Atheist: "I Will Ask a Hard Question But Do Not Cut This Part!" - Atheist Engineer vs Muslim!
Published on
- I'm a Software Engineer. We look everywhere and see chaos in everything. There is also chaos in the scientific sense. + Branches of science constantly give us formulas. Can we talk about formulas in a place where there is chaos? - It doesn't seem logical to believe in something I can't see, touch, or feel. If there is an afterlife when I die, I will say: there really is once i see it. + Is it more logical for you to say that someone with knowledge and power wrote this? - I don't have a clear answer to it right now. - I'll ask you something, but don't, don't don't remove it. I will write it below (in the comments) if you remove it. + Do you mind if we post it on Youtube? - No problem.
You can post it. + What do you do? Do you study or work? - I've been abroad for about 5-6 years. I am a Software Engineer. + Our topic is about faiths. What is your faith? - My religious faith is undecided. + What do you describe yourself as? Atheist, deist? .... - Good question. I had a religious education teacher at school. He would say: "You know, there is no disbeliever. Even he who says he doesn't believe, believes that he doesn't believe. I .... + Do you believe in the existence of the Creator? - Not 100%. According to the data, science presents today, and according to the arguments it offers, He doesn't exist. + Well, I'll ask you this: What kind of data do you expect from science?
You say: "Since science can't offer it to me ..." For example, there is a definition of being scientific: "We observe only matter. We don't accept anything outside of matter, outside of nature." If science sets out with the idea above, how can you expect anything from it regarding the creator's existence? - For example, how did we come into being? If the question "How did the big bang happen and how did this universe come into being?" is answered by science somehow, that is, in a way that I can understand, I will be convinced. In a way, it is very difficult.
I won't be able to see it in my lifetime, but when I die, if there is an afterlife, since I will most probably go to hell according to the laws of Islam, I will say: There really is when I'll see it. Something that I can't see and something that I can't touch; it doesn't sound logical to me to believe in something that I can't feel with five senses. + Why not? Maybe we have different feelings above the five senses and various understanding capacities. Why should we say, "as for the things outside of the five senses, I don't accept them as real" and limit ourselves? We make some logical inferences based on what we see. We can call it mind power; we can call it the eye of the mind.
+ Suppose that there is a fire behind a mountain. - OK. We only see the smoke, not the fire But we say: "If there is smoke, there must be a fire there." - Of course. + We don't say, "I have to go see that fire to believe it." Similarly, for example, data comes before us, when you look at this activity in the Universe, when you look at this order, isn't it more logical to accept a creator? - At one point, I don't think there was an incredible harmony. We look everywhere around us; there is chaos and uncertainty in everything. There is also chaos in a scientific sense too. + Branches of science constantly give us formulas, don't they? - They do.
+ A universe that we can formulate; we give a name of the law to everything; the law of gravity, a universe in which we write a law and a formula for everything, like the law of buoyancy of water. How can it be called chaos? Can we talk about formulas in a place where there is chaos? - After all, we need to interpret chaos somehow. Maybe my interpretation of the things that exist in this chaos, if something is chaotic, you know, everything in that chaos is somehow connected, but there must definitely be small pieces that can be interpreted, in my opinion. + But I'm not talking about the little piece; wherever you look in the universe, there is a formula. - Of course, there are formulas.
+ How can we say, "There is chaos" in a place with formulas? Let's leave the microphone here. - All right. + It fell down. There's a law called the law of gravity, right? It functions in the universe. I say, "There's someone running it" for example. We even formulate the action of this microphone falling down. Let's view it from a broader perspective. Even the system of planets in the Universe is in order; we discover a formula even there. There is a different formula even when we go to the quantum world in the atom's motion. We formulate everything from small things to large ones. We open universities for it; universities open separate departments.
In fact, one day, there is some news, we're told: "There will be a once-in-a-century solar eclipse." Well, if we know, it happens once in a century and if we see it at a specified time, how can we say, "There is chaos, disorder"? - You can't accept what you see in the formula as it will never change. For example, planets revolve around the thing, right? Do you think it will continue like this forever? + Up to Doomsday. - But maybe that's what you understand from Doomsday; In fact, for example, as a microphone falls down, the Earth and the planets are actually approaching the Sun. + Are they approaching in an orderly manner? - It is necessary to ask astrologers and astrophysicists about it.
+ Look, the world of science states it clearly anyway. That is even in the formula. Even the movement of the sun is in the formula. Isn't it? - Yes, it is, but we can formulate it to the extent that we can observe it. + What we can observe shows us the "order". - Yes. If I could answer these questions in my head, everything would be different. + For example, let's make an inference like this: If there is a formula, someone prefers to work with a formula. Isn't that a logical inference? For example, let's say: I write a name with English rules; I write "Daniel".
Based on a certain rule, using the rules of English and starting with a capital letter, I bring together the letters and write them, and you see it. You say: "Rules of English and law of English are used." I ask, "Who wrote this word?" Will it be logical to say, "Rules of English wrote it"? Or, isn't it more logical to say, "Using the English rules, a being who has a will and who has life, who has knowledge and power wrote it"? - Good question. Look, I've just come to those things again. I don't have a clear answer to it right now. + For example, we say "Rules of English Language", language rules...
- What you've said here sounds logical now, but when I go home or when this interview is over I will undoubtedly say something like, "Oh no; it's not so!"... + Okay, you can think about it when you go home too. Because it is elementary, one of the good examples. The rule, the law, can't write that word (by itself), because it is the rule. We name it the rule because someone does it all the time! Just like that example, all these formulaic operations we see in the universe, and we've just talked about, the law of gravity, the moon's rotation around the earth, the regular motion of the planets, or the system of the buoyancy of water and so on.
All this orderly, formulaic operation and my calling everything a law; I'll say, "A being with knowledge, will, power, and life runs them with rules and manages the universe." - From time to time, I think of it and say, "Oh... is it really so?" and so on. Maybe we don't know, and science will probably err on a point, as I said, and say, "He really exists, guys." + At this point, we've talked so much, and we've made some inferences so far; what do you think? Do they not lead you to a creator? Wouldn't it be better to accept a creator again and become a Muslim again? - I mean, of course, it would, but then everything we've experienced is pointless, isn't it?
Someone, a very divine power, created me and put me here. I will live 80 years, 100 years... Life seems meaningless to me then. For example, what is the meaning of your life? What do you think about your own life? Why are you here? I'm inquisitive right now; I want to know about your point of view. So, you will live 80-100 years; what do you live for? Why do you live? + I have been created; we are inevitably in an inspection (phase) anyway. Why did I come? Why do I exist? I have been given certain characteristics; I have been given a talent. I can question with them. You discover the feature of connecting between the being and the Maker.
For example, if a grape branch is extended to you from behind you, you will turn round to see "Who's extending it?" Won't you? - Yes. + It is our nature to establish a connection between the being and the maker. Similarly, I look at the creatures: Fruit being given from a tree or the emergence of breast milk when a baby needs it most as soon as it is born. I ask, "Who makes them?" Thus, the process of discovering His names begins. Since there is someone who gave them to me as He brought me from nonexistence into existence, He values me a lot like a detective, as the inspector of the Universe. This means that there is something that He expects from me.
Since the universe is (like) a letter, man should read this letter; and as he reads it, it becomes an adventure of knowing the Creator. Thus, every step we take turns out to be good. Why? If He meets all my needs here, it means this being will continue this compassion and generosity in an eternal realm. If His name is eternal and His generosity is endless, He will want to offer and treat forever. If His compassion is infinite, He will want to show compassion forever. So, we say, "What we call death is only a door", and we see life as such an adventure, a transition. You regard all people as valuable; You try to explain this beauty to people, so life assumes a meaning.
We can call it being a detective. - I see, I see. I'll ask you something, but don't, don't remove it. Then, er... + Can we post it? - You can. I'll ask you a question. If you remove it, I will write it below as a comment. + Why should we remove it? - You know when you say, "There is an order, a system in everything, there is harmony..." Why didn't the knower of all, and all-wise being, who created everything, regard just one religion? Why did He send three or four religions? + We can think of it as follows: This realm is where wisdom is and needs to be seen and read rather than as a place of power. + There is power too... - Can you tell me in a way that I can understand better?
+ Ok, let me put it this way: so, the steps that are taken are done with wisdom based on a certain logic, a certain purpose. The formation of an apple... Can Allah create instantly? Yes, He can, but what happens? He uses soil, water etc., and creates it through a process. Similarly, we can say that the test area is an area of education! Allah sent 124,000 prophets and we can think of it as primary school, secondary school, high school, university and postgraduate. With this diversification and development, step by step, together with the prophets, He arranged the education system in a way suitable for society.
For example, when we look at the first prophets, transportation had not developed so much; technology wasn't so advanced; therefore, different prophets were sent to each society. There were even periods when two prophets were sent at the same time. When the last prophet was sent, transportation had developed a lot and everywhere was like a village. With a single prophet and uniformity of knowledge, everything is open to communication. - For example, you and I went to different schools, didn't we? In essence, the knowledge taught to us was 2+2=4; you learned it like that, and so did I.
In other words, the prophet who came with Christianity, Jesus (Isa), the prophet who came with Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), they both say that there is only one God, Think of it like 2+2=4; but according to Muslims, Christians are infidels, and according to Christians, Muslims are infidels. Since we graduated from different schools, should I say, "Go away; you are ignorant!"? "He's not from us, so he's not going to Paradise." Don't you think there is a question mark at this point? + 124000 prophets came, - OK. + but the main issue they addressed was always four principles. What were they? Tawhid (oneness of Allah), afterlife, prophethood, and justice. - OK.
+ All of them mentioned these four basic things; but society changed the declarations and knowledge after the prophet sent to them. Although the knowledge to accept a creator came, people distorted it; they worshipped idols and associated partners. As mistakes like that were made, new prophets were sent; and the new prophet continued to correct the society, again with the same four declarations. If we look at Christianity, we see that Jesus also informed people vabout those four principles. He informed them about tawhid (oneness), but we see the society distorted the Bible after Jesus. They believe in trinity now.
When they thought of the tawhid issue of those four declarations as three gods, what happened? They went down the wrong path. - I see. + Wouldn't it be nice to return to Islam again? It was an excellent conversation. We made logical inferences. + It was an excellent conversation. We made logical inferences. - Great conversation. Not right now, - but I'll think about what you said. When I go away, I'll probably say, "Why didn't I say that? Why didn't I answer him that way?" + I think it was a good conversation. + I think it was a good conversation. - Me too. Thanks. + I am very pleased. + What is your belief? - Apatheism. It's also known as Pragmatic Atheism. - I'm a Christian.
I became a Christian afterwards. - I've been deist for the last 2 years. - Science has already explained it to us. At least, it doesn't seem astonishing to me. - I think you are looking for the Prophet in the wrong place. - Then, I would also like to be born in the tribe and eat avocados in Paradise after I die. + I'll prove it at the level of "Two plus two equals four." I'll prove it 100%.
You can post it. + What do you do? Do you study or work? - I've been abroad for about 5-6 years. I am a Software Engineer. + Our topic is about faiths. What is your faith? - My religious faith is undecided. + What do you describe yourself as? Atheist, deist? .... - Good question. I had a religious education teacher at school. He would say: "You know, there is no disbeliever. Even he who says he doesn't believe, believes that he doesn't believe. I .... + Do you believe in the existence of the Creator? - Not 100%. According to the data, science presents today, and according to the arguments it offers, He doesn't exist. + Well, I'll ask you this: What kind of data do you expect from science?
You say: "Since science can't offer it to me ..." For example, there is a definition of being scientific: "We observe only matter. We don't accept anything outside of matter, outside of nature." If science sets out with the idea above, how can you expect anything from it regarding the creator's existence? - For example, how did we come into being? If the question "How did the big bang happen and how did this universe come into being?" is answered by science somehow, that is, in a way that I can understand, I will be convinced. In a way, it is very difficult.
I won't be able to see it in my lifetime, but when I die, if there is an afterlife, since I will most probably go to hell according to the laws of Islam, I will say: There really is when I'll see it. Something that I can't see and something that I can't touch; it doesn't sound logical to me to believe in something that I can't feel with five senses. + Why not? Maybe we have different feelings above the five senses and various understanding capacities. Why should we say, "as for the things outside of the five senses, I don't accept them as real" and limit ourselves? We make some logical inferences based on what we see. We can call it mind power; we can call it the eye of the mind.
+ Suppose that there is a fire behind a mountain. - OK. We only see the smoke, not the fire But we say: "If there is smoke, there must be a fire there." - Of course. + We don't say, "I have to go see that fire to believe it." Similarly, for example, data comes before us, when you look at this activity in the Universe, when you look at this order, isn't it more logical to accept a creator? - At one point, I don't think there was an incredible harmony. We look everywhere around us; there is chaos and uncertainty in everything. There is also chaos in a scientific sense too. + Branches of science constantly give us formulas, don't they? - They do.
+ A universe that we can formulate; we give a name of the law to everything; the law of gravity, a universe in which we write a law and a formula for everything, like the law of buoyancy of water. How can it be called chaos? Can we talk about formulas in a place where there is chaos? - After all, we need to interpret chaos somehow. Maybe my interpretation of the things that exist in this chaos, if something is chaotic, you know, everything in that chaos is somehow connected, but there must definitely be small pieces that can be interpreted, in my opinion. + But I'm not talking about the little piece; wherever you look in the universe, there is a formula. - Of course, there are formulas.
+ How can we say, "There is chaos" in a place with formulas? Let's leave the microphone here. - All right. + It fell down. There's a law called the law of gravity, right? It functions in the universe. I say, "There's someone running it" for example. We even formulate the action of this microphone falling down. Let's view it from a broader perspective. Even the system of planets in the Universe is in order; we discover a formula even there. There is a different formula even when we go to the quantum world in the atom's motion. We formulate everything from small things to large ones. We open universities for it; universities open separate departments.
In fact, one day, there is some news, we're told: "There will be a once-in-a-century solar eclipse." Well, if we know, it happens once in a century and if we see it at a specified time, how can we say, "There is chaos, disorder"? - You can't accept what you see in the formula as it will never change. For example, planets revolve around the thing, right? Do you think it will continue like this forever? + Up to Doomsday. - But maybe that's what you understand from Doomsday; In fact, for example, as a microphone falls down, the Earth and the planets are actually approaching the Sun. + Are they approaching in an orderly manner? - It is necessary to ask astrologers and astrophysicists about it.
+ Look, the world of science states it clearly anyway. That is even in the formula. Even the movement of the sun is in the formula. Isn't it? - Yes, it is, but we can formulate it to the extent that we can observe it. + What we can observe shows us the "order". - Yes. If I could answer these questions in my head, everything would be different. + For example, let's make an inference like this: If there is a formula, someone prefers to work with a formula. Isn't that a logical inference? For example, let's say: I write a name with English rules; I write "Daniel".
Based on a certain rule, using the rules of English and starting with a capital letter, I bring together the letters and write them, and you see it. You say: "Rules of English and law of English are used." I ask, "Who wrote this word?" Will it be logical to say, "Rules of English wrote it"? Or, isn't it more logical to say, "Using the English rules, a being who has a will and who has life, who has knowledge and power wrote it"? - Good question. Look, I've just come to those things again. I don't have a clear answer to it right now. + For example, we say "Rules of English Language", language rules...
- What you've said here sounds logical now, but when I go home or when this interview is over I will undoubtedly say something like, "Oh no; it's not so!"... + Okay, you can think about it when you go home too. Because it is elementary, one of the good examples. The rule, the law, can't write that word (by itself), because it is the rule. We name it the rule because someone does it all the time! Just like that example, all these formulaic operations we see in the universe, and we've just talked about, the law of gravity, the moon's rotation around the earth, the regular motion of the planets, or the system of the buoyancy of water and so on.
All this orderly, formulaic operation and my calling everything a law; I'll say, "A being with knowledge, will, power, and life runs them with rules and manages the universe." - From time to time, I think of it and say, "Oh... is it really so?" and so on. Maybe we don't know, and science will probably err on a point, as I said, and say, "He really exists, guys." + At this point, we've talked so much, and we've made some inferences so far; what do you think? Do they not lead you to a creator? Wouldn't it be better to accept a creator again and become a Muslim again? - I mean, of course, it would, but then everything we've experienced is pointless, isn't it?
Someone, a very divine power, created me and put me here. I will live 80 years, 100 years... Life seems meaningless to me then. For example, what is the meaning of your life? What do you think about your own life? Why are you here? I'm inquisitive right now; I want to know about your point of view. So, you will live 80-100 years; what do you live for? Why do you live? + I have been created; we are inevitably in an inspection (phase) anyway. Why did I come? Why do I exist? I have been given certain characteristics; I have been given a talent. I can question with them. You discover the feature of connecting between the being and the Maker.
For example, if a grape branch is extended to you from behind you, you will turn round to see "Who's extending it?" Won't you? - Yes. + It is our nature to establish a connection between the being and the maker. Similarly, I look at the creatures: Fruit being given from a tree or the emergence of breast milk when a baby needs it most as soon as it is born. I ask, "Who makes them?" Thus, the process of discovering His names begins. Since there is someone who gave them to me as He brought me from nonexistence into existence, He values me a lot like a detective, as the inspector of the Universe. This means that there is something that He expects from me.
Since the universe is (like) a letter, man should read this letter; and as he reads it, it becomes an adventure of knowing the Creator. Thus, every step we take turns out to be good. Why? If He meets all my needs here, it means this being will continue this compassion and generosity in an eternal realm. If His name is eternal and His generosity is endless, He will want to offer and treat forever. If His compassion is infinite, He will want to show compassion forever. So, we say, "What we call death is only a door", and we see life as such an adventure, a transition. You regard all people as valuable; You try to explain this beauty to people, so life assumes a meaning.
We can call it being a detective. - I see, I see. I'll ask you something, but don't, don't remove it. Then, er... + Can we post it? - You can. I'll ask you a question. If you remove it, I will write it below as a comment. + Why should we remove it? - You know when you say, "There is an order, a system in everything, there is harmony..." Why didn't the knower of all, and all-wise being, who created everything, regard just one religion? Why did He send three or four religions? + We can think of it as follows: This realm is where wisdom is and needs to be seen and read rather than as a place of power. + There is power too... - Can you tell me in a way that I can understand better?
+ Ok, let me put it this way: so, the steps that are taken are done with wisdom based on a certain logic, a certain purpose. The formation of an apple... Can Allah create instantly? Yes, He can, but what happens? He uses soil, water etc., and creates it through a process. Similarly, we can say that the test area is an area of education! Allah sent 124,000 prophets and we can think of it as primary school, secondary school, high school, university and postgraduate. With this diversification and development, step by step, together with the prophets, He arranged the education system in a way suitable for society.
For example, when we look at the first prophets, transportation had not developed so much; technology wasn't so advanced; therefore, different prophets were sent to each society. There were even periods when two prophets were sent at the same time. When the last prophet was sent, transportation had developed a lot and everywhere was like a village. With a single prophet and uniformity of knowledge, everything is open to communication. - For example, you and I went to different schools, didn't we? In essence, the knowledge taught to us was 2+2=4; you learned it like that, and so did I.
In other words, the prophet who came with Christianity, Jesus (Isa), the prophet who came with Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), they both say that there is only one God, Think of it like 2+2=4; but according to Muslims, Christians are infidels, and according to Christians, Muslims are infidels. Since we graduated from different schools, should I say, "Go away; you are ignorant!"? "He's not from us, so he's not going to Paradise." Don't you think there is a question mark at this point? + 124000 prophets came, - OK. + but the main issue they addressed was always four principles. What were they? Tawhid (oneness of Allah), afterlife, prophethood, and justice. - OK.
+ All of them mentioned these four basic things; but society changed the declarations and knowledge after the prophet sent to them. Although the knowledge to accept a creator came, people distorted it; they worshipped idols and associated partners. As mistakes like that were made, new prophets were sent; and the new prophet continued to correct the society, again with the same four declarations. If we look at Christianity, we see that Jesus also informed people vabout those four principles. He informed them about tawhid (oneness), but we see the society distorted the Bible after Jesus. They believe in trinity now.
When they thought of the tawhid issue of those four declarations as three gods, what happened? They went down the wrong path. - I see. + Wouldn't it be nice to return to Islam again? It was an excellent conversation. We made logical inferences. + It was an excellent conversation. We made logical inferences. - Great conversation. Not right now, - but I'll think about what you said. When I go away, I'll probably say, "Why didn't I say that? Why didn't I answer him that way?" + I think it was a good conversation. + I think it was a good conversation. - Me too. Thanks. + I am very pleased. + What is your belief? - Apatheism. It's also known as Pragmatic Atheism. - I'm a Christian.
I became a Christian afterwards. - I've been deist for the last 2 years. - Science has already explained it to us. At least, it doesn't seem astonishing to me. - I think you are looking for the Prophet in the wrong place. - Then, I would also like to be born in the tribe and eat avocados in Paradise after I die. + I'll prove it at the level of "Two plus two equals four." I'll prove it 100%.