Lecture I delivered (online) hosted by the Baseerah Forum (Australia) on Friday 19th November 2021 To learn more about Baseerah Forum: www.baseerah.o...
*"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves] ?"* - Qur'an (52:35) SUBHANALLAH ❤️🤍❤️ Beautiful and Insightful lecture _May Allah SWT bless you and accept your efforts._
I am sure some atheist will comment that "saying that universe is a creation" is a confirmation bias, would "proof through existence" be appropriate for this lecture? Like the ones of Ibn sina, Hossein Nasr: example: Let's take the general rule of Kant's "Existence is not a predicate - this is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality". Lets start with an apple, which is the first thing we learn in school. 1. An apple by itself is not luminous to project itself in your eyes. 2. You are only able to see an apple due to a source of light which enables that apple to be projected in your eyes and think and understand it properties and attributes [shape size texture etc.]. Whether an apple is virtual or a peach camouflaged as apple, it is identified as apple by you, due to its properties, unless you go touch it and eat it. 3. So when you look at something in universe there are only two fundamental questions you can ask. a) what is it? b) does it exist or not? For example, you can think of a purple winged horse, and tell me "what is it", but when I ask you "does it exist?", your answer will be NO, why? because there is no external reality to it, it is just abstraction of mind compounded by using different properties and attributes you have experience with, i.e., purple colour and a horse and wings of a flying creature you know as bird. In universe properties and attributes which are essence of things are wed together with these existent things, you cannot separate them. But in your mind you can easily separate them and mish-mash them with one another. This is what is called compounding ideas. The unicorn, celestial tea pot, flying spaghetti monster, leprechaun, sky daddy are example of these. And so are the multiple gods that have limited features, like eyes, nose, legs etc. like Zeus, Thor, etc., and most atheist or polytheist who worship limited gods, love to use that for comparison with true God or say that God is a human conception, which shows lack of basic understanding between compound and simple concepts. 4. Anything in universe does not have any existential effect in reality. For example, you can think of an apple or a banana right now but you cannot eat that apple or that banana, there has to be an element of existence added to their essence for them to have existential effect for you to eat them. So, Where do you think that is coming from? An apple or a banana are not thinking by themselves and making themselves appear as soon as you think of their properties in your mind now are they? This is why you have Kant's expression "Existence is not a predicate." 5. So the things you see in universe have this balance of quality of being and not-being. This is what it means to be a possible being or contingent being. For example, you would not exist if your parents consummated and hour earlier or an hour later. You are a contingent being and dependent. As you could not have been. Same with Universe. It could not have been or could have been otherwise, different from how it looks now, if big bang happened few minutes earlier or later. You can ask any astrophysicist about this. 6. Since things and their essence cannot make themselves appear, it necessitates an external input from outside by a source. 7. Therefore you can conclude that the things in the universe have no being of their own but receive existence from something outside, that define them in our minds what they are. Just like a light which is shed on an Apple for that apple to be projected in your eyes. And this being who has a character to emanate itself to make existence a reality is a simple, pure being we call God. Whose very essence is "to be" or "to exist", that could not not be, a necessary being, and a necessary being is a "predicate" and essential property without which nothing exists.
To summarize the above Point 7 6. Since things and their essence cannot make themselves appear, it necessitates an external input from outside by a source.
The problem with using gods as explanations is that, A god can be defined to be anything, to be everything , to solve anything , to answer everything Rendering a god useless as an explanation for anything. A god, Can be anything you need it to be.
I think you didn’t quite pay attention when watching the video, the speaker gave a rather precise definition of what he deems to be « god ». You are confusing your confused understanding of what god is and the very precise entity that is talked about in the video. I invite you to watch it again.
What if someone says since there are infinite numbers between 2 digits e.g Between 1m and 2m distance there are infinite amount of numbers then how one is able to traverse this distance ? Could you please respond to this
At 53:23 to 53:34 Someone asked about using rationality to understand things outside our universe. I think the person who asked this question is basically implying that we cannot use rationality to explain what happened before our universe because our rationality is based on our experiences within this universe and therefore may not be applicable to what is outside our universe. I think it's a fascinating question, but I also think it is very flawed. The questioner doesn't seem to realise that he himself is using rationality when asking such a question. In short, He is using his rationality to doubt the usefulness of rationality, and that sounds like a major fallacy.
If the top god created a number of lesser gods, each of them possessing the power to create their own universes, would it then be acceptable to thank/worship more than one god? If the lesser gods possess free-will and our universe were not guaranteed by the existence of the top god alone, would it then be permissible to thank/worship more than one god?
Hello Donald I will try and answer ,but this is my own opinion only . Islamically this is shirk as in association of partners to the one true God Allah SWT. From this point of view we have the understanding that only Allah SWT the one true God is worthy of worship . No other lesser god's or beings would qualify to for our worship . Now if there was such a being responsible for the creation of our world then who created it and so forth until you get to the point Abdullah made and about dependancy and infinity , when does it stop ...well we know it's only one that is truly independent of all things in that sense so one one worthy of worship
God by definition is uncreated so the lesser gods are not gods. Even if God did create entities that created the universes, God would still be the original Creator of everything.
There is a bigger problem of more then two creators one having omnipotence as an eternal attribute and other created attribute. The problem is suppose that a lesser God for eg call it a "lesser creator A" created an EVENT "B" but at the same time the top God (the all powerful one) wants to negate what the lesser God A is creating ie -Lesser God ie lesser creator A Wants to create an event "B". -Top God want to negate that event B. Would event "B" exist or not? Event B will only not exist if the top god eliminates the lesser God A but directly the top god Can't negate event B because it is caused by the lesser God A but at the same time the top god is all powerful (ie which means he should be able to directly negate or create any possible event ie power pertains to all rational possibilities ) yet he isn't able to negate event "B" directly which lesser God A is causing without elimination of the lesser God A. And this makes the power of the top God specified and specification is proof of contingency. Hence, there can only be one creator who is all powerful. Ie what this means is that he can directly create or negate every possible event with his QUDRAH (power) & IRADAH (WILL).
If the lesser "god" is created, then bam! Hes not a god, because he depended upon the true God who created him. If YOU create a robot which has the ability to create another robot would that robot be more intelligent\independent than you?
There is no ability at all except with the “top God”. The lesser God's have no intrinsic power ∴ they are not god but creation. Therefore them “creating universes” is not really them creating universes but “top God” using them as a mechanism to create the universe. Just as maybe the Big Bang maybe was the mechanism by which this universe was created. Just as God giving us the ability to walk doesn't mean that we intrinsically have this power to do stuff or us making a table doesn't mean WE are the ones who ultimately made the table. The One who ultimately did that is Allah, as all power and ability rest with Him.
We only need one thing that didn't choose it's own attributes for our explanations. Positing the existence of a further thing (God) that did not choose its own attributes either, has no explanatory power and is therefore ultimately superfluous.
You have 2 choices The reason the universe or any physical object requires something outside itself to determine its attributes are because ITS CONTINGENT and its an EFFECT. The universe does not Speak, Has no ability to perform an action No power No intellect, No will No choice Unconscious Possible attributes Possible existence Physical, Composite made from parts Has a beginning Change - Can be destroyed by external factors Limitations- restrictions Specified functions Which therefore needs something outside to determine its attributes and put it together because of the above reasons. It makes more sense to believe God does not need anything outside himself to determine because he is 1. Metaphysical 2. ALL POWERFUL - So nothing outside can touch him. 3. NECCESARY EXISTENCE AND NECCESSARY ATTRIBUTES OF WILL, POWER, CHOICE which means the attributes are contained in by necessity. 4. Eternal by necessity 5.Perfect 6. Has no limitations
That is why the necessity of this Being must be asserted. His power, His existence, must be asserted in order to explain the existence of our universe. This is not superfluous, He is self-explanatory, that's what makes him the Necessary Being, if not that, you can never explain why there is something instead of nothing, this must be asserted.
![Big Atheism-Theism Debate: Dr Arif Ahmed VS Abdullah al Andalusi [Nottingham University, 2017]](/img/1.gif)
Yes another video from one of my favourite daee. ❤
*"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves] ?"*
- Qur'an (52:35)
SUBHANALLAH ❤️🤍❤️
Beautiful and Insightful lecture
_May Allah SWT bless you and accept your efforts._
Neither.
What is a “nothing”? And why is your god creating something using magic a better or different alternative?
Our rationality is our way of approaching reality.
If we cast doubt on that then we may as well cast doubt on all of our thought endeavours.
barakallahu fikum 💚💚
That was amazing.
I am sure some atheist will comment that "saying that universe is a creation" is a confirmation bias, would "proof through existence" be appropriate for this lecture?
Like the ones of Ibn sina, Hossein Nasr:
example:
Let's take the general rule of Kant's "Existence is not a predicate - this is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality". Lets start with an apple, which is the first thing we learn in school.
1. An apple by itself is not luminous to project itself in your eyes.
2. You are only able to see an apple due to a source of light which enables that apple to be projected in your eyes and think and understand it properties and attributes [shape size texture etc.]. Whether an apple is virtual or a peach camouflaged as apple, it is identified as apple by you, due to its properties, unless you go touch it and eat it.
3. So when you look at something in universe there are only two fundamental questions you can ask.
a) what is it?
b) does it exist or not?
For example, you can think of a purple winged horse, and tell me "what is it", but when I ask you "does it exist?", your answer will be NO, why? because there is no external reality to it, it is just abstraction of mind compounded by using different properties and attributes you have experience with, i.e., purple colour and a horse and wings of a flying creature you know as bird. In universe properties and attributes which are essence of things are wed together with these existent things, you cannot separate them. But in your mind you can easily separate them and mish-mash them with one another. This is what is called compounding ideas. The unicorn, celestial tea pot, flying spaghetti monster, leprechaun, sky daddy are example of these. And so are the multiple gods that have limited features, like eyes, nose, legs etc. like Zeus, Thor, etc., and most atheist or polytheist who worship limited gods, love to use that for comparison with true God or say that God is a human conception, which shows lack of basic understanding between compound and simple concepts.
4. Anything in universe does not have any existential effect in reality. For example, you can think of an apple or a banana right now but you cannot eat that apple or that banana, there has to be an element of existence added to their essence for them to have existential effect for you to eat them. So, Where do you think that is coming from? An apple or a banana are not thinking by themselves and making themselves appear as soon as you think of their properties in your mind now are they? This is why you have Kant's expression "Existence is not a predicate."
5. So the things you see in universe have this balance of quality of being and not-being. This is what it means to be a possible being or contingent being. For example, you would not exist if your parents consummated and hour earlier or an hour later. You are a contingent being and dependent. As you could not have been. Same with Universe. It could not have been or could have been otherwise, different from how it looks now, if big bang happened few minutes earlier or later. You can ask any astrophysicist about this.
6. Since things and their essence cannot make themselves appear, it necessitates an external input from outside by a source.
7. Therefore you can conclude that the things in the universe have no being of their own but receive existence from something outside, that define them in our minds what they are. Just like a light which is shed on an Apple for that apple to be projected in your eyes. And this being who has a character to emanate itself to make existence a reality is a simple, pure being we call God. Whose very essence is "to be" or "to exist", that could not not be, a necessary being, and a necessary being is a "predicate" and essential property without which nothing exists.
To summarize the above
Point 7 6. Since things and their essence cannot make themselves appear, it necessitates an external input from outside by a source.
But, does it not lead to divine simplicity?
*_Existence of God: Proof is our own existence._*
May Allah rewards you Al-Jannah.
Hafadhakum Allah wa Baraka fiykum ameen.
برك الله فيك ❤
May Allah bless you brother
The problem with using gods as explanations is that,
A god can be defined to be anything, to be everything , to solve anything , to answer everything
Rendering a god useless as an explanation for anything.
A god,
Can be anything you need it to be.
I think you didn’t quite pay attention when watching the video, the speaker gave a rather precise definition of what he deems to be « god ». You are confusing your confused understanding of what god is and the very precise entity that is talked about in the video. I invite you to watch it again.
JazakaAllahu khayr
What if someone says since there are infinite numbers between 2 digits e.g Between 1m and 2m distance there are infinite amount of numbers then how one is able to traverse this distance ?
Could you please respond to this
You found an answer to this question yet?😊
Jazakallahu khairan
BarakAllahu feek
JazakAllahu khairan
At 53:23 to 53:34 Someone asked about using rationality to understand things outside our universe. I think the person who asked this question is basically implying that we cannot use rationality to explain what happened before our universe because our rationality is based on our experiences within this universe and therefore may not be applicable to what is outside our universe. I think it's a fascinating question, but I also think it is very flawed. The questioner doesn't seem to realise that he himself is using rationality when asking such a question. In short, He is using his rationality to doubt the usefulness of rationality, and that sounds like a major fallacy.
If the top god created a number of lesser gods, each of them possessing the power to create their own universes, would it then be acceptable to thank/worship more than one god?
If the lesser gods possess free-will and our universe were not guaranteed by the existence of the top god alone, would it then be permissible to thank/worship more than one god?
Hello Donald
I will try and answer ,but this is my own opinion only .
Islamically this is shirk as in association of partners to the one true God Allah SWT.
From this point of view we have the understanding that only Allah SWT the one true God is worthy of worship .
No other lesser god's or beings would qualify to for our worship .
Now if there was such a being responsible for the creation of our world then who created it and so forth until you get to the point Abdullah made and about dependancy and infinity , when does it stop ...well we know it's only one that is truly independent of all things in that sense so one one worthy of worship
God by definition is uncreated so the lesser gods are not gods. Even if God did create entities that created the universes, God would still be the original Creator of everything.
There is a bigger problem of more then two creators one having omnipotence as an eternal attribute and other created attribute.
The problem is suppose that a lesser God for eg call it a "lesser creator A" created an EVENT "B" but at the same time the top God (the all powerful one) wants to negate what the lesser God A is creating ie
-Lesser God ie lesser creator A Wants to create an event "B".
-Top God want to negate that event B.
Would event "B" exist or not?
Event B will only not exist if the top god eliminates the lesser God A but directly the top god Can't negate event B because it is caused by the lesser God A but at the same time the top god is all powerful (ie which means he should be able to directly negate or create any possible event ie power pertains to all rational possibilities ) yet he isn't able to negate event "B" directly which lesser God A is causing without elimination of the lesser God A.
And this makes the power of the top God specified and specification is proof of contingency. Hence, there can only be one creator who is all powerful.
Ie what this means is that he can directly create or negate every possible event with his QUDRAH (power) & IRADAH (WILL).
If the lesser "god" is created, then bam! Hes not a god, because he depended upon the true God who created him. If YOU create a robot which has the ability to create another robot would that robot be more intelligent\independent than you?
There is no ability at all except with the “top God”. The lesser God's have no intrinsic power ∴ they are not god but creation. Therefore them “creating universes” is not really them creating universes but “top God” using them as a mechanism to create the universe. Just as maybe the Big Bang maybe was the mechanism by which this universe was created. Just as God giving us the ability to walk doesn't mean that we intrinsically have this power to do stuff or us making a table doesn't mean WE are the ones who ultimately made the table. The One who ultimately did that is Allah, as all power and ability rest with Him.
There is existence.
How do you know your god created anything? What are these supposed creations?
We only need one thing that didn't choose it's own attributes for our explanations.
Positing the existence of a further thing (God) that did not choose its own attributes either, has no explanatory power and is therefore ultimately superfluous.
What do you mean ?
You have 2 choices
The reason the universe or any physical object requires something outside itself to determine its attributes are because ITS CONTINGENT and its an EFFECT.
The universe does not
Speak,
Has no ability to perform an action
No power
No intellect,
No will
No choice
Unconscious
Possible attributes
Possible existence
Physical,
Composite made from parts
Has a beginning
Change - Can be destroyed by external factors
Limitations- restrictions
Specified functions
Which therefore needs something outside to determine its attributes and put it together because of the above reasons.
It makes more sense to believe God does not need anything outside himself to determine because he is
1. Metaphysical
2. ALL POWERFUL - So nothing outside can touch him.
3. NECCESARY EXISTENCE AND NECCESSARY ATTRIBUTES OF WILL, POWER, CHOICE which means the attributes are contained in by necessity.
4. Eternal by necessity
5.Perfect
6. Has no limitations
That is why the necessity of this Being must be asserted. His power, His existence, must be asserted in order to explain the existence of our universe.
This is not superfluous, He is self-explanatory, that's what makes him the Necessary Being, if not that, you can never explain why there is something instead of nothing, this must be asserted.
Jazakom allahou 5ayran. Can you please translate this video to french for my kids.
as salam aleykum, je vais essayer de le faire
Could you please do a talk on showing factual evidence that we are living on a spinning ball going around the sun.
اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم
I want to be like you brother. Where did you study to know all this?
Ustadh Abdullah teaches at The Quran Institute. You should sign up for one of his courses if your interested in learning more in-depth.
Tabaraka Allah ma sha Allah Hayakum Allah bro
❤️
nope.