 بلاه من الشيطان الرجيم بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والصلاة والسلام على أشف الأنبياء والمرسلين سيدنا ونبينا أب القاسمين محمد وعلى أهل بيته الطيبين والطاهرين المعصومين المظلومين ولعنة الله على عدائهم أجمعين من الآن إلى قيام يوم الدين آمين يا رب العالمين يا رب العالمين شكرا لكم على تسألنا أحد فيشو شو في الوصول على المعارض المقبولين في which we discuss the basic contentions and disputes between ourselves and other sects وعلى الآن كيف نحن نتكلم على محالات قليل من المئات ومعارض فينا العامل مع أمنا وعلى الآن سأسأل فيشو باب who are working in the control room to turn off the echo أسفة عن ذلك يا رؤية، فهي فقط أسلحة تقنية لكننا نحن نتحدث عن الأشياء الأسلحة بين نفسنا والأخرين الذين يحدثون بإمكانهم أن نفعل أسلحة أخرين والأسلحة وإمكاننا أن نفعلها بشكل أسلحة على ما نعتقد حتى إذا كانت هذه الأسلحات أسلحة من أخرين لذلك, خلال هذه الثلاثة وإمكاننا أن نحاول أو أن نضع أسلحة أخرى هو أسلحة الأسلحة والأسلحة والأسلحة التي ليس فقط تقنية مع الأسلحة العالمية وإمكاننا أن نعتقدها ولكن أهمًا أننا نفعلها بشكل أسلحة بإمكاننا أن نضع أسلحة أو أسلحة لكي يجب أن نتحدث عن أسلحة أخرى أدنات الثلاثة فمن هذه الثلاثة سنقوم بشكل أسلحة الأسلحة ومساعدتنا بليفة كم أسلحة الأسلحة الأسلحة تجميع أسلحة أسلحة أخرى في أسلحة أدري last week ف that we introduced كيف هذا يمكننا أن نتحدث عن الأسلحة بمجد التطبيق على أقل أن أم لا متوثة هناك أكثر يعني أن نضع أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة أسلحة يجب أن نتفعل كل منه كما يجب أن يكون لديه موضوع مختلف لذلك يجب أن نتفعل أثيزم وإنهاته وإنهاته موضوع مخلوقاً كما يجب أن يكون لديه مخلوقاً ثم نتفعل أثيزم أخرى وإنهاته لكننا لدينا بدأنا مع الموضوع المخلوقي وإنهاته موضوع ما سنقوم with وماذا نحاول أن نفعل من أجل هذه الأساس؟ نوعاً من شخصية المتطفل الذين نفعلهم منه ذاتjar فتåads نوعاً من شخصية المتطفل المتطفل المتطفل المتطفل وماذا نفعل من دقائق عن إمام عليكم أتبع بأمان كبير معاً salty هل هذا الموضوع الجانب؟ يقوم بأمر المحقوق وإمام كبير هل أنت أن تقوم بتفعل ل�as we see the necessary consequences of what holding onto that principle would do to a person's set of beliefs. And it's been quite an interesting experience. Of course I've tried my best not to mis-represent any overview, and I try my best to source and cite the statements of those who would attribute themselves to a certain ideological school or philosophical view. لا أحاول أن تقرأ مجموعة ما كانت قتلت بشكل كبير ولكن في الوقت يمكننا أن نتحدث عن المحتوى المساعدة ومجموعة من ما they're saying لا يوجد problem in doing that as long as our judgement and our observation is always based upon rationality and the rational consequences of what is being said for those of you who were not able to tune in last week and for those of you who of course have endured this short break of one day in which we did not talk about such an issue allow me to remind you we had reached the world view of atheism and we had spoken about how atheism is not merely the abstract rejection of a deity but rather the entire world view and package which comes alongside rejecting a deity of course there's several things we want to say when it comes down to looking at a world view when it comes to the world view that atheism normally propounds now there are exceptions to the rule but we are talking about the general large mass population of atheism they would believe in what we call today materialism and materialism is the view that everything is ultimately material in nature at the most fundamental level everything that exists outside consists of nothing but matter and energy everything is governed by the basic laws of physics and in principle can be explained in terms of those physical laws so when we look at materialism any explanation it provides would be a physical explanation and no other form of explanation every object is a purely physical object and every event that occurs has a purely physical cause that is to say it is caused by another physical event and is not based upon choice for example if it has any cause at all in short the universe is just a collection of clumps of matter following the laws of physics so that is the world view but what is its account or methodology of understanding this is its basic source or epistemology if materialism is what we would describe as the ontology what is the epistemology or the source of knowledge of atheism essentially the source of knowledge would be what we call scientific naturalism that would be the name of the general world view or strict naturalism and that is the view that spatial temporal that spatial temporal universe of entities postulated by our best or current sciences particularly physics is all there is so everything has literally a physical scientific explanation this might be rejected or might be contested by some of our friends who happen to be atheists and they may very well come forward and say look at the end of the day that's not what I believe I just believe that there's no God but I'm open for other solutions as we've said denying a major concept such as God has several consequences and this is something which must be recognized ultimately it's not fair that we enter into a conversation and postulate a massive claim without being able to postulate some of the answers to dilemmas raised by that claim allow me to give a very brief example just so the believer understands exactly what I'm saying God willing if we as believers claim to believe in a God who is all-knowing all-powerful and has created this universe then to a certain degree we are expected to have a decent response to the existence of evil and suffering within the universe this is a classical dilemma against theism which is raised by those who do not believe in a deity and it's from the right to ask such a question because they can see what they would call an apparent conflict between the existence of suffering and the existence of a God who knows everything and is all-powerful and of course we will come to that particular discussion إن شاء الله it's not like the school of the Ahl al-Bait may for peace and blessings of Allah be upon them struggles to provide an answer for that but the point is that is a decent question which arises as a result of a non-believer knowing that a believer believes in the concept of a deity therefore when a person claims to you that they do not believe in a deity it likewise has several consequences and it's not fair that people who belong to the other side of the fence just sit back and poke holes at one side of the fence but refuse to engage with questions about their own if someone does refuse to engage with such questions at such a fundamental level then we have to just say that they're not very serious about the bigger questions in life and they're not very serious about that which they take seriously as fundamental fundamental parts of that package which we call their worldview they're not very serious about their philosophy in life nor have they seriously fought over the big and major questions so let's go one more time to see what has been said by a very prominent الفلوسفر A man who by no means is unqualified to talk about the ramifications consequences and necessary results of denying a belief in God and adopting scientism or naturalism as their worldview he states and this is of course Professor Alex Rosenberg in his book The Atheist Guide to Reality he states there is much more to atheism than its knock down arguments that there is no God so let's get it out of our heads once and for all that atheism is just arguing that God does not exist atheism is much more than that and has to postulate some solutions to its own claims and its own worldview as well there is the whole rest of the worldview that I've been using all along that comes along with atheism it's a demanding rigorous breathtaking grip on reality one that has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubt it's called science just to clarify according to someone like Dr. Alex Rosenberg atheism is merely the natural consequence of accepting the findings and conclusions and theories theories of course used here in a scientific manner and not used in the general English usage of a word that we would postulate in philosophy for example according to Rosenberg we should take these findings, theories and conclusions and essentially this is what would lead us to atheism and this is what would give us the sufficient grounds for believing that there's no God now what's interesting about Rosenberg's worldview here is just how much he's quite willing to concede he's quite willing to acknowledge everything and that's one thing I like about the works of Alex Rosenberg I know that some might claim that I'm very biased some might claim that I have a skewed interest in misrepresenting the doctrines of atheism but in reality what we notice from Rosenberg is that he acknowledges and he concedes a lot of that which has been said and observed by believing philosophers and by believing thinkers about the necessary consequences of denying God's existence and the necessary consequences of both the scientific or scientist worldview in addition to the materialist worldview in summarizing the big questions he states what is the nature of reality what physics says it is what is the purpose of the universe there is none what is the meaning of life there is none why am I here just dumb luck does prayer work are you kidding is there a free will not a chance what happens when we die everything pretty much goes on as before except us what is the difference between right and wrong good and bad there is no moral difference between them why should I be moral because it makes you feel better than being immoral these are the big questions according to Rosenberg when we come back we'll continue analyzing this peace be upon you dear viewers thank you for bearing patiently with that short break before the break we were discussing the natural consequences or the answers to the big questions that every worldview is concerned with and the answers which are provided by the worldview known as atheism or scientific materialism this set of answers has not been provided by just anyone it's not been provided by myself it's not been provided by another theistic apologist it's not been provided by a theistic polemicist it's not even been provided by someone that has an agenda against atheism rather they've been provided by a very articulate very well studied and very qualified professor of the philosophy of science who himself is a professing atheist and believes that these answers are very liberating he believes that not only should we embrace these answers but he believes that in doing so we are being honest to ourselves in addition to just accepting the facts of reality we had stopped off at the question of what is the difference between right wrong, good and bad to which he stated there is no moral difference between them then he responds why should I be moral his response is interesting he states because it makes you feel better than being immoral is abortion euthanasia euthanasia that is to say killing someone off at an earlier age than a natural death because of the fact they happen to be suffering from say for example an illness which is very painful suicide paying taxes for an aid or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible or sometimes obligatory his response anything goes what is love and how can I find it love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem don't look for it it will find you when you need it does history have any meaning or purpose it's full of sound and fury but signifies nothing does it have any lessons for our future fewer and fewer if it's ever had any to begin with what one finds admirable about Rosenberg is he's not interested in beating around the bush or glossing over the reality of the worldview he embraces he calls a spade a spade he says it as it is and this is something very admirable because it allows us to have that conversation without attempting to gloss over in order to beautify things or make them sound nicer for the respective audience but it's far more I guess we could say that this is somewhat of a surprise for many of us for many of us who might never have considered the metaphysical consequences of denying the existence of God for many of us who have never considered what the consequences of believing that the world around us is only material these responses may seem as a bit of a shock and there are probably those out there who when they hear these responses would say you're taking what he says out of context and so we're going to unpack what he said slowly Insha'Allah تعالى over the next few episodes and see is this rational number two is it to a certain degree contradictory and number three is it even livable and these are the major questions we want to ask we want to apply here the principle of compelling Rosenberg and his friends to accept the viewpoints and beliefs they put forward and see just where it gets us so it's interesting Rosenberg states in his book that the universe and everything around us is basically reducible to just physical particles he states and I quote the basic things everything is made up of are fermions and bosons that's it now of course from the perspective of physics this is absolutely true but really is that how we want to view the universe is that how we want to view everything let's ask ourselves the question if that's how we're going to reduce everything then in reality we shouldn't be caring or giving any attention to concepts such as human rights animal rights issues of the environment or even issues of just general concern because everything at the end of the day is just made up of fermions and bosons and when everything is just viewed in that way what makes anything unique other than my personal subjective desire to care about something is there really a reason for why I'm bothered by anything and this is a question which I don't think Rosenberg really engages with he states about the nature of causes many of us who've engaged with atheists before would very much be familiar with he states the only causes in the universe are physical causes and everything in the universe that has a cause has a physical cause and he states from this that the physical facts fix all the facts so if we were to sit down with Alex Rosenberg and ask him professor Rosenberg you wrote a very interesting paper on this topic is there anything in particular which jotted your curiosity about it or is there anything in particular which caused you to wish to go down this route of study Alex Rosenberg would not invoke for example the fact that he's always been interested in X he would not invoke the fact that he an event which jotted his curiosity about Y he would not cite the fact that he was inspired to write it by thinking for a long period of time about X he would say that physical event Y was preceded by physical event X which was in turn preceded by physical event W which was in turn preceded by physical event U and it would go back into a circle of essentially a series of physical events which had a domino effect and inspired Dr Rosenberg and this is one of the commitments of the new atheism it's a commitment to what we would call physicalism the belief that everything has a physical cause that essentially there is no mental states involved but rather only physical states this is something which has been observed by several prominent commentators in the world of philosophy they've observed that one of the consequences of the argument put forward by Dr Alex Rosenberg or Professor Alex Rosenberg I wouldn't want to detract from his stature in academia is that he believes intentionality is but an illusion brothers and sisters what is intentionality and I'm more than aware that I will be explaining this now and in future episodes I will have to probably re-explain this again just so we understand the terminology being utilized when I talk of intentionality I'm essentially talking of the human beings ability to conceive of something beyond himself my brain is a physical clump of matter but my brain has certain mental states so for example I could be thinking right now about Scotland and I'm not thinking about Scotland as just a set of letters I could think about Scotland and conceptualize it but how is a physical object about something else this table cannot be about Kerebela or for example this chair is not about the person sitting on it how do we explain away this concept of a physical object being about something else this aboutness which is conceived during our thought process is known as intentionality in order to explain away the concept of intentionality Alex Rosenberg uses a genius analogy according to him which is the concept of a photograph he states that a photograph is a physical object which is about something else because a photographer has taken a photo and onto this particular piece of card or paper he has printed an image of something else but of course this analogy which corresponds to the problem of intentionality doesn't quite do the job a photograph is clearly just an imposed image and has not thought or been about something other than what the photographer has put onto the card but Insha'Allah to Allah dear viewers we will explore this concept a bit more during tomorrow's episode I thank you once more for joining me and I pray that what I have been discussing tonight has not been too difficult to understand I'm more than aware that a lot of big terminologies have been utilized but of course Insha'Allah to Allah if you bear with me patiently we will be breaking them down one by one and we shall understand exactly what is being said dear viewers thank you once more والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته