch arrogant to assume that only intelligent design can bring forth things like >> to give me an example of a nonintelligent brings design precisely like a micro like this phone. Look, my phone is almost of whatever mentioned or I think that they are capable. Let's let's understand that this phone this phone can be brought about by non-intelligent designer right >> okay >> so look I have a notification for someone >> that's a phone though not a fly >> no a fly is more complex than the phone so I'm using a lesser complex to illustrate my point can this be explained by a non-intelligent designer from the start to finish that it wasn't designed by any intelligent designer at all it just happened by some agency which is like this rock designed it.
>> It's not likely, is it?
>> Why not?
>> Oh, because it's in that shape. It's >> Are you being arrogant now?
>> No, I shouldn't have said that.
>> No, I'm just using this as a politically. Remember the use of the word you're arrogant to accept that? No, it's not arrogant to accept that this thing cannot come about by a rock designing it. It's not arrogance. It is what we called informed choice and inference from the available evidence.
It leads us to this way. When you see old look, have you heard of STI? Search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
>> I've never heard of it. No. I I know that people search for >> Why would you spend billions of dollars when it could be just all noise by chance saying, "Hello, I am from planet this Zeon >> for discovery."
>> No, no. It could be all just noise, background noise by chance formulating this frequency, right?
>> Yeah. But we've never explored space on any >> No, no, no. You know you know you know you know >> if you receive some frequency and decode and says hey this is Peter from planet Zeon you know we 100 million galaxies away I still say look this is just free sound frequencies coming here and there in the machine formulating it but why are we spending billions of dollars in this particular project because we expect these frequencies when they arrive to be meaningful. So, so this thing why am I saying this this cannot come from this because it's not meaningful to assert that this rock can design a phone like that. So when I see the DNA and the fly, you know what the Quran which you probably haven't read right >> the Quran talks about the status or stance of people who don't believe or people associate things to God the creator says look this is a parable given to you so listen carefully those who associate besides God to him >> it's like this They can't even create a fly even if they came together. And if a fly snatch something away from them, they won't be able to retrieve it.
This is I think how it ends. Weak. How weak and feeble is the one who seeking one is sword.
>> Do you know when a fly snatches your food away? Can you retrieve it?
>> Doesn't I don't rate my arms? No. Do you know what happens when the fly tries to collect food, eat food?
>> Like rubs it on it, doesn't it?
>> It has this probosis >> and it spits something on the food.
>> No, it does deliberately by design.
>> They do it on purpose.
>> By design. BY DESIGN. WHAT it does?
>> What it they do is they spit digestive enzymes to partly digest the food. Okay.
>> And then sucks it in. So when it's taken in, you've already got food that is cooked.
>> Can you retreat that food from it?
>> You can't.
>> Yeah.
>> Can you unfry an egg when it's fried?
>> I don't rate my odds. No.
>> You can't. You can't.
>> So now look at how God is using this example 1440 something years ago. Do you think people know about this phenomena?
>> Do people know about how what the universe was created? Sorry. Yeah, that too. But this one about the fly.
>> Oh, about the fly.
>> Yeah, that the fly uses this enzymes.
>> About this earlier. So all of these things that the Quran talks about, how >> this information >> um you know like the scientists back then went as advanced, how would they know certain things like this were true?
How how would the prophet for example know or god know or whoever you know made these claims? Whoever you might believe made these claims, how would they know that um the way a fly digest food, right? See how it's a bit it's quite complicated. It's not like a human being where you you know the amulets in your mouth breaks on the sugar and etc etc. For a fly it's very different. How would anyone know that? That's the way.
>> Let's give some some basic level examples.
>> I think it would be human. It might be whatever he knows and he would have to make an guess.
>> Yeah. Guess work. Guess it's a good good.
>> It's a good explanation. Guess work.
>> Using guess work. Describe me a mountain.
>> Uh well how it was created or what it >> No, just a mountain. The shape of it.
Um, I'd say it's roughly like a volcano shape, you know, so slopes get thinner at the top.
>> Describe me a mountain.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Right. So now now is that it?
That's it.
>> Yeah.
>> But what I what I what I what I like.
Yeah.
>> What if if I told you which you couldn't guess and you couldn't guess as well.
It's not nothing wrong with that.
>> Mountains is not just elevation of the ground like this. It's elevation downwards farther down than elevation.
They have roots.
>> That sounds familiar actually. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But you can't guess that.
>> Yeah. But but can you guess it? Can you Can you The question now is Daniel, can you guess mountains have roots? Can you dig up and say it has roots? You can't.
It's not visible. Um I mean if you've got some sort of way technology >> with modern technology with sonar >> how people used to >> quite exactly see how science like >> with sonars we can now >> technology you kind of realize this right >> but 1400 years ago it would be >> did they have sonars then >> with a sho a man with a shovel for example it would be really difficult and pretty much impossible for him to know that basically >> and the Quran describes mountains asad having roots like when you go and erect a tent and you have pegs that you put on the ground. Uh part of it is there up up and rest of it is underground. This is how the Quran describes.
>> Would you not maybe infer that maybe they took the idea from trees? Maybe maybe they looked at trees and saw they have roots and they applied it to mountains.
>> Yeah. Good, good, good.
>> But why did anyone come up with this explanation anyway? No literature exists.
>> I mean it would depend what your interest is.
>> So let me maybe it's a guesswork. Let's let's play this guesswork. You know that um underneath dead volcanoes there are pink flying elephants, right?
>> I didn't know that. No. Are there?
>> Can we not guess?
>> I'd guess not. But if >> Why not?
>> Well, if someone had been down there, they took a photo and said pink elephants and I saw >> No. No. It's a guess work, right?
>> Oh, yeah. I'd guess no. I'd guess not.
>> So, why are we not guessing certain things?
>> Why are we not guessing certain things?
>> Uh because we've not taken interest in them yet, >> where people are like, >> "Right, have you been to deep oceans?
Have you been sailing, diving?
>> Uh, no.
>> No.
>> Do you know that shallow seas have >> under what's it called? Internal waves, not on the surface.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Shallow. Shallow. Yeah. You can guess that. Like, so when you go to a normal shallow pond or a lake, they have internal waves. Waves on the surface when the wind blows and waves from the middle. Right.
>> Yeah.
No.
>> So you How did you guess that it doesn't exist?
>> I mean, can you feel this with your body if you >> It doesn't exist though. It doesn't exist. I just made it up, but you guessed it. So, how did you So, let's let's focus on this. How did you guess when it doesn't exist?
>> Are we talking about currents?
>> I'm talking about currents in a lake, >> currents in a pond, currents in a sea.
>> He told you there's wave beneath beneath that as well.
>> We're talking about the sea, right?
>> The sea. He said he said shallow.
>> Shallow. Shallow sea.
>> But he clearly made it up.
the fact >> you you you thought you would guess it >> one but you didn't believe about the elephants as a current >> no no exist on the water >> not the top surface >> also exist below the water uh sea level >> oh I misunderstood >> okay so so you could have just guessed like a pond also have you know deep down maybe about 20 m down if it's deep enough there's also waves right you could have said yeah I could have guessed it but it doesn't exist >> okay >> these currents only exist in Bahr deep oceans.
>> Okay.
>> Now, who could have guessed that?
>> Uh someone who was familiar with the sea, I guess.
>> No, you can't observe it. You can't deep down.400 years ago, you don't have submarines. You don't have the diving gear and you can't go beyond certain certain pressure.
>> The lower the lower you go in water, the more pressure there is. Obviously, it's not safe. Especially without modern technology, you know, you'll just collapse. You wouldn't be able to you'd suffer here.
>> Even like especially without diving gear, you would have to come off air eventually. So as far as human beings can go, those waves are just below that.
>> Maybe it be the the product then of what is moved by the current maybe wherever the current began something was.
>> These things are these things are noticeable when you have a satellite in space and you can take a picture. My desktop screen has that picture exactly from from somewhere in in in some of the oceans. You can observe it. You can observe the clouds and you can observe the surface waves and the waves below her. So we given three examples the cumulative evidence.
>> So when we give examples after examples so what I'm making a point is not to bore with you and shock you with all this soal amazing example is to illustrate a point about statistics and probability. When we want to just guess if you want to guess about something whether it's correct or not the probability is 50/50. That's one over two half. If you have two situations, I'm going to test your maths now. If you so willing, I'll do my best.
>> If you have two situations, you want to get both of them right. My guess work.
What's the probability?
>> Uh out of two, it would be 50.
>> No, it's 1 /2 * 1 over two. It's because 1 over 4 quarter >> basically.
>> Oh, >> right. So, it multiplies like that. If you have 20 instances, >> the probability is roughly one chance of getting it right and a million chance of getting them wrong.
So if I give you 20 examples from the Quran, >> yeah, >> and they're all right. There was only one chance of getting it >> right and million chance of getting it wrong and he got it all right.
>> I think that would be in a vacuum. In a perfect scenario, it would be a quarter quarter quarter. But that has to >> No, that's that's statistics. That's maths for you. It's maths mathematically speaking.
>> It's maths math or religion.
>> Unarguable. He's saying if if which is a >> you can you can you can it's a I've just worked out already so it's a maths probability >> if the chance of the the claim being true is 50/50 >> 50% chance that it's true 50% chance that it's not what you're saying is the chance of them all being true like let's say it's 20 events it's 1 / two to the^ of 20 right which is very very small >> right right exactly for every single event to be true it has to be a half times a half time a half the chance of being a half right so one over two above 20. But the chance of one of them being wrong, that is extremely likely because only one of those halves needs to be the other half of the other side of the coin. Basically, that's extremely likely. If you flip a coin 20 times and and I ask you what's the chance that you get tails at least once, tails being meaning false. That's really really likely, right? But that didn't happen in the Quran. There are so many like >> Yeah. with with your example like if you trust a coin >> before they before they came you gave an example about the mountains the waves I I talked I was I was speaking earlier about the bee how I saw on Tik Tok someone mentioned that a bee has two stomachs one with digestion one is making honey and the Quran mentions this um and I was talking to him about that and he was like oh it could just be luck but do you see the issue with that is that the fact that there's so many of these things and some of them haven't happened yet >> um >> so let's illustrate let's illustrate brother um with an example we have a dice which has one 2 3 4 5 6 right is a normal dice >> and you throw it every time and every time it comes with one >> he looks at it normal one everyone here throws it at one no magnet nothing if everyone did that and we did that 20 times it's one would you say this is just a luck or there's something fishy going on >> we'd have to check what table >> exactly so that's when the Quran gets everything right when the possibility is it should got post all of it wrong by guesswork only one chance to get it right and it gets all of them right so it's something else going on there not guess work >> I think my investigation then would rest on I'd like to know what his knowledge was of the time there >> excellent that's the pre that's our point >> that I would be looking for environmental >> exactly all environment all the knowledge of that time in Arabia in in in Rome in Persia all around and you'll find the information that we are presenting to you information was not known to give you an example just to tie up because we can go we can give examples after examples. I mean it's for you to do your research, right?
>> Yeah.
>> The reason why Mansour is giving the example of the phone and the reason why you were denying that was he was pointing out the obvious that if it's obvious that the phone has some type of level of information that necessitates a creator and a designer, then that which is more complicated than that necessitates a designer and a creator.
And so when we push that all the way back to the beginning of the universe and we speak remember we spoke about the fundamental constants within the universe >> it's obvious that the universe which is far more complicated than the sum of the inse are far greater than the ones that we attribute to the maker of the phone or the DNA that we find within our body or the fly etc. etc. In other words, information from the beginning of the universe didn't decrease. It it increased exponentially as the world became more more complicated.
>> Okay.
>> So, we have to account for that somehow.
>> Yeah.
>> To the point where we as Muslims, we we we have the Quran which has information in it. Now, we go beyond the fly, we go beyond the phone, we now have the Quran which has information in it. And we go through the Quran. We look at the explanations of various things that takes place in the world and we come away with the obvious conclusion that there has to be an intelligent being behind this that implanted this information.
>> So it's all about information.
>> But there's one thing that essentially needs to talk about guesswork, right?
You know, currently America and Iran and they're fighting, right?
>> Okay. Imagine I said like the English and the French. Imagine uh I said they are going to fight and bring into a war uh in 2 years time and then French will lose and then 5 years later they will regain victory.
>> If I just told you right now, >> yeah, >> what is the likelihood this will happen from what you know about geopolitics?
>> Uh who would win? Sorry. I mean unless >> so French loses in two years and then wins back again 5 years later.
>> England versus France.
>> England versus France. I don't rate our odds.
>> We're a small country these days.
>> But can you think like how can I even guess such a thing? Right.
>> That specific event.
>> If I told you you would say like how can you even guess such a thing?
>> I'd be surprised how you guessed it.
>> Yeah. Exactly. So the Quran has a chapter called chapter number 30. Surah 30. It starts Yeah. It starts with saying the Romans have been defeated >> 30.
>> So the Romans have been defeated in the nearest land or a lowest land but then soon they will regain victory in a period of Arabic word 3 to nine years.
>> Yeah.
>> And the believers will rejoice.
These were the two superpowers at that time. The Romans and the Baantines >> and the Persians.
>> Okay. That was amazing. The Romans have been defeated. This is like >> talking about this is what he's referring to.
>> Yeah. Just read the first four.
>> Okay. The Roman if the Romans have been defeated in a nearby land yet following their defeat there will triumph within 3 to 9 years. The whole matter rest with Allah before and after victory and on that day the believers will rejoice >> right >> at the by Allah. He gives victory to whom he wills for he is the almighty the most. So you have now someone in Arabia which is nothing compared to Baantine Empire and Persian Empire, two superpowers of the day. They're fighting each other for a long time. And the Quran is saying the Romans have now defeated. So it's a common knowledge to everyone. The Romans were defeated at that time.
>> But it goes by saying ah that's not the end of them. Within 3 to 9 years they would regain victory and people would be happy rejoicing.
>> How does one actually predict such an event like this? What if the next year the Romans were victorious? What if 20 years later it took them to regain victory? What if they never regained victory? Then the Quranic information would be outright false.
>> Easy, right? To be specific.
>> Didn't you give a very wide range of Nob. That's what that's what I'm saying.
What if they regain victory 2 years later? What if they regain victory 15 years later or never regain victory at all? If there's so many possibilities, >> you'd have been wrong then. I guess it would have been wrong.
>> You could have been wrong. And the believers who are supposed to rejoice, they will reject the Quran. But guess what happened? It happened exactly within this time frame. Why? Because there were lots of fighting between them in this time period. It's not like one event, many events.
>> War of attrition.
Reasonable to predict a war with an end in that amount of time.
>> Oh, the French the French will regain victory in seven years after losing in two years, right?
>> Okay. I have a question.
>> Why is it specifically 3 to 9 years? Why is it not 5 years? Because within the time frame there are lots of attrition, smaller wars happening and eventually they lost the last stronghold and that's it. They sealed their fate.
>> Right at the juncture of the 9th year >> the Romans gain victory decisively with um the the Persian the Persian emperor uh what's his name? The second >> is it or something?
>> Something like that.
>> I can't remember.
>> Him him actually being defeated um running away essentially.
>> Okay. So from my understanding it's because if it was specific someone may argue that it was before >> that's a good question.
>> Is that what it is?
>> But think about it in the following way.
The reason why we Mans is giving one example after another is because of the absolute claim that the Quran gives. I don't think we maybe we should have touched upon this. The Quran is saying that this is from the one who has knowledge of all things >> past, present and future. The Quran is saying that if you believe that this book isn't from God, if you believe this is from the man Muhammad who was an illiterate sah, right? He was unread, unlettered, whatever, then the stakes are so much more higher.
All you need is one single mistake to disprove the absolute claim because absolute claims are the be all and end all 100%. No 99, no 95 or anything like that. It's 100%. So when you look at it in that way, what the Quran is doing is putting all of its eggs into one basket here.
So the Quran is giving you a reality of the war that took place between the Romans and the the the Byzantines and the Persians. And it's saying that the war will start between the 3rd year and it will end at the 9th year. During that time there was constant battles taking place. The Persians actually stole the the great golden cross of the uh the Romans. This is something sacred to them.
>> I saw that in Kingdom of Heaven, >> right?
>> Yeah, >> I think. Yeah. So, so in other words, it was very very precise in terms of the the the longevity of the >> It wasn't just a case that they're going to win at year 9. They gave you a starting date and the end date to the actual traditional war.
>> So, it's not really a vague statement.
It's actually very precise because what if they regain victory 12 years later it will be false falsified.
>> So imagine if I said you know what Daniel will never wear a cap which is green in color >> and I made that public to you. You know what this is my bet. I challenge you. I dare you.
>> He could easily prove me wrong by wearing a green cap. Right.
>> I've got one at home.
>> Yeah. But what if knowing that and I made a public challenge he fails to wear a green cap.
Then how do I make this kind of prediction?
>> You might argue that you know something >> there's something that I have access to that tells me that I know the future.
>> Yeah, >> that's what precisely what the Quran talks about a particular individual nicknamed Abuahab that he will die as a disbeliever and he will go to hellfire.
>> Yeah.
>> When this was given this you know prophecy if you want to call it he lived guess how long to falsify the Quran. the opportunity he had 10 years within this 10 years he could have just said I believe now I'm a Muslim he could have done that but he did not when many hundreds and thousands of people became Muslims but him never >> he had the opportunity to edit it >> he had the opportunity to become a Muslim >> said that >> and then he would not go to hellfire right >> while he was alive >> okay >> while he was alive >> become become Muslim >> and all he had to do is become Muslim and the Quran would have been false.
>> Bear in mind that he >> Now imagine like you were that person with the green cap analogy. You could have just dis just proven Islam by wearing a green cap.
>> Yeah. But the fact that you didn't kind of say a lot >> especially if you hate Islam to the point where you're looking for excuses.
>> That's that's the point.
>> It's not just you know it's not >> that individual one of the two >> that individual hated Islam. So why didn't that person become Muslim?
>> He hated because the future is known to God who would believe and who would not believe. He was just declaring as a declarative statement. This is the outcome of this individual.
>> Is that not a safe bet to make someone who it's not it's not like that. God is giving an example a scenario. This individual is so much hateful but God is saying look God knows the future. He knows the outcome of this individual or that individual and this person will never would go to heaven. He would go to hell. Now if he was so hateful individual to trying to disprove Islam so much they went to war. You know that they tried to eliminate the Muslims by fighting them instead of instead of simply instead of instead of simply by saying yeah by becoming a Muslim he lived for 10 years or so until he died as a non-Muslim. What prevented him from even as a hypocrite inside doesn't believe but outward by saying that then he would have falsified >> actually it's a d it's a a double prophecy his it says that both he and or his wife will never accept Islam and it says that they will go to hellfire and burn in hellfire >> did they burn in hellfire >> but they didn't accept Islam so according to Islamic teaching that's where they will end up >> you know what they did instead rather than doing the easier thing >> they're trying eminently easier which is pretend to be a Muslim. There you go. You predicted I'm not going to become a Muslim. I become a Muslim or my wife. You know what dear? Become a Muslim and then tomorrow we'll just like a hypocrite renegade back to our >> There were people who like that. They just outwardly professed Islam in what they didn't. He could have done that.
>> There were Christians who went to Japan to try and convert the populace and they failed and were crucified.
>> Yeah. So, so, so Daniel, just very quickly, >> what would be easier? To do that or to place yourself and your children and your your your your future on the line by going to war with someone? What would be the easier thing? Spilling blood or just professing I become a Muslim?
>> I mean, there is a logical easier way to go about things, but humans aren't always acting in logical ways.
>> Okay. So, what makes the Quran place everything in into one basket? What would motivate a person who's trying to win the favor of people by making an absolute claim? This is from God himself.
>> Falsifiable potentially >> claim potentially falsifiable.
>> What's their motivation for making all these claims?
>> Who knowledge from >> people who wrote the Quran, right?
>> People received >> the prophet received the Quran and give it to the people. So the motivation is is a declaration about where this information is coming from. The all knowledgeable, the all wise God, the creator. Yeah.
>> So the creator is telling you he's in control like you are not going to accept Islam >> i.e. we're true our religion is true yours is false >> is from God himself the one that knows all things yours isn't and here's our evidence and these are claims that can falsify the absolute claim of the Quran.
>> Have you heard about the Quranic challenge?
>> No. There's a linguistic challenge of the Quran that Quran challenges of whole of the creation human beings and the unseen world gins to bring even a small surah a chapter of the Quran which is like three lines only to imitate something like it without asking God's help >> okay >> why are people failing >> there hundreds of examples in the internet and the people fail to bring >> you to write something like it >> okay >> in like what like in terms in terms of writing style or like a fact that >> so let me let me let me illustrate with an let me illustrate example the Arabs at that time they were very very proficient and good masters of rhetoric and eloquence the language linguistic skills they would recite poetry to give you an example if you heard their poetry about describing a woman >> you'd fall in love with her if they described about some sadness and sorrow tears will flow from eyes very emotive person.
>> No, but that's the power of their poetry. That's what used to happen. If you hear them describing about like commotions between two tribes and they're raging you about to fight them, you will leave everything and let me go.
Where's my sword? Where's my this? Let me start fighting. That's how it will transform you internally and externally.
The power of language that they had mastered. The best of the poems are hang on the wall of the cabba. That's what it is. So they took pride in two things.
The birth of a male child and the creation or composition of a poetry. In this particular millu or this particular time frame, the prophet Muhammad was known to them or someone who's never learned the art of reading and writing, never been to school, anyone. They know because it's a small community. Every day they know each other. And yet at the age of 40 years, he comes with the Quran and they're saying, "How is he even speaking something like that? They could not explain it. How did he even utter things like this? It's impossible to imitate something because it's not like their known poetry or pros or the sayings of the suts." So the Quran challenged them when they said like, "Oh, he just copied is a tales of the ancients. He's just talking about Noah, prophet Noah, Moses or things. Oh, these are the stories of the ancients and fables." Quran says if you really think this is so bring something like it produce a chapter like it if you can't do it yourself get your helpers and supporters to do this job besides God if your doubt is true at that time being the masters why did they fail when they could just produce poetry just like you know rap poetry what's it called rap music >> rap battles you say something in in rhymes and meters and I say in response that's what they used to say so when the Quran was uttered They could >> who did they challenge?
>> The poets.
>> Poets challenging themselves >> in every corner of the world. No >> Arabia.
>> This is this is their culture. When the Quran when the Quran came to them in that language, the language of Arabic, they could not imitate anything like it.
>> But just to just to also explain do it again today. Would that have the same?
>> No one is able to able to do it today.
>> If the masters couldn't do it and the Quran then became the deacto standard, >> who >> who's left?
>> Who judge? Who is the judge of?
>> Ah, excellent question.
They can be them their own judge. Do you know why? Because the Quran has a particular stylistics. If I say bring a cup like Daniel's le white cup and I bring this, there you go. He will say >> look I you know I can be the judge and say failed because that's cannot be like that because I know what it's like that it has a particular shape, texture, color and so on and so forth. So when the Quran says bring something like it in the Arabic language in the stylistics of a particular chapter of the Quran in the way it is so it's self-explanatory and when people go deep into the stylistics they realize they cannot bring anything like it because the meaning will be changed in such a way you won't be able to speak in that language anymore. I can only say that I was read a verse of the Quran uh yesterday and to me on memory of it I will compare it to poetry I've read and I would prefer that poetry >> but you read English translation you did not look at the structure which is the key to this challenge point it's only it's only it's only to do with the Arabic also the question that you've asked who who judges it doesn't stop them from at least trying >> yeah critics of Arabic language will judge >> the fact is that they didn't even bother.
They they didn't even try and the Quran tells them that you were you see >> they didn't even imagine imagine just doing it for the sake of >> I am >> it sounds like a losing scenario then if you'll try them then >> yes because they were so incompat remember these are the Arabia at that time was uh in the middle of the desert they were very localized community their language had become very purified over a period of centuries it wasn't unlike you know some some of the big cities where you have different cultures and you you have different languages, different dialects, it becomes diluted. The Arabic language had become concentrated in terms of its purity.
>> Give an example. Imagine now he said okay you can't run faster than me. I am the fastest and you saw me running so fast then I said let's come to a challenge. You knowing that you're going to fail you'd stay behind wouldn't you?
>> If I felt like defeat was inevitable.
Yeah.
That's exactly what happened.
>> But what what if you had two choices?
>> Yeah.
>> You either even though you know you'll never be able to beat Msur because he's a live for Christie or whatever.
>> Yeah.
>> You had two choices.
>> You either you either race him or we'll throw you in jail.
>> Yeah.
>> You either try or throw you in jail.
What would you rather do?
>> Uh try or I would try.
>> You try try, wouldn't you?
>> Yeah.
>> So they went to war rather than try.
What does that tell you about the challenge?
>> Who went to war? the Arab politics of the Muslims at that time.
>> The people, >> they persecuted them. Didn't work.
>> Okay.
>> They kicked them out of kicked them out of the their own city.
>> It didn't work.
>> Yeah.
>> And then they went eventually to war.
>> I mean, they might have many motivations for not trying to write something similar to the Quran. Maybe it was >> so easy to disprove and they didn't go through insulted that they were challenged by their enemies. Why would a people who are willing to kill their own mother and father or their own daughters, kick them out of their home feel shy about mimicking a book?
>> I don't think they would see it as shyness. I think that would be subjective to them why they refuse to challenge.
>> Think about the challenges. It would be >> you're missing one point. They thrived in their honor of poetry. Like you challenging me for a rap battle. Do you know who I am? Bring anything. I will respond. And to lose something is like losing your honor. Honor is something that they they had so much pride in. So when the Quran challenged them, they would be up for it. What you're challenging us >> couldn't read and write >> and from someone Exactly. Who doesn't know how to read and write?
>> It would be M going to Eminem and saying you know I could I couldn't beat you.
>> Yeah. It's like a turtle turtle challenging a hair right? Yeah. You can't beat me. But we know why the hair lost because of >> just to mention just for context the reason like these these poetry like is so deep and and then you mentioned earlier how you read the Quran in English and it didn't really like do much for you.
>> I listen to it. Yeah.
>> All right. Yeah. So one thing is when when you translate Arabic language is so much more complex than English like for example what there might be one word for something there are like 20 different words that are all slightly different.
For example, lovely. I love you. Right.
But in Arabic, >> I think they said there's like 6 million in >> Yeah. In Arabic, there's so many different words for it. They're all slightly different. Like you use them in a different context. Like for example, I might say I love you like as a brother of mine, you know, as or as a friend, right? Or you might say it to, you know, someone that you respect as an older. I don't speak Arabic, right? The point is like there are really like small differences between all of those words that mean the same thing in English. All of those words you just translate to love. And that's why these um their poems are so deep because they really hit the like they really um >> get their point across in a deep way. In fact, the the two most complicated languages on earth are Mandarin and Arabic.
>> Mandarin.
>> Mandarin and Arabic. And >> tonal.
>> Is it tonal?
>> Tonal.
>> What do you mean by tonal?
>> Oh, Chinese is tonal. Like the way you say it uh changes its meaning.
>> Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. I mean, you see how you said the way you said that.
Hello but in Chinese if you said hello it might mean >> yeah there are there are there are words >> but what we're doing here we're putting across a cumulative evidence of the truth of the claim of the Quran so we spoke about aspects of the world the sciences and so on and so forth we spoke about prophecies the prophet himself also he had some extraordinary prophecies have you heard of Nostradamus >> I have heard of it I forget what he's about >> so he's like a prophet from back in the day right >> oh >> he wrote portrays four were apparently supposed to be prophecies of events that are going to take place. But if you read them, they are so obscure that they could be applied to a half a dozen times and local.
>> If you look at the the the prophecies of Prophet Muhammad, however, then you recognize what a true prophecy is from a true prophet.
So he speaks about prophecies that will take place during his time immediately thereafter and also some of the more profound prophecies towards the what we refer to as towards the day of judgment.
>> That's cathological.
>> Comparison in my experience in my life that I've seen for that is someone will tweet something like 10 years ago and they'll make 50 different tweets predicting something and then when it comes true 10 years later they delete all the ones that were wrong.
>> So let's give you one just one. I find it quite profound. I Russian can't wrap my head around it as to as to a natural explanation. Right? And I don't think anyone else here can either. The prophet he gave a prophecy where he said that the day of judgment will won't come until the lands of Arabia. They return to becoming rivers and meadows. So we're talking about the entire Arabian Peninsula. We're not talking about the monsoons that take place in the north of Arabia.
>> Yeah.
>> Now he says two things. They will return to becoming meadows and uh rivers and meadows, >> right?
>> Yeah.
>> Just just like they were before.
>> Implying it was at one point before like that.
>> So obviously Arabian Peninsula being a desert during the time of the prophet >> and being a desert thousands of years before that. Do you know the last time it was rivers and meadows with hippos and elephants and this that and the other?
>> It was during the holy period around 7,000 B.CE.
>> Okay.
>> And then he gives a prediction. He says and it will return to be becoming like that.
>> Does he give a date?
>> No.
>> No. He said the day will happen.
>> But these are these are the signs of the impending day of judgment.
>> Right. After that happen.
>> These events are signs for the next thing big thing happening. So they don't happen after the desert goes from a desert like full of sand to be coming greenery.
>> Yeah. Judgment comes later. But these are signs that follows. So once you know these things are happening you know coming towards the end >> but look how specific the the prophecy is the land itself will become it's not just a small portion that someone might be able to guess at not like the north and maybe he some information came down to him that monsoons take place every annually or four years or whatever no the whole of Arabia now it's specific unlike the cost trains of Nostradamas because the only time since his life and the time now that the lands Arabia are showing greenery is today >> or around 30 40 years ago.
>> So on the day of judgment >> no the point is how did he know that that it was at one point like this and it will return again like that where is the information coming from very very bizarre like imagine I made the same to you I was like to you oh London will be >> it would be unexpected yeah I'd expect some sort >> if I made that claim would you would you think that's bizarre >> I'd think it be a bit bizarre. Yeah. I wouldn't know how you come to that conclusion.
>> I I wouldn't know. I don't know where you >> That's exactly what the Quran wants you to think.
>> Yeah. No, I say back in the day, they used to carry stories on like songs and like passed down.
>> They have nothing like that recorded history.
>> So the information that we giving >> many of this information are like that.
>> It's not impossible that certain things are like this. You know, we're not saying the Quran brings all new information because Quran talks about the historical past. But the issue is how does the Quran talk about all of these things and the prophet all those things bizarre, amazing, fantastic and all of them are correct and right.
That's >> still has to come true though.
>> And remember your point, remember your point about uh you know someone making 20 tweets and then one tweet came back and did it in the 19 or something. The Quran what he said what he's given So there is nothing about like editing process of like oh anything that's wrong they take it out >> there the ones that haven't been proven yet count as wrong or you think more positive no when the prophets when the prophet sallallaihi wasallam said something will come in the future like for example the barefooted Arabs beds will be building tall scribecapers and competing that 300 years ago no No one could see the barefooted bed means they're not even wearing shoes and sandals. And how are they going to compete building tallest buildings? 300 years ago there was nothing like that. No Arabs were doing that. But now who's making the tallest buildings and competing against each other?
>> Are we talking about like Saudi Arabia, >> Dubai and elsewhere?
>> Yeah. The same people, the same beduin, same nmers who didn't have shoes 300 years ago speaking.
>> How does the prophet know these things will happen? That's why I'm saying information of this nature should make us think critically. Like I'm looking for evidence. Oh God, show me evidence.
Show me evidence that you exist. Show me evidence the Quran is true. Show me evidence the prophet is is is a true prophet. It's all in front.
>> Did he make any modern prophecies like say like something specific?
>> There will be a time when it will rain and it will burn.
>> That seems a little vague to me.
>> Vague. Have you heard of acid rain?
I think acid rain probably would have existed pre modern days ago.
>> Do you have evidence that it happened in Arabia?
>> In what we're talking about >> acid rain happens when >> from my understanding just cause that pollution.
>> Exactly. So basically the more pollutants there are the more um the water that obviously the water cycle happens right and the more pollutants that the water takes into the sky and then that basically um when the water drops again you will have a higher pH or a lower pH >> why would that no I was going to say why would that specifically be acid rain like could you infer that maybe it was raining and there was a forest fire you know >> no a rain that burnt >> look but he said rain and burn >> no rain that burnt rain that burns. Yeah, because remember the prophet is speaking to someone who doesn't understand acid or things like modern technology like hot rain which doesn't really make sense. I've never heard of that.
>> No, that doesn't make sense.
>> I would rule it out. No, no, but that doesn't really make sense because if if the water was hot, it would stay steam and stay up there. But the fact that cows condense and then it kind of eliminates you know temperature that leaves you with pH and pH we understand like through science from what we understand you know when the pollutants you know dissolve in the water the pH of the water lowers and then that falls on people uh we know this is true we know this happens like around here >> there'll be a time in the future the prophet said that people will be speaking some with their thighs >> oh there you go >> anyway Wait, he said speaking with their thighs. Is that what he said?
>> Remember what he's trying to do?
Explaining in the simplest language to people of things of the future. He can't use things. Oh, they'll be speaking on their mobile phones. What's a mobile phone?
>> So, that would be very convincing.
>> Here's >> they wouldn't even know what a phones is. How can it be convincing?
>> The prophet like the one I mentioned until rivers and meadows return to the land of Arabia.
He's saying the slave girl will give birth to a mistress and you will see barefoot, naked, dependent shepherds compete in the construction of tall buildings. Some of the scholars have said that the slave girl is in relation to how daughters will command their mothers and their mothers will obey them. Mhm. Uh again one of his companions saying that he's saying that by the one in whose hand is my soul the hour won't come until the beasts speak to humans. The reason why I've highlighted that is because only recently we came across we shared this in one of our groups where they were saying that they're going they're using AI to decipher the languages of octopi um of dolphins and the bonobo which is like a type of ape and it's extraordinary.
>> Has that happened?
>> Have we used apparently it's they're getting there. They're getting there. I mean the apes for instance we have that old ape that that passed away about 10 years ago. It was uh it was able to communicate through sign language. It had it had a language uh vocabulary equivalent to a seven-year-old. It's quite it was quite stunning. The tip of the man's whip and the strap of his sandal will speak and his thigh informs him of what his family has done in his absence.
>> So we've got what four prophecies there in one. So what he what he's essentially doing here is giving you before the hour. So many of these prophecies, some of our scholars have said, are coming true today.
>> These are more recent ones like you asked before.
>> Yeah.
>> And there's some there's some other ones as well.
>> Would you not agree that there could be interpretation on what the meaning of a fi informing of your family could be?
>> Yeah, it could be.
>> It could there could be. But the question then arises when you bring the cumulative evidences together.
>> Yeah. You ask yourself, is it the case that the thigh hasn't communicated? Remember said that this is in the way the prophet would have spoken in uh in a in a simple way to convey the information right in a in a simple way but one that is comprehensive and mean.
>> So then you ask yourself well does it go against what we know?
>> Well this is these are prophecies so it may come true either years from now or 10 years and 10 years or 100 years.
>> Yeah. But the ones that have come true, these are part of the cumulative evidence that we have >> that when they do come true, we immediately remember the specific prophecy that the prophet gave us.
>> So that's that's the point that we're trying.
>> So let's let's wrap this up. We've discussed you earlier on before we came in. Sorry to interject in your discussion, but I think we had a nice conversation and we learned a lot of things.
>> Yeah. So we talked about in terms of how we can use our critical thinking to come to, you know, informed choices, make our own conclusions based on examining and analyzing what's all around us, but using tools that are appropriate and that are valid. We're not using just emotional belief and my gut feeling.
We're using our intelligence, our logic, rationality, reasons, critical thinking, all of that and assessing the evidence accordingly. Not taking prior a prior assumptions and taking everything exomatic and by brute fact. We looked at the evidence. We looked at probabilities and possibilities, logical possibilities of God not existing, God existing. Which one makes more sense? The universe being always eternal and not requiring another explanation. We went through all of these alternative explanations and we analyzed and we assessed in terms of their explanatory scope which one is more better in its explanatory scope which one gives us more reasonable explanation more sensible explanation because that's what we are seeking for and so far we examined in terms of theistic being one God makes sense only one necessary being and Islam we brought in the Quran the prophecies about the prophet and so on and so forth so It's up to you how you take in this information, how you assess this information and reflect on it. All we are seeking is, you know, be open and critical minded and ask yourself which seems more reasonable because as I said, when you're hungry, you won't just simply be I can't make up a mind. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
I don't know.
>> Very indecisive.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But we suggesting don't be like that because you need to eat food to survive. So don't go without food for seven days. Right. Daniel, listen. I need to go.
>> But listen, there's a a present from us to you.
>> Um, I appreciate it. Really, >> take it, Daniel. Take it. Take it. Have a read through it. At least even if it sits on your shelf for a number of days or months or years, it doesn't matter.
>> Present to you. Free gift.
>> Honestly, it's very kind. I'm I'm perfectly I don't trouble.
>> Is there a trouble?
>> You know, but it would imply that maybe I'm uh >> It doesn't imply anything.
>> It doesn't imply anything. It's only between us giving a present to you that you stood there.
>> That um that I I might use it.
>> Daniel, you're if you want to if you want to throw it away, that's entirely between you and your Lord.
>> We're just giving it to you because you spent time with us and it's our present to you as a thank you.
>> I promise if I do take an interest, I will get a Quran. I promise.
>> That's all right.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Daniel.
>> Thank you for your time. Pleasure speaking to you and you my brother.
>> I'm not This might be a rarity. It might be regular. Who knows?
>> And beyond.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Why Allah Created Marriage? The True Purpose of Marriage in Islam | By Hamza Yusuf
Noblelessons
471 views•2026-06-05
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
East Meets West #18: Answers to Overthinking #Shorts
universal_sage
268 views•2026-06-01
