What does Science Provide? Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller Part 1/2

A small talk by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller on the incapabilities of science to explain "everything" as some claim the case to be. The talk is a little dry in tone, but bare with it and you will find it very interesting and enlightening, Inshallah.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Shaykh
• Nuh
• Ha
• Mim
• Keller
• Islam
• Muslim
• Quran
• Science
• Atheist
• Atheism
• Prophet
• Muhammed
• Allah
• Lecture
• Talk

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@iviewthetube Thanks for your comment, but is this all you have to say to the string of comments ripe with concise refutations of your previous points? OK then. But more than that, they contain concepts that, if you were to think about critically you would realize how you still don't understand the Islamic concept of God or what such a being must logically (necessarily) be. "God" cannot evolve because He must be beyond time, otherwise He is contingent and dependent by definition. Not a "God".

[iviewthetube]

@EnjoiningKnowlege "there is only one entity acting with Absolute Power and Control "

So if only one God exists he likely evolved like the rest of us and he must have destroyed all of the gods who were less powerful than him.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege than we go back to my first point: there aren't multiple beings at all -- there's only ONE as logically, multiple sets of the same attributes and aspects can simply be reduced to one set (i.e. One Being) as per Occam's Razor. You should take some philosophy classes my friend, as it seems you haven't thought about this nearly as critically as you need to.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege If no material differences can exist amongst them (as otherwise they would be contingent: ex. matter occupies space, and if they had material aspects they would 'need' space and thereby not be self-sufficient or necessary), then only immaterial differences can exist amongst them. However, what characteristics must such a Immaterial Being have: must be timeless, eternal, Powerful, Knowledgeable, Self-Sufficient etc. But, if each immaterial being requires these to be Perfect

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege Also, via Occam's Razor, there is absolutely no conceptual reason not to view the true Perfect Being as the unity of the attributes including Absolute Power and Control. Why multiply explanations beyond necessity? The only way around this is to argue that perhaps these other entities have other unique attributes too. This is fallacious for the first reason given, also due to Occam's Razor, and due to the fact that no material differences can exist amongst them.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@iviewthetube You clearly didn't understand the deeper implications of the argument. In reality, a Perfect Being must possess Absolute Power and Control. If "multiple" entities possess this, then in reality what makes them different and distinct to begin with? If "all" have such attributes, then in reality there is only one entity acting with Absolute Power and Control based on the very definition of Absolute Power and Control (multiple opposing existences cannot each have full control).

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege Therefore, God must logically be the Necessary and timeless entity needed to explain the temporality and therefore contingency of the rest of existence.

4. You definitely didn't read the article --- Shaykh Mullan provides rational argumentation for deriving the particular attributes (ex. 'Will' --> 'Life' --> 'Awareness') of God: I have yet to see a single response to any of these. Had you read the article, I wouldn't have had to object to anything you said.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege of past causes/creators. This would run into the same problem of complete an infinite set of past events (this moment would never begin to exist, nor nothing occurring in it as there would be an infinite set of past entities that would first need to be created/caused). Consider the analogy: if there was an infinite series of soldiers standing in line, waiting to shoot the person in front of them, and each needed the permission of the one behind him, no one would ever fire.

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@EnjoiningKnowlege 2. [cont] Completing an infinite set of past events, which would need to be done to arrive at this moment, has the Universe been eternal is logically impossible by definition (infinity cannot be completed).

3. This objection would fail any 1st year philosophy course. God by definition is the Necessary Being needed to explain the existence of contingent and temporal things. Via logical deduction, such a being cannot itself be temporal or else you would have an infinite set [con

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

@iviewthetube Just to show you how you've missed many of the crucial points in the article, I'll briefly go through your "objections":

1. No evidence offered whatsoever. Causality is a philosophical assumption made by materialism. No "causal property" of matter can be observed. The only thing that can be observed are the normal correlations between material events. Materialism then presumes that this is a cause and effect relationship.

2. Runs into the problem of infinite regression of past.